Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 29668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5881
  • Reputation: +3231/-167
  • Gender: Male
  • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    • Julian Moore
Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2017, 12:51:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: klasG4e
    Imagine if Pat ever did a slam dunk in telling the truth about 9-11: who planned it, who executed it, and who covered it up.  Even the courageous Congressman JamesTraficant never seemed to be able to bring himself to telling us flat out who it was who was really behind 9-11. Ex-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was perhaps the only member of Congress who ever nailed it and nailed it publicly on 9-11.

    According to wikipedia, less than half of the people polled believe in the official story of 9-11. Of those who do not believe it, the largest number of them say they did not know who did it, followed by those who think the US government did it, and then there are those who think Israel did it and those who think someone else did it.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #46 on: February 04, 2017, 02:34:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matto
    Quote
    According to wikipedia, less than half of the people polled believe in the official story of 9-11. Of those who do not believe it, the largest number of them say they did not know who did it, followed by those who think the US government did it, and then there are those who think Israel did it and those who think someone else did it.

    Good thing we always have jewpedia uh....I mean wikipedia to rely on.  In any event,  hopefully a good majority of people on CathInfo realize it was an inside/outside job -- Zionist (gentile and Jew) money/power grubbing neo-cons in the U.S. working in unison with the hard core Zionist power elite (via Mossad and 3rd party contractors) in Israel.


    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #47 on: February 07, 2017, 10:36:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Moral Supremacy of Mr. Putin

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Is Donald Trump to be allowed to craft a foreign policy based on the ideas on which he ran and won the presidency in 2016?

    Our foreign policy elite’s answer appears to be a thunderous no.

    Case in point: U.S. relations with Russia.

    During the campaign Trump was clear. He would seek closer ties with Russia and cooperate with Vladimir Putin in smashing al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists in Syria, and leave Putin’s ally Bashar Assad alone.

    With this diplomatic deal in mind, President Trump has resisted efforts to get him to call Putin a “thug” or a “murderer.”

    Asked during his taped Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly whether he respected Putin, Trump said that, as a leader, yes.

    O’Reilly pressed, “But he’s a killer, though. Putin’s a killer.”

    To which Trump replied, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

    While his reply was clumsy, Trump’s intent was commendable.

    If he is to negotiate a modus vivendi with a nation with an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to end life as we know it in the USA, probably not a good idea to start off by calling its leader a “killer.”

    Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.

    Apparently referring to a polonium poisoning of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko, Marco Rubio tweeted, “When has a Democratic political activist ever been poisoned by the GOP? Or vice versa?”

    Yet, as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig.

    When President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, did Ike denounce him as the “Butcher of Budapest” for his massacre of the Hungarian patriots in 1956?

    Did President Nixon, while negotiating his trip to Peking to end decades of hostility, speak the unvarnished truth about Mao Zedong — that he was a greater mass murderer than Stalin?

    While Nixon was in Peking, Mao was conducting his infamous Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that resulted in millions of deaths, a years-long pogrom that dwarfed the two-day Kristallnacht. Yet Mao’s crimes went unmentioned in Nixon’s toast to America and China starting a “long march” together.

    John McCain calls Putin a KGB thug, “a murderer, and a killer.”

    Yet, Yuri Andropov, the Soviet ambassador in Budapest who engineered the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels with Russian tanks, became head of the KGB. And when he rose to general secretary of the Communist Party, Ronald Reagan wanted to talk to him, as he had wanted to talk to every Soviet leader.

    Why? Because Reagan believed the truly moral thing he could do was negotiate to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

    He finally met Gorbachev in 1985, when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots.

    The problem with some of our noisier exponents of “American exceptionalism” is that they lack Reagan’s moral maturity.

    Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War. But were we ourselves without sin in those just struggles?

    Was it not at least morally problematic what we did to Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of women and children were blasted and burned to death?

    How many innocent Iraqis have perished in the 13 years of war we began, based on falsified or fake evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?

    In Russia, there have been murders of journalists and dissidents. Yes, and President Rodrigo Duterte, our Philippine ally, has apparently condoned the deaths of thousands of drug dealers and users since last summer.

    The Philippine Catholic Church calls it “a reign of terror.”

    Should we sever our treaty ties to the Duterte regime?

    Have there been any extrajudicial killings in the Egypt of our ally Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi since he overthrew the elected government?

    Has our Turkish ally, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, killed no innocents in his sweeping repression since last summer’s attempted coup?

    Some of us remember a Cold War in which Gen. Augusto Pinochet dealt summarily with our common enemies in Chile, and when the Savak of our ally the Shah of Iran was not a 501(c)(3) organization.

    Sen. Rubio notwithstanding, the CIA has not been a complete stranger to “wet” operations or “terminating with extreme prejudice.”

    Was it not LBJ who said of the Kennedys, who had arranged multiple assassination attempts of Fidel Castro, that they had been “operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean”?

    If Trump’s talking to Putin can help end the bloodshed in Ukraine or Syria, it would appear to be at least as ethical an act as pulpiteering about our moral superiority on the Sunday talk shows.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/moral-supremacy-mr-putin-126508

    Trump is correct that we did our share of killing. Executing false wars
    in the middle east against Iraq under false pretenses.  Drone killings
    mostly innocent people such as wedding parties. Supporting and
    supplying weapons to ISIS.
    Even Obama bragged about killing people.  A former Secretary
    of State Albright said that causing the deaths of innocent Iraqi
    Children was worth it  through the sanctions that prevented food
    and medical supplies from getting to them.
    Just because you did not read this on the mainstream media
    does not mean it did not happen.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #48 on: February 07, 2017, 10:50:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Spot on Pat!.  Excellent column!  O'Reilley is nothing more than a paid thug.

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #49 on: February 10, 2017, 11:46:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trump Must Break Judicial Power

    2-9-2017

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

    A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

    Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

    Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

    Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

    Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

    These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

    They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”

    Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.

    For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.

    And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

    As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.

    Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase who had presided over one of the trials.

    Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

    When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

    FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.

    President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.

    Whether the rollout of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.

    That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.

    When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are — usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.

    Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed — and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.

    Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.

    Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.

    A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

    Share Pat's Columns!



    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2200
    • Reputation: +1272/-216
    • Gender: Male
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #50 on: February 10, 2017, 12:33:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Federal judges are almost never disciplined and they serve for life.  A good formula to promote real arrogance!  Aside, from that many of them -- and I mean MANY of them -- are freemasons and they have a hugely inordinate number of the Tribe within their ranks.:A good formula for a highly corrupt federal judiciary!
     

























    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #51 on: February 17, 2017, 08:35:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://buchanan.org/blog/deep-state-targets-trump-126550

    The Deep State Targets Trump

    2/16/17

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national security adviser, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, “If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”

    To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties.

    Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls “The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn.”

    And what were Flynn’s offenses?

    In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations.

    “That’s neither illegal nor improper,” writes Lake.

    Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that there would be no reciprocal expulsions and U.S. diplomats and their families would be welcome at the Kremlin’s Christmas and New Year’s parties.

    Diplomatic crisis averted. “Great move … (by V. Putin),” tweeted Trump, “I always knew he was very smart.”

    But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state.

    For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn’s call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to The Washington Post.

    After seeing the transcript, the White House concluded that Flynn had misled Pence, mutual trust was gone, and Flynn must go.

    Like a good soldier, Flynn took the bullet.

    The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national security adviser spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president’s thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career.

    “This is what police states do,” writes Lake.

    But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.

    For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.

    Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan’s INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

    Purpose: Stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, “President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to … return Crimea.”

    Is the White House serious?

    Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving East Jerusalem back to Jordan.

    How does the deep state go about its work? We have seen a classic example with Flynn. The intelligence and investigative arms of the regime dig up dirt, and then move it to their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment immunity to get it out.

    For violating their oaths and breaking the law, bureaucratic saboteurs are hailed as “whistleblowers” while the journalists who receive the fruits of their felonies put in for Pulitzers.

    Now if Russians hacked into the DNC and John Podesta’s computer during the campaign, and, more seriously, if Trump aides colluded in any such scheme, it should be investigated.

    But we should not stop there. Those in the FBI, Justice Department and intelligence agencies who were complicit in a conspiracy to leak the contents of Flynn’s private conversations in order to bring down the national security adviser should be exposed and prosecuted.

    An independent counsel should be appointed by the attorney general and a grand jury impaneled to investigate what Trump himself rightly calls “criminal” misconduct in the security agencies.

    As for interfering in elections, how clean are our hands?

    Our own CIA has a storied history of interfering in elections. In the late ’40s, we shoveled cash into France and Italy after World War II to defeat the Communists who had been part of the wartime resistance to the Nazis and Fascists.

    And we succeeded. But we continued these practices after the Cold War ended. In this century, our National Endowment for Democracy, which dates to the Reagan era, has backed “color revolutions” and “regime change” in nations across what Russia regards as her “near abroad.”

    NED’s continued existence appears a contradiction of Trump’s inaugural declaration: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone.”

    The president and GOP should get out front here. Let Congress investigate Russia meddling in our election. And let a special prosecutor run down, root out, expose and indict those in the investigative and intel agencies who used their custody of America’s secrets, in collusion with press collaborators, to take down Trump appointees who are on their enemies lists.

    Then put NED down.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #52 on: February 21, 2017, 02:23:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is a Trump-Putin Detente Dead?

    2-20-17

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-putin-detente-dead-126561

    By Patrick J Buchanan

    Among the reasons Donald Trump is president is that he read the nation and the world better than his rivals.

    He saw the surging power of American nationalism at home, and of ethnonationalism in Europe. And he embraced Brexit.

    While our bipartisan establishment worships diversity, Trump saw Middle America recoiling from the demographic change brought about by Third World invasions. And he promised to curb them.

    While our corporatists burn incense at the shrine of the global economy, Trump went to visit the working-class casualties. And those forgotten Americans in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, responded.

    And while Bush II and President Obama plunged us into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Trump saw that his countrymen wanted to be rid of the endless wars, and start putting America first.

    He offered a new foreign policy. Mitt Romney notwithstanding, said Trump, Putin’s Russia is not “our number one geopolitical foe.”

    Moreover, that 67-year-old NATO alliance that commits us to go to war to defend two dozen nations, not one of whom contributes the same share of GDP as do we to national defense, is “obsolete.”

    Many of these folks are freeloaders, said Trump. He hopes to work with Russia against our real enemies, al-Qaida and ISIS.

    This was the agenda Americans voted for. But what raises doubt about whether Trump can follow through on his commitments is the size and virulence of the anti-Trump forces in this city.

    Consider his plan to pursue a rapprochement with Russia such as Ike, JFK at American University, Nixon and Reagan all pursued in a Cold War with a far more menacing Soviet Empire.

    America’s elites still praise FDR for partnering with one of the great mass murderers of human history, Stalin, to defeat Hitler. They still applaud Nixon for going to China to achieve a rapprochement with the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Zedong.

    Yet Trump is not to be allowed to achieve a partnership with Putin, whose great crime was a bloodless retrieval of a Crimea that had belonged to Russia since the 18th century.

    The anti-Putin paranoia here is astonishing.

    That he is a killer, a KGB thug, a murderer, is part of the daily rant of John McCain. At the Munich Security Conference this last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham promised, “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.” How’s that for statesmanship.

    But how does a president negotiate a modus vivendi with a rival great power when the leaders of his own party are sabotaging him and his efforts?

    As for the mainstream media, they appear bent upon the ruin of Trump, and the stick with which they mean to beat him to death is this narrative:

    Trump is the Siberian Candidate, the creature of Putin and the Kremlin. His ties to the Russians are old and deep. It was to help Trump that Russia hacked the DNC and the computer of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, and saw to it WikiLeaks got the emails out to the American people during the campaign. Trump’s people secretly collaborated with Russian agents.

    Believing Putin robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, Democrats are bent on revenge — on Putin and Trump.

    And the epidemic of Russophobia makes it almost impossible to pursue normal relations. Indeed, in reaction to the constant attacks on them as poodles of Putin, the White House seems to be toughening up toward Russia.

    Thus we see U.S. troops headed for Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, NATO troops being sent into the Baltic States, and new tough rhetoric from the White House about Russia having to restore Crimea to Ukraine. We read of Russian spy ships off the coast, Russian planes buzzing U.S. warships in the Black Sea, Russians deploying missiles outlawed by the arms control agreement of 1987.

    An Ohio-class U.S. sub just test-fired four Trident missiles, which carry thermonuclear warheads, off the Pacific coast.

    Any hope of cutting a deal for a truce in east Ukraine, a lifting of sanctions, and bringing Russia back into Europe seems to be fading.

    Where Russians saw hope with Trump’s election, they are now apparently yielding to disillusionment and despair.

    The question arises: If not toward better relations with Russia, where are we going with this bellicosity?

    Russia is not going to give up Crimea. Not only would Putin not do it, the Russian people would abandon him if he did.

    What then is the end goal of this bristling Beltway hostility to Putin and Russia, and the U.S.-NATO buildup in the Baltic and Black Sea regions? Is a Cold War II with Russia now an accepted and acceptable reality?

    Where are the voices among Trump’s advisers who will tell him to hold firm against the Russophobic tide and work out a deal with the Russian president?

    For a second cold war with Russia, its back up against a wall, may not end quite so happily as the first.

    Share Pat's Columns!



    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #53 on: February 28, 2017, 08:35:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://buchanan.org/blog/lavrov-vs-mccain-russia-enemy-126589

    Lavrov vs. McCain: Is Russia an Enemy?

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    The founding fathers of the Munich Security Conference, said John McCain, would be “be alarmed by the turning away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.”

    McCain was followed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who called for a “post-West world order.” Russia has “immense potential” for that said Lavrov, “we’re open for that inasmuch as the U.S. is open.”

    Now McCain is not wrong. Nationalism is an idea whose time has come again. Those “old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism” do seem everywhere ascendant. But that is a reality we must recognize and deal with. Deploring it will not make it go away.

    But what are these “universal values” McCain is talking about?

    Democracy? The free elections in India gave power to Hindu nationalists. In Palestine, Hamas. In Lebanon, Hezbollah. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, then overthrown in a military coup welcomed by the world’s oldest and greatest democracy. Have we forgotten it was a democratically elected government we helped to overthrow in Kiev?

    Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, autocrat of Ankara, a NATO ally.

    Is freedom of religion a “universal value”?

    Preach or proselytize for Christianity in much of the Islamic world and you are a candidate for martyrdom. Practice freedom of speech in Xi Jinping’s China and you can wind up in a cell.

    As for the Western belief in the equality of all voluntary sexual relations, in some African and Muslim countries, homosexuals are beheaded and adulterers stoned to death.

    In Nuristan Province in U.S.-liberated Afghanistan this month, an armed mob of 300 besieged a jail, shot three cops and dragged out an 18-year-old woman who had eloped with her lover to escape an arranged marriage. Beaten by relatives, the girl was shot by an older brother with a hunting rifle and by a younger brother with his AK-47.

    Afghan family values.

    Her lover was turned over to the husband. An “honor killing,” and, like suicide bombings, not uncommon in a world where many see such actions as commendable in the sight of Allah.

    McCain calls himself an “unapologetic believer in the West” who refuses “to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries.”

    Lavrov seemed to be saying this:

    Reality requires us here in Munich to recognize that, in the new struggle for the world, Russia and the U.S. are natural allies not natural enemies. Though we may quarrel over Crimea and the Donbass, we are in the same boat. Either we sail together, or sink together.

    Does the foreign minister not have a point?

    Unlike the Cold War, Moscow does not command a world empire. Though a nuclear superpower still, she is a nation whose GDP is that of Spain and whose population of fewer than 150 million is shrinking. And Russia threatens no U.S. vital interest.

    Where America is besieged by millions of illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico, Russia faces to her south 1.3 billion Chinese looking hungrily at resource-rich Siberia and Russia’s Far East.

    The China that is pushing America and its allies out of the East and South China Seas is also building a new Silk Road through former Russian and Soviet provinces in Central Asia. With an estimated 16 million Muslims, Russia is threatened by the same terrorists, and is far closer to the Middle East, the source of Sunni terror.

    Is Putin’s Russia an enemy, as McCain seems to believe?

    Before we can answer that question, we need to know what the new world struggle is about, who the antagonists are, and what the threats are to us.

    If we believe the struggle is for “global democracy” and “human rights,” then that may put Putin on the other side. But how then can we be allies of President el-Sissi of Egypt and Erdogan of Turkey, and the kings, emirs and sultans of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman?

    But if the new world struggle is about defending ourselves and our civilization, Russia would appear to be not only a natural ally, but a more critical and powerful one than that crowd in Kiev.

    In August 1914, Europe plunged into a 50-month bloodbath over an assassinated archduke. In 1939, Britain and France declared war to keep Poland from having to give up a Prussian port, Danzig, taken from Germany under the duress of a starvation blockade in 1919 and in clear violation of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Danzigers’ right of self-determination. In the two wars, 50 million to 100 million died.

    Today, the United States is confronting Russia, a huge and natural ally, over a peninsula that had belonged to her since the 18th century and is 5,000 miles from the United States.

    “We have immense potential that has yet to be tapped into,” volunteered Lavrov. But to deal, we must have “mutual respect.”

    Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #54 on: March 03, 2017, 10:15:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It’s Trump’s Party, Now
    Thursday - March 2, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Before the largest audience of his political career, save perhaps his inaugural, Donald Trump delivered the speech of his life.

    And though Tuesday’s address may be called moderate, even inclusive, Trump’s total mastery of his party was on full display.

    Congressional Republicans who once professed “free-trade” as dogmatic truth rose again and again to cheer economic nationalism.

    “We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved,” thundered Trump, “and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.”

    Yet a Republican party that embraced NAFTA and voted MFN for China every time it came up gave Trump standing ovations.

    “(W)e have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters,” said Trump, “America has spent approximately six trillion dollars in the Middle East — all the while our infrastructure at home is crumbling.”

    And from Congressional Republicans who backed every Bush-Obama war — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — not a peep of protest, as their foreign policy legacy was being consigned to the dumpster.

    Watching Republicans rise again and again to hail Trump called to mind the Frankish King Clovis who, believing his wife’s Christian God had interceded to give him victory over the Alemanni, saw his army converted by the battalions and baptized by the platoons.

    One had thought the free-trade beliefs of Republicans were more deeply rooted than this.

    “We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Trump exulted, having just tossed into the trash that mammoth trade deal beloved of Bush Republicans.

    GOP champions of the TPP, if there are any left, sat mute.

    Trump cited the first Republican president, Lincoln, as having got it right when he warned, “abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government (will) produce want and ruin among our people.”

    Celebrating protectionism, hailing “America First!” in a virtual State of the Union address — it doesn’t get any better than this.

    To open-borders Republicans who backed amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants, Trump had this message, “We will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border.”

    And the cheering did not stop.

    The president invoked Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System, the greatest public works project of the 20th century, as a model.

    Yet Ike was opposed by the Taft wing of his party and Ike’s republicanism gave birth to the modern conservative movement.

    Yet, in leading Republicans away from globalism to economic nationalism, Trump is not writing a new gospel. He is leading a lost party away from a modernist heresy — back to the Old-Time Religion.

    In restating his commitment to the issues that separated him from the other Republicans and won him Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, however, Trump reaffirmed aspects of conservatism dear to his audience.

    He committed himself to regulatory reform, freeing up the private sector, rolling back the administrative state. The Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines are on the way to completion. And Trump is all behind school choice.

    While the speech was unifying and aspirational, the president set goals and laid down markers by which his presidency will be judged.

    And none will be easy of attainment.

    “Dying industries will come roaring back to life. … Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways … Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and, ultimately, stop. … Our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity.”

    As some of these domestic crises are rooted in the character, or lack of it, of people, they have proven, since Great Society days, to be beyond the capacity of government to solve.

    Ronald Reagan was not wrong when he said, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”

    And while the president’s speech astonished critics as much as it reassured friends, it leaves large questions unanswered.

    How does one leave Social Security and Medicare untouched, grow defense by more than $50 billion, slash taxes, launch a $1 trillion infrastructure program — and not explode the deficit and national debt?

    Now that we are ensnared in wars all over the Middle East, how do we extricate ourselves and come home without our enemies filling the vacuum?

    How does the GOP repeal and replace Obamacare without cutting the benefits upon which millions of Americans have come to rely?

    How do you eliminate an $800 billion merchandise trade deficit without tariffs that raise the price of cheap imports from abroad — on which Trump’s working-class voters have come to depend?

    The Republican establishment today bends the knee to Caesar.

    But how long before K Street lobbyists for transnational cartels persuade the GOP elite, with campaign contributions, to slow-walk the president’s America First agenda?

    Tuesday’s speech established Trump as the man in charge.

    But how loyal to him and his program will be the “deep state,” which dominates this city that gave Trump only 4 percent of its votes and, paranoically, believes him to be an agent of Vladimir Putin?

    The Trump-Beltway wars have only just begun.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-party-now-126618

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #55 on: March 07, 2017, 04:12:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Beltway Conspiracy to Break Trump

    3-6-17

    http://buchanan.org/blog/beltway-conspiracy-break-trump-126646

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    At Mar-a-Lago this weekend President Donald Trump was filled “with fury” says The Washington Post, “mad — steaming, raging, mad.”

    Early Saturday the fuming president exploded with this tweet: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

    The president has reason to be enraged. For what is afoot is a loose but broad conspiracy to break and bring him down, abort his populist agenda, and overturn the results of the 2016 election.

    At its heart is the “deep state” — agents of the intel community, their media collaborators, and their amen corner in a Democratic party whose control of our permanent government is all but total.

    At the heart of the case against Trump is what appears to be a Big Lie.

    It is that Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s email account, then colluded with Trump’s friends or associates to systematically sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Therefore, Trump stole the election and is an illegitimate president. In this city, Trump is looked upon as a border-jumper, an illegal alien.

    Yet let us consider the constituent components of the charge.

    For months, we have heard that U.S. intel agencies agree that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, and gave the fruits of their cybertheft to WikiLeaks, because Putin wanted Trump to win.

    For months, this storyline has been investigated by the FBI and the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.

    Yet where is the body of evidence that the Russians did this?

    More critically, where is the evidence Trump’s people played an active role in the operation? Why is it taking the FBI the better part of a year to come up with a single indictment in this Trump-Putin plot?

    Is this all smoke and mirrors?

    In late February, The New York Times reported that Trump officials had been in regular touch with Russian intelligence officers.

    The smoking gun had been found!

    Yet, almost immediately after that report, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News “the top levels of the intelligence community” had assured him that the allegations of campaign contacts with Russia were “not only grossly overstated, but also wrong.”

    If what Reince says is true, the real crime here is U.S. security officials enlisting their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment privileges against having to testify under oath or being prosecuted, to undermine the elected commander in chief.

    Now we expect Russia to seek to steal our secrets as we steal theirs. After all, our NSA wiretapped Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Our National Endowment for Democracy pushes “color revolutions” to bring about regime change in the near abroad of Putin’s Russian Federation.

    Our NGOs are being restricted, shut down, expelled from Russia, China, Israel and Egypt, because they have been caught interfering in the internal affairs of those countries.

    There is talk that Putin use the pilfered emails as payback for Clinton’s urging demonstrators to take to the streets of Moscow to protest a narrow victory by his United Russia party in 2011.

    As for the alleged wiretapping of Trump Tower, President Obama has denied ordering any such thing and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assures us nothing of the sort was ever done.

    Yet, there are other reports that intelligence officials got a warrant to surveil Trump campaign officials or the Trump Tower, and, though failing to succeed in the FISA court that authorizes such surveillance in June, they did succeed in October.

    If true, this is a far more explosive matter than whether a Trump aide may have told the Russians, “You’re doing a great job!” when WikiLeaks blew DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of her job for tilting the playing field against Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

    What needs to be done now?

    The White House should tell the Justice Department to tell the FBI to expedite its investigation and file a report on what was done by the Russians. And if any Trump campaign official criminally colluded with the Russians, send the recommendation to indict to Justice.

    The acting attorney general should instruct Director James Comey to run down, remove and recommend for prosecution any FBI or intel agent who has leaked the fruits of their investigation, or fake news, to the media. If Comey cannot find the source of the leaks, or lies, coming out of this investigation, a housecleaning may be needed at the bureau.

    While President Obama may not have ordered any surveillance of Trump or his advisors, the real question is whether he or Attorney General Loretta Lynch were aware of or approved of any surveillance of Trump and his staff during the campaign.

    Russian hacking of the DNC is a problem, not a scandal. The scandal is this: Who inside the government of the United States is trying to discredit, damage or destroy the President of the United States?

    For these are the real subversives.

    Share Pat's Columns!


    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #56 on: March 10, 2017, 10:13:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is a Korean Missile Crisis Ahead?

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    To back up Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis’ warning last month, that the U.S. “remains steadfast in its commitment” to its allies, President Donald Trump is sending B-1 and B-52 bombers to Korea.

    Some 300,000 South Korean and 15,000 U.S. troops have begun their annual Foal Eagle joint war exercises that run through April.

    “The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way,” says Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, “Are (they) really ready for a head-on collision?”

    So it would seem.

    It is Kim Jong Un, 33-year-old grandson of that Stalinist state’s founding father, who launched the first Korean War, who brought on this confrontation.

    In February, Kim’s half-brother was assassinated in Malaysia in a VX nerve agent attack and five of Kim’s security officials were executed with anti-aircraft guns. Monday, Kim launched four missiles toward U.S. bases, with three landing in the Sea of Japan.

    U.S. response: Begin immediate deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile shield in Korea.

    This set off alarms in China. For while THAAD cannot shoot down Scuds on the DMZ, its radar can detect missile launches inside China, thereby, says Beijing, imperiling her deterrent.

    For accepting THAAD, China has imposed sanctions on Seoul, and promised the U.S. a commensurate strategic response.

    Minister Wang’s proposal for resolving the crisis: The U.S. and Seoul cancel the exercises and North Korea suspends the nuclear and missile tests.

    How did we reach this crisis point?

    In his 2002 “axis of evil” address, George W. Bush declared, “The United States … will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

    He then launched a war on Iraq, which had no such weapons. But North Korea, hearing Bush’s threat, built and tested five atom bombs and scores of missiles, a few of intercontinental range.

    Pyongyang has tested new presidents before.

    In April 1969, North Korea shot down a U.S. EC-121 over the Sea of Japan, killing its entire crew. President Nixon, a war in Vietnam on his hands, let it pass, which he regretted ever after.

    But this crisis raises larger questions about U.S. foreign policy.

    Why, a quarter of a century after the Cold War, do we still have 28,000 troops in Korea? Not only does South Korea have twice the population of the North, but an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons far superior to any in the North.

    Why should Americans on the DMZ be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Should the North attack the South, could we not honor our treaty obligations with air and naval power offshore?

    Gen. James Mattis’ warning last month was unambiguous:

    “Any attack on the United States or our allies will be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a response that would be effective and overwhelming.”

    JFK’s phrase in the Cuban crisis, “full retaliatory response,” comes to mind.

    Hence the next move is up to Kim.

    New tests by North Korea of missiles or atom bombs for an ICBM could bring U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities and missile sites, igniting an attack on the South.

    For China, this crisis, whether it leads to war, a U.S. buildup in the South, or a U.S. withdrawal from Korea, is problematic.

    Beijing cannot sit by and let her North Korean ally be bombed, nor can it allow U.S. and South Korean forces to defeat the North, bring down the regime, and unite the peninsula, with U.S. and South Korean soldiers sitting on the Yalu, as they did in 1950 before Mao ordered his Chinese army into Korea.

    However, should U.S. forces withdraw from the South, Seoul might build her own nuclear arsenal, followed by Japan. For Tokyo could not live with two Koreas possessing nukes, while she had none.

    This could leave China contained by nuclear neighbors: to the north, Russia, to the south, India, to the east, South Korea and Japan. And America offshore.

    What this crisis reveals is that China has as great an interest in restraining North Korea as do we.

    While the United States cannot back down, it is difficult to reconcile a second Korean war with our America first policy. Which is why some of us have argued for decades that the United States should moves its forces out of South Korea and off the Asian continent.

    Events in Asia — Chinese claims to reefs and rocks in the South and East China Seas and North Korea’s menacing her neighbors — are pushing us toward a version of the Nixon Doctrine declared in Guam in 1969 that is consistent with America first:

    While we will provide the arms for friends and allies to fight in their own defense in any future wars, henceforth, they will provide the troops.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/korean-missile-crisis-ahead-126662

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #57 on: March 14, 2017, 10:42:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Turkey Lost to the West?

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    Not long ago, a democratizing Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, appeared on track to join the European Union.

    That’s not likely now, or perhaps ever.

    Last week, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan compared Angela Merkel’s Germany to Hitler’s, said the Netherlands was full of “Nazi remnants” and “fascists,” and suggested the Dutch ambassador go home.

    What precipitated Erdogan’s outbursts?

    City officials in Germany refused to let him campaign in Turkish immigrant communities on behalf of an April 16 referendum proposal to augment his powers.

    When the Netherlands denied Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu landing rights, he exploded, saying: “The Netherlands … are reminiscent of the Europe of World War II. The same racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.”

    When Turkey’s family and social policies minister, Betul Sayan Kaya, drove from Germany to Rotterdam to campaign, Dutch police blocked her from entering the Turkish consulate and escorted her back to Germany.

    Liberal Europeans see Erdogan’s referendum as a power grab by an unpredictable and volatile ruler who has fired 100,000 civil servants and jailed 40,000 Turks after last summer’s attempted coup, and is converting his country into a dictatorship.


    This crisis was tailor-made for Geert Wilders, the anti-EU, anti-Muslim Dutch nationalist who is on the ballot in Wednesday’s Dutch general election.

    Claiming credit for the tough stance of conservative Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Wilders tweeted: “I am telling all Turks in the Netherlands that agree with Erdogan: GO to Turkey and NEVER come back!”

    “Wilders is a racist, fascist Nazi,” replied Cavusoglu.

    Wilders had been fading from his front-runner position, but this episode may have brought him back. While no major Dutch party would join a government led by Wilders, if he runs first in the election March 15, the shock to Europe would be tremendous.

    Rutte, however, who dominated the media through the weekend confrontation with the Turks, could be the beneficiary, as a resurgent nationalism pulls all parties toward the right.

    All Europe now seems to be piling on the Turks. Danes, Swedes and Swiss are taking Europe’s side against Erdogan.

    comments….

    Marine Le Pen, leader of the populist National Front in France, called on the socialist regime to deny Turkish leaders permission to campaign in Turkish communities. She was echoed by conservative party candidate Francois Fillon, whose once-bright hopes for the presidency all but collapsed after it was learned his wife and children had held do-nothing jobs on the government payroll.

    On April 23 comes the first round of the French elections. And one outcome appears predictable. Neither of the major parties — the socialists of President Francois Hollande or the Republicans of ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy — may make it into the May 7 finals.

    Le Pen, the anti-EU populist who would lift sanctions on Putin’s Russia, is running even with 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron, a socialist running as the independent leader of a new movement.

    Should Le Pen run first in April, the shock to Europe would be far greater than when her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, made the finals in 2002.

    At the end of 2017, neither Wilders nor Le Pen is likely to be in power, but the forces driving their candidacies are growing stronger.

    Foremost among these is the gnawing ethnonational fear across Europe that the migration from the South — Maghreb, the Middle East and the sub-Sahara — is unstoppable and will eventually swamp the countries, cultures and civilization of Europe and the West.

    The ugly and brutal diplomatic confrontation with Turkey may make things worse, as the Turks, after generous payments from Germany, have kept Syrian civil war refugees from crossing its borders into Europe. Should Ankara open the gates, a new immigration crisis could engulf Europe this spring and summer.

    Other ethnonational crises are brewing in a familiar place, the Balkans, among the successor states born of the 1990s breakup of Yugoslavia.

    In Bosnia, secessionists seek to pull the Serb Republic away from Sarajevo toward Belgrade. The Albanian minority in Macedonia is denouncing political discrimination. The Serbs left behind after Kosovo broke loose in 1999, thanks to 78 days of U.S. bombing of Serbia, have never been reconciled to their fate.

    Montenegro has charged Russia with backing an attempted coup late last year to prevent the tiny nation from joining NATO.

    The Financial Times sees Vladimir Putin’s hand in what is going on in the Western Balkans, where World War I was ignited with the June 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo.

    The upshot of all this:

    Turkey, a powerful and reliable ally of the U.S. through the Cold War, appears to be coming unmoored from Europe and the West, and is becoming increasingly sectarian, autocratic and nationalistic.

    While anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties across Europe may not take power anywhere in 2017, theirs is now a permanent and growing presence, leeching away support from centrist parties left and right.

    With Russia’s deepening ties to populist and nationalist parties across Europe, from Paris to Istanbul, Vlad is back in the game.

    Share Pat's Columns!


    http://buchanan.org/blog/turkey-lost-west-126676

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #58 on: March 17, 2017, 07:38:36 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is McCain Hijacking Trump’s Foreign Policy?
    Thursday - March 16, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    “The senator from Kentucky,” said John McCain, speaking of his colleague Rand Paul, “is working for Vladimir Putin … and I do not say that lightly.”

    What did Sen. Paul do to deserve being called a hireling of Vladimir Putin?

    He declined to support McCain’s call for a unanimous Senate vote to bring Montenegro into NATO as the 29th member of a Cold War alliance President Trump has called “obsolete.”

    Bordered by Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo and Albania, tiny Montenegro has a population roughly that of D.C., and sits on the western coast of the most volatile peninsula in Europe.

    What strategic benefit would accrue from having Montenegro as an ally that would justify the risk of our having to go to war should some neighbor breach Montenegro’s borders?

    Historically, the Balkans have been an incubator of war. In the 19th century, Otto van Bismarck predicted that when the Great War came, it would come out of “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.” And so it did when the Austrian archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo June 28, 1914 by Serbian ethnonationalist Gavrilo Princip.

    Aflame with ethnic, civil and sectarian war in the 1990s, the western Balkans are again in political turmoil. Milo Djukanovic, the longtime Montenegrin prime minister who resigned on election day in October, claims that he was targeted for assassination by Russia to prevent Montenegro’s accession to NATO.

    Russia denies it. But on the Senate floor, McCain raged at Rand Paul: “You are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin … trying to dismember this small country which has already been the subject of an attempted coup.”

    But if Montenegro, awash in corruption and crime, is on the verge of an uprising or coup, why would the U.S. issue a war guarantee that could vault us into a confrontation with Russia — without a full Senate debate?

    The vote that needs explaining here is not Rand Paul’s.

    It is the votes of those senators who are handing out U.S.-NATO war guarantees to countries most Americans could not find on a map.

    Is no one besides Sen. Paul asking the relevant questions here?

    What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in who comes to power in Podgorica, Montenegro? Why cannot Europe handle this problem in its own back yard?

    Has President Trump given McCain, who wanted President Bush to intervene in a Russia-Georgia war — over South Ossetia! — carte blanche to hand out war guarantees to unstable Balkan states?

    Did Trump approve the expansion of NATO into all the successor states born of the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia?

    Or is McCain hijacking U.S. foreign policy on NATO and Russia?

    President Trump should tell the Senate: No more admissions to NATO, no more U.S. war guarantees, unless I have recommended or approved them. Foreign policy is made in the White House, not on the Senate floor.

    Indeed, what happened to the foreign policy America voted for — rapprochement with Russia, an end to U.S. wars in the Middle East, and having rich allies share more of the cost of their own defense?

    It is U.S., not NATO defense spending that is rising to more than $50 billion this year. And today we learn the Pentagon has drawn up plans for the insertion of 1,000 more U.S. troops into Syria. While the ISIS caliphate seems doomed, this six-year Syrian war is far from over.

    An al-Qaida subsidiary, the Nusra Front, has become the most formidable rebel fighting group. Syria’s army, with the backing of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from across the Middle East, has carved out most of the territory it needs.

    The Turkish army is now in Syria, beside its rebel allies. Their main enemy: Syria’s Kurds, who are America’s allies.

    From our longest war, Afghanistan, comes word from U.S. Gen. John Nicholson that we and our Afghan allies are in a “stalemate” with the Taliban, and he will need a “few thousand” more U.S. troops — to augment the 8,500 President Obama left behind when he left office.

    Some 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, helping to liberate Mosul from ISIS. In Kabul, Baghdad and Damascus, terrorist bombings are a weekly, if not a daily, occurrence.

    Then there is the U.S. troop buildup in Poland and the Baltic, the U.S. deployment of a missile defense to South Korea after multiple missile tests in the North, and Russia and China talking of upgrading their nuclear arsenals to counter U.S. missile defenses in Poland, Romania and South Korea.

    In and around the waters of the Persian Gulf, United States warships are harassed by Iranian patrol boats, as Tehran test-fires anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to send the Americans a message: Attack us and it will not be a cakewalk war.

    With the death of Communism, the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Bushite New World Order, America needs a new grand strategy, built upon the solid foundation of America First.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/mccain-hijacking-trumps-foreign-policy-126688

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6965
    • Reputation: +2407/-72
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #59 on: March 21, 2017, 05:16:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  •  

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