Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 20290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5531
  • Reputation: +2020/-37
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #195 on: June 12, 2018, 10:35:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Behind Trump’s Exasperation
    Tuesday - June 12, 2018 at 4:20 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as “the piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”
    After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:
    “There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. … And that’s … what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One.”
    In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank.
    “Why should I, as President of the United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades … (while) the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade?”
    To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are a good place to begin.
    Our elites see America as an “indispensable nation,” the premier world power whose ordained duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal world order.
    They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the future of the planet.

    Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free ride on our defense effort, as they engage in trade practices that prosper their own peoples at America’s expense.
    Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind America’s back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national ends.
    The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.
    Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in goods than we sold to the world.
    A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world’s goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.
    We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.
    Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people are still with him on putting America first.
    Yet he faces some serious obstacles.
    What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the mid-1970s?
    Americans are indeed carrying the lion’s share of the load of the defense of the West, and of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South Korea and Japan.
    But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?
    Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an “agonizing reappraisal” of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies, if they did not contribute more money and troops.
    Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed, when the Cold War ended, out NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on new allies since the Soviet Empire fell.
    If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense Trump demands, or accept the tariffs America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
    This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected seems at hand.
    He promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay out of Mideast wars, and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.
    And that’s what America voted for.
    Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign, even within his own party.
    Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has imposed and threatening retaliation. Free trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the cost of the items U.S. companies makes abroad and then ships back to the United States.
    The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump’s critical tests have yet to come.
    And our exasperated president senses this.

    Photo Source: Gage Skidmore


    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/behind-trumps-exasperation-129460

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #196 on: June 15, 2018, 09:42:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  

    Trump’s Bold Historic Gamble
    Friday - June 15, 2018 at 2:49 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    President Donald Trump appears to belong to what might be called the Benjamin Disraeli school of diplomacy.
    The British prime minister once counseled, “Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.”
    At his Singapore summit, Trump smartly saluted a North Korean general and then lavished praise on Kim Jong Un as a “strong guy” with a “good personality” and a “great negotiator.” “He’s funny, and … very, very smart … and a very strategic kind of a guy. … His country does love him.”
    Predictably, Trump is being scourged for this.
    Yet, during his trip to Peking in 1972, Richard Nixon did not confront Chairman Mao on his history of massacres and murder, though Nixon’s visit came in the midst of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a nationwide pogrom.
    Nor did Churchill or FDR at their wartime summits confront their ally Stalin for his legendary crimes against humanity. Both gushed over “Uncle Joe.”
    Still, if the Trump-Kim camaraderie goes south and the crisis of 2017, when war seemed possible, returns, Trump, as he concedes, will be charged with naivety for having placed his trust in such a tyrant.

    Yet, to Trump’s credit, we are surely at a better place than we were a year ago when Kim was testing hydrogen bombs and ICBMs, and he and Trump were trading threats and insults in what seemed the prelude to a new Korean War.
    Whatever one may think of his diplomacy, Trump has, for now, lifted the specter of nuclear war from the Korean peninsula and begun a negotiating process that could lead to tolerable coexistence.
    The central questions to emerge from the summit are these: What does Kim want, and what is he willing to pay for it?
    Transparently, he does not want a war with the United States. That black cloud has passed over. Second, Kim and North Korea have emerged from their isolation in as dramatic a fashion as did Mao’s China in 1972.
    In 2018, the North was invited to the Seoul Olympics. Kim met twice with South Korea’s president and twice with China’s Xi Jinping. Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister stopped by. And Kim had a face-to-face summit with a U.S. president, something his grandfather and father never came close to achieving.
    It is unlikely Kim will be retreating back into the cloisters of the Hermit Kingdom after being courted by the world’s foremost powers.
    What does Trump have on offer to induce Kim to end the lifetime of hostility? It is a long menu of what Kim can expect if he will surrender his nuclear weapons and dismantle the factories and facilities that produce them.
    Among the benefits proffered: recognition of his dynasty and U.S. security guarantees, an end of sanctions, foreign investment, a peace treaty signed by the United States to replace the 65-year-old armistice and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Korean peninsula.
    Trump has already attended to one of Kim’s complaints. The joint military exercises we have conducted annually with South Korea for decades have been declared by Trump to be “war games” and “very provocative” and have been suspended.
    What is being asked of Kim in return?
    He must provide an inventory of all nuclear weapons and where they are hidden, surrender them all, dismantle his plutonium and uranium production plants, and shut down his testing sites, all under the watch of U.S.-approved inspectors.
    He must renounce any and all nuclear weapons forever, and accept a regime of international inspections that would guarantee he never cheats on that commitment.
    Here is where the crunch comes. Kim is being told that he must give up the weapons whose very possession by him are the reason why the world powers are paying him heed.
    As leader of a country with a per capita income smaller than Haiti’s, Kim is being told he must surrender the weapons that placed him and North Korea in the world’s most exclusive club, to which only eight other nations belong: the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and Israel.
    Will Kim, whose nuclear weapons have enabled him to strut on the world stage and trade insults with the president of the United States, give them up to become the leader of a poor backward nation, with half the population of South Korea and not even 4 percent of the economy of the South?
    Will he give up his most reliable deterrent against an attack by the United States or China?
    In the Kim-Trump relationship, this is where the rubber meets the road. Kim has seen how Americans treat nations — like Gadhafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, and Iran — that decline to develop or surrender the kind of weapons his country took decades to plan, test, produce and deploy.
    Should Kim give up his nukes, what U.S. president would fly halfway around the world to meet him one-to-one?
    Hence the crucial question: Will he ever really give them up?
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-bold-historic-gamble-129476



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #197 on: June 19, 2018, 12:36:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  19 June 2018
    Trump and the Invasion of the West
    Tuesday - June 19, 2018 at 10:29 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.
    “Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.
    “We need to be … a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”
    And so it shall — given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.
    Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.
    Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:
    “We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”
    Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.
    And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.
    The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?
    The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.
    And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.
    A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.
    Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.
    Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:
    “I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on earth.”
    If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.
    And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:
    “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”
    Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.
    In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.
    Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.
    Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.
    Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
    Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.
    We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.
    If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.
    The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home half of all the people of the planet.
    If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?
    Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.
    But on the mega-issue — the Third World invasion of the West — he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-and-the-invasion-of-the-west-129497

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #198 on: June 22, 2018, 08:23:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  22 June 2018
    Has the West the Will to Survive?
    Friday - June 22, 2018 at 12:50 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “If you’re … pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. … I’d rather be strong.”
    So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.
    Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.
    We are back to “catch and release.”
    When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.
    The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:
    Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?
    Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possess?
    Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

    The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.
    Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.
    Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.
    William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.
    The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: they could never have built a nation like ours.
    Which brings us again to the larger questions.
    While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.
    Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.
    They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity and equality.
    And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.
    “If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump Wednesday. Is he wrong?
    Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.
    The existential threat came from the south.
    Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:
    “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
    This is the existential crisis of the West.
    Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday, and Viktor Orban like tomorrow.

    Image Source: Pixabay
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/has-the-west-the-will-to-survive-129509

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #199 on: June 26, 2018, 07:52:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  26 June 2018
    A Fascist Right — or a Hysterical Left?
    Tuesday - June 26, 2018 at 7:16 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    If Trump’s supporters are truly “a basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” and “irredeemable,” as Hillary Clinton described them to an LGBT crowd, is not shunning and shaming the proper way to deal with them?
    So a growing slice of the American left has come to believe.
    Friday, gay waiters at the Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, appalled that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was being served, had the chef call the owner. All decided to ask Sanders’ party to leave.
    When news reached the left coast, Congresswoman Maxine Waters was ecstatic, yelling to a crowd, “God is on our side!”
    Maxine’s raving went on: “And so, let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever … you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
    Apparently, the left had been issued its marching orders.
    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled and booed at a Mexican restaurant last week, and then hassled by a mob outside her home. White House aide Steven Miller was called out as a “fascist” while dining in D.C. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was driven from a movie theater.
    Last June, the uglier side of leftist politics turned lethal. James Hodgkinson, 66-year-old volunteer in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, opened fire on GOP congressmen practicing for their annual baseball game with the Democrats.
    House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was wounded, almost mortally. Had it not been for Scalise’s security detail, Hodgkinson might have carried out a mass atrocity.
    And the cultural atmosphere is becoming toxic.
    Actor Robert De Niro brings a Hollywood crowd to its feet with cries of “F—- Trump!” Peter Fonda says that 12-year-old Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles. Comedienne Kathy Griffin holds up a picture of the decapitated head of the president.
    To suggest what may be happening to the separated children of illegal migrants, ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden puts on social media a photo of the entrance to the Nazi camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
    What does this tell us about America in 2018?
    The left, to the point of irrationality, despises a triumphant Trumpian right and believes that to equate it with fascists is not only legitimate, but a sign that the accusers are the real moral, righteous and courageous dissenters in these terrible times.
    Historians are calling the outbursts of hate unprecedented. They are not.
    In 1968, mobs cursed Lyndon Johnson, who had passed all the civil rights laws, howling, “Hey, hey, LBJ: How many kids did you kill today!”
    After Dr. King’s assassination, a hundred cities, including the capital, were looted and burned. Scores died. U.S. troops and the National Guard were called out to restore order. Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon. Cops were gunned down by urban terrorists. Bombings and bomb attempts were everyday occurrences. Campuses were closed down. In May 1971, tens of thousands of radicals went on a rampage to shut down D.C.
    A cautionary note to progressives: Extremism is how the left lost the future to Nixon and Reagan.
    But though our media may act like this is 1968, we are not there, yet. That was history; this is still largely farce.
    The comparisons with Nazi Germany are absurd. Does anyone truly believe that the centers where the children of illegal migrants are being held, run as they are by liberal bureaucrats from the Department of Health and Human Services, are like Stalin’s Gulag or Hitler’s camps?
    This is hyperbole born of hysteria and hate.
    Consider. Two million Americans are in jails and prisons, all torn from their families and children. How many TV hours have been devoted to showing what those kids are going through?
    Thirty percent of all American children grow up with only one parent.
    How many TV specials have been devoted to kids separated for months, sometimes years, sometimes forever, from fathers and mothers serving in the military and doing tours of duty overseas in our endless wars?
    Because of U.S. support for the UAE-Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, hundreds of thousands of children face the threat of famine. Those Yemeni kids are not being served burgers in day care centers.
    How many Western TV cameras are recording their suffering?
    When it comes to the rhetoric of hate, the cursing of politicians, the shouting down of speakers, the right is not innocent, but the left is infinitely more guilty. It was to the Donald Trump rallies, not the Bernie Sanders rallies, that the provocateurs came to start the fights.
    Why? Because if you have been told and believe your opponents are fascists, then their gatherings are deserving not of respect but of disruption.
    And, as was true in the 1960s, if you manifest your contempt, you will receive the indulgence of a media that will celebrate your superior morality.


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #200 on: June 28, 2018, 11:02:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  28 June 2018
    No Party for Old White Men
    Thursday - June 28, 2018 at 9:40 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    For Nancy Pelosi, 78, Steny Hoyer, 79, and Joe Biden, 75, the primary results from New York’s 14th congressional district are a fire bell in the night.
    All may be swept away in the coming revolution. That is the message of the crushing defeat of 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley, who had aspired to succeed Pelosi and become speaker of the House.
    The No. 4 House Democrat, Crowley, 56, had not faced primary opposition since 2004. He outspent his opponent, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was tending bar a year ago, by 10 to one.
    The son of an Irish immigrant, Crowley was leader of the Queens Democratic Club. He had the unions’ support. So confident was he that he skipped a debate and sent a Latina politician to stand in for him.
    First comes Hubris, the god of arrogance. Then comes Nemesis, the goddess of retribution.

    Tossing Crowley’s credentials back in his face, Ocasio-Cortez ran as a Latina, a person of color, a millennial and militant socialist who lived in her district, and painted Crowley as a white male with lots of PAC money who had moved to D.C. and sent his kids to school in Virginia.
    “The Democratic Party takes working-class communities for granted; they take people of color for granted,” railed Ocasio-Cortez. The party assumes “that we’re going to turn out no matter how bland or half-stepping (their) proposals are.”
    “Bland or half-stepping” are not words her agenda calls to mind.
    A Democratic Socialist, endorsed by MoveOn, Black Lives Matter and People for Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez favors Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, free tuition at public colleges, federal jobs for all who want them, and abolishing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that runs “black sites” on the Mexican border where “human rights abuses are happening.”
    When tear gas was used in Puerto Rico, whence her family came, Ocasio-Cortez laid it at Crowley’s feet: “You are responsible for this.”
    Crowley tried gamely to keep up, declaring that ICE, for which thousands of Americans work to protect our borders, is a “fascist” organization, presumably something like Ernst Rohm’s Brown Shirts.
    While the victory of Ocasio-Cortez is bad news for Pelosi and Hoyer, it may also be a harbinger of what is to come. For the Democratic Party appears about to unleash its radical left, its Maxine Waters wing, and give its ideology another run in the yard.
    When the party has done this before, however, it did not end well.
    After Hubert Humphrey lost narrowly in 1968, an enraged left seized the nomination for George McGovern, who went on to lose 49 states to Richard Nixon.
    After Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the left, whose champion, Bernie Sanders, they believe, was robbed by the establishment, seems to be looking to settle scores and seize the nomination for one of its own.
    But if an apertura a sinistra, an opening to the left, is what lies ahead for the Democratic Party, then that is better news for the party of Trump than for the party of Pelosi.
    Just as Crowley’s congressional district had changed, so, too, has his party in Congress. Columnist Dana Milbank, who sees it as progress, writes, “A majority of House Democrats are … women, people of color or gay.”
    These rising forces in the Democratic coalition are looking to bury the Democratic Party of yesterday, where white males and older ethnic groups — Irish, Italians, Poles and Jews — were dominant.
    It seems certain now that the summer of 2020 will see a woman, a person of color, or both, on the Democratic ticket. Two whites would likely offend the rising base. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine may have been the last of the all-white Democratic tickets.
    However, inside this emerging Democratic majority of peoples of color, fractures and fissures are already visible.
    In New York City, the Asian community, which votes Democratic in presidential elections, is in an uproar over efforts by leftist Mayor Bill de Blasio to eliminate the entrance exams that have enabled Asian kids to capture most of the seats in the city’s elite public schools.
    De Blasio and his allies want the Asian numbers in these select schools reduced, so the schools mirror the city’s demography, no matter how well the Asian kids are doing on the competitive admissions tests.
    Also, the hard left in the Democratic Party, oriented more toward the Third World than the West, is increasingly anti-Israel. And while the Jewish vote is small and largely concentrated in blue states, among donors to the Democratic Party the Jewish contingent looms large.
    The new demography of the Democratic Party brought about the defeat of Crowley. A majority white district when he first ran, the Bronx-Queens district he now represents is only one-sixth white.
    The Irish and Italians have moved out or passed on. And Archie Bunker? He rests in peace in Calvary Cemetery. Like his party.

    Image Source: Pixabay
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/no-party-for-old-white-men-129547

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #201 on: July 03, 2018, 05:26:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Liberal Stampede to ‘Abolish ICE’
    Tuesday - July 3, 2018 at 1:35 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “No Borders! No Nations! No Deportations!” “Abolish ICE!”
    Before last week, these were the mindless slogans of an infantile left, seen on signs at rallies to abolish ICE, the agency that arrests and deports criminal aliens who have no right to be in our country.
    By last week, however, “Abolish ICE!” was no longer the exclusive slogan of the unhinged left. National Democrats were signing on.
    Before his defeat in New York’s 14th Congressional District, Joe Crowley, fourth-ranked Democrat in the House, called ICE a “fascist” organization.
    After Crowley’s rout by a 28-year-old socialist who called for killing the agency, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., declared ICE to be “a cruel deportation force (that) we need to abolish.”
    Cynthia Nixon, a candidate for governor of New York, described ICE as a “terrorist organization … terrorizing people who are coming to this country. … We need to abolish ICE.”
    A star of “Sex and the City” castigated the men and women of ICE as terrorists at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in Manhattan. One wonders what the pastor thought of this Christian message.
    Friday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the clamor: “We should abolish ICE.” Over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., signed on:
    “President Trump seems to think that the only way to have immigration rule is to rip parents from their family (and) treat rape victims and refugees like terrorists and to put children in cages.”
    What ICE does is “ugly” and “wrong,” said Warren.
    “We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality.”
    Wisconsin Democratic Congressman Mark Pocan plans to introduce legislation to do exactly that — abolish ICE.
    President Donald Trump describes this latest liberal campaign as social and political insanity: “You get rid of ICE you’re going to have a country that you’re going to be afraid to walk out of your house.”

    What is going on here?
    Democrats, having just gone through the worst week in memory for progressives, are in imminent danger of losing it altogether.
    Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that not only is the Trump travel ban constitutional, government unions have no right to extract “agency fees” from workers who do not wish to support the union.
    Such fees violate the First Amendment rights of government workers not to promote policies or ideas in which they disbelieve.
    Then came word that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court who was crucial to the decisions that established abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage as constitutional rights, will be stepping down
    And Trump informed the press that he would announce Kennedy’s successor on July 9, to be drawn from a list of 20 jurists and legal scholars, all of whom have been vetted by the Federalist Society.
    Panic ensued.
    “I’m scared. You’re scared. We’re all scared,” says Warren in a video her campaign has released.
    On Bill Maher’s show, leftist film director Michael Moore called for a million citizens to surround the Capitol to prevent a vote on Kennedy’s successor. How Moore’s million-man march proposes to get into Mitch McConnell’s Senate chamber was left unexplained.
    At a fundraiser in Berkeley, California, Barack Obama tried to calm his terrified minions: “All these people that are out here kvetching and wringing their hands and stressed and anxious and constantly watching cable tv and howling at the moon, ‘What are we going to do?’ Their hair is falling out.”
    But liberal elites making fools of themselves is a less serious matter than the savage slanders Democrats are hurling at the 20,000 men and women of ICE who are daily protecting us and our country.
    ICE, after all, was established to prevent another 9/11, when real terrorists, some of whom had overstayed their visas, massacred 3,000 innocent people, most of them Americans.
    This vilification of ICE, writes Deputy Director Thomas D. Homan, represents both an injustice and an act of ingratitude:
    “Since September 2016, ICE has arrested nearly 5,000 criminal aliens in New York — individuals with a criminal conviction in addition to their violation of immigrant laws. Many of these arrests were conducted at large in the community which ICE is increasingly forced to do due to sanctuary policies in the state that prevent us from taking custody of criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail.
    “Governor (Andrew Cuomo) supports these policies at the expense of the safety of the very same communities he took an oath to protect.”
    Whatever one may think of Trump’s policy of “zero tolerance” of immigrants who break into our country, for elites to smear the 20,000 men and women who risk their lives to keep us safe, as “terrorists” and “fascists,” is an especially egregious form of liberal ingratitude.
    What is it in the DNA of the left that it is always ready to enlist in any new war on cops?
    The issue of 2018: Should we, or should we not, abolish ICE and embrace the progressive alternative of open borders?

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/the-liberal-stampede-to-abolish-ice-129591

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #202 on: July 06, 2018, 07:46:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The Never-Trumpers Are Never Coming Back
    Thursday - July 5, 2018 at 10:54 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    With never-Trump conservatives bailing on the GOP and crying out for the Party of Pelosi to save us, some painful truths need to be restated.
    The Republican Party of Bush I and II, of Bob Dole and John McCain, is history. It’s not coming back. Unlike the Bourbons after the Revolution and the Terror, after Napoleon and the Empire, no restoration is in the cards.
    It is over. The GOP’s policies of recent decades — the New World Order of George H.W. Bush, the crusades for democracy of Bush II — failed, and are seen as having failed. With Trump’s capture of the party they were repudiated.
    There will be no turning back.
    What were the historic blunders?
    It was not supporting tax cuts, deregulation, conservative judges and justices, or funding a defense second to none. Donald Trump has delivered on these as well as any president since Reagan.
    The failures that killed the Bush party, and that represented departures from Reaganite traditionalism and conservatism, are:
    First, the hubristic drive, despite the warnings of statesmen like George Kennan, to exploit our Cold War victory and pursue a policy of permanent containment of a Russia that had lost a third of its territory and half its people.
    We moved NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, onto her doorstep. We abrogated the ABM treaty Nixon had negotiated and moved defensive missiles into Poland. John McCain pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and even to send U.S. forces to face off against Russian troops.
    Thus we got a second Cold War that need never have begun and that our allies seem content to let us fight alone.
    Europe today is not afraid of Vladimir Putin reaching the Rhine. Europe is afraid of Africa and the Middle East reaching the Danube.
    Let the Americans, who relish playing empire, pay for NATO.
    Second, in a reflexive response to 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, dumped over the regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and backed Saudi intervention in a Yemeni civil war, creating a humanitarian crisis in that poorest of Arab countries that is exceeded in horrors only by the Syrian civil war.
    Since Y2K, hundreds of thousands in the Middle East have perished, the ancient Christian community has all but ceased to exist, and the refugees now number in the millions. What are the gains for democracy from these wars, all backed enthusiastically by the Republican establishment?
    Why are the people responsible for these wars still being listened to, rather than confessing their sins at second-thoughts conferences?
    The GOP elite also played a crucial role in throwing open U.S. markets to China and ceding transnational corporations full freedom to move factories and jobs there and ship their Chinese-made goods back here, free of charge.
    Result: In three decades, the U.S. has run up $12 trillion in merchandise trade deficits — $4 trillion with China — and Beijing’s revenue from the USA has more than covered China’s defense budget for most of those years.
    Beijing swept past Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Japan to become the premier manufacturing power on earth and a geo-strategic rival. Now, from East Africa to Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, and from the South and East China Sea to Taiwan, Beijing’s expansionist ambitions have become clear.
    And where are the Republicans responsible for building up this potentially malevolent power that thieves our technology? Talking of building a Reagan-like Navy to contain the mammoth they nourished.
    Since the Cold War, America’s elites have been exhibiting symptoms of that congenital blindness associated since Rome with declining and falling empires.
    While GOP grass roots have begged for measures to control our bleeding southern border, they were regularly denounced as nativists by party elites, many of whom are now backing Trump’s wall.
    For decades, America’s elites failed to see that the transnational moment of the post-Cold War era was passing and an era of rising nationalism and tribalism was at hand.
    “We live in a time,” said U2’s Bono this week, “when institutions as vital to human progress as the United Nations are under attack.”
    The institutions Bono referenced — the U.N., EU, NATO — all trace their roots to the 1940s and 1950s, a time that bears little resemblance to the era we have entered, an era marked by a spreading and desperate desire of peoples everywhere to preserve who and what they are.
    No, Trump didn’t start the fire.
    The world was ablaze with tribalism and was raising up authoritarians to realize nationalist ends — Xi Jinping, Putin, Narendra Modi in India, Erdogan in Turkey, Gen. el-Sissi in Egypt — before he came down that escalator.
    And so the elites who were in charge when the fire broke out, and who failed to respond and refused even to recognize it, and who now denounce Trump for how he is coping with it, are unlikely to be called upon again to lead this republic.

    Image Source: Pixabay…
    Share Pat's Columns!


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #203 on: July 10, 2018, 08:15:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  10 July 2018
    Is a Trump Court in the Making?
    Tuesday - July 10, 2018 at 12:09 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    If Mitch McConnell’s Senate can confirm his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump may have completed the capture of all three branches of the U.S. government for the Republican Party.
    Not bad for a rookie.
    And the lamentations on the left are surely justified.
    For liberalism’s great strategic ally and asset of 60 years, the judicial dictatorship erected by Earl Warren and associates, may be about to fall.
    Judicial supremacy may be on the way out.
    Another constitutionalist on the court, in the tradition of Antonin Scalia, could ring down the curtain on the social revolution the court has been imposing since the salad days of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
    Among the changes Warren’s court and its successors succeeded in imposing: The de-Christianization of all public institutions in America. The social war of the 1970s over forced busing for racial balance in the public schools. The creation, ex nihilo, of new constitutional rights, first to an abortion, and then to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
    But while the confirmation of a new Trump justice may bring an end to the revolution, it will return power to where it belongs in a constitutional republic, with elected legislators and elected executives.
    There will not likely be any sudden and radical rollback of changes wrought in six decades. For some of those changes have become embedded in the public consciousness as the new normal, and will endure.
    Roe v. Wade may be challenged. But even if overturned, states like New York and California, which had liberalized abortion laws before Roe, are not likely to re-criminalize it.
    Affirmative action, however, racial discrimination against white males to promote diversity, may be on the chopping block.
    Why did it take until Trump to restore constitutionalism to the Supreme Court, when the Warren Court had been a blazing issue since the 1950s and Republicans held the presidency for 28 years from 1968 to 2016, and had managed to elevate 12 justices?
    Answer: Every GOP president save Bush II, has appointed justices who grew to believe the court had a right to remake America to conform to their image of the ideal liberal democracy. And they so acted.
    Said Ike ruefully on his retirement: Two of my worst mistakes are sitting up there on the Supreme Court.
    The two were Warren, who, as California’s governor, had pushed to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in World War II, and William Brennan, the most radical justice to sit in over half a century.
    Nixon came to office committed to rein in the court by naming “strict constructionists.” Yet three of the four justices he named would vote for Roe v. Wade in 1973. Harry Blackmun, whom Nixon rushed onto the bench after his Southern nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell were trashed and rejected, became the author of Roe.
    Nixon’s fourth nominee, William Rehnquist, was his best, a brilliant jurist whom Reagan himself would elevate to chief justice.
    Gerald Ford’s sole nominee, John Paul Stevens, confirmed 97-0 in the Senate, turned left soon after his confirmation to join Blackmun.
    Reagan named Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman, and Scalia.
    But when his effort to elevate Judge Robert Bork failed, he turned to Anthony Kennedy of California, whose seat Trump is filling today.
    Over 30 years, Kennedy’s vote proved decisive in 5-4 decisions to uphold Roe, to discover homosexuality as a constitutional right, and to raise same-sex unions to the legal level of traditional marriage.
    George H.W. Bush’s first choice was David Souter, who also turned left to join the liberal bloc. Bush I got it right on his second try in 1991, naming the constitutionalist Clarence Thomas.
    As for George W. Bush, he chose John Roberts as Chief Justice to succeed Rehnquist and then Sam Alito as associate justice.
    Thus, of 15 justices Republican Presidents have named since World War II, five — Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens and Souter — became liberal activists. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, both Reagan choices, became swing justices and voted with the court’s liberals on critical social issues.
    Democratic presidents have done far better by their constituents.
    Of seven justices named by LBJ, Clinton and Obama, every one — Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor — turned out to be predictably and consistently liberal.
    Clearly, the advisers to George W. Bush and President Trump looked back at the successes and the failures of previous GOP presidents, and have done a far better job of vetting nominees. They reached outside for counsel.
    It was Trump’s 2016 pledge to draw his nominees to the high court from a list of 20 judges and scholars supplied by the Federalist Society that reassured conservatives and helped him unite his party and get elected.
    On the issue of judicial nominees and justices to the Supreme Court, Trump has kept his word.
    And the next Supreme Court may one day be called the Trump Court.

    Image Source: Pixabay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/is-a-trump-court-in-the-making-129623

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #204 on: July 19, 2018, 08:10:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  16 July 2018
    Trump Calls Off Cold War II
    Monday - July 16, 2018 at 11:24 pm

    This post was viewed 22,900 times.
    Votes: 4.67 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Beginning his joint press conference with Vladimir Putin, President Trump declared that U.S. relations with Russia have “never been worse.”
    He then added pointedly, that just changed “about four hours ago.”
    It certainly did. With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency.
    He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment.
    In a tweet prior to the meeting, Trump indicted the elites of both parties: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”
    Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway.
    Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling.
    NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense.
    And there will be no Cold War II.

    We are not going to let Putin’s annexation of Crimea or aid to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine prevent us from working on a rapprochement and a partnership with him, Trump is saying. We are going to negotiate arms treaties and talk out our differences as Ronald Reagan did with Mikhail Gorbachev.
    Helsinki showed that Trump meant what he said when he declared repeatedly, “Peace with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”
    On Syria, Trump indicated that he and Putin are working with Bibi Netanyahu, who wants all Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias kept far from the Golan Heights. As for U.S. troops in Syria, says Trump, they will be coming out after ISIS is crushed, and we are 98 percent there.
    That is another underlying message here: America is coming home from foreign wars and will be shedding foreign commitments.
    Both before and after the Trump-Putin meeting, the cable news coverage was as hostile and hateful toward the president as any this writer has ever seen. The media may not be the “enemy of the people” Trump says they are, but many are implacable enemies of this president.
    Some wanted Trump to emulate Nikita Khrushchev, who blew up the Paris summit in May 1960 over a failed U.S. intelligence operation — the U-2 spy plane shot down over the Urals just weeks earlier.
    Khrushchev had demanded that Ike apologize. Ike refused, and Khrushchev exploded. Some media seemed to be hoping for just such a confrontation.
    When Trump spoke of the “foolishness and stupidity” of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that contributed to this era of animosity in U.S.-Russia relations, what might he have had in mind?
    Was it the U.S. provocatively moving NATO into Russia’s front yard after the collapse of the USSR?
    Was it the U.S. invasion of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have that plunged us into endless wars of the Middle East?
    Was it U.S. support of Syrian rebels determined to oust Bashar Assad, leading to ISIS intervention and a seven-year civil war with half a million dead, a war which Putin eventually entered to save his Syrian ally?

    Was it George W. Bush's abrogation of Richard Nixon's ABM treaty and drive for a missile defense that caused Putin to break out of the Reagan INF treaty and start deploying cruise missiles to counter it?

    Was it U.S. complicity in the Kiev coup that ousted the elected pro-Russian regime that caused Putin to seize Crimea to hold onto Russia's Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?

    Many Putin actions we condemn were reactions to what we did.

    Russia annexed Crimea bloodlessly. But did not the U.S. bomb Serbia for 78 days to force Belgrade to surrender her cradle province of Kosovo?

    How was that more moral than what Putin did in Crimea?

    If Russian military intelligence hacked into the emails of the DNC, exposing how they stuck it to Bernie Sanders, Trump says he did not collude in it. Is there, after two years, any proof that he did?

    Trump insists Russian meddling had no effect on the outcome in 2016 and he is not going to allow media obsession with Russiagate to interfere with establishing better relations.

    Former CIA Director John Brennan rages that, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki ... was ... treasonous. ... He is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"

    Well, as Patrick Henry said long ago, "If this be treason, make the most of it!"

    Share Pat's Columns

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii-129662





    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #205 on: July 19, 2018, 09:07:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  19 July 2018
    Trump Stands His Ground on Putin
    Thursday - July 19, 2018 at 8:11 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
    Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached.
    And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.
    Trump’s refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin’s claim at Helsinki — that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton’s campaign — has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA.
    Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia’s hacking of the DNC “an act of war” comparable to Pearl Harbor.
    The New York Times ran a story on how many are now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.
    Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: “Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”
    Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.
    Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling “Treason!”
    What explains the hysteria?

    The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried “Wolf!” the establishment has cried “Fascist!” too many times to be taken seriously.
    A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans.
    Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.
    If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again.
    Using Occam’s razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America’s elites have been driven over the edge by Trump’s successes and their failure to block him.
    Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.
    Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin.
    “Over our dead bodies!” the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.
    Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: Liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin’s poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi.
    Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders if the haters are considering the impact of the words they are so casually using. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this.
    The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president’s enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him.
    They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.
    Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance:
    “The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.”
    Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin’s pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.
    Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.
    Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country.
    Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda — to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of — he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.
    This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.
    By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance.
    For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?

    Image Source: Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 2.0 ], via Wikimedia Commons

    Share Pat's Columns

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-stands-his-ground-on-putin-129692


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3130
    • Reputation: +1919/-968
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #206 on: July 19, 2018, 10:03:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • GREAT articles!

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #207 on: July 24, 2018, 12:03:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  23 July 2018
    Is Putin’s Russia an ‘Evil Empire’?
    Monday - July 23, 2018 at 10:51 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce,” a saying attributed to Karl Marx, comes to mind in this time of Trump.
    To those of us raised in the Truman era, when the Red Army was imposing its bloody Bolshevik rule on half of Europe, and NATO was needed to keep Stalin’s armies from the Channel, the threat seemed infinitely more serious. And so it was.
    There were real traitors in that time.
    Alger Hiss, a top State Department aide, at FDR’s side at Yalta, was exposed as a Stalinist spy by Congressman Richard Nixon. Harry Dexter White, No. 2 at Treasury, Laurence Duggan at State, and White House aide Lauchlin Currie were all exposed as spies. Then there was the Rosenberg spy ring that gave Stalin the secrets of the atom bomb.
    Who do we have today to match Hiss and the Rosenbergs? A 29-year-old redheaded Russian Annie Oakley named Maria Butina, accused of infiltrating the National Rifle Association and the National Prayer Breakfast.
    Is Putin’s Russia really a reincarnation of Stalin’s Soviet Union? Is Russia a threat of similar magnitude?
    Russia is “our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” thundered Mitt Romney in 2012, now cited as a sage by liberals who used to castigate Republicans for any skepticism of detente during the Cold War.
    Perhaps it is time to contrast the USSR of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev with the Russia of Vladimir Putin.
    By the beginning of Reagan’s tenure in 1981, 400,000 Red Army troops were in Central Europe, occupying the eastern bank of the Elbe.
    West Berlin was surrounded by Russian troops. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria were all ruled by Moscow’s puppets. All belonged to a Warsaw Pact created to fight NATO. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine were inside the USSR.
    By the end of the Jimmy Carter era, Moscow had driven into Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola in Africa, Cuba in the Caribbean, and Nicaragua in Central America, in the greatest challenge ever to the Monroe Doctrine.
    The Soviets had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The Soviet navy, built up over 25 years by Adm. Sergey Gorshkov, was a global rival of a U.S. Navy that had sunk to 300 ships.
    And today? The Soviet Empire is history. The Soviet Union is history, having splintered into 15 nations. Russia is smaller than it was in the 19th century. Russia is gone from Cuba, Grenada, Central America, Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique.
    The Warsaw Pact is history. The Red Army is gone from Eastern Europe. The former Warsaw Pact nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria all belong to NATO, as do the former Soviet “republics” of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.
    When the flagship of Russia’s navy, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, sailed from Murmansk to Syria, it had to pass through the North Sea, the Channel, the east Atlantic, the Straits of Gibraltar, and then sail the length of the Med to anchor off Latakia.
    Coming and going, the Kuznetsov was within range of anti-ship missiles, aircraft, submarines and surface ships of 20 NATO nations, among them Norway, Britain, Germany, France, Spain and Portugal, and many U.S. bases and warships.
    Entering the Med, the Kuznetsov had to travel, without a naval base to refuel, within range of the missiles, planes and ships of Spain, France, Italy and Greece. Along the banks of the Adriatic and Aegean there are only NATO nations, except for Kosovo, which is home to the largest U.S. base in the Balkans, Camp Bondsteel.
    To sail from St. Petersburg through the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic, Russian warships must pass within range of 11 NATO nations — the three Baltic republics, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Britain and France.
    The Black Sea’s western and southern shores are now controlled entirely by NATO: Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey. Russia’s lone land passage to its naval base in Crimea is a narrow bridge from the Kerch Peninsula.
    With the breakup of the USSR, Russia has been reduced to two-thirds of the territory and half the population of the Soviet Union.
    Its former republics and now neighbors Georgia and Ukraine are hostile. Its space launches are now done from a foreign land, Kazakhstan. Its economy has shrunk to the size of Italy’s.
    It has one-tenth the population and one-fifth the economy of its looming neighbor, China, and, except for territory, is even more dwarfed by the United States with a GDP of $20 trillion, and troops, bases and allies all over the world.
    Most critically, Russia’s regime is no longer Communist. The ideology that drove its imperialism is dead. There are parties, demonstrations and dissidents in Russia, and an Orthodox faith that is alive and promoted by Putin.
    Where, today, is there a vital U.S. interest imperiled by Putin?
    Better to jaw-jaw, than war-war, said Churchill. He was right, as is President Trump to keep talking to Putin — right through the Russophobia rampant in this city.

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

    http://buchanan.org/blog/is-putins-russia-an-evil-empire-129726

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5531
    • Reputation: +2020/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #208 on: July 27, 2018, 10:45:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  27 July 2018
    Did Tariffs Make America Great?
    Friday - July 27, 2018 at 6:53 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “Make America Great Again!” will, given the astonishing victory it produced for Donald Trump, be recorded among the most successful slogans in political history.
    Yet it raises a question: How did America first become the world’s greatest economic power?
    In 1998, in “The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy,” this writer sought to explain.

    However, as the blazing issue of that day was Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, it was no easy task to steer interviewers around to the McKinley Tariff.
    Free trade propaganda aside, what is the historical truth?
    As our Revolution was about political independence, the first words and acts of our constitutional republic were about ensuring America’s economic independence.
    “A free people should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent on others for essentials, especially military supplies,” said President Washington in his first message to Congress.
    The first major bill passed by Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789.
    Weeks later, Washington imposed tonnage taxes all foreign shipping. The U.S. Merchant Marine was born.
    In 1791, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote in his famous Report on Manufactures:
    “The wealth … independence, and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation … ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These compromise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.”
    During the War of 1812, British merchants lost their American markets. When peace came, flotillas of British ships arrived at U.S. ports to dump underpriced goods and to recapture the markets the Brits had lost.
    Henry Clay and John Calhoun backed James Madison’s Tariff of 1816, as did ex-free traders Jefferson and John Adams. It worked.
    In 1816, the U.S. produced 840 thousand yards of cloth. By 1820, it was 13,874 thousand yards. America had become self-sufficient.
    Financing “internal improvements” with tariffs on foreign goods would become known abroad as “The American System.”
    Said Daniel Webster, “Protection of our own labor against the cheaper, ill-paid, half-fed, and pauper labor of Europe, is … a duty which the country owes to its own citizens.”
    This is economic patriotism, a conservatism of the heart. Globalists, cosmopolites and one-worlders recoil at phrases like “America First.”
    Campaigning for Henry Clay, “The Father of the American System,” in 1844, Abe Lincoln issued an impassioned plea, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.”
    Battling free trade in the Polk presidency, Congressman Lincoln said, “Abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government must result in the increase of both useless labor and idleness and … must produce want and ruin among our people.”
    In our time, the abandonment of economic patriotism produced in Middle America what Lincoln predicted, and what got Trump elected.
    From the Civil War to the 20th century, U.S. economic policy was grounded in the Morrill Tariffs, named for Vermont Congressman and Senator Justin Morrill who, as early as 1857, had declared: “I am for ruling America for the benefit, first, of Americans, and, for the ‘rest of mankind’ afterwards.”
    To Morrill, free trade was treason:
    “Free trade abjures patriotism and boasts of cosmopolitanism. It regards the labor of our own people with no more favor than that of the barbarian on the Danube or the cooly on the Ganges.”
    William McKinley, the veteran of Antietam who gave his name to the McKinley Tariff, declared, four years before being elected president:
    “Free trade results in our giving our money … our manufactures and our markets to other nations. … It will bring widespread discontent. It will revolutionize our values.”
    Campaigning in 1892, McKinley said, “Open competition between high-paid American labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American industry or lower American wages.”
    Substitute “Asian labor” for “European labor” and is this not a fair description of what free trade did to U.S. manufacturing these last 25 years? Some $12 trillion in trade deficits, arrested wages for our workers, six million manufacturing jobs lost, 55,000 factories and plants shut down.
    McKinley’s future Vice President Teddy Roosevelt agreed with him, “Thank God I am not a free trader.”
    What did the Protectionists produce?
    From 1869 to 1900, GDP quadrupled. Budget surpluses were run for 27 straight years. The U.S. debt was cut two-thirds to 7 percent of GDP. Commodity prices fell 58 percent. U.S. population doubled, but real wages rose 53 percent. Economic growth averaged 4 percent a year.
    And the United States, which began this era with half of Britain’s production, ended it with twice Britain’s production.
    Under Warren Harding, Cal Coolidge and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, GDP growth from 1922 to 1927 hit 7 percent, an all-time record.
    Economic patriotism put America first, and made America first.
    Of GOP free traders, the steel magnate Joseph Wharton, whose name graces the college Trump attended, said it well:
    “Republicans who are shaky on protection are shaky all over.”

    Image Source: Donald J. Trump…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-tariffs-make-america-great-129752

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17653
    • Reputation: +8116/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #209 on: July 28, 2018, 03:29:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 28 June 2018
    No Party for Old White Men
    Thursday - June 28, 2018 at 9:40 pm


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    A Democratic Socialist, endorsed by MoveOn, Black Lives Matter and People for Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez favors Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, free tuition at public colleges, federal jobs for all who want them, and abolishing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that runs “black sites” on the Mexican border where “human rights abuses are happening.”
    When tear gas was used in Puerto Rico, whence her family came, Ocasio-Cortez laid it at Crowley’s feet: “You are responsible for this.”

    Image Source: Pixabay
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/no-party-for-old-white-men-129547
    .
                                        
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

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