Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 34490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10512
  • Reputation: +3267/-207
  • Gender: Male
  • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #210 on: July 31, 2018, 07:41:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  31 July 2018
    Will Tribalism Trump Democracy?
    Tuesday - July 31, 2018 at 3:10 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    On July 19, the Knesset voted to change the nation’s Basic Law.
    Israel was declared to be, now and forever, the nation-state and national home of the Jєωιѕн people. Hebrew is to be the state language.
    Angry reactions, not only among Israeli Arabs and Jєωs, came swift.
    Allan Brownfeld of the American Council for Judaism calls the law a “retreat from democracy” as it restricts the right of self-determination, once envisioned to include all within Israel’s borders, to the Jєωιѕн people. Inequality is enshrined.
    And Israel, says Brownfeld, is not the nation-state of American Jєωs.
    What makes this clash of significance is that it is another battle in the clash that might fairly be called the issue of our age.
    The struggle is between the claims of tribe, ethnicity, peoples and nations, against the commands of liberal democracy.
    In Europe, the Polish people seek to preserve the historic and ethnic character of their country with reforms that the EU claims violate Poland’s commitment to democracy.
    If Warsaw persists, warns the EU, the Poles will be punished. But which comes first: Poland, or its political system, if the two are in conflict?
    Other nations are ignoring the open-borders requirements of the EU’s Schengen Agreement, as they attempt to block migrants from Africa and the Middle East.
    They want to remain who they are, open borders be damned.

    Britain is negotiating an exit from the EU because the English voted for independence from that transitional institution whose orders they saw as imperiling their sovereignty and altering their identity.
    When Ukraine, in the early 1990s, was considering secession from Russia, Bush I warned Kiev against such “suicidal nationalism.”
    Ukraine ignored President Bush. Today, new questions have arisen.
    If Ukrainians had a right to secede from Russia and create a nation-state to preserve their national identity, do not the Russians in Crimea and the Donbass have the same right — to secede from Ukraine and rejoin their kinsmen in Russia?
    As Georgia seceded from Russia at the same time, why do not the people of South Ossetia have the same right to secede from Georgia?
    Who are we Americans, 5,000 miles away, to tell tribes, peoples and embryonic nations of Europe whether they may form new states to reflect and preserve their national identity?
    Nor are these minor matters.
    At Paris in 1919, Sudeten Germans and Danzig Germans were, against their will, put under Czech and Polish rule. British and French resistance to permitting these peoples to secede and rejoin their kinfolk in 1938 and 1939 set the stage for the greatest war in history.
    Here in America, we, too, appear to be in an endless quarrel about who we are.
    Is America a different kind of nation, a propositional nation, an ideological nation, defined by a common consent to the ideas and ideals of our iconic docuмents like the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address?
    Or are we like other nations, a unique people with our own history, heroes, holidays, religion, language, literature, art, music, customs and culture, recognizable all over the world as “the Americans”?
    Since 2001, those who have argued that we Americans were given, at the birth of the republic, a providential mission to democratize mankind, have suffered an unbroken series of setbacks.
    Nations we invaded, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to bestow upon them the blessings of democracy, rose up in resistance. What our compulsive interventionists saw as our mission to mankind, the beneficiaries saw as American imperialism.
    And the culture wars on history and memory continue unabated.
    According to The New York Times, the African-American candidate for governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, has promised to sandblast the sculptures of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis off Stone Mountain.
    The Republican candidate, Brian Kemp, has a pickup truck, which he promises to use to transfer illegal migrants out of Georgia and back to the border.
    In Texas, a move is afoot to remove the name of Stephen Austin from the capital city, as Austin, in the early 1830s, resisted Mexico’s demands to end slavery in Texas when it was still part of Mexico.
    One wonders when they will get around to Sam Houston, hero of Texas’ War of Independence and first governor of the Republic of Texas, which became the second slave republic in North America.
    Houston, after whom the nation’s fourth-largest city is named, was himself, though a Unionist, a slave owner and an opponent of abolition.
    Today, a large share of the American people loathe who we were from the time of the explorers and settlers, up until the end of segregation in the 1960s. They want to apologize for our past, rewrite our history, erase our memories and eradicate the monuments of those centuries.
    The attacks upon the country we were and the people whence we came are near constant.
    And if we cannot live together amicably, secession from one another, personally, politically, and even territorially, seems the ultimate alternative.


    Image Source: PixaBay.Com…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/will-tribalism-trump-democracy-129792


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #211 on: August 03, 2018, 09:44:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Would War With Iran Doom Trump?
    Friday - August 3, 2018 at 4:15 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    A war with Iran would define, consume and potentially destroy the Trump presidency, but exhilarate the neocon never-Trumpers who most despise the man.
    Why, then, is President Donald Trump toying with such an idea?
    Looking back at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, wars we began or plunged into, what was gained to justify the cost in American blood and treasure, and the death and destruction we visited upon that region? How has our great rival China suffered by not getting involved?
    Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran would imperil, not secure, that interest.
    Mass migration from the Islamic world, seeded with terrorist cells, is the greatest threat to Europe from the Middle East. But would not a U.S. war with Iran increase rather than diminish that threat?
    Would the millions of Iranians who oppose the mullahs’ rule welcome U.S. air and naval attacks on their country? Or would they rally behind the regime and the armed forces dying to defend their country?
    “Mr Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail,” warned President Hassan Rouhani in July: “War with Iran is the mother of all wars.”
    But he added, “Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace.”
    Rouhani left wide open the possibility of peaceful settlement.
    Trump’s all-caps retort virtually invoked Hiroshima: “Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the like of which few throughout history have suffered before.”
    When Trump shifted and blurted out that he was open to talks — “No preconditions. They want to meet? I’ll meet.” — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contradicted him: Before any meeting, Iran must change the way they treat their people and “reduce their malign behavior.”
    We thus appear to be steering into a head-on collision.
    For now that Trump has trashed the nuclear deal and is reimposing sanctions, Iran’s economy has taken a marked turn for the worse.
    Its currency has lost half its value. Inflation is surging toward Venezuelan levels. New U.S. sanctions will be imposed this week and again in November. Major foreign investments are being canceled. U.S. allies are looking at secondary sanctions if they do not join the strangulation of Iran.
    Tehran’s oil exports are plummeting along with national revenue.
    Demonstrations and riots are increasingly common.
    Rouhani and his allies who bet their futures on a deal to forego nuclear weapons in return for an opening to the West look like fools to their people. And the Revolutionary Guard Corps that warned against trusting the Americans appears vindicated.
    Iran’s leaders have now threatened that when their oil is no longer flowing freely and abundantly, Arab oil may be blocked from passing through the Strait of Hormuz out to Asia and the West.
    Any such action would ignite an explosion in oil prices worldwide and force a U.S. naval response to reopen the strait. A war would be on.
    Yet the correlation of political forces is heavily weighted in favor of driving Tehran to the wall. In the U.S., Iran has countless adversaries and almost no advocates. In the Middle East, Israelis, Saudis and the UAE would relish having us smash Iran.
    Among the four who will decide on war, Trump, Pompeo and John Bolton have spoken of regime change, while Defense Secretary James Mattis has lately renounced any such strategic goal.
    With Israel launching attacks against Iranian-backed militia in Syria, U.S. ships and Iranian speedboats constantly at close quarters in the Gulf, and Houthi rebels in Yemen firing at Saudi tankers in the Bab el-Mandeb entrance to the Red Sea, a military clash seems inevitable.
    While America no longer has the ground forces to invade and occupy an Iran four times the size of Iraq, in any such war, the U.S., with its vastly superior air, naval and missile forces, would swiftly prevail.
    But if Iran called into play Hezbollah, the Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and sectarian allies inside the Arab states, U.S. casualties would mount and the Middle East could descend into the kind of civil-sectarian war we have seen in Syria these last six years.
    Any shooting war in the Persian Gulf could see insurance rates for tankers soar, a constriction of oil exports, and surging prices, plunging us into a worldwide recession for which one man would be held responsible: Donald Trump.
    How good would that be for the GOP or President Trump in 2020?
    And when the shooting stopped, would there be installed in Iran a liberal democracy, or would it be as it was in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, with first the religious zealots taking power, and then the men with guns.
    If we start a war with Iran, on top of the five in which we are engaged still, then the party that offers to extricate us will be listened to, as Trump was listened to, when he promised to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/would-war-with-iran-doom-trump-129815







    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #212 on: August 07, 2018, 10:04:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  6 August 2018
    Are Globalists Plotting a Counter-Revolution?
    Monday - August 6, 2018 at 9:29 pm

    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    On meeting with the EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker last month, Donald Trump tweeted: “Both the U.S. and the E.U. drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be Free Market and Fair Trade.”
    Did Larry Kudlow somehow get access to Trump’s phone?
    We know not. But, on hearing this, Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer broke into the “Hallelujah” chorus of Handel’s “Messiah.”
    “Amen,” they thundered in The New York Times.
    Trump should declare “total trade disarmament” to be national policy and make free trade his “legacy” to America. Such a proclamation, they wrote, would assure Trump the “moral high ground” in the global debate and transform him from “evil disrupter of international commerce to potential savior.”
    For free trade is always and ever a “win-win for trading partners.”
    To read the Times op-ed is to appreciate that what we are dealing with here is an ideology, a political religion, a creed, a cult.
    For consider the fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years: the frozen wages of U.S. workers, $12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.
    To maintain a belief in the superiority of free trade to economic patriotism, in the face of such results, is to recognize that this belief system is impervious to contradictory proof.
    Still, the enduring enthusiasm of free trade zealots is not the only sign that GOP globalists, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, are looking to a post-Trump era to resurrect their repudiated dogmas.
    In USA Today, Jeffrey Miron, director of economic studies at the libertarian flagship think tank Cato Institute, wrote last week:
    “The solution to America’s immigrant problems is open borders. … Open borders means no walls, fences, screenings at airports, ICE … deportations, detention centers or immigration courts.”
    And what would happen after we declare open borders?
    “Immigrants will not flood into America. … Crime will not skyrocket. … Even if values and culture change, so what? … Who says America’s current values — some of them deeply evil — are the right ones?”
    Bottom line for Cato’s Miron: If we throw open America’s borders and invite the world to come in and to remake who we are as a nation, “Think about the money we could save and make.”
    This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.
    Other open borders and free trade true believers have begun speaking out. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, a megadonor to the GOP, has just lashed out at Trump as “divisive” and denounced the “rise in protectionism.”
    Nations, organizations and individuals, said Koch, “are doing whatever they can to close themselves off from the new, hold onto the past and prevent change.”
    He added, “This is a natural tendency, but it is a destructive one.”
    In a pair of tweets, Trump fired back:
    “The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. I made them richer.
    “Their network is highly overrated, I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First and the American Worker — a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas. Make America Great Again!”
    The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, are threatening to have their network, Americans for Prosperity, withhold funding from GOP candidates who echo Trump on immigration and trade.
    The open borders, free trade ideology of the Kochs, the Cato Institute, and such supply-siders as Moore, Forbes and Laffer, have deep roots in the Republican Party establishment.
    Milton Friedman was of this school, as was the longtime editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Bob Bartley, who for years pushed for a constitutional amendment declaring, “There shall be open borders.”
    Bartley, somewhat prematurely, predicted that the nation-state was “finished” in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Yet, today, as tribalism and nationalism are making a comeback, it looks more like the transnational “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr” that may be headed for the dumpster.
    As long as Trump is in the White House and the party base is so viscerally behind him and his America First agenda, a renunciation of tariffs or a return to globalism is dead.
    But what happens after Trump? Who and what comes next?
    Republican recidivism — a return to the rejected open borders, free trade agenda of the Bush Republicans — would ignite a firestorm of protest that would tear the party of Trump apart.
    Yet, while these ideas have lost Middle America, they are alive and well among the establishment elites of both parties, who have also not given up on a foreign policy of using America’s economic and military power to attempt to convert mankind to democracy.

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/are-globalists-plotting-a-counter-revolution-129848

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #213 on: August 10, 2018, 09:21:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  10 August 2018
    The Saudi-Canada Clash: A Values War
    Friday - August 10, 2018 at 1:11 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Is it any of Canada’s business whether Saudi women have the right to drive?
    Well, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland just made it her business.
    Repeatedly denouncing Riyadh’s arrest of women’s rights advocate Samar Badawi, Freeland has driven the two countries close to a break in diplomatic relations.
    “Reprehensible” said Riyadh of Freeland’s tweeted attack. Canada is “engaged in blatant interference in the Kingdom’s domestic affairs.”
    The Saudis responded by expelling Canada’s ambassador and ordering 15,000 Saudi students to end their studies in Canada and barred imports of Canadian wheat. A $15 billion contract to provide armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia may be in jeopardy.
    Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been backsliding on his promises to modernize the kingdom, appears to have had enough of Western lectures on democratic values and morality.
    A week after Pope Francis denounced the death penalty as always “impermissible,” Riyadh went ahead and crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity can get you a death sentence.
    Neither President Donald Trump nor the State Department has taken sides, but The Washington Post has weighed in with an editorial: “Human Rights Are Everyone’s Business.”
    “What Ms. Freeland and Canada correctly understand is that human rights … are universal values, not the property of kings and dictators to arbitrarily grant and remove on a whim. Saudi Arabia’s long-standing practice of denying basic rights to citizens, especially women — and its particularly cruel treatment of some dissidents — such as the public lashes meted out to (Ms. Badawi’s brother) — are matters of legitimate concern to all democracies and free societies.
    “It is the traditional role of the United States to defend universal values everywhere they are trampled upon and to show bullying autocrats they cannot get away with hiding their dirty work behind closed doors.”
    The Post called on the foreign ministers of all Group of Seven nations to retweet Freeland’s post saying, “Basic rights are everybody’s business.”
    But these sweeping assertions raise not a few questions.
    Who determines what are “basic rights” or “universal values”?
    Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that has never permitted women to drive and has always whipped criminals and had a death penalty.
    When did these practices first begin to contradict “universal values”?
    When did it become America’s “traditional role” to defend women’s right to drive automobiles in every country, when women had no right to vote in America until after World War I?
    In the America of the 1950s, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and abortion were regarded as shameful offenses and serious crimes. Now abortion and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity have been declared constitutional rights.
    Are they basic human rights? To whom? Do 55 million abortions in the U.S. in 45 years not raise an issue of human rights?
    Has it become the moral duty of the U.S. government to champion abortion and LGBT rights worldwide, when a goodly slice of America still regards them as marks of national decadence and decline?
    And if the Saudis are reactionaries whom we should join Canada in condemning, why are we dreaming up an “Arab NATO” in which Saudi Arabia would be a treaty ally alongside whom we would fight Iran?
    Iran, at least, holds quadrennial elections, and Iranian women seem less restricted and anti-regime demonstrations more tolerated than they are in Saudi Arabia.
    Consider our own history.
    From 1865 to 1965, segregation was the law in the American South. Did those denials of civil and political rights justify foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the United States?
    How would President Eisenhower, who used troops to integrate Little Rock High, have responded to the British and French demanding that America end segregation now?
    In a newly de-Christianized America, all religions are to be treated equally and none may be taught in any public school.
    In nearly 50 nations, however, Muslims are the majority, and they believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and all other religions are false. Do Muslims have no right to insist upon the primacy of their faith in the nations they rule?
    Is Western interference with this claim not a formula for endless conflict?
    In America, free speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed. And these First Amendment rights protect libel, slander, filthy language, blasphemy, pornography, flag burning and published attacks on religious beliefs, our country itself, and the government of the United States.
    If other nations reject such freedoms as suicidal stupidity, do we have some obligation to intervene in their internal affairs to promote them?
    Recently, The Independent reported:
    “Since last year, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region in northwest China have been unjustly arrested and imprisoned in what the Chinese government calls ‘political re-education camps.’ Thousands have disappeared. There are credible reports of torture and death among the prisoners. … The international community has largely reacted with silence.”
    Anyone up for sanctioning Xi Jinping’s China?
    Or do Uighurs’ rights rank below those of Saudi feminists?

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/the-saudi-canada-clash-a-values-war-129864

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #214 on: August 14, 2018, 08:09:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  14 August 2018
    America’s Lengthening Enemies List
    Tuesday - August 14, 2018 at 4:18 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Friday, deep into the 17th year of America’s longest war, Taliban forces overran Ghazni, a provincial capital that sits on the highway from Kabul to Kandahar.
    The ferocity of the Taliban offensive brought U.S. advisers along with U.S. air power, including a B-1 bomber, into the battle.
    “As the casualty toll in Ghazni appeared to soar on Sunday,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “hospitals were spilling over with dead bodies, corpses lay in Ghazni’s streets, and gunfire and shelling were preventing relatives from reaching cemeteries to bury their dead.”
    In Yemen Monday, a funeral was held in the town square of Saada for 40 children massacred in an air strike on a school bus by Saudis or the UAE, using U.S.-provided planes and bombs.
    “A crime by America and its allies against the children of Yemen,” said a Houthi rebel leader.
    Yemen is among the worst humanitarian situations in the world, and in creating that human-rights tragedy, America has played an indispensable role.
    The U.S. also has 2,000 troops in Syria. Our control, with our Kurd allies, of that quadrant of Syria east of the Euphrates is almost certain to bring us into eventual conflict with a regime and army insisting that we get out of their country.
    As for our relations with Turkey, they have never been worse.
    President Erdogan regards our Kurd allies in Syria as collaborators of his own Kurdish-terrorist PKK. He sees us as providing sanctuary for exile cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom Erdogan says was behind the attempted coup in 2016 in which he and his family were targeted for assassination.
    Last week, when the Turkish currency, the lira, went into a tailspin, President Trump piled on, ratcheting up U.S. tariffs on Turkish aluminum and steel. If the lira collapses and Turkey cannot meet its debt obligations, Erdogan will lay the blame at the feet of the Americans and Trump.
    Which raises a question: How many quarrels, conflicts and wars, and with how many adversaries, can even the mighty United States sustain?
    In November, the most severe of U.S. sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Among the purposes of this policy: Force as many nations as possible to boycott Iranian oil and gas, sink its economy, bring down the regime.
    Iran has signaled a possible response to its oil and gas being denied access to world markets. This August, Iranian gunboats exercised in the Strait of Hormuz, backing up a regime warning that if Iranian oil cannot get out of the Gulf, the oil of Arab OPEC nations may be bottled up inside as well. Last week, Iran test-fired an anti-ship ballistic missile.
    Iran has rejected Trump’s offer of unconditional face-to-face talks, unless the U.S. first lifts the sanctions imposed after withdrawing from the nuclear deal.
    With no talks, a U.S. propaganda offensive underway, the Iranian rial sinking and the economy sputtering, regular demonstrations against the regime, and new sanctions scheduled for November, it is hard to see how a U.S. collision with Tehran can be avoided.
    This holds true as well for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
    Last week, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged role in the nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.
    Though the U.S. had already expelled 60 Russian diplomats for the poisoning, and Russia vehemently denies responsibility — and conclusive evidence has not been made public and the victims have not been heard from — far more severe sanctions are to be added in November.
    Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is warning that such a U.S. move would cross a red line: “If … a ban on bank operations or currency use follows, it will amount to a declaration of economic war. … And it will warrant a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means.”
    That the sanctions are biting is undeniable. Like the Turkish lira and Iranian rial, the Russian ruble has been falling and the Russian people are feeling the pain.
    Last week also, a U.S. Poseidon reconnaissance plane, observing China’s construction of militarized islets in the South China Sea, was told to “leave immediately and keep out.”
    China claims the sea as its national territory.
    And North Korea’s Kim Jong Un apparently intends to hold onto his arsenal of nuclear weapons.
    “We’re waiting for the North Koreans to begin the process of denuclearization, which they committed to in Singapore and which they’ve not yet done,” John Bolton told CNN last week.
    A list of America’s adversaries here would contain the Taliban, the Houthis of Yemen, Bashar Assad of Syria, Erdogan’s Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China — a pretty full plate.
    Are we prepared to see these confrontations through, to assure the capitulation of our adversaries? What do we do if they continue to defy us?
    And if it comes to a fight, how many allies will we have in the battles and wars that follow?
    Was this the foreign policy America voted for?

    Image Source: Morgue File…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/americas-lengthening-enemies-list-129887


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #215 on: August 17, 2018, 07:53:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  17 August 2018
    Can America Ever Come Together Again?
    Friday - August 17, 2018 at 4:10 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.
    He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.
    “Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”
    Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?
    CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.
    Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.
    Who trashed this tradition?
    Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?
    Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?
    Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.
    “Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.
    Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

    Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”
    “Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.
    Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-nαzι, liar, tyrant and traitor?
    The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?
    And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?
    If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?
    We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.
    Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”
    When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:
    “We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?
    Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”
    Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.
    In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.
    Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:
    “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
    These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”
    What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.
    Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gαys who were denied equality.
    The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.
    For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/can-america-ever-come-together-again-129899

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #216 on: August 21, 2018, 09:42:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • In Spies Battle, Trump Holds the High Ground
    Monday - August 20, 2018 at 11:14 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    In backing John Brennan’s right to keep his top-secret security clearance, despite his having charged the president with treason, the U.S. intel community has chosen to fight on indefensible terrain.
    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to recognize that Sunday when he conceded that ex-CIA Director Brennan had the subtlety of “a freight train” and his rhetoric had become “an issue in and of itself.”
    After Donald Trump’s Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin, Brennan had called the president’s actions “nothing short of treasonous.”
    The battle is now engaged. Trump cannot back down. He must defy and defeat the old bulls of the intel community. And he can.
    For a security clearance is not a right. It is not an entitlement.
    It is a privilege, an honor and a necessity for those serving in the security agencies of the U.S. government — while they serve.
    Brennan is not being deprived of his First Amendment rights. He can still make any accusation and call the president any name he wishes.
    But to argue that a charge of treason against a president is not a justification for pulling a clearance is a claim both arrogant and absurd.
    Again, a security clearance is not a constitutional right.

    Said Defense Secretary James Mattis: “I have taken security clearances away from people in my previous time in uniform … a security clearance is something that is granted on an as-needed basis.”
    Brennan is now threatening to sue the president. Bring it on, says national security adviser John Bolton.
    With 4 million Americans holding top-secret clearances, and this city awash in leaks to the media from present and past intel and security officials, it is time to strip the swamp creatures of their special privileges.
    The White House should press upon Congress a policy of automatic cancellation of security clearances, for intelligence and military officers, upon resignation, retirement or severance.
    Clearances should be retained only for departing officers who can demonstrate that their “need to know” national secrets remains crucial to our security, not merely advantageous to their pursuit of lucrative jobs in the military-industrial complex.
    Officials in the security realm who take clearances with them on leaving office are like House members who retain all the access, perks and privileges of Congress after they step down to earn seven-figure salaries lobbying their former congressional colleagues.
    The White House statement of Sarah Huckabee Sanders on John Brennan’s loss of his clearances was spot on:
    “Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.
    “Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the Internet and television — about this administration. Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”
    Trump is said to be evaluating pulling the security clearances of Clapper, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
    This is a good start. Some of these individuals have been fired. Some are under investigation. Some were involved in the FBI’s “get-Trump” cabal to prevent his election and then to abort his presidency.
    Some have become talking heads on cable TV, exploiting the credibility of their former titles and offices to undermine an elected president.
    Again, they have a First Amendment right to do this. But they should be stripped of their clearances to show the nation that the president is dealing with insiders who have joined the Resistance.
    At bottom, the issue is: Who speaks for America?
    Is it the mainstream media, the deep state, the permanent government, the city that gave Trump 4 percent of its votes? Or is it that vast slice of Middle America that sent Trump to drain the swamp?
    Trump’s enemies, and they are legion, want to see Robert Mueller charge him with collusion with Russia and obstructing the investigation of that collusion. They want to see the Democratic Party take over the House in November, and the Senate, and move on to impeach and remove Trump from office. Then they want to put him where Paul Manafort sits today.
    For Trump, a truce or a negotiated peace with these people is never going to happen. But this issue of security clearances is a battlefield where the president cannot lose, if he fights wisely.
    Americans sense that these are privileges that should be extended to those who protect us, not perks for former officials to exploit and monetize while they attempt to bring down the commander in chief.

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/in-spies-battle-trump-holds-the-high-ground-129941

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #217 on: August 24, 2018, 07:37:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Do Democrats Want an Impeachment Fight?
    Friday - August 24, 2018 at 2:20 am

    This post was viewed 523 times.
    Votes: 4.94 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer,” said President Donald Trump ruefully, “I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen.” Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn.
    Tuesday, Trump’s ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign violation that may not even be a crime.
    Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a Playboy model, to kill it.
    Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.
    Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush money to old girlfriends?
    Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.
    But if Cohen’s guilty plea and Tuesday’s conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump’s dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.
    Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.
    Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to “flip” and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump.
    Then there is the Mueller probe itself.
    Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin’s Russia, though this was his mandate.
    However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.
    Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him. After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham. But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the House.
    And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller’s report.
    Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
    Thus we are in for a hellish year.
    Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies.
    No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.
    Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies in the press, would be like.
    Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.
    That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that impeachment is not what they have in mind.
    Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him, and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.
    Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to impeach Trump.
    Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that the first duty demanded of them, by their own rabid followers, is to impeach President Trump, they may wonder why they were so eager to win it.



    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns     http://buchanan.org/blog/do-democrats-want-an-impeachment-fight-129957


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #218 on: August 28, 2018, 09:58:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  27 August 2018
    Are the Interventionists Now Leaderless?
    Monday - August 27, 2018 at 10:09 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began:
    “The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”
    Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday, leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.
    No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.
    And the cause he championed, compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power, appears to be a cause whose time has passed.
    When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. John McCain then backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.
    During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year cινιℓ ωαr and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time.
    McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!”
    He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.
    McCain’s contempt for Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.
    He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.
    John McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.

    In 2008, when he was on the ballot, those wars helped cost him the presidency.
    By 2016, the Republican majority would turn its back on McCain and his protege, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and nominate Donald Trump, who said he would seek to get along with Russia and extricate America from the wars into which McCain had helped plunge the country.
    Yet, while interventionism now has no great champion and has proven unable to rally an American majority, it retains a residual momentum. This compulsion is pushing us to continue backing the Saudi war in Yemen and to seek regime change in Iran.
    Yet if either of these enterprises holds any prospect of bringing about a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East, no one has made the case.
    While the foreign policy that won the Cold War, containment, was articulated by George Kennan and pursued by presidents from Truman to Bush I, no grand strategy for the post-Cold War era has ever been embraced by a majority of Americans.
    Bush I’s “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr” was rejected by Ross Perot’s economic patriots and Bill Clinton’s baby boomers who wanted to spend America’s peace dividend from our Cold War victory on America’s homefront.
    As for the Bush II crusades for democracy “to end tyranny in our world,” the fruits of that Wilsonian idealism turned into ashes in our mouths.
    But if the foreign policy agendas of Bush I and Bush II, along with McCain’s interventionism, have been tried and found wanting, what is America’s grand strategy?
    What are the great goals of U.S. foreign policy? What are the vital interests for which all, or almost all Americans, believe we should fight?
    “Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” said Churchill. Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role, was the crushing comment of Dean Acheson in 1962.
    Both statements appear to apply to U.S. foreign policy in 2018.
    We are bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, partly John McCain’s legacy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sent a virtual ultimatum to Iran. We have told North Korea, a nuclear power with the world’s fourth-largest army, either to denuclearize or the U.S. may use its military might to get the job done.
    We are challenging Beijing in its claimed territorial waters of the South China Sea. From South Korea to Estonia, we are committed by solemn treaty to go to war if any one of dozens of nations is attacked.
    Now one hears talk of an “Arab NATO” to confront the ayatollah’s Iran and its Shiite allies. Lest we forget, ISIS and al-Qaida are Sunni.
    With all these war guarantees, the odds are excellent that one day we are going to be dragged in yet another war that the American people will sour upon soon after it begins.
    Where is the American Kennan of the new century?

    Image Source: PixaBay…

    Share Pat's Columns


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #219 on: August 29, 2018, 04:13:14 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0


  • By Patrick J. Buchanan

    When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. John McCain then backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

    Patrick Buchanan is a traditional Catholic.  He is a well educated man and a well informed man with considerable years of political experience.  During his many years as a widely syndicated political and social commentator he has often exhibited much wisdom.  Why is it then that after all these years he has consistently maintained one of the most catastrophic and monstrous worldly falsehoods (i.e., al-Qaida terrorists did 9-11) of the 21st Century on the face of the Earth?  This is a disconnect of truly monumental magnitude!

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #220 on: August 31, 2018, 06:40:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  31 August 2018
    A Cancer On the Papacy
    Friday - August 31, 2018 at 1:01 
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories….”
    This summer, the sex scandal that has bedeviled the Catholic Church went critical.
    First came the stunning revelation that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington and friend to presidents, had for decades been a predator-priest who preyed on seminarians and abused altar boys, and whose depravity was widely known and covered up.
    Came then the report of a Pennsylvania grand jury that investigated six dioceses and found that some 300 priests had abused 1,000 children over the last 70 years.
    The bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl, now cardinal archbishop of Washington, defrocked some of these corrupt priests, but reassigned others to new parishes where new outrages were committed.
    This weekend brought the most stunning accusation.
    Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Vatican envoy to the United States under Pope Benedict XVI, charged that Pope Francis had been told of McCarrick’s abuses, done nothing to sanction him, and that, as “zero tolerance” of sɛҳuąƖ abuse is Francis’ own policy, the pope should resign.
    In his 11-page letter of accusations, Vigano further charged that there is a powerful “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ current” among the Vatican prelates closest to the pope.
    What did the pope know and when did he know it?
    Read More…
    New evidence backs
     Viganò’s claim about
     Benedict-imposed sanctions…

    Archbishop Carlo Maria
     Viganò Exposes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ
     Coverup at Highest Levels..

    Pope Francis covered
     up McCarrick abuse,
     former US nuncio testifies..
    Not unlike Watergate, the issue here is whether Pope Francis knew what was going on in the Vatican and in his Church, and why he was not more resolute in rooting out the moral squalor.
    Orthodox, conservative and traditionalist Catholics are the most visible and vocal demanding an accounting. Progressive and liberal Catholics, to whom Pope Francis and Cardinal McCarrick were seen as allies on issues of sɛҳuąƖ morality, have been thrown on the defensive.
    Now, accusations alone are neither proof nor evidence.
    Yet there is an obligation, an imperative, given the gravity of the revelations, that the Vatican address the charges.
    When did Pope Francis become aware of McCarrick’s conduct, which appears to have been widely known? Did he let his close friendship with McCarrick keep him from doing his papal and pastoral duty?
    This destructive scandal has been bleeding for decades. Too long. The Church is running out of time. It needs to act decisively now.
    Priests who prey on parochial school children and altar boys are not only sinners, they are criminal predators who belong in penitentiary cells not parish rectories. They ought to be handed over to civil authorities.
    While none of us is without sin, sɛҳuąƖly active and abusive clergy should be severed from the priesthood. There needs to be a purge at the Vatican, removing or retiring bishops, archbishops and cardinals, the revelation of whose past misconduct would further feed this scandal.
    For too long, the Catholic faithful have been forced to pay damages and reparations for crimes and sins of predator priests and the hierarchy’s collusion and complicity in covering them up.
    And it needs be stated clearly: This is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ scandal.
    Almost all of the predators and criminals are male, as are most of the victims: the boys, the teenagers, the young seminarians.
    Applicants to the seminary should be vetted the way applicants to the National Security Council are. Those ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly inclined should be told the priesthood of the Church is not for them, as it is not for women.
    Secular society will call this invidious discrimination, but it is based on what Christ taught and how he established his Church.
    Inevitably, if the Church is to remain true to herself, the clash with secular society, which now holds that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is natural and normal and entitled to respect, is going to widen and deepen.
    For in traditional Catholic teaching, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a psychological and moral disorder, a proclivity toward acts that are intrinsically wrong, and everywhere and always sinful and depraved, and ruinous of character.
    The idea of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriages, recently discovered to be a constitutional right in the USA, remains an absurdity in Catholic doctrine.
    If the Church’s highest priority is to coexist peacefully with the world, it will modify, soften, cease to preach, or repudiate these beliefs, and follow the primrose path of so many of our separated Protestant brethren.
    But if she does, it will not be the same Church that over centuries accepted martyrdom to remain the faithful custodian of Gospel truths and sacred tradition.
    And how has the embrace of modernity and its values advanced the religious faiths whose leaders sought most earnestly to accommodate them?
    The Church is going through perhaps its gravest crisis since the Reformation. Since Vatican II, the faithful have been departing, some leaving quietly, others embracing agnosticism or other faiths.
    “Who am I to judge?” said the pope when first pressed about the morality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
    Undeniably, Francis, and the progressive bishops who urge a new tolerance, a new understanding, a new appreciation of the benign character of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, have won the plaudits of a secular press that loathed the Church of Pius XII.
    Of what value are all those wonderful press clippings now, as the chickens come home to roost in Vatican City?

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!
    http://buchanan.org/blog/a-cancer-on-the-papacy-129988


    Offline rum

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1341
    • Reputation: +594/-596
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #221 on: August 31, 2018, 07:51:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • For too long, the Catholic faithful have been forced to pay damages and reparations for crimes and sins of predator priests and the hierarchy’s collusion and complicity in covering them up.
    And it needs be stated clearly: This is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ scandal.
    Almost all of the predators and criminals are male, as are most of the victims: the boys, the teenagers, the young seminarians.
    Applicants to the seminary should be vetted the way applicants to the National Security Council are. Those ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly inclined should be told the priesthood of the Church is not for them, as it is not for women.

    This is a Catholic scandal. When the Church ceased to criticize Jєωs and call them out as children of the devil it led the way to all sorts of other aberrations.

    Though if comparing the novus ordo Church to other organizations I'm not so sure it has any greater problem, and may have less of one, with fαɢɢօts in authority than other groups.


    Some would have people believe that I'm a deceiver because I've used various handles on different Catholic forums. They only know this because I've always offered such information, unprompted. Various troll accounts on FE. Ben on SuscipeDomine. Patches on ABLF 1.0 and TeDeum. GuitarPlucker, Busillis, HatchC, and Rum on Cathinfo.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #222 on: September 07, 2018, 08:29:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Regime Change — American Style
    Friday - September 7, 2018 at 1:01 am


    Share Pat's Columns!


    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

    Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

    Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.

    Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:

    “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. … It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

    Speakers praised McCain’s willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!

    Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.

    Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, “What we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

    But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.



    Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward’s new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president’s intelligence, character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a “crazytown” led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.

    Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

    Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior official” claiming to be a member of the “resistance … working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump’s) agenda.”

    A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

    The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

    While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and “Anonymous,” once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

    For what is afoot here is something America specializes in — regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

    The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

    Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

    No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

    So, where are we headed?

    If November’s elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

    There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

    There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

    Then, if media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

    If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats’ septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Peℓσѕι.

    2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

    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/regime-change-american-style-130043

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #223 on: September 11, 2018, 08:01:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  10 September 2018
    Is Trump Going Neocon in Syria?
    Monday - September 10, 2018 at 10:15 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Is President Donald Trump about to intervene militarily in the Syrian cινιℓ ωαr? For that is what he and his advisers seem to be signaling.
    Last week, Trump said of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s campaign to recapture the last stronghold of the rebellion, Idlib province: “If it’s a slaughter, the world is going to get very, very angry. And the United States is going to get very angry, too.”
    In a front-page story Monday, “Assad is Planning Chlorine Attack, U.S. Says,” The Wall Street Journal reports that, during a recent meeting, “President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib.”
    Idlib contains three million civilians and refugees and 70,000 rebels, 10,000 of whom are al-Qaida.
    Friday, The Washington Post reported that Trump is changing U.S. policy. America will not be leaving Syria any time soon.
    The 2,200 U.S. troops in Syria will remain until we see “the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces and the establishment of a stable, non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians.”
    “We are not in a hurry to go,” said James Jeffrey, the retired Foreign Service officer brought back to handle the Syria account. “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.”
    President Obama had a red line against Syria’s use of poison gas, which Trump enforced with bombing runs. Now we have a new red line. Said Jeffrey, the U.S. “will not tolerate an attack. Period.”
    In an editorial Friday, the Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad’s ruthless recapture of his country “pathetically weak.” To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be “another damaging abdication of U.S. leadership.”
    What Trump seems to be signaling, the Post demanding, and Jeffrey suggesting, is that, rather than allow a bloody battle for the recapture of Idlib province to play out, the United States should engage Russian and Syrian forces militarily and force them to back off.
    On Friday, near the U.S. garrison at Tanf in southern Syria, close to Iraq, U.S. Marines conducted a live-fire exercise. Purpose: Warn Russian forces to stay away. The Americans have declared a 35-mile zone around Tanf off-limits. The Marine exercise followed a Russian notification, and U.S. rejection, of a plan to enter the zone in pursuit of “terrorists.”

    Is Trump ready to order U.S. action against Russian and Syrian forces if Assad gives his army the green light to take Idlib? For the bombing of Idlib has already begun.
    What makes this more than an academic exercise is that Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, at a meeting in Tehran last Friday, told President Erdogan of Turkey that the reconquest of Idlib is going forward.
    Erdogan fears that the Syrian army’s recapture of Idlib would send hundreds of thousands more refugees streaming to his border.
    Turkey already hosts millions of refugees from Syria’s cινιℓ ωαr.
    Yet the massing of the Syrian army near Idlib and the Russian and Syrian bombing now begun suggest that the Assad-Putin-Rouhani coalition has decided to accept the risk of a clash with the Americans in order to bring an end to the rebellion. If so, this puts the ball in America’s court.
    Words and warnings aside, is Trump prepared to take us into the Syrian cινιℓ ωαr against the forces who, absent our intervention, will have won the war? When did Congress authorize a new war?
    What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in Idlib, or in ensuring that all Iranian forces and Shiite allies are removed, or that a “non-threatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community” is established in Damascus?
    With these conditions required before our departure, we could be there for eternity.
    The Syrian cινιℓ ωαr is arguably the worst humanitarian disaster of the decade. The sooner it is ended the better. But Assad, Russia and Iran did not start this war. Nor have Syria, Russia or Iran sought a clash with U.S. forces whose mission, we were repeatedly assured, was to crush ISIS and go home.
    Trump has struck Syria twice for its use of poison gas, and U.S. officials told the Journal that Assad has now approved the use of chlorine on the rebels in Idlib. Moscow, however, is charging that a false-flag operation to unleash chlorine on civilians in Idlib is being prepared to trigger and justify U.S. intervention.
    Many in this Russophobic city would welcome a confrontation with Putin’s Russia, even more a U.S. war on Iran. But that is the opposite of what candidate Trump promised.
    It would represent a triumph of the never-Trumpers and President Trump’s relinquishing of his foreign policy to the interventionists and neoconservatives.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/is-trump-going-neocon-in-syria-130055
    I

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10512
    • Reputation: +3267/-207
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #224 on: September 14, 2018, 09:51:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  13 September 2018
    The Unpardonable Heresy of Tucker Carlson
    Thursday - September 13, 2018 at 10:52 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Our diversity is our greatest strength.
    After playing clips of Democratic politicians reciting that truth of modern liberalism, Tucker Carlson asked, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific.”
    Reaction to Carlson’s question, with some declaring him a racist for having raised it, suggests that what we are dealing with here is not a demonstrable truth but a creed not subject to debate.
    Yet the question remains valid: Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes?
    From recent decades, it seems more true to say the reverse: The more diverse a nation, the greater the danger of its disintegration.
    Ethnic diversity, after all, tore apart our mighty Cold War rival, splintering the Soviet Union into 15 nations, three of which — Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia — have since split further along ethnic lines.
    Russia had to fight two wars to hold onto Chechnya and prevent the diverse peoples of the North Caucasus from splitting off on ethnic grounds, as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan had done.
    Ethnic diversity then shattered Yugoslavia into seven separate nations.
    And even as we proclaim diversity to be our greatest strength, nations everywhere are recoiling from it.

    The rise of populism and nationalism across Europe is a reaction to the new diversity represented by the Arab, Asian and African millions who have lately come, and the tens of millions desperate to enter.
    Center-left and center-right parties are losing ground in European elections because they are seen as feckless in meeting what more and more indigenous Europeans believe to be an existential threat — mass migration from across the Med.
    Japan’s population has ceased to grow, and each year brings fewer toddlers into its schools. Yet Tokyo resists the racial and ethnic diversity greater immigration would bring. Why, if diversity is a strength?
    What South Koreans dream of is uniting again with the 22 million separated members of their national family who live in the North, but share the same history and blood.
    This summer, in its Basic Law, Israel declared itself an ethnonational state and national home of the Jєωιѕн people. African migrants crossing the Sinai to seek sanctuary in Israel are unwelcome.
    Consider China, which seeks this century to surpass America as the first power on earth. Does Xi Jinping welcome a greater racial, ethnic and cultural diversity within his county as, say, Barack Obama does in ours?
    In his western province of Xinjiang, Xi has set up an archipelago of detention camps. Purpose: Re-educate his country’s Uighurs and Kazakhs by purging them of their religious and tribal identities, and making them and their children more like Han Chinese in allegiance to the Communist Party and Chinese nation.
    Xi fears that the 10 million Uighurs of Xinjiang, as an ethnic and religious minority, predominantly Muslim, wish to break away and establish an East Turkestan, a nation of their own, out of China. And he is correct.
    What China is doing is brutalitarian. But what China is saying with its ruthless policy is that diversity — religious, racial, cultural — can break us apart as it did the USSR. And we are not going to let that happen.
    Do the Buddhists of Myanmar cherish the religious diversity that the Muslim Rohingya of Rakhine State bring to their country?
    America has always been more than an idea, an ideology or a propositional nation. It is a country that belongs to a separate and identifiable people with its own history, heroes, holidays, symbols, songs, myths, mores — its own culture.
    Again, where is the evidence that the more Americans who can trace their roots to the Third World, and not to Europe, the stronger we will be?
    Is the Britain of Theresa May, with its new racial, religious and ethnic diversity, a stronger nation than was the U.K. of Lloyd George, which ruled a fourth of mankind in 1920?
    Was it not the unity Bismarck forged among the diverse Germanic peoples, bringing them into a single nation under the Kaiser in 1871, that made Germany a far stronger and more formidable power in Europe?
    Empires, confederations and alliances are multiethnic and multicultural. And, inevitably, their diversity pulls them apart.
    The British Empire was the greatest in modern history. What tore it apart? Tribalism, the demands of diverse peoples, rooted in blood and soil, to be rid of foreign rule and to have their own place in the sun.
    And who are loudest in preaching that our diversity is our strength?
    Are they not the same people who told us that democracy was the destiny of all mankind and that, as the world’s “exceptional nation,” we must seize the opportunity of our global preeminence to impose its blessings on the less enlightened tribes of the Middle East and Hindu Kush?
    If the establishment is proven wrong about greater diversity bringing greater strength to America, there will be no do-over for the USA.