Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 24950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5795
  • Reputation: +2087/-45
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #255 on: January 11, 2019, 10:51:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • January 2019 Memo to Trump: Declare an Emergency
    Memo to Trump: Declare an Emergency
    Thursday - January 10, 2019 at 9:20 pm


    Share Pat's Columns

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    In the long run, history will validate Donald Trump’s stand on a border wall to defend the sovereignty and security of the United States.

    Why? Because mass migration from the global South, not climate change, is the real existential crisis of the West.

    The American people know this, and even the elites sense it.

    Think not? Well, check out the leading liberal newspapers Thursday.

    The Washington Post and The New York Times each had two front-page stories about the president’s battle with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on funding the border wall.

    Inside the first section, the Post had more stories, including one describing walls in history from China’s Great Wall to the Berlin Wall to the Israeli West Bank wall to the wall separating Hungary from Serbia.

    Inside the Times was a story on a new anti-immigration party, Vox, surging in Andalusia in Spain, and a story about African migrants being welcomed in Malta after being denied entry into Europe.

    Another Times story related how the new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has pulled out of a U.N. pact on migration, declaring, “Brazil has a sovereign right to decide whether or not it accepts immigrants.”

    Half the columns on the op-ed pages of the papers dealt with Trump, immigration and the wall. And there was nothing significant in either on the Democrats’ hot new issue, a Green New Deal.

    Consider. In 1992, this writer’s presidential campaign had to fight to have inserted in the GOP platform a call for “structures” on the border.

    Now, the whole Western world is worried about its borders as issues of immigration and identity convulse almost every country.

    Looking ahead, does anyone think Americans in 2030 are going to be more concerned about the border between North Korea and South Korea, or Turkey and Syria, or Kuwait and Iraq, or Russia and Ukraine, than about the 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico?

    Does anyone think Pelosi’s position that a wall is immoral will not be regarded as absurd?



    America’s southern border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist. And Americans will not go gentle into that good night.

    Whatever one may think of the face-off Tuesday with “Chuck and Nancy,” Trump’s portrait of an unsustainable border crisis is dead on: “In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings.”

    The Democrats routine retort, that native-born Americans have a higher crime rate, will not suffice as new atrocities, like those Trump related, are reported and repeated before November 2020.

    What should Trump do now? Act. He cannot lose this battle with Pelosi without demoralizing his people and imperiling his presidency.

    Since FDR, we have had presidential government. And when U.S. presidents have been decisive activists, history has rewarded their actions.

    Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. On taking office, FDR declared a bank holiday. When Britain was barely hanging on in World War II, he swapped 50 destroyers for British bases. He ordered U.S. ships to chase down German submarines and lied about it. Truman fired General MacArthur.

    Reagan fired the striking air controllers and ordered the military to occupy Grenada to stop Marxist thugs who had taken over in a coup from taking 500 U.S. medical students hostage.

    Critics raged: Reagan had no right to invade. But the American people rewarded Reagan with a 49-state landslide.

    Trump should declare a national emergency, shift funds out of the Pentagon, build his wall, open the government and charge Democrats with finding excuses not to secure our border because they have a demographic and ideological interest in changing the face of the nation.

    For the larger the share of the U.S. population that requires welfare, the greater the need for more social workers, and the more voters there will be to vote to further grow the liberal welfare state.

    The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan’s America — the more dependably Democratic it will become.

    The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.

    The only way to greater “diversity,” the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.

    The decisive issues on which Trump was elected were not the old Republican litany of tax cuts, conservative judges and increased defense spending.

    They were securing the borders, extricating America from foolish wars, eliminating trade deficits with NAFTA nations, the EU and China, making allies pay their fair share of the common defense, resurrecting our manufacturing base, and getting along with Russia.

    “America First!” is still a winning hand


    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/memo-to-trump-declare-an-emergency-135677

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #256 on: January 15, 2019, 10:21:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  15 January 2019
    Is Bolton Steering Trump into War with Iran?
    Tuesday - January 15, 2019 at 8:35 am

    This post was viewed 69 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    “Stop the ENDLESS WARS!” implored President Donald Trump in a Sunday night tweet.
    Well, if he is serious, Trump had best keep an eye on his national security adviser, for a U.S. war on Iran would be a dream come true for John Bolton.
    Last September, when Shiite militants launched three mortar shells into the Green Zone in Baghdad, which exploded harmlessly in a vacant lot, Bolton called a series of emergency meetings and directed the Pentagon to prepare a menu of targets, inside Iran, for U.S. air and missile strikes in retaliation.
    The Wall Street Journal quoted one U.S. official as saying Bolton’s behavior “rattled people. … People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”
    Bolton’s former deputy, Mira Ricardel, reportedly told a gathering the shelling into the Green Zone was “an act of war” to which the U.S. must respond decisively.
    Bolton has long believed a U.S. confrontation with Iran is both inevitable and desirable. In 2015, he authored a New York Times op-ed whose title, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” said it all. He has urged that “regime change” in Iran be made a declared goal of U.S. foreign policy.

    When Trump announced his decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops now in Syria, Bolton swiftly imposed conditions: ISIS must first be eliminated, Iranian forces and allied militias must leave, and the Kurds must be protected.
    Yet enforcing such red lines would require a permanent presence of American troops. For how, without war, would we effect the removal of Bashar Assad’s Iranian allies, if he declines to expel them and the Iranians refuse to go?
    Bolton has an ally in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In Cairo last week, Pompeo declared it U.S. policy “to expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria.
    And though Hezbollah has been a “major presence” in Lebanon for several decades, “we won’t accept this as the status quo,” said Pompeo, for Hezbollah is a “wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime.”
    But how does the secretary of state propose to push Hezbollah out of Lebanon peacefully when the Israelis could not do it in a month-long war in 2006?
    Pompeo’s purpose during his tour of the Middle East? Build a new Middle East Strategic Alliance, a MESA, an Arab NATO, whose members are to be Egypt, Jordan and the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
    There are other signs a confrontation is coming soon. The U.S. has objected to Iran’s pending launch of two space satellites, saying these look like tests of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads. Yet Iran has never produced weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and never tested an ICBM.
    Pompeo has also called for a conclave in Poland in February to bring together an anti-Iran alliance to discuss what is to be done about what he calls “our common enemy.”
    Over the weekend, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu boasted of Israel’s latest strike in Syria: “Just in the last 36 hours, the air force attacked Iranian warehouses with Iranian weapons at the international airport in Damascus. The accumulation of recent attacks proves that we are determined more than ever to take action against Iran in Syria, just as we promised.”
    Israel brags that it has hit 200 targets inside Syria in recent years. The boasting may be connected to Bibi’s desire to strengthen his credentials as a security hawk for the coming Israeli election. But it is also a provocation to the Iranians and Syrians to retaliate, which could ignite a wider war between Israel and Syrian and Iranian forces.
    What does the U.S. think of the Israeli strikes? Said Pompeo: “We strongly support Israel’s efforts to stop Iran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon.”
    In short, forces are moving in this country and in Israel to bring about a U.S. confrontation with Iran — before our troops leave Syria.
    But the real questions here are not about Bolton or Pompeo.
    They are about Trump. Was he aware of Bolton’s request for a menu of targets in Iran for potential U.S. strikes? Did he authorize it? Has he authorized his national security adviser and secretary of state to engage in these hostile actions and bellicose rhetoric aimed at Iran? And if so, why?
    While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, “When America retreats, chaos often follows.”
    Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush?
    One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to “stop the endless wars.”

    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-bolton-steering-trump-into-war-with-iran-135696


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #257 on: January 18, 2019, 09:27:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Posted on January 18, 2019 by Linda

    At Age 70, Time to Rethink NATO

    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J.Buchanan
    “Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last.”
    So said President Charles De Gaulle, who in 1966 ordered NATO to vacate its Paris headquarters and get out of France.
    NATO this year celebrates a major birthday. The young girl of 1966 is no longer young. The alliance is 70 years old.
    And under this aging NATO today, the U.S. is committed to treat an attack on any one of 28 nations from Estonia to Montenegro to Romania to Albania as an attack on the United States.
    The time is ripe for a strategic review of these war guarantees to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in defense of countries across the length of Europe that few could find on a map.
    Apparently, President Donald Trump, on trips to Europe, raised questions as to whether these war guarantees comport with vital U.S. interests and whether they could pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
    The shock of our establishment that Trump even raised this issue in front of Europeans suggests that the establishment, frozen in the realities of yesterday, ought to be made to justify these sweeping war guarantees.
    Celebrated as “the most successful alliance in history,” NATO has had two histories. Some of us can yet recall its beginnings.
    In 1948, Soviet troops, occupying eastern Germany all the way to the Elbe and surrounding Berlin, imposed a blockade on the city.
    The regime in Prague was overthrown in a Communist coup. Foreign minister Jan Masaryk fell, or was thrown, from a third-story window to his death. In 1949, Stalin exploded an atomic bomb.

    As the U.S. Army had gone home after V-E Day, the U.S. formed a new alliance to protect the crucial European powers — West Germany, France, Britain, Italy. Twelve nations agreed that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on them all.
    Cross the Elbe and you are at war with us, including the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal, Stalin was, in effect, told. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops returned to Europe to send the message that America was serious.
    Crucial to the alliance was the Yalta line dividing Europe agreed to by Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the 1945 Crimean summit on the Black Sea.
    U.S. presidents, even when monstrous outrages were committed in Soviet-occupied Europe, did not cross this line into the Soviet sphere.
    Truman did not send armored units up the highway to Berlin. He launched an airlift to break the Berlin blockade. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian rebels in 1956. JFK confined his rage at the building of the Berlin Wall to the rhetorical: “Ich bin ein Berliner.”
    LBJ did nothing to help the Czechs when, before the Democratic convention in 1968, Leonid Brezhnev sent Warsaw Pact tank armies to crush the Prague Spring.
    When the Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa was crushed in Gdansk, Reagan sent copy and printing machines. At the Berlin Wall in 1988, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”
    Reagan never threatened to tear it down himself.
    But beginning in 1989, the Wall was torn down, Germany was united, the Red Army went home, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the USSR broke apart into 15 nations, and Leninism expired in its birthplace.
    As the threat that had led to NATO disappeared, many argued that the alliance created to deal with that threat should be allowed to fade away, and a free and prosperous Europe should now provide for its own defense.
    It was not to be. The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”
    This, said Kennan, would “inflame the nationalistic and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations.” Kennan was proven right.
    America is now burdened with the duty to defend Europe from the Atlantic to the Baltic, even as we face a far greater threat in China, with an economy and population 10 times that of Russia.
    And we must do this with a defense budget that is not half the share of the federal budget or the GDP that Eisenhower and Kennedy had.
    Trump is president today because the American people concluded that our foreign policy elite, with their endless interventions where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, had bled and virtually bankrupted us, while kicking away all of the fruits of our Cold War victory.
    Halfway into Trump’s term, the question is whether he is going to just talk about halting Cold War II with Russia, about demanding that Europe pay for its own defense, and about bringing the troops home — or whether he is going to act upon his convictions.
    Our foreign policy establishment is determined to prevent Trump from carrying out his mandate. And if he means to carry out his agenda, he had best get on with it.



    Share Pat's Columns!
    https://buchanan.org/blog/at-age-70-time-to-rethink-nato-135716

    — 

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #258 on: January 22, 2019, 09:33:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • When Democracy Fails to Deliver
    January 22, 2019 by Pat Buchanan   



    Share Pat's Columns!


    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible … make violent revolution inevitable,” said John F. Kennedy.

    In 2016, the U.S. and Britain were both witness to peaceful revolutions.

    The British voted 52-48 to sever ties to the European Union, restore their full sovereignty, declare independence and go their own way in the world. Trade and immigration policy would henceforth be decided by a parliament elected by the people, not by bureaucrats in Brussels.

    “Brexit” it was called. And British defiance stunned global elites.

    Two and a half years later, Britain is still inside the EU, and no one seems to know when or whether the divorce will take place — a victory of London and European elites over the expressed will of the British people.

    Appalled by the Brexit vote, these elites played a waiting game, broadcasting warnings of what could happen, to panic the British public into reconsidering and reversing its democratic decision.

    Losing candidates and losing parties accept defeat and yield power.

    Establishments have agendas they do not regard as subject to electoral repudiation or repeal. Defeated, they use their non-electoral powers to prevent unwanted policies from ever being implemented.



    Call it limited democracy.

    In 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected president when a spirit of rebellion against America’s failed elites roiled both parties. Both the Trump campaign and the Ted Cruz campaign, which ran second in the Republican race, offered anti-establishment ideas. So, too, did the Bernie Sanders campaign in the Democratic primaries.

    Trump’s defining agenda was basically this:

    He would build a wall across the Mexican border to halt the flood of illegal migrants. He would extricate us from the half dozen Middle East wars into which Bush II and Obama had plunged us.

    He would abrogate the trade deals that had seen imports from NAFTA nations, China, the EU and Japan replace goods made in the USA. He would halt the shuttering of tens of thousands of U.S. factories and the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs.

    He would call off the new cold war with Russia.

    Halfway through this presidential term, where are we?

    Part of the U.S. government has been shut down for a month. The wall has not been built and may never be. President Trump’s decision to pull 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria has met massive resistance from our foreign policy establishment. Trump is being pushed to confront Russia from the Baltic to the Black Sea and to trash the intermediate-range nuclear missile treaty that Ronald Reagan negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev.

    And we are being pushed toward a new Mideast war with Iran.

    This was the establishment’s agenda, not Trump’s.

    We have lately learned that after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, a cabal inside the FBI initiated a counterintelligence investigation to discover if Trump was a conscious agent of a Kremlin conspiracy.

    Who made this call? Who approved it? Did the FBI discover that Trump is a patriot, or another Alger Hiss? We have not been told by the FBI after two years of investigation. Why not?

    We do know that the dirt-diving arm of the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, hired a British former spy with KGB connections to cook up a “dirty dossier” that was used to persuade the secret FISA court to approve the surveillance of the Trump campaign.

    Foremost among these was “the New Journalism.”

    Yet there seems a massive media disinterest in a conspiracy that might portray Trump as the victim of dirty campaign tricks.

    Which brings us back to the larger question: While populists have won elections and carried out peaceful revolutions, often the policies for which they have successfully worked are never implemented.

    In the 1975 book “Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories: Why the Right Has Failed,” this writer sought to explore and explain the forces that so often deny the right the policy fruits of its political victories.

    “The essence of press power lies in the authority to select, elevate and promote one set of ideas, issues, and personalities and to ignore others,” this writer wrote. “The press determines what ‘people will talk and think about’ because of the monopoly it holds over the news and information flowing out of Washington.”

    Among the reasons for Trump’s political success, such as it is, is that today’s conservative media did not exist back then, nor did the new social media that he has mastered so well.

    Yet still, the left’s power over America’s character- and culture-forming institutions remains overwhelming. It dominates public schools and teachers unions, mainstream churches, college and university faculties, media and entertainment, TV and film.

    What is taking place in the West today might be described as a struggle between the capital and the country it rules. England voted to leave the EU; London voted to remain.

    In the last analysis, Kennedy was surely right. People who see the policies they have voted for rejected again and again, by the very elites they defeated, will inevitably turn to other means to preserve what they have.

    The “yellow vest” protests in Paris show us that.



    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/when-democracy-fails-to-deliver-135759

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #259 on: January 25, 2019, 11:28:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Democrat's America: Heart of Darkness

    1/25/2019 By Pat Buchanan

    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    If it was the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that black and white would come together in friendship and peace to do justice, his acolytes in today’s Democratic Party appear to have missed that part of his message.

    Here is Hakeem Jeffries, fourth-ranked Democrat in Nancy Pelosi’s House, speaking Monday, on the holiday set aside to honor King:

    “We have a hater in the White House. The birther in chief. The grand wizard of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. … While Jim Crow may be dead, he’s still got some nieces and nephews that are alive and well.”

    At the headquarters of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, wrote The New York Times, Jeffries’ remarks were “met with … much cheering.”

    At a Boston breakfast that same day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren chose to honor King’s memory in her way: “Our government is shut down for one reason … So the president of the United States can fund a monument to hate and division along our southern border.”

    At a rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Sen. Cory Booker declaimed — in what could be taken as a shot at his New Jersey colleague, the lately acquitted Sen. Bob Menendez — “We live a nation where you get a better justice system if you’re rich and guilty than poor and innocent.”

    Booker urged the crowd “to apply the ideals of Dr. King” and avoid vitriol in dealing with political adversaries.

    But his Senate colleague Bernie Sanders, also in South Carolina, wasn’t buying it. Routed by Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary in 2016, Sanders is determined not to lose the party’s African-American majority that badly in 2020.

    “Today we talk about racism,” said Sanders. “It gives me no pleasure to tell you that we now have a president of the United States who is a racist.”

    Sanders apparently connected, with his remarks “drawing applause.”

    Joe Biden spoke in D.C. in the full apology-tour mode made famous by his former boss, Barack Obama. He brought up the 1994 crime bill he shepherded though the Senate, which treated consumption and distribution of crack cocaine as more serious crimes than the use of powder cocaine, and then confessed to the crowd that it was “a big mistake.”

    “We were told by the experts that, ‘crack you never go back,’ that the two were somehow fundamentally different. It’s not. But it’s trapped an entire generation.”



    Biden meant that lots of black folks got locked up for a long time, unjustly, conceding, “We may not have always got things right.”

    Biden then proceeded to slander the nation that has honored him as it has few of his generation: “Systematic racism that most of us whites don’t even like to acknowledge” is “built into every aspect of our system.”

    Is America, 50 years after segregation was outlawed in our public life, really a land saturated with systemic racism?

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg was also in D.C.

    The mayor’s problem with African-Americans is that he pursued a policy of stop-and-frisk with criminal suspects in New York. So, he sought to find common ground with his audience by relating “a series of events that had shaped his recent thinking about race.”

    The mayor said he had “recently learned about the deadly race riots in which white residents destroyed the Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, and murdered several dozen black residents.”

    But why did his honor have to go all the way back to 1921 and Tulsa to find race riots, when Harlem, in the heart of the town he served as mayor for 12 years, exploded in a riot in 1964 that spread to Brooklyn and Queens and lasted six days?

    Why did Bloomberg not bring up the worst riot in U.S. history, when Lincoln sent Union veterans of Gettysburg to shoot down Irish immigrants protesting the draft in New York?

    “It’s up to us to bring these stories out of the shadows so they never happen again,” said the mayor.

    But where are black communities threatened by white mob violence in 2019? Was the Watts riot of 1965, were the Detroit and Newark riots of 1967, was the rioting, looting and arson that ravaged 100 cities after King’s death a result of rampaging whites assaulting black folks?

    Was the LA riot of 1992, which targeted Koreatown, the work of white racists?

    Monday, after a meeting with Sharpton, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand offered her message of conciliation. Said the successor to Sen. Hillary Clinton, President Trump has “inspired a hate and a darkness in this country that I have never experienced myself.

    “It is wrong to ask men and women of color to bear these burdens every single day. … White women like me must bear part of this burden.”

    Does there not come a time when the pandering has to stop?

    Ronald Reagan preached America as the Pilgrim fathers’ “shining city on a hill.” For Democrats today, America is the heart of darkness.

    Can people lead a republic that they have come to see as a sinkhole of racism?





    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/democrats-america-the-heart-of-darkness-135809





    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #260 on: January 29, 2019, 10:01:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  If the Army Stands With Maduro, What Is Plan B?
    January 29, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Share Pat's Columns!

    “Pay the soldiers. The rest do not matter.”
    This was the deathbed counsel given to his sons by Roman Emperor Septimius Severus in A.D. 211.
    Nicolas Maduro must today appreciate the emperor’s insight.
    For the political survival of this former bus driver and union boss hangs now upon whether Venezuela’s armed forces choose to stand by him or to desert him and support National Assembly leader Juan Guaido.
    Wednesday, Guaido declared Maduro’s election last May to a second six-year term to be a sham, and had himself inaugurated as acting president.
    Thursday, the defense minister and army chief General Vladimir Padrino Lopez, with his top brass, dismissed the 35-year-old Guaido as a U.S. puppet, and pledged allegiance to Maduro.
    Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the U.N. Security Council: “Now it is time for every other nation to pick a side. … Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem.”
    By Friday, however, the world had already taken sides.

    Russia and China stood by Maduro, as did NATO ally Turkey, with President Erdogan phoning his support. Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia were also with Maduro.
    Backing Guaido are Venezuela’s neighbors Ecuador, Brazil and Colombia, the U.S. and Canada, and the Organization of American States.
    Britain, France, Germany and Spain have sent Maduro a diplomatic ultimatum: Agree in eight days to new elections or we back the 35-year-old Guaido, who, until this year, was an unknown.
    All options are on the table, says President Donald Trump. But Russia called Guaido’s action a “quasi-coup” and warned that intervention could result in “catastrophic consequences.” Vladimir Putin also phoned Maduro with his support.
    The stakes for all sides here are huge. Russia has contractors in Venezuela and has lent the regime billions. In a show of solidarity, Putin recently flew two strategic bombers to Venezuela.
    China has loaned Venezuela tens of billions, with Caracas paying Beijing back in oil.
    Cuba has sent military and intelligence officers to maintain internal security. Hugo Chavez had seen in Fidel Castro a father figure and modeled his new Venezuela on Castro’s Cuba — with similar results.
    Where hundreds of thousands fled Castro’s revolution in the 1960s, three million Venezuelans have fled to Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia and other South American countries and the USA.
    The economy is in a shambles. Though Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth, production is a fraction of what it once was. Cronyism and corruption are endemic. Inflation has destroyed the currency. There is poverty, malnutrition and shortages of every necessity of modern life.
    Yet, still, the crucial question: What will the soldiers do? And if the military stands with Maduro, and Maduro refuses to go, what do the Americans do to force him out?
    Invade? That would invite disaster. Venezuela is not Panama, Haiti or Grenada. Larger than Texas, its population is more than 30 million. And U.S. forces are already committed around the world.
    A blockade and sanctions would magnify and deepen the suffering of the people of Venezuela long before they would bring down the regime. Would our allies support a blockade? And if years of suffering by the Venezuelan people have not shaken Maduro’s hold on power, what makes us believe more of the same would persuade him?
    Maduro and his army are being offered amnesty if they peacefully depart. But what would Maduro’s fate be if he flees?
    If he gives up power under U.S. threat, he is finished and disgraced as a coward. Would he not prefer to go down fighting?
    And if the leadership of the army should abandon Maduro, there are younger ambitious officers who would surely see a rewarding future in fighting to save the regime.
    Are we inviting a civil war in Venezuela? Should the shooting start in Caracas, what do we do then?
    Did anyone think this through?
    Maduro is an incompetent brutal dictator whose ideology has helped to destroy a nation. But if he can change the narrative from a confrontation between a tyrant and his persecuted people to that of an embattled defender of Venezuela being attacked by Yankee imperialists and their domestic lackeys, that could resonate among the masses in Latin America.
    And from all indications, Maduro intends to defy the U.S. and rally the radicals and anti-Americans in the hemisphere and the Third World.
    Guiado’s constitutional claim to the presidency of Venezuela was a scheme cooked up in collusion with Washington, made in the USA, with Secretary of State Pompeo, John Bolton and Sen. Marco Rubio signing on, and President Trump signing off. This was Plan A.
    But if Plan A does not succeed, and Maduro, with America’s prestige on the line, defies our demand that he yield, what do we do then? What is Plan B?
    “Assad must go!” said Barack Obama. Well, Assad is still there — and Obama is gone.
    Will the same be said of Maduro?


    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/if-the-army-stands-with-maduro-what-is-plan-b-135899

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #261 on: February 01, 2019, 09:59:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trump vs. the Spy Chiefs: Who’s Right?
    February 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Share Pat's Columns!

    To manifest his opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull all 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, and half of the 14,000 in Afghanistan, Gen. James Mattis went public and resigned as secretary of defense.
    Now Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, in public testimony to Congress, has contradicted Trump about the threats that face the nation.
    Contrary to what the president believes, Coats says, North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons. ISIS remains a serious threat, even if the caliphate has been rolled up. And there is no evidence that Iran, though hostile and aggressive, is acquiring nuclear weapons.
    CIA Director Gina Haspel agreed: Iran remains in compliance with the nuclear treaty that Trump has trashed and abandoned. The treaty is still doing what it was designed to do.
    At this perceived public defiance, Trump exploded:
    “The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! … They [the Iranians] are testing Rockets (last week), and more, and are coming very close to the edge. … Be careful of Iran.”
    Trump added: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

    Trump then brought up the epochal blunder of U.S. intelligence in backing the Bush II claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (a “slam dunk”), and was a grave threat to the USA.
    Born of incompetence and mendacity, that counsel led to the greatest strategic blunder of the 21st century, if not of U.S. history — the second Iraq War. Launched by George W. Bush, this invasion plunged us into the Middle East’s forever war and got the Republican Party ejected from power in 2006 and 2008.
    While it’s not unusual for a president and the intel community to diverge on the gravity of threats, what is astonishing is that the intel leaders would declare a president to be flat-out wrong.
    Yet the confrontation is not unhealthy, for it reflects reality. On foreign policy, we are divided not only on means but ends.
    And the division calls to mind Walter Lippmann’s words, after U.S. political clashes and unpreparedness in FDR’s New Deal decade led to the early disasters at Pearl Harbor, Bataan and Corregidor.
    “For nearly fifty years,” wrote the dean of American columnists, “the nation had not had a settled and generally accepted foreign policy. This is a danger to the Republic. For when a people is divided … about the conduct of its foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or to safeguard successfully its peace.”
    We seem to be in just such a situation today.
    Indeed, Trump is president because of the foreign policy disasters produced by his predecessors, who leaned on the U.S. intel community, and because Trump, in 2016, appeared to read the nation right.
    Yet there is common ground between Trump and the spy chiefs.
    Coats and Haspel are correct that the U.S. faces a Russia and China that are closer and more collaborative than they have been since the 1950s, before the Cuban missile crisis, which Mao saw as a Moscow capitulation.
    And as we have more in common with Russia, with its historic ties to the West, and Russia appears by far the lesser long-term threat, how do we split Russia off from China? Here, Trump’s instincts are right and the Beltway Russophobes are wrong.
    As for Iran, the intelligence community is consistent.
    In 2007 and 2011, the CIA declared “with high confidence” that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. Now, with U.N. inspectors crawling all over Tehran’s nuclear facilities under the treaty, the CIA and DNI are still saying the same thing.
    What of the contention that Iran is seeking hegemony in the Middle East?
    Really? How? Would a nuclear-armed Israel, which has launched 200 strikes on Iran’s allies in Syria, accept that? What would Turkey, with the second-largest army in NATO, Egypt, the largest Arab nation, and Saudi Arabia have to say about that?
    How could Shiite Iran, whose Persian majority is nearly matched by its Arab, Azeri, Baloch and Kurdish minorities, gain dominance over a Middle East where the vast majority is Sunni Arab? How is Iran a threat to us over here, compared to the threat we pose to Iran over there?
    Iran broke out of its isolation for two reasons. First, George W. Bush came in and overthrew its Taliban enemies on its eastern border, and then he overthrew Saddam Hussein, the enemy on its western border.
    As Trump contends, ISIS has been defeated and driven from its twin capitals — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. But it is also true that ISIS and al-Qaida still have tens of thousands of jihadists living among the peoples of the Middle East.
    And the great question remains:
    Are U.S. troops necessary over there — to prevent terrorists from coming over here? Or are they over here — because we are over there?



    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/trump-vs-the-spy-chiefs-whos-right-135918


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #262 on: February 05, 2019, 10:29:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sacrificing Northam Will Not Be Enough
    February 5, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Share Pat's Columns!

    “Once that picture with the blackface and the Klansman came out, there is no way you can continue to be the governor of the commonwealth of Virginia.”
    So decreed Terry McAuliffe, insisting on the death penalty with no reprieve for his friend and successor Gov. Ralph Northam.
    Et tu, Brute?
    Yet Northam had all but sworn Saturday he had no knowledge of the 1984 yearbook photo and that he was not either man in the photo.
    McAuliffe, who is considering a run for president, joined Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Julian Castro and Joe Biden in the pile-on. All had washed their hands of Northam.
    That a moderate Democratic governor is near friendless in a fight for his life reveals much about the Democratic Party.
    Earlier last week, Northam was at the center of another blazing controversy. He had backed legislation to permit abortions up to birth.
    And then he volunteered that, if a child were born after a botched abortion, the “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

    Northam seemed to be not only endorsing third-trimester abortion, but infanticide, “mercy killing,” the murder of a living but wounded baby after birth. A public outcry forced the legislature to back off the bill.
    Then the photo from the yearbook of Eastern Virginia Medical School surfaced. Yet, in term of moral gravity, which is worse?
    Public advocacy of late-term abortions with an option to execute babies who survive, or a stupid and insensitive 35-year-old photo of two beer-drinking guys, one dressed up in Klan costume, the other in blackface.
    Other Democrats are saying that even if Northam is not in the “racist” photo, he admitted to putting shoe polish on his face, to imitate Michael Jackson and his moonwalk, for a 1984 dance contest.
    To some Democrats, third-trimester abortions are a step forward for women’s rights. Gov. Andrew Cuomo was cheered in Albany for enacting a law to guarantee late-term abortions should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
    By week’s end, Virginia Democrats were bewailing the “horrible” history of their state, where, in 1619, the first slave ship arrived at Point Comfort with men and women from Africa who would work the plantations until the Civil War ended, 250 years later.
    One cannot rewrite history.
    Four of America’s first six presidents — Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe — were Virginians. All were slave owners. Richmond, the capital of Virginia, was the capital of the Confederacy. The commander in chief of the Confederate armies was a Virginian, Robert E. Lee.
    Northam attended Virginia Military Institute, where Thomas Jonathan (“Stonewall”) Jackson had been Instructor of Artillery. The VMI cadet corps fought proudly in the Battle of New Market.
    The most memorialized of Virginia’s heroes, in its monuments and statues, are colonists, Revolutionary War and Confederate soldiers and statesmen, and 19th- and 20th-century senators and governors. Almost all supported slavery or segregation.
    When the Warren Court outlawed segregation in 1954, Virginia and the South replied with the Dixie Manifesto, declaring open defiance and “massive resistance” to the court order to integrate.
    Not until Nixon’s presidency was the order carried out.
    In recent years, there has been a running debate about what kind of country America is.
    Is she a blood and soil nation, a separate people, with their own unique history, heroes, holidays, language, literature, myths and music? Or is America a propositional nation, united solely by its values, whose mission it is to transmit these values to mankind?
    The question raised this weekend, however, is even more divisive.
    Is America a good country, or has she, like Virginia, such a past of sins and crimes as to make her eternally ashamed and for which she should make eternal amends? Does America owe the world?
    Should Western civilization be held responsible for what it has done through the centuries to persons of color the world over? Should we conduct a purging of monuments to all of America’s “white racists,” as antifa and its allies are determined to do in Virginia?
    The Democratic Party may believe that by throwing Northam to the wolves it will satisfy these forces. It won’t.
    We are at the beginning of a Kulturkampf to purge America of all monuments and tributes to the white males who created, built and ruled the country, and once believed that they, their nation, their faith, and their civilization were superior to all others. And, without apology, they so acted in the world.
    Those two guys drinking beer in blackface and Klan robes and a hood thought they were being funny, but to the unamused members of a radicalized Democratic Party, there is nothing funny about them.
    And, after Northam, these intolerant people will demand that the Democratic Party nominate a candidate who will echo their convictions about America’s past.




    Image Source: Strobridge & Co. 1831 WikiMedia
    Share Pat's Columns!




    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #263 on: February 08, 2019, 08:29:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Has Trump Found the Formula for 2020?
    February 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.80 Stars!

    Share Pat's Columns!

    If the pollsters at CNN and CBS are correct, Donald Trump may have found the formula for winning a second term in 2020.
    His State of the Union address, say the two networks, met with the approval of 76 percent of all viewers — 97 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of independents and 30 percent of Democrats. Seventy-two percent agreed with the president’s plans for securing the border with Mexico.
    Trump was not only unapologetic in defense of his wall. He seemed to relish savaging the rising radicalism of Democrats on two critical issues many Democrats have, since their 2018 triumph, seized upon: abortion on demand, right up to the day of birth, and soak-the-rich socialism.
    “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” Trump thundered. “America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”
    “America will never be a socialist country,” Trump roared, as the camera focused in on the scowling face of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
    The GOP ovation was thunderous, the Democratic silence revealing. Understandable. For, as in the 1972 Nixon landslide, Democrats appear to be coming down with “McGovernism.”
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the rookie sensation in Nancy Pelosi’s House, has called for a U.S. income tax rate of 70 percent. As California and New York City have state and local tax rates of 12 percent that are no longer deductible on federal taxes, their most successful residents could be forced to fork over four-fifths of all income every year in taxes.
    Some Democrats have called for an 80 percent federal tax rate. New Yorkers who earn $1 million a year would be allowed to keep less than a dime of every added dollar they earn.
    Sanders would impose a 45 percent tax on all estates over $3.5 million, rising to 77 percent on estates worth $1 billion.
    Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax to scoop off 2 percent of all the wealth of folks whose net worth reaches $50 million, and 3 percent of all the wealth of every billionaire, every year.
    To ex-Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a potential rival in the presidential race, whose New York is witnessing an exodus of its wealthy to Sun Belt states, Warren’s ideas represent a gospel-of-greed stupidity.
    Says Bloomberg: “If you want to look at a system that is not capitalistic, just take a look at what was perhaps the wealthiest country in the world and today people are starving to death. It’s called Venezuela.”
    Democrats have also embraced the cause of “Medicare-for-all.”
    Asked how private health companies that now insure 177 million people would fare under her health care system, Sen. Kamala Harris was dismissive: “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.”
    Trump also delivered in-your-face defiance to feminists who seek to guarantee unrestricted access to abortion on demand.
    Recalling the celebration, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s guarantee of abortion rights up to the moment before birth became law, Trump declared:

    “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.
    “These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.
    “And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.
    “And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: All children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.”
    Has any president, in any State of the Union, made a stronger statement in defense of life?
    Are Democrats losing their minds? Only 13 percent of Americans believe in letting babies be aborted up to and through the ninth month of pregnancy. In what states are infanticide and socialism winning issues?
    In this writer’s home state, Virginia, the resignation of Democratic Governor Ralph Northam, for “racism,” is being demanded by state and national Democrats, because he put on blackface for a Michael Jackson imitation at a dance 35 years ago.
    Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, whose ancestors were slaves on the Revolutionary War plantation of Lord Fairfax, has been accused of raping a young woman at the Democratic convention in 2004.
    The next in line to succeed the governor, the attorney general, also a Democrat, has just admitted to wearing blackface when he was in school.
    And Sen. Warren, says The Washington Post, listed “American Indian” as her race on a State Bar of Texas registration card in 1986.
    Yet, according to her DNA and the Cherokee chief, she ain’t one.
    Somebody up there likes Donald Trump.


     

    Share Pat's Columns:

    https://buchanan.org/blog/has-trump-found-the-formula-for-2020-135970

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #264 on: February 12, 2019, 09:28:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Are the Democrats Bent on Suicide?
    February 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan   


    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!





    After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as “the longest suicide note in history.”

    The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president.

    The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression.

    Only that story is more than a small myth.

    The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent.

    World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.

    Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious.

    To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

    This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar.

    Will natural gas be permitted? Will nuclear power? There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Will they be shut down? Will the Greens agree to dam up more U.S. rivers to produce renewable hydroelectric power?

    Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. What will replace it? Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos.

    The GND calls for an overhaul of the “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector … through … clean, affordable and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

    Gas-powered cars are out. How long will that train trip from DC to LA take? And if China continues its relentless rise in carbon emissions until 2030, as permitted by the Paris climate accord, while the U.S. spends itself into bankruptcy going green, where would that leave America and China at midcentury?



    “By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

    The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

    Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression.

    Who are their oppressors? Guess.

    Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” was an original co-sponsor.

    Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

    With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club.

    The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

    In a presidential election, the “out” party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record.

    Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this.

    The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.

    That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/are-the-democrats-bent-on-suicide-136395


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #265 on: February 15, 2019, 09:30:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Will Diversity Be the Death of the Democrats?
    February 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Both of America’s great national parties are coalitions.
    But it is the Democratic Party that never ceases to celebrate diversity — racial, religious, ethnic, cultural — as its own and as America’s “greatest strength.”
    Understandably so, for the party is home to a multitude of minorities.
    It is the domain of the LGBTQ movement. In presidential elections, Democrats win 70 percent of Hispanics, Jews and Asian-Americans, and 90 percent of African-Americans.
    Yet, lately, the party seems to be careening into a virtual war of all against all.
    Democratic Governor Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring of Virginia have both admitted to using blackface.
    Northam imitated Michael Jackson’s “moonwalk” in a 1984 dance contest. Herring, in 1980 at the University of Virginia, did a blackface impression of rap icon Kurtis Blow, who called it ugly and degrading.
    The resignations of both have been demanded by Virginia’s black leadership. Northam and Herring, however, are defying the demands.
    Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, only the second black ever to win statewide office, has been charged by two women with rape. And the demands for his resignation are growing louder and most insistent.
    Yet if Fairfax is forced out, while the white governor and white attorney general get a pass, black leaders warn, all hell is going to bust loose.
    The Democratic Party of Virginia was already convulsed over all the monuments, statues, schools, parks, highways and streets that bear the names of slave owners, Confederate soldiers and 19th- and 20th-century segregationists.
    Across the Potomac, Ilhan Omar, the first ever Somali-American to serve in Congress, and a Muslim, ignited a firestorm last week when she gave this as the reason Congress faithfully votes the AIPAC line on Israel: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”
    The reference is to $100 bills, on which Ben Franklin’s face appears. The line is a rap lyric from a 1997 song by Puff Daddy.
    Omar was saying Congress has been bought.
    The House Democratic leadership demanded and got an apology from Omar for her use of an “anti-Semitic trope.”
    But Omar now has company in the House. Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim, shares and airs her views on Israel.
    The problem for Democrats?
    These provocateurs are magnets for media. They speak for a rising minority in the party that regards Israel as an apartheid state that oppresses Palestinians. And they find an echo among millennials on the party’s socialist left.
    As Thursday’s Washington Post headlined, this Omar flap “could forecast a Democratic divide on Israel.”
    Indeed, it may have already done so.
    When Senate Republicans proposed legislation to allow states to refuse to hire individuals or contractors who support the BDS movement to boycott Israel, Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders all voted no.
    The four say they are supporting freedom of speech to condemn Israeli policy. But to others it looks like a progressive Democratic blessing for those urging that Israel be treated the same way Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa were treated.
    Within the Democratic coalition, Asian-Americans are now in conflict with blacks and Hispanics over admission policies at elite schools and universities.
    Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” where students are admitted based on test scores or entrance exams. Black and Hispanic leaders are demanding that student bodies, regardless of test scores, look like the community. And if this requires affirmative action based upon race and ethnicity, so be it.
    The LBGTQ community is now in court demanding all the rights and protections of the civil rights laws of the ’60s. This will bring gay groups into constant collisions with religious communities that adhere to traditional moral views on homosexuality.
    The minorities of color in the Democratic coalition are growing, as the base of the GOP is aging and shrinking. But these minorities are also becoming more rivalrous, competitive and demanding. And the further they move left, they more they move outside the American mainstream.
    The pledge of allegiance this writer recited every day of school, reads: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
    Today, the antifa left desecrates the flag, as liberals praise NFL players who “take a knee” during the national anthem. Militant migrants march under Mexican flags to protest border security policies. The “republic” has been by “our democracy.”
    We are no longer “one nation … indivisible” We have almost ceased talking to one another. As for “under God,” added in 1954, Democrats at their Charlotte Convention sought to have God excised from the party platform.
    “Liberty” has been supplanted by diversity, “justice” by equality.
    But as Revolutionary France, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela proved, regimes that promise utopian and egalitarian societies inevitably reveal themselves to be undertakers of freedom, America’s cause.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/will-diversity-be-the-death-of-the-democrats-136436


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #266 on: February 19, 2019, 07:22:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why Autocrats Are Replacing Democrats
    February 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    “If you look at Trump in America or Bolsonaro in Brazil, you see that people now want politicians who are tough enough to do what they promise,” said Spanish businessman Juan Carlos Perez Carreno.
    The Spaniard was explaining to The New York Times what lay behind the rise of Vox, which the Times calls “Spain’s first far-right party since the end of the Franco dictatorship in 1975.”
    Indeed, the growing impatience of peoples with elected leaders and legislators who cannot or will not act decisively explains two realities of our time: the eclipse of Congress and the rise of autocracy worldwide.
    In condemning President Donald Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency and use Pentagon funds to build his wall, Beltway elites have charged the president with a multitude of sins against the Constitution.
    He has usurped the “power of the purse” that the Founding Fathers invested in Congress. He has disregarded the “checks and balances” of Madisonian democracy. He is acting like an imperial president.
    Yet the decline of Congress is not a recent phenomenon. And the principal collaborator in its fall from grace, from being “the first branch of government” to the least esteemed, has been Congress itself, its own timidity and cowardice.
    Contrast, if you will, the now-inveterate torpor and inaction of Congress with how presidents, declared by historians to be great or near great, have acted.

    Thomas Jefferson seized upon Napoleon’s sudden offer to sell the vast Louisiana territory for $15 million in an act of dubious constitutionality by Jefferson’s own judgment. History has validated his decision.
    Andrew Jackson — “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” — shoved aside a Supreme Court ruling denying him the right to transfer the Indians of Florida to the middle of the country.
    Abraham Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators to prevent a secessionist-minded legislature from meeting, violated the habeas corpus rights of thousands, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut down newspapers, and, in January 1863, declared free all the slaves of every state still in rebellion against the Union.
    “I took Panama!” said Theodore Roosevelt, whose agents helped rebels shear off the province from Colombia to build his canal.
    FDR ordered some 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps in 1942 for the duration of the war.
    Without authorization from Congress, Harry Truman ordered U.S. troops into South Korea in 1950 to resist the invasion by North Korea, calling it a police action.
    Though a Republican House voted against attacking Serbia in 1998, Bill Clinton continued his 78-day bombing campaign until Belgrade yielded up its cradle province of Kosovo.
    Yet while presidents have acted decisively, without congressional authorization and sometimes unconstitutionally, Congress has failed to defend, and even surrendered, its legitimate constitutional powers.
    Congress’s authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” has been largely ceded to the executive branch, with Congress agreeing to confine itself to a “yeah” or “nay” vote on whatever trade treaty the White House negotiates and sends to the Hill.
    Congress’s authority to “coin money” and “regulate the value thereof” was long ago transferred to the Federal Reserve.
    Congress’s power to declare war has been ignored by presidents since Truman. Authorizations for the use of military force have replaced declarations of war, with presidents deciding how broadly they may be interpreted.
    In declaring the national emergency Friday, Trump rested his case on authority given the president by Congress in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.
    The Supreme Court has usurped Congress’ powers with impunity.
    While the civil rights acts of the 1960s were enacted by Congress, the desegregation of America’s public schools was simply ordered by the Warren Court in 1954.
    In the ’60s and ’70s, Congress sat indolent as busing for racial balance was imposed on countless school districts by federal judges.
    As the Supreme Court, for decades, exploited the establishment clause of the First Amendment to de-Christianize all public schools and public places, Congress did nothing. A triumphant court then moved on to declare abortion and same-sex marriage constitutional rights.
    Yet Congress had the latent power, in Article III, Section 2, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and every other federal court. But the big stick the founders left for Congress to corral a runaway Supreme Court was never picked up, never used.
    High among the reasons Trump was elected was that, for all his flaws and failings, he was seen as a doer, a man who “gets things done.”
    And high among the reasons that autocrats are on the rise is that the centrist parties being shoved aside are perceived as having failed the people in their most basic demands — fewer migrants, more secure borders, preservation of national identity, putting their own people and their country own first.
    Whatever may be said of the autocrats, be it Trump, Putin or Xi Jinping, they are not talkers but doers. They act.
    And they may very well own the future.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/why-autocrats-are-replacing-democrats-136467

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #267 on: February 22, 2019, 07:50:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • On to Caracas and Tehran!
    February 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    In the Venezuelan crisis, said President Donald Trump in Florida, “All options are on the table.” And if Venezuela’s generals persist in their refusal to break with Nicolas Maduro, they could “lose everything.”
    Another example of Yankee bluster and bluff?
    Or is Trump prepared to use military force to bring down Maduro and install Juan Guaido, the president of the national assembly who has declared himself president of Venezuela?
    We will get an indication this weekend, as a convoy of food and humanitarian aid tries to force its way into Venezuela from Colombia.
    Yet, even given the brutality of the regime and the suffering of the people — 1 in 10 have fled — it is hard to see Trump sending the Marines to fight the Venezuelan army in Venezuela.
    Where would Trump get the authority for such a war?
    Still, the lead role that Trump has assumed in the crisis raises a question. Does the reflexive interventionism — America is “the indispensable nation!” — that propelled us into the forever war of the Middle East, retain its hold on the American mind?
    Next week, Trump meets in Hanoi with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
    While Kim has not tested his missiles or nuclear warheads in a year, few believe he will ever surrender the weapons that secure his survival and brought the U.S. superpower to the negotiating table.
    Is Trump prepared to accept a deal that leaves a nuclear North but brings about a peace treaty, diplomatic relations and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula? Or are American forces to be in Korea indefinitely?

    Nancy Pelosi’s House just voted to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Senate may follow.
    Yet Trump is prepared to use his first veto to kill that War Powers Resolution and retain the right to help the Saudi war effort.
    What is our vital interest in Yemen’s civil war? Why would Trump not wish to extricate us from that moral and humanitarian disaster?
    Answer: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his regime would sustain a strategic defeat should the Houthis, supported by Iran, prevail.
    Before the Warsaw conference called by the U.S. to discuss the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu’s office tweeted: “This is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”
    The “war-with-Iran” tweet was swiftly deleted, replaced with a new tweet that spoke of “the common interest of combating Iran.”
    Like many Americans with whom he is close, Bibi has never hidden his belief as to what we Americans must do to Iran.
    Early this week came leaks that Trump officials have discovered that Shiite Iran has been secretly collaborating with the Sunni terrorists of al-Qaida. This could, headlined The Washington Times, provide “the legal rationale for U.S. military strikes” on Iran.
    At the Munich Security Conference, however, NATO allies Britain, France and Germany recommitted to the Iran nuclear treaty from which Trump withdrew, and to improved economic relations with Tehran.
    Trump pledged months ago to bring home the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria and half of the 14,000 in Afghanistan. But he is meeting resistance in his own party in Congress and even in his own administration.
    Reasons: A U.S. pullout from Syria would abandon our Kurdish allies to the Turks, who see them as terrorists, and would force the Kurds to cut a deal with Syria’s Bashar Assad and Russia for their security and survival.
    This week, Britain and France informed us that if we leave Syria, then they leave, too.
    As for pulling out of Afghanistan, the probable result would be the fall of the Kabul government and return of the Taliban, who hold more territory now than they have since being overthrown 18 years ago. For Afghans who cast their lot with the Americans, it would not go well.
    U.S. relations with Russia, which Trump promised to improve, have chilled to Cold War status. The U.S. is pulling out of Ronald Reagan’s INF treaty, which bans land-based nuclear missiles of 300 to 3,000 mile range.
    Putin has said that any reintroduction of land-based U.S. missiles to Europe would mean a new class of Russian missiles targeted on Europe — and on the United States.
    Today, the U.S. maintains a policy of containment of Russia and China, which are more united than they have been since the first days of the Cold War. We are responsible for defending 28 NATO nations in Europe, twice as many as during the Cold War, plus Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.
    We have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear on the cusp of collisions with Venezuela and Iran. Yet we field armed forces a fraction of the size they were in the 1950s and 1960s and the Reagan era.
    And the U.S. national debt is now larger than the U.S. economy.
    This is imperial overstretch. It is unsustainable.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/on-to-caracas-and-tehran-136490

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #268 on: February 26, 2019, 04:55:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Left’s Latest Demand: Race-Based Reparations
    February 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.98 Stars!

    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!
    Quote
    “Politically, the party of slavery, secession and segregation was the party of Jefferson, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, Wilson and FDR, who put a Klansman on the Supreme Court — the Democratic Party.    It was the Republican Party that was formed to contain and end slavery, and did…”
    Having embraced “Medicare-for-all,” free college tuition and a Green New Deal that would mandate an early end of all oil, gas and coal-fired power plants, the Democratic Party’s lurch to the left rolls on.
    Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren both called last week for race-based reparations for slavery.
    “Centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, legal discrimination and segregation, and discrimination that exist today have led to a systemic wealth gap between black and white Americans,” Harris told The New York Times. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”
    Echoed Sen. Warren: “We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country.” This history has crippled “the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.”
    That black Americans are handicapped by their history in this country, and cannot accumulate wealth as easily, and require compensatory reparations for slavery and segregation, is more than a controversial assertion.
    Are the Democrats going to say this in their national platform in 2020? And how much will be the rest of America be forced to pay, and for how long?
    Warren says Native Americans, too, must be “part of the conversation.” Apparently, they suffer from a similar handicap and need the same reparations.
    How far and fast has the Democratic Party lunged leftward? In 2016, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders all rejected reparations.
    Have Warren and Harris thought this through?
    The questions that instantly arise are: Who would qualify as a beneficiary of reparations, and who would pay the immense transfer sums involved?
    In 1860, there were 4 million slaves in 15 states and D.C. There are 45 to 50 million African-Americans in the USA today.
    Would all black Americans, even the middle class and affluent, be entitled to reparations? How would the government go about proving that folks living here today had ancestors in slavery before 1865?
    Do we, as Warren did to prove her Native American ancestry, conduct a DNA test? Do we consult Ancestry.com for every applicant for reparations?
    The last 50 years have seen many marriages between blacks and whites. Would the children of such marriages qualify for reparations?
    Barack Obama, whose mother was a white teenager and father was a Kenyan, would not qualify. But would wife Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia?
    Harris’s mother was from India, her father from Jamaica, where the British abolished slavery in the mid-1830s. But if the father had ancestors who were enslaved in Jamaica, would the senator qualify, or do reparations go only to the descendants of slaves within the USA?
    While a higher percentage of African-Americans than whites are poor, there are more white poor than black poor in the USA. Does not endemic poverty produce the same negative consequence regardless of race?
    What is the justice in excluding poor whites, or poor Asians and Hispanics, whose ancestors were not here in the USA when slavery existed before 1865?
    From 1845 to 1849, the Irish fled a potato famine that persisted under the indifferent rule of the same British who introduced slavery into what became the United States.
    As for the great migration of Eastern and Southern Europeans — Poles, Italians, Jews, Slavs, Slovaks — slavery was gone before they arrived. They had nothing to do with instituting Jim Crow. Why should they pay reparations?
    Asians and Hispanics were a tiny fraction of the U.S. population as late as 1960, when segregation was being outlawed everywhere, but they are more than 75 million Americans today.
    Should they be made to pay for sins their ancestors did not commit?
    Warren took a DNA test to prove she was partly American Indian, as she put down on various legal forms. Would her less than 1 percent of Indian DNA be sufficient to provide her with reparations for America’s Indian wars?
    If slavery and segregation explain the disparity in wealth between black and white in the U.S., what explains the equally wide disparity in wealth between Hispanics and Asians?
    Politically, the party of slavery, secession and segregation was the party of Jefferson, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, Wilson and FDR, who put a Klansman on the Supreme Court — the Democratic Party. It was the Republican Party that was formed to contain and end slavery, and did.
    One need not be a cynic to suspect Warren’s motivation. Her claim to be an American Indian angered Native Americans, and she would like to mollify them, and ingratiate herself with African-Americans, who constitute more than 60 percent of all Democratic voters in the crucial South Carolina Primary.
    By pushing for compensatory reparations, Warren and Harris may be helping themselves, but they are further splitting their party along the lines of ethnicity and race and elevating an issue certain to divide their country more than it already is.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +2087/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #269 on: March 01, 2019, 08:31:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is the American Century Over For Good?
    February 28, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Indulging its hatred of Trump is a preoccupation, an obsession of this capital city.
    “Politics stops at the water’s edge” was a tradition that, not so long ago, was observed by both parties, particularly when a president was abroad, speaking for the nation.
    The tradition was enunciated by Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan in 1947, as many of the Republicans in the 80th Congress moved to back Truman’s leadership in the Cold War against Stalin’s empire.
    The tradition lasted until the mid-1960s, when the left wing of the Democratic Party turned viscerally, and even violently, against the war in Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson.
    Republican Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, with the support of conservative Democrats, led America to final victory in the Cold War
    Yet except for brief intervals, like the rallying around George H. W. Bush after the triumphant Gulf War of 1991 and George W. Bush after 9/11, true national unity has never been restored.
    Were proof needed, this week provided it.
    President Trump flew to Hanoi, Vietnam, to meet North Korea’s dictator. Subject of negotiations: Kim Jong Un’s nuclear weapons, including his missiles that may be able to reach our homeland.
    How did the Democratic Party wish the commander in chief well on his mission for America?
    During Trump’s first full day in Hanoi, a committee of Nancy Pelosi’s House held a public hearing featuring ex-Trump lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer and felon who cut a deal with the prosecution for a reduced sentence.
    The city loved it. Cable and network TV coverage went gavel to gavel. Cohen’s testimony crowded out the Trump-Kim summit and even news of aerial clashes between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers that have fought three wars since independence, 70 years ago.
    What were the headlines Trump came home to after refusing to lift sanctions on North Korea, in return for meager concessions Kim offered?

    “Cohen Paints Trump as Crooked” was the banner atop page one of The Washington Post. Cohen’s depiction of his old boss was boldly quoted above: “He is a racist. He is a con man. And he is a cheat.”
    “Cohen Accuses Trump of Lies and Cover-ups” ran the page-one headline in The New York Times.
    “Cohen Declares Trump a Racist, Cheat and Conman” read the huge headline in the Financial Times.
    “Cohen Says Trump Guided Coverup” was at the top of page one in The Wall Street Journal.
    Trump is denounced for calling media the “enemy of the people.” Yet that media, in news columns as well as editorials, routinely describes him as a racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, Islamophobe and bigot.
    Indulging its hatred of Trump is a preoccupation, an obsession of this capital city. Those headlines reveal not only the news judgment of the editors but the agenda of the elite who turn to them first every morning.
    That agenda is the breaking of this president; his disgrace and fall; and, if impeachment proves not possible, his crushing defeat in 2020 and subsequent indictment. Our so-called Dreamers in Washington, D.C., look to the triumphal return to power of the establishment the American people threw out in 2016.
    Yet the alliance that seeks to bring down Trump is formidable: deep-state leakers and media collaborators; the Democratic Party and House; most of America’s commentariat; and the cultural elites in the arts, academia and Hollywood.
    How far beyond normal politics have the divisions in our society gone? As the Covington Catholic kids found out, wearing a MAGA hat is now seen as a racist provocation.
    In the play unfolding, Cohen’s testimony to the House committee was scene one of act one.
    Next comes the Mueller report, though it appears Robert Mueller and his team, after investigating for two years, have found no collusion between Trump and Vladimir Putin in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton campaign.
    Hence, the hopes of Trump haters are being redirected to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Subjects of investigation: the Trump Organization, the Trump Inaugural Committee, the Trump Foundation, the Trump family and any entity with which Donald Trump has been associated in 40 years.
    Again, as the president is chief of state and head of government, he cannot be indicted. He must first be removed from the presidency. But to remove him, Democrats have to impeach him in the House and convict him in a Republican Senate.
    If they cannot, they will have to defeat him at the polls.
    In 1968, George Wallace of Alabama tore the Southern populist right out of the Democratic Party. Liberals Gene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy and George McGovern then savaged Vice President Hubert Humphrey from the left. The Grant Park rioters did the rest.
    Nixon, leading a minority Republican Party, had a compelling argument: “If the Democrats cannot unite their own party, how can they unite the nation?”
    Today, a watching world is asking: If you Americans are at war with yourselves over race, religion, morality, culture and politics, if you cannot unite yourselves, how can you unite the world? And around what?
    Maybe the American Century is really over.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-american-century-over-for-good-136596

     

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