Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 20109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5527
  • Reputation: +2019/-37
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #135 on: November 17, 2017, 12:10:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ber 2017
    Is America Up for a Second Cold War?
    Thursday - November 16, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    This post was viewed 2,962 times.
    Votes: 2.80 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook210Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare210
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    After the 19th national congress of the Chinese Communist Party in October, one may discern Premier Xi Jinping’s vision of the emerging New World Order.
    By 2049, the centennial of the triumph of Communist Revolution, China shall have become the first power on earth. Her occupation and humiliation by the West and Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries will have become hated but ancient history.
    America will have been pushed out of Asia and the western Pacific back beyond the second chain of islands.
    Taiwan will have been returned to the motherland, South Korea and the Philippines neutralized, Japan contained. China’s claim to all the rocks, reefs and islets in the South China Sea will have been recognized by all currentclaimants.
    Xi’s “One Belt, One Road” strategy will have brought South and Central Asia into Beijing’s orbit, and he will be in the Pantheon beside the Founding Father of Communist China, Mao Zedong.
    Democracy has been rejected by China in favor of one-party rule of all political, economic, cultural and social life.
    And as one views Europe, depopulating, riven by secessionism, fearful of a Third World migrant invasion, and America tearing herself apart over politics and ideology, China must appear to ambitious and rising powers as the model to emulate.
    Indeed, has not China shown the world that authoritarianism can be compatible with national growth that outstrips a democratic West?
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Over the last quarter century, China, thanks to economic nationalism and $4 trillion in trade surpluses with the United States, has exhibited growth unseen since 19th-century America.
    Whatever we may think of Xi’s methods, this vision must attract vast numbers of China’s young — they see their country displace America as first power, becoming the dominant people on earth.
    What is America’s vision? What is America’s cause in the 21st century? What is the mission and goal that unites, inspires and drives us on?
    After World War II, America’s foreign policy was imposed upon her by the terrible realities the war produced: brutalitarian Stalinist domination of Eastern and Central Europe and much of Asia.
    Under nine presidents, containment of the Soviet empire, while avoiding a war that would destroy civilization, was our policy. In Korea and Vietnam, Americans died in the thousands to sustain that policy.
    But with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the breakup of the USSR, it seemed that by 1992 our great work was done. Now democracy would flourish and be embraced by all advanced peoples and nations.
    But it did not happen. The “end of history” never came. The New World Order of Bush I did not last. Bush II’s democracy crusade to end tyranny in our world produced disasters from Libya to Afghanistan.
    Authoritarianism is now ascendant and democracy is in retreat.
    Is the United States prepared to accept a world in which China, growing at twice our rate, more united and purposeful, emerges as the dominant power? Are we willing to acquiesce in a Chinese Century?
    Or will we adopt a policy to ensure that America remains the world’s preeminent power?
    Do we have what is required in wealth, power, stamina and will to pursue a Second Cold War to contain China, which, strategic weapons aside, is more powerful and has greater potential than the Soviet Union ever did?
    On his Asia tour, President Trump spoke of the “Indo-Pacific,” shorthand for the proposition that the U.S., Japan, Australia and India form the core of a coalition to maintain the balance of power in Asia and contain the expansion of China.
    Yet, before we create some Asia-Pacific NATO to corral and contain China in this century, as we did the USSR in the 20th century, we need to ask ourselves why.
    Does China, even if she rises to surpass the U.S. in manufacturing, technology and economic output, and is a comparable military power, truly threaten us as the USSR did, to where we should consider war to prevent its expansion in places like the South China Sea that are not vital to America?
    While China is a great power, she has great problems.
    She is feared and disliked by her neighbors. She has territorial quarrels with Russia, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan. She has separatists in Tibet and Xinjiang. Christianity is growing while Communism, the state religion, is a dead faith. Moreover, the monopoly of power now enjoyed by the Communist Party and Xi Jinping mean that if things go wrong, there is no one else to blame.
    Finally, why is the containment of China in Asia the responsibility of a United States 12 time zones away? For while China seeks to dominate Eurasia, she appears to have no desire to threaten the vital interests of the United States. China’s Communism appears to be an ideology disbelieved by her own people, that she does not intend to impose it on Asia or the world.
    Again, are we Americans up for a Second Cold War, and, if so, why?
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/america-second-cold-war-127864

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #136 on: November 21, 2017, 09:55:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • November 20, 2017 Unserious Nation
    http://buchanan.org/blog/unserious-nation-127877
    Monday - November 20, 2017 at 9:54 pm

    Share Pat's Columns

    How stands John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” this Thanksgiving?

    How stands the country that was to be “a light unto the nations”?

    To those who look to cable TV for news, the answer must at the least be ambiguous. For consider the issues that have lately convulsed the public discourse of the American republic.

    Today’s great question seems to be whether our 45th president is as serious a sexual predator as our 42nd was proven to be, and whether the confessed sins of Sen. Al Franken are as great as the alleged sins of Judge Roy Moore.

    On both questions, the divide is, as ever, along partisan lines.

    And every day for weeks, beginning with Hollywood king Harvey Weinstein, whose accusers nearly number in three digits, actors, media personalities and politicians have been falling like nine pins over allegations and admissions of sexual predation.

    What is our civil rights issue, and who are today’s successors to the Freedom Riders of the ‘60s? Millionaire NFL players “taking a knee” during the national anthem to dishonor the flag of their country to protest racist cops.

    And what was the great cultural issue of summer and fall?

    An ideological clamor to tear down memorials and monuments to the European discoverers of America, any Founding Father who owned slaves and any and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

    Stained-glass windows of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have been removed from the National Cathedral. Plaques to Lee and George Washington have been taken down from the walls of the Episcopal church in Alexandria where both men worshipped.

    But the city that bears Washington’s name is erecting a new statue on Pennsylvania Avenue — to honor the four-term mayor who served time on a cocaine charge: Marion Shepilov Barry.

    Have something to say about this column?
    Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….

    Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?

    Contrast the social, cultural and moral morass in which America is steeped with the disciplined proceedings and clarity of purpose, direction and goals of our 21st century rival: Xi Jinping’s China.

    Our elites assure us that America today is a far better place than we have ever known, surely better than the old America that existed before the liberating cultural revolution of the 1960s.

    Yet President Trump ran on a pledge to “Make America Great Again,” implying that while the America he grew up in was great, in the time of Barack Obama it no longer was. And he won.

    Certainly, the issues America dealt with half a century ago seem more momentous than what consumes us today.

    Consider the matters that riveted America in the summer and fall of 1962, when this columnist began to write editorials for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. What was the civil rights issue of that day?

    In September of ‘62, Gov. Ross Barnett decided not to allow Air Force vet James Meredith to become the first black student at Ole Miss. Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent U.S. Marshals to escort Meredith in.

    Hundreds of demonstrators arrived on campus to join student protests. A riot ensued. Dozens of marshals were injured. A French journalist was shot to death. The Mississippi Guard was federalized. U.S. troops were sent in, just as Ike had sent them into Little Rock when Gov. Orville Faubus refused to desegregate Central High.

    U.S. power was being used to enforce a federal court order on a recalcitrant state government, as it would in 1963 at the University of Alabama, where Gov. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.

    As civil rights clashes go, this was the real deal.

    That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Then there was the Cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War.

    Since August, the Globe-Democrat had been calling for a blockade of Cuba, where Soviet ships were regularly unloading weapons. When President Kennedy declared a “quarantine” after revealing that missiles with nuclear warheads that could reach Washington were being installed, the Globe urged unity behind him, as it had in Oxford, Mississippi.

    We seemed a more serious and united nation and people then than we are today, where so much that roils our society and consumes our attention seems unserious and even trivial.

    “And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?” wrote the British poet Thomas Macaulay.

    Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?


    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/unserious-nation-127877



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #137 on: November 28, 2017, 07:22:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Linda Muller <lindamuller@buchanan.org>
    Nov 28 at 12:14 AM

    Why Roy Moore Matters
    By Patrick J. Buchanan



    Share Pat's Columns:


    Tuesday - November 28, 2017

    Why would Christian conservatives in good conscience go to the polls Dec. 12 and vote for Judge Roy Moore, despite the charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers leveled against him?

    Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.

    Republicans now hold 52 Senate seats. If Democrats pick up the Alabama seat, they need only two more to recapture the Senate, and with it the power to kill any conservative court nominee, as they killed Robert Bork.

    Today, the GOP, holding Congress and the White House, has a narrow path to capture the Third Branch, the Supreme Court, and to dominate the federal courts for a decade. For this historic opportunity, the party can thank two senators, one retired, the other still sitting.

    The first is former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

    In 2013, Harry exercised the "nuclear option," abolishing the filibuster for President Obama's judicial nominees. The Senate no longer needed 60 votes to confirm judges. Fifty-one Senate votes could cut off debate, and confirm.

    Iowa's Chuck Grassley warned Harry against stripping the minority of its filibuster power. Such a move may come back to bite you, he told Harry. Grassley is now judiciary committee chairman.

    And this year a GOP Senate voted to use the nuclear option to shut down a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed with 55 votes.

    Yet the Democratic minority still had one card to play to block President Trump's nominees — the "blue slip courtesy."

    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments....

    If a senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides asks for a hold on proceedings, by not returning a blue slip, the judiciary committee has traditionally honored that request and not held hearings.

    Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota used the blue slip to block the Trump nomination of David Stras of Minnesota to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Franken calls Stras too ideological, too conservative.

    But Grassley has now decided to reject the blue slip courtesy for appellate court judges, since their jurisdiction is not just over a single state like Minnesota, but over an entire region.

    Thus have the skids been greased for a conservative recapture of the federal judiciary unseen since the early days of FDR.

    Eighteen of the 179 seats on the U.S. appellate courts and 119 of the 677 seats on federal district courts are already open. More will be opening up. No president in decades has seen the opportunity Trump has to remake the federal judiciary.

    Not only are the federal court vacancies almost unprecedented, a GOP Senate and Trump are working in harness to fill them before January 2019, when a new Congress is sworn in.

    If Republicans blow this opportunity, it is unlikely to come again. For the Supreme Court has seemed within Republican grasp before, only to have it slip away because of presidential errors.

    Nixon had four nominees to the Supreme Court confirmed and Gerald Ford saw his nominee, John Paul Stevens, unanimously confirmed. But of those five justices confirmed from 1969 to 1976, Stevens and Harry Blackmun joined the liberal bloc, and Chief Justice Warren Burger and Lewis Powell voted for Roe v. Wade.

    Of Reagan's three Supreme Court nominees confirmed, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy cast crucial votes in 5-4 decisions to defeat the strict constructionists led by Antonin Scalia.

    George H.W. Bush named Clarence Thomas to the court, but only after he had elevated David Souter, who also joined the liberal bloc.

    Hence, both Trump, by whom he nominates, and a Republican Senate, with its power to confirm with 51 votes, are indispensable if we are to end judicial dictatorship in America.

    And 2018 is the crucial year.

    While Democrats, with 25 Senate seats at risk, would seem to be facing more certain losses than the GOP, with one-third as many seats at stake, history teaches that the first off-year election of Trump could prove a disaster.

    Consider. Though Ike ended the Korean War in his first year, he lost both Houses of Congress in his second. Reagan enacted one of the great tax cuts in history in his first year, and then lost 26 seats in the House in his second.

    Bill Clinton lost control of both the House and Senate in his first off-year election. Barack Obama in 2010 lost six Senate seats and 54 seats and control of the House. And both presidents were more popular than Trump is today.

    If the election in Virginia this year is a harbinger of what is to come, GOP control of Congress could be washed away in a tidal wave in 2018.

    Hence, this coming year may be a do-or-die year to recapture the Third Branch of Government for conservatism.

    Which is why that Dec. 12 election in Alabama counts.

    Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
      Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

    Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/roy-moore-matters-127903

    Share Pat's Columns:


    Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org
     

    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #138 on: November 28, 2017, 10:41:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In my experience, these "conservatives" are not much different than liberals. At the end of the day, they'll cast their vote which is dependant on how many shekels are stuff in their pockets via the usual (((suspects))). Yeah, I know, I'm too cynical.

    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #139 on: December 01, 2017, 10:29:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  1 December 2017
    Little Rocket Man’s Risky Game
    Friday - December 1, 2017 at 12:53 am

    This post was viewed 3,600 times.
    Votes: 4.96 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    In the morning darkness of Wednesday, Kim Jong Un launched an ICBM that rose almost 2,800 miles into the sky before falling into the Sea of Japan.
    North Korea now has the proven ability to hit Washington, D.C.
    Unproven still is whether Kim can put a miniaturized nuclear warhead atop that missile, which could be fired with precision, and survive the severe vibrations of re-entry. More tests and more time are needed for that.
    Thus, U.S. markets brushed off the news of Kim’s Hwasong-15 missile and roared to record heights on Wednesday and Thursday.
    President Donald Trump took it less well. “Little Rocket Man” is one “sick puppy,” he told an audience in Missouri.
    U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council that “if war comes … the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed.” She then warned Xi Jinping that “if China does not halt the oil shipments” to North Korea, “we can take the oil situation into our own hands.”
    Is Haley talking about bombing pipelines in North Korea — or China?
    The rage of the president and bluster of Haley reflect a painful reality: As inhumane and ruthless as the 33-year-old dictator of North Korea is, he is playing the highest stakes poker game on the planet, against the world’s superpower, and playing it remarkably well.
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Reason: Kim may understand us better than we do him, which is why he seems less hesitant to invite the risks of a war he cannot win.
    While a Korean War II might well end with annihilation of the North’s army and Kim’s regime, it would almost surely result in untold thousands of dead South Koreans and Americans.
    And Kim knows that the more American lives he can put at risk, with nuclear-tipped missiles, the less likely the Americans are to want to fight him.
    His calculation has thus far proven correct.
    As long as he does not push the envelope too far, and force Trump to choose war rather than living with a North Korea that could rain nuclear rockets on the U.S., Kim may win the confrontation.
    Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.
    What does Kim want?
    Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.
    Earlier administrations — Clinton, Bush II, Obama — have seen many of these demands as negotiable. And accepting some or even all of them would entail no grave peril to U.S. national security or vital interests.
    They would entail, however, a serious loss of face.
    Acceptance of such demands by the United States would be a triumph for Kim, validating his risky nuclear strategy, and a diplomatic defeat for the United States.
    Little Rocket Man would have bested The Donald.
    Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. deterrent would be called into question. South Korea and Japan could be expected to consider their own deterrents, out of fear the U.S. would never truly put its homeland at risk, but would cut a deal at their expense.
    We would hear again the cries of “Munich” and the shade of Neville Chamberlain would be called forth for ritual denunciation.
    Yet it is a time for truth: Our demand for “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” is not going to be met, absent a U.S. war and occupation of North Korea.
    Kim saw how Bush II, when it served U.S. interests, pulled out of our 30-year-old ABM treaty with Moscow. He saw how, after he gave up all his WMD to reach an accommodation with the West, Moammar Gadhafi was attacked by NATO and ended up being lynched.
    He can see how much Americans honor nuclear treaties they sign by observing universal GOP howls to kill the Iranian nuclear deal and bring about “regime change” in Tehran, despite Iran letting U.N. inspectors roam the country to show they have no nuclear weapons program.
    For America’s post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:
    Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein. Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.
    Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.
    We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #140 on: December 05, 2017, 08:58:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Flynn’s Defection a Death Blow?
    Tuesday - December 5, 2017 at 2:10 am

    This post was viewed 2,374 times.
    Votes: 4.83 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook244Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare244
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Why did Gen. Mike Flynn lie to the FBI about his December 2016 conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak?
    Why did he not tell the FBI the truth?
    As national security adviser to the president-elect, Flynn had called the ambassador. Message: Tell President Putin not to overreact to President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. Trump will be president in three weeks, and we are committed to a new relationship.
    Not only was this initiative defensible, it proved successful.
    Putin accepted the loss of his diplomats and country houses on Long lsland and the Eastern Shore. Rather than expel U.S. diplomats in retaliation, he invited them and their families to the Kremlin’s New Year’s parties.
    “Great move…(by V. Putin),” tweeted Trump, “I always knew he was very smart.” This columnist concurred:
    “Among our Russophobes, one can hear the gnashing of teeth.
    “Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being ‘Putin’s puppet,’ lost.”
    Flynn, it now appears, was not freelancing, but following instructions. His deputy, K. T. McFarland, sent an email to six Trump advisers saying that Obama, by expelling the Russians, was trying to “box Trump in diplomatically.”
    “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation,” warned McFarland, “Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia.” Exactly.
    Flynn was trying to prevent Russian retaliation. Yet, as the ex-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he had to know his call to Kislyak was being monitored and recorded.
    So, again, why would he lie to the FBI about a conversation, the contents of which were surely known to the people who sent the FBI to question him?
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
    The other charge of lying about a call with Kislyak was Flynn’s request for Russian help in getting postponed or canceled a Security Council vote on a resolution denouncing Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
    Obama’s White House was backing the anti-Israel resolution. And Bibi Netanyahu had asked Trump to weigh in to block the vote.
    Bottom line: Flynn, acting on instructions, tried to prevent a U.N. condemnation of Israel, and to dissuade Russia from a mass expulsion of U.S. diplomats, lest this poison the well against a rapprochement for which the American people had voted.
    In the court of public opinion, Flynn’s actions would find broad support. Rather than deny knowledge of them, Trump should have taken credit for them.
    Why the general would lie to the FBI about conversations he had to know U.S. intelligence had recorded is a puzzling question, but now also an irrelevant one, water over the dam.
    For Trump’s general is now the newly conscripted collaborator of the media-Mueller-Democrat-deep state conspiracy to overturn the election of 2016 and bring down the Trump presidency.
    Remarkable.
    After 18 months, we have no evidence Trump colluded with Russia in hacking the emails of the DNC or John Podesta, which is what the FBI investigation was supposedly about.
    There is no conclusive evidence Flynn committed a crime when, as national security adviser-designate, he tried to prevent Obama from sabotaging the policies Trump had run on — and won on.
    Yet there is evidence Russian intelligence agents colluded with a British spy in the pay of the oppo research arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign — to find dirt on Donald Trump.
    And there is evidence James Comey’s FBI wanted to hire the British spy who appeared to have access to the Russian agents who appeared to possess all that wonderful dirt on the Donald.
    It is hard to see how this ends well.
    This weekend, after Flynn’s admission he lied to the FBI, Beltway media were slavering like Pavlov’s dogs at anticipated indictments and plea bargains by present and former White House aides, Trump family members, and perhaps Trump himself.
    The joy on the TV talk shows was transparent.
    Yet the media have already been badly damaged; first, by the relentless Trump attacks and the cheering for those attacks by a huge slice of the country; second, by their reflexive reaction. The media have behaved exactly like the “enemy” Trump said they were.
    In this us-versus-them country, the media now seem to relish the role of “them.” The old proud journalistic boast to be objective and neutral reporters, observers and commentators is gone.
    We are all partisans now.
    As last Friday’s sudden 300-point drop in the Dow reveals, if Trump’s enemies bring him down, they will almost surely crash the markets and abort the recovery that took hold in Trump’s first year.
    And if the establishment, repudiated by Trump’s victory, thinks it will be restored to the nation’s good graces if they destroy Trump, they are whistling past the graveyard.
    When Caesar falls, the cheering for Brutus and Cassius tends to die down rather quickly. Then their turn comes.
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
     Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
     Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/flynns-defection-death-blow-127987

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #141 on: December 08, 2017, 12:16:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Nutball the Neocons Wanted in NATO

    Friday - December 8, 2017 at 1:17 am


    Share Pat's Columns!


    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into which they helped plunge the United States in this century.

    Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left without a stable government; Syria’s civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe.

    Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin’s Russia. And the “neo-isolationists” who won those arguments served America well.

    What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday’s New York Times that read in its entirety:

    “Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4”

    Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a “Rose Revolution” we backed during George W. Bush’s crusade for global democracy.

    During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of Russia.

    In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili’s troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin’s tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running Saakashvili’s army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself.

    As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with denunciations of “Russian aggression” and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.

    “We are all Georgians!” thundered John McCain.

    Have something to say about this column?
    Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….

    Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call.

    And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt provinces in a country rife with corruption.

    In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the border.

    Here is the Times’ Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:

    “On Tuesday … Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the center of Kiev…

    “As … hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine’s leaders … and threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him.

    “Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who … blocked a security service van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to escape.

    “With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for ‘peaceful protests’ to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014.”

    This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the ’60s.

    Yet this clown was president of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should go to the brink of war with Russia.

    And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.

    Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, “We are all Ukrainians now.”

    Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East.

    This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms.

    Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow’s hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the Elbe?

    Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity to drag us into war.

    Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.


    Share Pat's Columns!


    http://buchanan.org/blog/nutball-neocons-wanted-nato-128144


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #142 on: December 12, 2017, 06:29:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  12 December 2017
    What Should We Fight For?
    Tuesday - December 12, 2017 at 7:50 am

    This post was viewed 5,815 times.
    Votes: 4.82 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook303Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare303
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “We will never accept Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea,” declaimed Rex Tillerson last week in Vienna.
    “Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns full control of the peninsula to Ukraine.”
    Tillerson’s principled rejection of the seizure of land by military force — “never accept” — came just one day after President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and pledged to move our embassy there.
    How did Israel gain title to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights? Invasion, occupation, colonization, annexation.
    Those lands are the spoils of victory from Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War.
    Is Israel being severely sanctioned like Russia? Not quite.
    Her yearly U.S. stipend is almost $4 billion, as she builds settlement after settlement on occupied land despite America’s feeble protests.
    What Bibi Netanyahu just demonstrated is that, when dealing with the Americans and defending what is vital to Israel, perseverance pays off. Given time, the Americans will accept the new reality.
    Like Bibi, Vladimir Putin is a nationalist. For him, the recapture of Crimea was the achievement of his presidency. For two centuries that peninsula had been home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and critical to her security.
    Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, and, eventually, we will accept this new reality as well.
    For while whose flag flies over Crimea has never been crucial to us, it is to Putin. And like Israelis, Russians are resolute when it comes to taking and holding what they see as rightly theirs.
    Both these conflicts reveal underlying realities that help explain America’s 21st-century long retreat. We face allies and antagonists who are more willing than are we to take risks, endure pain, persevere and fight to prevail.
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    This month, just days after North Korea tested a new ICBM, national security adviser H. R. McMaster declared that Trump “is committed to the total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
    If so, we are committed to a goal we almost surely are not going to achieve. For, short of a war that could go nuclear, Kim Jong Un is not going to yield to our demands.
    For Kim, nuclear weapons are not an option.
    He knows that Saddam Hussein, who had given up his WMD, was hanged after the Americans attacked. He knows the grisly fate of Moammar Gadhafi, after he invited the West into Libya to dismantle his nuclear program and disarm him of any WMD.
    Kim knows that if he surrenders his nuclear weapons, he has nothing to deter the Americans should they choose to use their arsenal on his armed forces, his regime, and him.
    North Korea may enter talks, but Kim will never surrender the missiles and nukes that guarantee his survival. Look for the Americans to find a way to accommodate him.
    Consider, too, China’s proclaimed ownership of the South China Sea and her building on reefs and rocks in that sea, of artificial islands that are becoming air, missile and naval bases.
    Hawkish voices are being raised that this is intolerable and U.S. air and naval power must be used if necessary to force a rollback of China’s annexation and militarization of the South China Sea.
    Why is this not going to happen?
    While this area is regarded as vital to China, it is not to us. And while China, a littoral state that controls Hainan Island in that sea, is a legitimate claimant to many of its islets, we are claimants to none.
    Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan are the other claimants. But though their interests in the fishing grounds and seabed resources may be as great as China’s, none has seen fit to challenge Beijing’s hegemony.
    Why should we risk war with China to validate the claims of Communist Vietnam or Rodrigo Duterte’s ruthless regime in Manila? Why should their fight become our fight?
    China’s interests in the sea are as crucial to her as were U.S. interests in the Caribbean when, a rising power in 1823, we declared the Monroe Doctrine. Over time, the world’s powers came to recognize and respect U.S. special interests in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
    Given the steady rise of Chinese military power, the proximity of the islets to mainland China, the relative weakness and reluctance to confront of the other claimants, China will likely become the controlling power in the South China Sea, as we came to be the predominant power in the Western Hemisphere.
    What we are witnessing in Crimea, across the Middle East, in the South China Sea, on the Korean peninsula, are nations more willing than we to sacrifice and take risks, because their interests there are far greater than ours.
    What America needs is a new national consensus on what is vital to us and what is not, what we are willing to fight to defend and what we are not.
    For this generation of Americans is not going to risk war, indefinitely, to sustain some Beltway elite’s idea of a “rules-based new world order.” After the Cold War, we entered a new world — and we need new red lines to replace the old.
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    http://buchanan.org/blog/what-should-we-fight-for-128200


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #143 on: December 14, 2017, 11:01:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  14 December 2017
    Unlike Nixon, Trump Will Not Go Quietly
    Thursday - December 14, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    This post was viewed 1,499 times.
    Votes: 4.89 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned.
    The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself.
    First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
    In Russiagate, the underlying crime — the “collusion” of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC — has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established.
    Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump.
    Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser.
    Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.
    This is what security advisers do.
    Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.
    Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn.
    But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority.
    And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been “extremely careless” in transmitting security secrets over her private email server.
    We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement described Clinton as “grossly negligent,” the precise statute language for an indictment.
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    We also now know that helping to edit Comey’s first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
    Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel — to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey’s predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller.
    Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump’s travel ban.
    FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend.
    Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton’s email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.
    In Mueller’s tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary’s campaign and Russian spies — to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign — has been fairly well established.
    By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on Trump.
    Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels.
    While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey’s FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents.
    There are credible allegations Comey’s FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump — and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.
    This week, we learned that the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.
    Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree?
    Is Mueller’s Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?
    There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment.
    Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him.
    Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner’s sword fall with dignity.
    If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.
    In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there’s gonna be a “whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.”
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/unlike-nixon-trump-will-not-go-quietly-128287

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #144 on: December 18, 2017, 08:05:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who Wants War with Iran — and Why?
    Monday - December 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm

    This post was viewed 52 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook141Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare141
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    In the run-up to Christmas, President Donald Trump has been the beneficiary of some surprisingly good news and glad tidings.
    Sunday, Vladimir Putin called to thank him and the CIA for providing Russia critical information that helped abort an ISIS plot to massacre visitors to Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg.
    Monday found polls showing Trump at his highest in months. Stocks soared 200 points at the opening bell in anticipation of pre-Christmas passage of the Republican tax bill. The Dow has added a record 5,000 points in Trump’s first year.
    And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are being made that Robert Mueller’s sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails illicitly.
    This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller’s team, already under a cloud for proven malice toward the president.
    Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House “Plumbers” had burgled his psychiatrist’s office.
    With things going Trump’s way, one must ask:
    What was U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley doing last week at what looked like a prewar briefing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in D.C.?
    Looming behind Haley was part of what was said to be an Iranian missile fired at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.
    Though the rocket had Iranian markings, it was not launched from Iran, or by Iranians. Houthi rebels, for two years victims of a savage war waged by the Saudis — using U.S.-made planes, missiles, bombs and drones — say they fired it at the Riyadh airport in retaliation for what the Saudis have done to their people and country.
    If so, it was a legitimate act of war.
    Indeed, so great is the Yemeni civilian suffering from a lack of food and medicine, and from malnutrition and disease, Trump himself has told the Saudis to ease up on their air, sea, and land blockades.
    As there is no evidence as to when the Houthis acquired the missile, or where, the question arises: What was Haley’s motive in indicting Iran? Was this part of a new propaganda campaign to drum up support for America’s next big Mideast war?
    There are reasons to think so.
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Haley went on: “It’s hard to find a conflict or a terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.”
    But Iran is Shiite, while al-Qaida, which brought down the twin towers, aided by 15 Saudi nationals, is Sunni. So, too, are ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Islamic Jihad. Most Mideast terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.
    As for these Mideast “conflicts,” which did Iran start?
    We started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO started the war in Libya. The U.S. helped trigger the horrific Syrian civil war by arming “rebels.” Only when President Bashar Assad looked like he was about to fall did Russia and Iran intervene on his side.
    As for the “Shiite crescent,” from Tehran to Bagdad to Damascus to Beirut, who created it?
    Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was Sunni dominated. It was the Americans who overthrew him and brought Shiite power to Baghdad.
    In Syria, it was U.S.- and Sunni-backed “rebels,” allied at times with al-Qaida, who drew Iran and the Shiite militias in to save Assad.
    And the Israelis called the Shiite Hezbollah movement into being by invading and occupying South Lebanon in 1982. As Yitzhak Rabin ruefully said, “We let the Shia genie out of the bottle.”
    Are we now to fight a new Mideast war against a larger enemy than any of the others we have fought, to clean up the bloody mess we made of the region by our previous military interventions?
    Before we march, with Haley as head cheerleader, Trump should consider the likely consequences for his country, the Middle East, and his presidency.
    A war in the Persian Gulf would send oil prices soaring, and stock markets plummeting, even as it would split us off from our major allies in Europe and Asia. The Airbus-Boeing deal to sell Iran 300 commercial aircraft would be dead.
    While the U.S. would prevail in an air, naval and missile war, where would the troops come from to march to Tehran to “democratize” that nation? Do we think a bloodied revanchist Iran would be easier to deal with than the one with which John Kerry negotiated a nuclear deal?
    Would Hezbollah go after U.S. soft targets in Beirut? Would Iraqi Shiite militias go after Americans in the Green Zone? Would the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the oil-rich northeast of Saudi Arabia rise up and rebel?
    And who would our great fighting Arab ally be?
    Jared Kushner’s new friend: a 32-year-old Saudi prince who has become famous for putting down $500 million each for a chateau near Versailles, a yacht on the Riviera, and a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/wants-war-iran-128309

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #145 on: December 23, 2017, 10:30:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Republicans Bet the Farm
    Friday - December 22, 2017 at 3:31 am

    This post was viewed 8,892 times.
    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars Votes: 4.82 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!



    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    President Trump, every Republican senator, and the GOP majority in Speaker Paul Ryan’s House just put the future of their party on the line.

    By enacting the largest tax cut since the Reagan administration, the heart of which is cutting the corporate rate from 35 to 21 percent, Republicans have boldly bet the farm.

    They have rewritten America’s tax code to reflect their belief that cutting taxes on the private sector will produce the prosperity they have promised. If it happens, the GOP will reap the rewards, if not by 2018, then in 2020.

    Democrats, as the Party of Government, egalitarian and neo-socialist, have come to see their role as redistributing wealth from those who have too much — to those who have too little. For, as men (and women) are born unequal in ambition, ability, talent, energy, personality and drive, free markets must inevitably produce an inequality of results.

    The mission of Democrats is to reduce those inequalities. And as the very rich are also the very few, in a one-man, one-vote democracy the Democratic Party will always have a following.

    Winston Churchill called this the philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy.

    Republicans see themselves as the party of free enterprise, of the private not the public sector. They believe that alleviating the burden of regulation and taxation on business will unleash that sector, growing the economy and producing broader prosperity.

    By how they voted Wednesday, Republicans yet believe in “supply-side” economics. In the early ’80s, this was derided as “voodoo economics” and “trickle-down” economics, and pungently disparaged by John Kenneth Galbraith as an economic philosophy rooted in the belief that, if you wish to feed the sparrows, you must first feed the horses.

    The problem for Democrats is that Reaganomics worked, and is seen historically to have been successful. In 1984, growth was near 6 percent and Reagan rode to a 49-state landslide over Fritz Mondale who, at his San Francisco convention, had declared he would raise taxes.

    Thus the importance of what happened Tuesday and Wednesday on Capitol Hill should not be underestimated.

    Have something to say about this column?
    Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….

    On their legislative agenda, Republicans broke out of a slump. Though they got not a single Democratic vote in either chamber, they showed they can govern alone. On the lead item on the GOP-Trump agenda — taxes — they delivered. They shifted policy dramatically toward Republican philosophy. They wagered their future on their convictions. And the splenetic rage among Democrat elites suggests that they know they have suffered a defeat difficult to reverse.

    Moreover, though the bill that came out of Congress is unpopular, the nation will not vote on Trumpian management of the economy until November 2018, after the early returns from the tax cut have come in.

    And the Democratic Party has also been put into a tight box.

    As Democrats have denounced the tax bill for exploding the debt by $1.5 trillion, how do they propose to pay for all the free stuff, including free tuition and infrastructure, that they will have on offer?

    There are only two options: borrowing and growing the national debt themselves or raising taxes, as Mondale promised to do.

    Another problem for Democrats is the new $10,000 limit on the tax deduction for state and local income and property taxes.

    In blue states like Oregon, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Hawaii, the top state income tax rate is 8 to 10 percent. In Jerry Brown’s California and Andrew Cuomo’s New York, it hits 13 percent — before adding property taxes on homes and condos in Manhattan and second homes out on Long Island.

    Virtually eliminating state and local tax deductions is going to cause some of the rich to consider relocating to low-tax or no-tax red states in the Sun Belt like Florida. And it is going to put pressure on blue state pols to cease adding to the state and local tax burdens that Uncle Sam is no longer helping to carry.

    Stepping back from all the Sturm und Drang of 2017, the Trump-Republican record of achievement, of meeting commitments made in the campaign of 2017, is not unimpressive.

    The largest tax cuts in decades. Elevation of Neil Gorsuch to the Antonin Scalia seat on the Supreme Court. A record number of new U.S. appellate court judges approved by the Senate. The U.S. is out of the Paris climate accord and out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    NAFTA is being renegotiated. Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be open for drilling. The U.S. is at full employment, with minority unemployment near record lows. The stock market has consistently broken records, with the Dow having added 5,000 points. The Obamacare individual mandate tax is gone. Obama-era regulations have been cut and some eliminated.

    And one year deeper into Russiagate, and still there is no proven collusion between candidate Trump and the Russians.

    Indeed, the Robert Mueller investigators appear now to be coming under as much scrutiny and suspicion for how they behaved during the election and transition as Vladimir Putin and the Russians.

    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
    Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!



    http://buchanan.org/blog/republicans-bet-farm-128341


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #146 on: December 28, 2017, 12:19:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • McLaughlin Group Returns to the Airwaves in 2018!
    Sunday - December 24, 2017 at 1:57 pm


    Share Pat's Columns

    From Buchanan.org

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP RETURNS TO THE AIRWAVES IN 2018!

    THE ICONIC “AMERICAN ORIGINAL” RELAUNCHES ON ABC7-WJLA

    MCLEAN, VA – The McLaughlin Group, “The American Original” for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, and hardest talk, returns on Sundays at 12:00 Noon on ABC7-WJLA beginning January 7.

    John McLaughlin mentee Tom Rogan will be taking over as moderator, joined by iconic panelists Eleanor Clift, Pat Buchanan and Clarence Page. Rogan, in his early 30’s, has been working in Washington, DC as a respected political journalist and national TV commentator, and is not shy about expressing his opinions on major issues of the day. His cool demeanor will drive a lively yet respectful debate amongst his esteemed panelists.

    A weekly rotating guest panelist will also join the group. This is the time, now more than ever, for balanced debate.

    Tom Rogan:
    “John McLaughlin was my mentor and a very close friend. I can never fill his shoes, but I believe The McLaughlin Group’s unique blend of unfiltered news and unrestrained analysis has never been more necessary. With determination and mutual respect, the panel and myself will deliver for our viewers.”

    Pat Buchanan:
    “From Spring 1982 to August 2016, John McLaughlin never missed a weekly “McLaughlin Group” show, giving America some of the most spirited public debates since the early Reagan years. The New Year will see the reunion and the return of “The Group” with the entire cast that was there when The Leader passed on. Look for us.”

    Have something to say about this?
    Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….

    Eleanor Clift:
    “John helped me find my voice. We didn’t agree on much, and he valued debate, so it was a good match. In that spirit that he embodied, the Group returns to do friendly battle in the clash of ideas in the Age of Trump. Game on!”

    Clarence Page:
    “I’m delighted by the many people who tell me they miss our program in these polarized times — for its ‘civility,’ of all things. I miss it, too. I’m eager to get the old gang back together again.”

    The broadcast deal was brokered by Seth Berenzweig and Tod Castleberry of BL Sports & Media Group, a full service media agency located in McLean, VA.

    For additional information contact:

    WJLA/NewsChannel 8/WJLA.com BL Sports & Media Group
    Dan Mellon Tod Castleberry
    General Manager Director of Broadcast & Digital Media
    1100 Wilson Blvd 8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 1250
    Arlington, VA 22209 McLean, VA 22102
    O-703-236-9300 O-703-940-3301
    dmellon@sbgtv.com tcastleberry@blsportsandmedia.com

    Share Pat's Columns


    McLaughlin Group Returns to the Airwaves in 2018!
    Sunday - December 24, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    This post was viewed 63 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook593Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare593
    From Buchanan.org
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP RETURNS TO THE AIRWAVES IN 2018!
    THE ICONIC “AMERICAN ORIGINAL” RELAUNCHES ON ABC7-WJLA
    MCLEAN, VA – The McLaughlin Group, “The American Original” for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, and hardest talk, returns on Sundays at 12:00 Noon on ABC7-WJLA beginning January 7.
    John McLaughlin mentee Tom Rogan will be taking over as moderator, joined by iconic panelists Eleanor Clift, Pat Buchanan and Clarence Page. Rogan, in his early 30’s, has been working in Washington, DC as a respected political journalist and national TV commentator, and is not shy about expressing his opinions on major issues of the day. His cool demeanor will drive a lively yet respectful debate amongst his esteemed panelists.
    A weekly rotating guest panelist will also join the group. This is the time, now more than ever, for balanced debate.
    Tom Rogan:
    “John McLaughlin was my mentor and a very close friend. I can never fill his shoes, but I believe The McLaughlin Group’s unique blend of unfiltered news and unrestrained analysis has never been more necessary. With determination and mutual respect, the panel and myself will deliver for our viewers.”
    Pat Buchanan:
    “From Spring 1982 to August 2016, John McLaughlin never missed a weekly “McLaughlin Group” show, giving America some of the most spirited public debates since the early Reagan years. The New Year will see the reunion and the return of “The Group” with the entire cast that was there when The Leader passed on. Look for us.”
    Have something to say about this?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Eleanor Clift:
    “John helped me find my voice. We didn’t agree on much, and he valued debate, so it was a good match. In that spirit that he embodied, the Group returns to do friendly battle in the clash of ideas in the Age of Trump. Game on!”
    Clarence Page:
    “I’m delighted by the many people who tell me they miss our program in these polarized times — for its ‘civility,’ of all things. I miss it, too. I’m eager to get the old gang back together again.”
    The broadcast deal was brokered by Seth Berenzweig and Tod Castleberry of BL Sports & Media Group, a full service media agency located in McLean, VA.
    For additional information contact:
    WJLA/NewsChannel 8/WJLA.com BL Sports & Media Group
    Dan Mellon Tod Castleberry
    General Manager Director of Broadcast & Digital Media
    1100 Wilson Blvd 8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 1250
    Arlington, VA 22209 McLean, VA 22102
    O-703-236-9300 O-703-940-3301
    dmellon@sbgtv.com tcastleberry@blsportsandmedia.com
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!


    McLaughlin Group Returns to the Airwaves in 2018!
    Sunday - December 24, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    This post was viewed 63 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook593Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare593
    From Buchanan.org
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP RETURNS TO THE AIRWAVES IN 2018!
    THE ICONIC “AMERICAN ORIGINAL” RELAUNCHES ON ABC7-WJLA
    MCLEAN, VA – The McLaughlin Group, “The American Original” for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, and hardest talk, returns on Sundays at 12:00 Noon on ABC7-WJLA beginning January 7.
    John McLaughlin mentee Tom Rogan will be taking over as moderator, joined by iconic panelists Eleanor Clift, Pat Buchanan and Clarence Page. Rogan, in his early 30’s, has been working in Washington, DC as a respected political journalist and national TV commentator, and is not shy about expressing his opinions on major issues of the day. His cool demeanor will drive a lively yet respectful debate amongst his esteemed panelists.
    A weekly rotating guest panelist will also join the group. This is the time, now more than ever, for balanced debate.
    Tom Rogan:
    “John McLaughlin was my mentor and a very close friend. I can never fill his shoes, but I believe The McLaughlin Group’s unique blend of unfiltered news and unrestrained analysis has never been more necessary. With determination and mutual respect, the panel and myself will deliver for our viewers.”
    Pat Buchanan:
    “From Spring 1982 to August 2016, John McLaughlin never missed a weekly “McLaughlin Group” show, giving America some of the most spirited public debates since the early Reagan years. The New Year will see the reunion and the return of “The Group” with the entire cast that was there when The Leader passed on. Look for us.”
    Have something to say about this?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Eleanor Clift:
    “John helped me find my voice. We didn’t agree on much, and he valued debate, so it was a good match. In that spirit that he embodied, the Group returns to do friendly battle in the clash of ideas in the Age of Trump. Game on!”
    Clarence Page:
    “I’m delighted by the many people who tell me they miss our program in these polarized times — for its ‘civility,’ of all things. I miss it, too. I’m eager to get the old gang back together again.”
    The broadcast deal was brokered by Seth Berenzweig and Tod Castleberry of BL Sports & Media Group, a full service media agency located in McLean, VA.
    For additional information contact:
    WJLA/NewsChannel 8/WJLA.com BL Sports & Media Group
    Dan Mellon Tod Castleberry
    General Manager Director of Broadcast & Digital Media
    1100 Wilson Blvd 8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 1250
    Arlington, VA 22209 McLean, VA 22102
    O-703-236-9300 O-703-940-3301
    dmellon@sbgtv.com tcastleberry@blsportsandmedia.com
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!


    McLaughlin Group Returns to the Airwaves in 2018!
    Sunday - December 24, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    This post was viewed 63 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook593Google+RedditTumblrStumbleUponShare593
    From Buchanan.org
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP RETURNS TO THE AIRWAVES IN 2018!
    THE ICONIC “AMERICAN ORIGINAL” RELAUNCHES ON ABC7-WJLA
    MCLEAN, VA – The McLaughlin Group, “The American Original” for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, and hardest talk, returns on Sundays at 12:00 Noon on ABC7-WJLA beginning January 7.
    John McLaughlin mentee Tom Rogan will be taking over as moderator, joined by iconic panelists Eleanor Clift, Pat Buchanan and Clarence Page. Rogan, in his early 30’s, has been working in Washington, DC as a respected political journalist and national TV commentator, and is not shy about expressing his opinions on major issues of the day. His cool demeanor will drive a lively yet respectful debate amongst his esteemed panelists.
    A weekly rotating guest panelist will also join the group. This is the time, now more than ever, for balanced debate.
    Tom Rogan:
    “John McLaughlin was my mentor and a very close friend. I can never fill his shoes, but I believe The McLaughlin Group’s unique blend of unfiltered news and unrestrained analysis has never been more necessary. With determination and mutual respect, the panel and myself will deliver for our viewers.”
    Pat Buchanan:
    “From Spring 1982 to August 2016, John McLaughlin never missed a weekly “McLaughlin Group” show, giving America some of the most spirited public debates since the early Reagan years. The New Year will see the reunion and the return of “The Group” with the entire cast that was there when The Leader passed on. Look for us.”
    Have something to say about this?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Eleanor Clift:
    “John helped me find my voice. We didn’t agree on much, and he valued debate, so it was a good match. In that spirit that he embodied, the Group returns to do friendly battle in the clash of ideas in the Age of Trump. Game on!”
    Clarence Page:
    “I’m delighted by the many people who tell me they miss our program in these polarized times — for its ‘civility,’ of all things. I miss it, too. I’m eager to get the old gang back together again.”
    The broadcast deal was brokered by Seth Berenzweig and Tod Castleberry of BL Sports & Media Group, a full service media agency located in McLean, VA.
    For additional information contact:
    WJLA/NewsChannel 8/WJLA.com BL Sports & Media Group
    Dan Mellon Tod Castleberry
    General Manager Director of Broadcast & Digital Media
    1100 Wilson Blvd 8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 1250
    Arlington, VA 22209 McLean, VA 22102
    O-703-236-9300 O-703-940-3301
    dmellon@sbgtv.com tcastleberry@blsportsandmedia.com
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #147 on: December 28, 2017, 12:28:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  26 December 2017
    Did the FBI Conspire to Stop Trump?
    Tuesday - December 26, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    This post was viewed 300 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook701Google+Reddit76TumblrStumbleUponShare777
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?
    Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?
    A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
    Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
    Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
    Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here:
    That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.
    Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.
    On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.
    Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton — to discuss golf and grandkids — seconded Comey’s decision.
    And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?
    First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.
    Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” — the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
    Have something to say about this column?
     Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….
    Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.
    Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.
    After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
    Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.
    One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
    Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.
    For there a Russian connection has been established.
    Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
    And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
    Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.
    Let’s review the bidding.
    The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.
    In Dec. 26’s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”
    If this is true, a critical questions arises:
    Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?
    Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
    Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.
    Is history repeating itself — with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United States?
    Do You Appreciate Reading Our
    Emails and Website?
     Let us know how we are doing –
    Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/fbi-conspire-stop-trump-128359

    Offline graceseeker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1305
    • Reputation: +129/-434
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #148 on: December 28, 2017, 12:55:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am cuttin and pasting and have only gotten to the end of Nov

    the dude is a prolific writer.

    i am too but my audience probably would never be so big...

    i have interesting things to say but people shut me out bc i dont have $$ and prestige and fame etc...

    se la vie on Planet Earth


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5527
    • Reputation: +2019/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #149 on: December 30, 2017, 12:55:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  28 December 2017
    Will War Cancel Trump’s Triumphs?
    Thursday - December 28, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    This post was viewed 51 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Asked what he did during the French Revolution, Abbe Sieyes replied, “I survived.”
    Donald Trump can make the same boast.
    No other political figure has so dominated our discourse. And none, not Joe McCarthy in his heyday in the early ’50s, nor Richard Nixon in Watergate, received such intensive and intemperate coverage and commentary as has our 45th president.
    Whatever one may think of Trump, he is a leader and a fighter, not a quitter. How many politicians could have sustained the beatings Trump has taken, and remained as cocky and confident?
    And looking back on what may fairly be called The Year of Trump, his achievements have surprised even some of his enemies.
    With the U.S. military given a freer hand by Trump, a U.S.-led coalition helped expel ISIS from its twin capitals of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, driving it back into a desert enclave on the Iraq-Syria border. The caliphate is dead, and the caliph nowhere to be found.
    The economy, with the boot of Barack Obama off its neck, has been growing at 3 percent. The stock market has soared to record highs. Unemployment is down to 4 percent. And Trump and Congress just passed the largest tax cut since Ronald Reagan.
    With deregulation, which conservative Republicans preached to deaf ears in the Bush I and Bush II eras, Trump and those he has put into positions of power have exceeded expectations.
    Pipelines Obama blocked have been approved. Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge has been opened to exploratory drilling. We have exited a Paris climate accord that favored China over the U.S.
    Though Beijing’s trade surplus with us is returning to record highs, a spirit of “America First” economic nationalism is pervasive among U.S. trade negotiators,
    The one justice named to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, appears in the Antonin Scalia tradition. And under Chairman Chuck Grassley, the Senate judiciary committee is moving conservatives and strict constructionists onto U.S. appellate and district courts.
    Politically, however, the year brought bad news, with portents of worse to come. In November, the Republican Party was thrashed in Virginia, losing all state offices, and then lost a Senate seat in Alabama.
    Given polls showing Trump under water and the GOP running 10 points behind the Democratic Party in favorability, there is a possibility the GOP could lose the House in 2018.
    And though Democrats have three times as many seats at risk in 2018, the GOP losing the Senate is not beyond the realm of possibility.
    Should that happen, the conservative dream of a recapture of the U.S. Supreme Court could swiftly vanish.
    Recall: Democratic Senates turned down two Nixon nominees and Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork, forcing both presidents to name justices who evolved into moderates and liberals on the high court.
    But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
    Should Petro Poroshenko’s Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.
    Trump’s choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our “ally” — or escalate and widen the conflict with Russia.
    Putin’s interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, is obvious.
    What, exactly, is ours — to justify a showdown with Moscow?
    In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Persian Gulf.
    But how much backing would Trump have for another U.S. war in that blood-soaked region, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?
    Who would stand with us, and for how long?
    When Trump declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel and pledged to move our embassy there, we had to veto a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution condemning us. Then the General Assembly denounced the U.S. in a resolution supported by all our key NATO allies, Russia and China, and every Arab and Muslim nation.
    A day later, Trump complained on Twitter that we have “foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.”
    What then would justify a new $1 or $2 trillion war with the largest nation on the Persian Gulf, which could send oil to $200 a barrel and sink the global economy?
    Cui bono? For whose benefit all these wars?
    The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the presidency in 2008.
    Should Trump become a war president, he’ll likely become a one-term president.
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/will-war-cancel-trumps-triumphs-128383

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16