Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 28416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6042
  • Reputation: +2148/-49
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #300 on: June 25, 2019, 06:14:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  Trump: War President or Anti-Interventionist?




    Trump: War President or Anti-Interventionist?
    June 24, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

    This post was viewed 315 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!


        Where is the evidence that any such secret program exists? And if it does, why does America not tell the world where Iran’s secret nuclear facilities are located and demand immediate inspections?…

    Visualizing 150 Iranian dead from a missile strike that he had ordered, President Donald Trump recoiled and canceled the strike, a brave decision and defining moment for his presidency.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence had signed off on the strike on Iran as the right response to Tehran’s shootdown of a U.S. Global Hawk spy plane over the Gulf of Oman.

    The U.S. claims the drone was over international waters. Tehran says it was in Iranian territory. But while the loss of a $100 million drone is no small matter, no American pilot was lost, and retaliating by killing 150 Iranians would appear to be a disproportionate response.

    Good for Trump. Yet, all weekend, he was berated for chickening out and imitating President Barack Obama. U.S. credibility, it was said, has taken a big hit and must be restored with military action.

    By canceling the strike, the president also sent a message to Iran: We’re ready to negotiate. Yet, given the irreconcilable character of our clashing demands, it is hard to see how the U.S. and Iran get off this road we are on, at the end of which a military collision seems almost certain.

    Consider the respective demands.

    Monday, the president tweeted: “The U.S. request for Iran is very simple — No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring of Terror!”

    But Iran has no nuclear weapons, has never had nuclear weapons, and has never even produced bomb-grade uranium.

    According to our own intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2011, Tehran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Under the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, the only way Iran could have a nuclear weapons program would be in secret, outside its known nuclear facilities, all of which are under constant U.N. inspection.

    Where is the evidence that any such secret program exists?


    And if it does, why does America not tell the world where Iran’s secret nuclear facilities are located and demand immediate inspections?

    “No further sponsoring of terror,” Trump says.

    But what does that mean?

    As the major Shiite power in a Middle East divided between Sunni and Shiite, Iran backs the Houthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war, Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Alawite Bashar Assad in Syria, and the Shiite militias in Iraq who helped us stop ISIS’s drive to Baghdad.

    In his 12 demands, Pompeo virtually insisted that Iran abandon these allies and capitulate to their Sunni adversaries and rivals.

    Not going to happen. Yet, if these demands are nonnegotiable, to be backed up by sanctions severe enough to choke Iran’s economy to death, we will be headed for war.

    No more than North Korea is Iran going to yield to U.S. demands that it abandon what Iran sees as vital national interests.

    As for the U.S. charge that Iran is “destabilizing” the Middle East, it was not Iran that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrew the Gadhafi regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Assad in Syria, or aided and abetted the Saudis’ intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

    Iran, pushed to the wall, its economy shrinking as inflation and unemployment are rising, is approaching the limits of its tolerance.

    And as Iran suffers pain, it is saying, other nations in the Gulf will endure similar pain, as will the USA. At some point, collisions will produce casualties and we will be on the up escalator to war.

    Yet, what vital interest of ours does Iran today threaten?

    Trump, with his order to stand down on the missile strike on Iran, signaled that he wanted a pause in the confrontation.

    Still, it needs to be said: The president himself authorized the steps that have brought us to this peril point.

    Trump pulled out of and trashed Obama’s nuclear deal. He imposed the sanctions that are now inflicting something close to unacceptable if not intolerable pain on Iran. He had the Islamic Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization. He sent the Abraham Lincoln carrier task force and B-52s to the Gulf region.

    If war is to be avoided, either Iran is going to have to capitulate, or the U.S. is going to have to walk back its maximalist position.

    And who would Trump name to negotiate with Tehran for the United States?

    The longer the sanctions remain in place and the deeper they bite, the greater the likelihood Iran will respond to our economic warfare with its own asymmetric warfare. Has the president decided to take that risk?

    We appear to be at a turning point in the Trump presidency.

    Does he want to run in 2020 as the president who led us into war with Iran, or as the anti-interventionist president who began to bring U.S. troops home from that region that has produced so many wars?

    Perhaps Congress, the branch of government designated by the Constitution to decide on war, should instruct President Trump as to the conditions under which he is authorized to take us to war with Iran.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #301 on: July 05, 2019, 06:14:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0





  • Trump’s Patriotism Vs. The New Anti-Americanism
    July 5, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 97 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!
    Quote
    One wonders: Where is all this negativity, this constant griping and grousing by the left, going to lead? Do these people think America will turn with hope to a party that reflexively recoils at patriotic displays?
    Despite all the grousing and griping about his “politicizing” of the Fourth of July and “militarizing” America’s birthday, President Donald Trump turned the tables on his antagonists, and pulled it off.
    As master of ceremonies and keynote speaker at his “Salute to America” Independence Day event, Trump was a manifest success.
    A president acting as president is almost always a more effective campaigner than a president acting as campaigner. And Trump, in what he said and did not say, played the president Thursday night.
    The crowd on the Mall was huge and friendly, extending from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument. The TV coverage was excellent. Friday, virtually every major newspaper had front-page stories and photos.
    Earlier, former Vice President Joe Biden had snidely asked, “What, I wonder, will Donald Trump say this evening when he speaks to the nation at an event designed more to stroke his ego than celebrate American ideals?”
    Thursday evening, Joe got his answer.
    Despite predictions he would use “Salute to America” for a rally speech, the president shelved partisan politics to recite and celebrate the good things Americans of all colors and creeds are doing, and the great things Americans have done since 1776.
    “Together, we are part of one of the greatest stories ever told — the story of America,” said Trump. “It is the epic tale of a great nation whose people have risked everything for what they know is right and what they know is true.”
    It was not a celebration of Trump but of America.
    “What a great country!” declared the president. “(F)or Americans nothing is impossible.” Ours is “the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.”
    The second half of Trump’s speech was given over to tributes to the five branches of the armed forces — Coast Guard, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army — with each tribute ending in a display of air power.
    The flexing of America’s military muscle had evoked early howls of protest. But the flyovers of F-22s and F-35s, the B-2 stealth bomber and the Ospreys, and the culmination of the aerobatics with the Navy’s Blue Angels, as the Marine Corps band played and all sang the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” was exhilarating, even moving.
    It was positive, uplifting, patriotic. And one imagines that not only Trump’s “deplorables” standing on the Mall loved i
    Still, one wonders: Where is all this negativity, this constant griping and grousing by the left, going to lead? Do these people think America will turn with hope to a party that reflexively recoils at patriotic displays?
    Everywhere it seems the left is attacking America’s history and her flawed heroes. Monday, the Charlottesville City Council voted 4-1 to remove April 13, the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, as a paid holiday.
    Why? Because our third president was a slave owner. The council’s public comment period featured demonstrators accusing the author of America’s Declaration of Independence with having been a racist and a rapist.
    Last week, too, ex-NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick urged his sponsor, Nike, to pull off the market its new Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July sneakers featuring Betsy’s Ross’s first American flag on the heel. Says Nike, Kaepernick told the company he finds the colonial flag offensive, as it was flown when slavery was still legal.
    Just how far and fast the Democratic Party is moving left became clear last week with some startling findings of a new poll.
    According to Gallup, while 76 percent of Republicans say they are “extremely proud” to be an American, only 22 percent of Democrats say the same, a sharp drop from last year. In 2013, the beginning of Obama’s second term, 56% of Democrats said they were “extremely proud” to be Americans.
    Another jolting note: While huge majorities of Americans — 9 in 10 — are extremely proud of the U.S. military and America’s scientific achievements, more than two-thirds of all Americans now say that our political system no longer makes them proud.
    This is especially true of Democrats. Only 25 percent, 1 in 4 Democrats, professes to be proud of our political system, our democracy.
    A specter of anti-Americanism appears to be rising on the left.
    Listening to the Democratic debates, and the depiction of the nation and its economy by the candidates, one would think we were living in the Paris of “Les Miserables” or the London of Charles Dickens.
    Demography undeniably favors a millennial-dominant Democratic Party over the middle-aged and seniors party that is the GOP.
    Yet how does a party, 3 of 4 of whose adherents profess no pride in its political system, persuade the nation to put it in charge of that system? How does a party, not one-fourth of whom are “extremely proud” to be an American, persuade a majority of Americans to entrust it with the leadership of their nation?
    From liberals and progressives, we constantly hear griping, grousing and grievances. When do we hear the gratitude — for America?







    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3077
    • Reputation: +1693/-983
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #302 on: July 06, 2019, 02:21:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Everywhere it seems the left is attacking America’s history and her flawed heroes. Monday, the Charlottesville City Council voted 4-1 to remove April 13, the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, as a paid holiday.
    Why? Because our third president was a slave owner. The council’s public comment period featured demonstrators accusing the author of America’s Declaration of Independence with having been a racist and a rapist.
    Last week, too, ex-NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick urged his sponsor, Nike, to pull off the market its new Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July sneakers featuring Betsy’s Ross’s first American flag on the heel. Says Nike, Kaepernick told the company he finds the colonial flag offensive, as it was flown when slavery was still legal.
    Just how far and fast the Democratic Party is moving left became clear last week with some startling findings of a new poll.
    According to Gallup, while 76 percent of Republicans say they are “extremely proud” to be an American, only 22 percent of Democrats say the same, a sharp drop from last year. In 2013, the beginning of Obama’s second term, 56% of Democrats said they were “extremely proud” to be Americans.
    This is especially true of Democrats. Only 25 percent, 1 in 4 Democrats, professes to be proud of our political system, our democracy.
    A specter of anti-Americanism appears to be rising on the left.
    Demography undeniably favors a millennial-dominant Democratic Party over the middle-aged and seniors party that is the GOP.
    Yet how does a party, 3 of 4 of whose adherents profess no pride in its political system, ...How does a party, not one-fourth of whom are “extremely proud” to be an American, persuade a majority of Americans to entrust it with the leadership of their nation?
    They think as liberals, immorally, as socialist/communist/Marxists because this is what they have been taught in the schools, and every year there are more of them coming out into adulthood. It is a punishment from God, it is the end of the road that started with Martin Luther. Protestantism is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief. You can't fight Satan with Protestantism, so America's path will continue down to the abyss. Satan invented Protestantism, liberalism, communism, and the Novus Ordo religion, you can't fight Satan with Satan's tools.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #303 on: July 12, 2019, 10:34:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are Yanks and Brits Going Their Separate Ways?
    July 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.94 Stars!





    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    When Sir Kim Darroch’s secret cable to London was leaked to the Daily Mail, wherein he called the Trump administration “dysfunctional … unpredictable … faction-riven … diplomatically clumsy and inept,” the odds on his survival as U.K. ambassador plummeted.
    When President Donald Trump’s tweeted retort called Darroch “wacky,” a “stupid guy” and “pompous fool” who had been “foisted on the US,” the countdown to the end began.
    The fatal blow came when, in a debate with his rival for prime minister, Boris Johnson, who will likely replace Theresa May before the end of July, left Darroch twisting in the wind.
    All in all, a bad week for the British Foreign Office when one of its principle diplomats is virtually declared persona non grata in country that is Great Britain’s foremost ally. All the goodwill from Trump’s state visit in June was torched in 72 hours.
    Still, Darroch’s departure is far from the most egregious or grave episode of a leaked missive in U.S. diplomatic history.
    In December 1897, Spanish ambassador Enrique Dupuy de Lome sent a letter to a friend in Cuba describing President William McKinley as “weak and catering to the rabble … a low politician who desires … to stand well with the jingos of his party.”
    The De Lome letter fell into the hands of Cuban rebels who ensured that it was leaked to the U.S. Secretary of State. New York Journal owner William Randolph Hearst published the letter, Feb. 9, 1898, under the flaming headline: “Worst Insult to the United States in Its History.”
    Americans were outraged, McKinley demanded an apology, the Spanish ambassador resigned. Coming six days before the battleship USS Maine blew up in Havana harbor, the De Lome letter helped to push America into a war with Spain that McKinley had not wanted.
    On March 1, 1917, U.S. headlines erupted with news of a secret cable from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to his minister in Mexico City. The minister was instructed to offer Mexico a return of “lost territories in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona,” should war break out with the United States and Mexico enter the war on the side of Germany.
    British intelligence had intercepted the “Zimmermann telegram” and helpfully made it public. Americans were enraged. Six weeks later, we were at war with the Kaiser’s Germany.
    Sir Kim’s cable, which caused his resignation, was not of that caliber. Yet the “special relationship” between the United States and Great Britain is no longer what it was during the 20th century.
    Back in the 19th century, there was no special relationship, but almost a special hostility. The U.S. declared war on Great Britain in 1812, and the British arrived in 1814 to burn down the Capitol and the White House and all the major public buildings in the city.
    Gen. Andrew Jackson settled accounts in New Orleans in 1815.
    During the war of 1861-1865, the British tilted to the Confederacy and built the legendary raider CSS Alabama that wrought devastation on Union shipping before being sunk off Cherbourg in 1864.
    We almost went to war with Britain in 1895, when Grover Cleveland and Secretary of State Richard Olney brashly intruded in a border dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela, and Lord Salisbury told us to butt out. “I rather hope that the fight will come soon,” yelped Theodore Roosevelt.
    Cooler heads prevailed and Britain’s Arthur Balfour said the time would come when a statesman even greater than Monroe “will lay down the doctrine that between English-speaking peoples, war is impossible.”
    So it came to be in the 20th century.
    In 1917 and 1941, America came to the rescue of a Britain which had declared war, first on the Kaiser’s Germany, and then on Hitler’s. During 45 years of the Cold War, America had no stronger or more reliable ally.
    But the world has changed in the post-Cold War era, and even more for Britain than for the United States.
    Among London’s elites today, many see their future in the EU. U.S. trade with Britain is far less than U.S. trade with Canada, Mexico, China or Japan. Britain’s economy is a diminished share of the world economy. The British Empire upon which the sun never set, holding a fifth of the world’s territory and people, has been history for over half a century. The U.S. population is now five times that of Great Britain. And London is as much a Third World city as it is an English city.
    Scores of thousands of Americans and Brits are no longer standing together on the Elbe river across from the Red Army, an army that no longer exists, as the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union no longer exist.
    Yet, in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, history, geography, America has no more natural ally across the sea. And the unfortunate circumstances of Sir Kim’s departure do not cancel out that American interest.

    Image Source: PixaBay…

    https://buchanan.org/blog/are-yanks-and-brits-going-their-separate-ways-137302

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #304 on: July 16, 2019, 10:19:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trump Fuels a Tribal War in Nancy’s House
    July 16, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.87 Stars!
    This post was viewed 315 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!




    Quote
    Trump is driving a wedge right through the Democratic Party, between its moderate and militant wings. With his attacks over the last 48 hours, Trump has signaled whom he prefers as his opponent in 2020. It is not Biden; it is “the Squad.”
    President Donald Trump’s playground taunt Sunday that “the Squad” of four new radical liberal House Democrats, all women of color, should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” dominated Monday morning’s headlines.
    Yet those headlines smothered the deeper story.
    The Democrats are today using language to describe their own leaders that is similar to the language of the 1960s radicals who denounced Democratic segregationist governors like Ross Barnett and George Wallace.
    Consider what the four women have been saying.
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of attacking “newly elected women of color.” Was she calling Pelosi a “racist”?
    “No!” protested AOC. But it sure sounded like it.
    AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti attacked Native American Rep. Sharice Davids for her vote on a Pelosi-backed bill that sent $4.6 billion in aid to the border but lacked the restrictions on Trump policies progressives had demanded.
    Chakrabarti described Davids’ vote as “showing her … enable a racist system,” adding that some Democrats “seem hell bent to do to black and brown people what the old Southern Democrats did in the ’40s.”
    The House Democratic Caucus ripped Chakrabarti, “Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?”
    At a Netroots Nation conference this weekend, African American Rep. Ayanna Pressley declared: “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. … We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.”
    This comes close to calling members of the Black Caucus “Uncle Toms.”
    Monday, the president doubled down, tweeting:
    “We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of Communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own Country, they’re calling the guards along our Border (the Border Patrol Agents) Concentration Camp Guards, they accuse people who support Israel as doing it for the Benjamin’s”
    The “Benjamins” recalls the accusation of Somali-born Ilhan Omar of Minnesota that the Israel Lobby buys the votes of members of Congress. “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”
    Rashida Tlaib of Michigan is the other congresswoman in Trump’s sights. Together, the four have achieved a prominence that almost exceeds that of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Majority Whip James Clyburn.
    The four — AOC, Tlaib, Pressley, Omar — have no clout in the Democratic caucus. But because of the confrontations they have caused and the controversy they have created, they have a massive media following.
    Paradoxically, their interests in winning cheers as the fighting arm of the Democratic Party coincide with the interests of Donald Trump. He entertains and energizes his base by answering in kind their attacks on him and by adopting incendiary rhetoric of his own. He is now assuming the old “America! Love it or Leave it!” stance in going after the four women as anti-American ingrates.
    They, by calling Trump a criminal, racist and fascist for whom impeachment proceedings should have begun months ago, elate and energize the outraged left of their party.
    Among the presidential candidates, some have begun to side with the four, with Bernie Sanders saying Pelosi has been “a little” too tough on them.
    On “Meet the Press,” Bernie added: “You cannot ignore the young people of this country who are passionate about economic and racial and social and environmental justice. You’ve got to bring them in, not alienate them.”
    Trump’s Sunday attack forced Pelosi to stand with her severest critics, and she re-elevated the race issue with this tweet: “When Trump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to ‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again.”
    Do Democrats believe that refighting the racial battles of the 1960s that were thought to have been resolved is a winning hand in 2020?
    Does Pelosi think that demeaning white America is going to rally white or minority Americans to Democratic banners?
    The race issue had already arisen in the first debate when Sen. Kamala Harris called out front-runner Joe Biden for befriending segregationist Senate colleagues in the ’70s and ’80s, and for colluding with them to block court-ordered busing to achieve racial balance in the public schools.
    Observing the clash between Trump and these women, the rank and file of the Democratic Party are being forced to take sides. Many will inevitably side with the fighters, as Democratic moderates appear timid and tepid.
    Trump is driving a wedge right through the Democratic Party, between its moderate and militant wings. With his attacks over the last 48 hours, Trump has signaled whom he prefers as his opponent in 2020. It is not Biden; it is “the Squad.”
    Sunday, Pelosi recited again her mantra, “Diversity is our strength; unity is our power.” It sounded less like a proclamation than a plea.
    We see the diversity. Where is the unity?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/trump-fuels-a-tribal-war-in-nancys-house-137314


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #305 on: July 23, 2019, 06:20:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • America: An Us vs. Them Country
    July 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.87 Stars!
    This post was viewed 258 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    But what is racism? …Republicans and conservatives believe “racist” is a term the left employs to stigmatize, smear and silence adversaries. As one wag put it, a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.
    “Send her back! Send her back!”
    The 13 seconds of that chant at the rally in North Carolina, in response to Donald Trump’s recital of the outrages of Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, will not soon be forgotten, or forgiven.
    This phrase will have a long shelf life. T-shirts emblazoned with “Send Her Back!” and Old Glory are already on sale on eBay.
    Look for the chant at future Trump rallies, as his followers now realize that the chant drives the elites straight up the wall.
    That 13-second chant and Trump’s earlier tweet to the four radical congresswomen of “the Squad” to “go back” to where they came from is being taken as the smoking gun that convicts Trump as an irredeemable racist whose “base” is poisoned by the same hate.
    Writes The New York Times’ Charles Blow in a column that uses “racist” or “racism” more than 30 times: Americans who do not concede that Trump is a racist — are themselves racists: “Make no mistake. Denying racism or refusing to call it out is also racist.”
    But what is racism?
    Is it not a manifest dislike or hatred of people of color because of their color? Trump was not denouncing the ethnicity or race of Ilhan Omar in his rally speech. He was reciting and denouncing what Omar said, just as Nancy Pelosi was denouncing what Omar and the Squad were saying and doing when she mocked their posturing and green agenda.
    Clearly, Americans disagree on what racism is. Writes Blow:

    “A USA Today/Ipsos poll published on July 17 found that more than twice as many Americans believe that people who call others racists do so ‘in bad faith’ compared with those who do not believe it.”
    Republicans and conservatives believe “racist” is a term the left employs to stigmatize, smear and silence adversaries. As one wag put it, a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.
    In the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton famously said of Trump’s populist base, “You could put half of them into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”
    More than that, “Some … are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” To Hillary, Trump supporters were not part of the good America, the enlightened America.
    Her defamation of Trump’s followers meshes with the media’s depiction of the folks laughing, hooting and chanting in North Carolina.
    Trump supporters know what the media think of them, which is why in Middle America the media have a crisis of credibility and moral authority. Trump’s true believers do not believe them, trust them, like them or respect them. And the feeling is obviously mutual.
    While raw and rough, how does the 13-second chant, “Send her back!” compare in viciousness to the chant of 1960s students on Ivy League and other campuses: “Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is going to win!” This was chanted at demonstrations when the NLF, the Viet Cong, was killing hundreds of American soldiers every week.
    How does 13 seconds of “Send her back!” compare with the chant of the mob that shut down midtown Manhattan in December 2014: “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”
    This past week revealed anew what we Americans think of each other, which portends trouble ahead for the republic.
    For a democracy to endure, there has to be an assumption that the loser in an election holds a promissory note that new elections are only a few years off. And if the losers can persuade a majority to support them, they can reassume positions of authority and realize their agenda.
    Trump’s 40-45 percent of the nation is not only being constantly castigated and demonized by the establishment media but it is also being told that, in the not far distant future, it will be demographically swamped by the rising numbers of new migrants pouring into the country.
    Your time is about up, it hears.
    And most of the Democratic candidates have admitted that, if elected, the border wall will never be built, breaking into the country will cease to be a crime, ICE will be abolished, sanctuary cities will be expanded, illegal immigrants will be eligible for free health care and, for millions of people hiding here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship will be granted.
    America, they are saying, will be so unalterably changed in a few years, your kind will never realize political power again, and your America will vanish in a different America where the Squad and like-minded leftists set the agenda.
    Will the deplorables, who number in the scores of millions, accept a future where they and their children and children’s children are to submit to permanent rule by people who visibly detest them and see them as racists, sexists and fascists?
    Will Middle America go gentle into that good night?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/america-an-us-vs-them-country-137335

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #306 on: July 30, 2019, 10:00:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Trump Capturing the ‘Law and Order’ Issue?
    July 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 331 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!


    Quote
    A prediction: The incidence of murders, rapes, robberies and assaults in urban America, which saw a steep decline in the last three decades, is about to rise again.
    Did President Donald Trump launch his Twitter barrage at Elijah Cummings simply because the Baltimore congressman was black?
    Was it just a “racist” attack on a member of the Black Caucus?
    Or did Trump go after Cummings after a Saturday Fox News report that his district was in far worse condition than the Mexican border area for which Cummings had demagogically berated Border Patrol agents?
    Here are Trump’s crucial tweets:
    “Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA…
    “…the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. (Cummings’) District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place.”
    The Fox News report that triggered Trump’s tweets featured a Maryland Republican strategist, Kimberly Klacik, whose videos showed piles of trash and abandoned homes in Baltimore. “A lot of people said he (Cummings) hasn’t even been there in a while,” Klacik claimed.
    And Trump, it appears, has more ammunition than that.
    Baltimore in 2018 was the murder capital of America and ranked second among her most violent major cities. With St. Louis and Detroit, Baltimore is always at or near the top of the list of the most dangerous American cities.
    And what has Cummings, in office 28 years, done to alter that awful reputation?
    As for the presence of rats and rodents, Baltimore has competitors.
    There have lately been news reports of the homeless in LA and San Francisco living on city sidewalks, defecating where they sleep, attracting rodents and vermin, with little or nothing done about it.
    Is it racist to call attention to the decline of so many of America’s great cities that have long been under liberal Democratic rule?

    Over this weekend, while Trump was tweeting, nine people were shot dead in Chicago and 39 wounded. Sounds like Baghdad or Kabul.
    Is this the new normal that Americans must accept?
    A prediction: The incidence of murders, rapes, robberies and assaults in urban America, which saw a steep decline in the last three decades, is about to rise again.
    Why? Because the attitudes and policies that produced these sinking rates of crime and violence — especially the dramatic increase in the incarceration of criminals in America — are changing.
    In 1980, some 500,000 criminals were in federal and state prisons and jails. By 2016, some 2.2 million inmates were in jails and prisons and another 4.5 million convicts were on parole or probation, being monitored.
    As violent criminals were taken off the streets and put behind bars for years, crime fell, and most dramatically in cities like New York, where the backing of cops and intolerance of criminals by mayors Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg was the most pronounced.
    Hundreds of thousands of Americans were not victimized by crimes in the last three decades because their would-be perpetrators were behind bars. But today, a campaign is afoot to reduce prison populations and use more progressive methods to deal with crime.
    Ex-Vice President Joe Biden, who, as a senator and a chairman of the Judiciary Committee, played a role in taking criminals off the streets, seems almost apologetic about what he and the “law and order” Republicans of those decades accomplished.
    And the mindset that put first the right of the innocent to be free from domestic violence is vanishing. A recent video of NYPD cops being doused with pails of water as they made their rounds in Harlem has gone viral. The number of applicants for police training programs is dropping. Verbal assaults on “white racist cops” have taken a toll on police morale.
    We seem to be drifting back to the 1960s, when crime began to soar and “law and order” began to surge as a national issue.
    That issue helped Barry Goldwater capture the nomination from a Republican establishment that had controlled his party for decades.
    In 1966, Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan ran as a law and order candidate for governor and routed the liberal incumbent by a million votes.
    In 1968, Richard Nixon ran as the law and order candidate, which helped him to stave off George Wallace and defeat Hubert Humphrey, whose Democratic Party was almost twice the size as the GOP.
    In 1988, Democratic nominee Gov. Michael Dukakis’ prospects for the presidency vanished when he indicated he would not impose capital punishment, even on a criminal who had raped and murdered his wife.
    Calling out the urban liberals who run most of America’s cities, for their failure to make those cities more livable and safe, might be a winning issue for Trump in 2020.
    Is this where Trump is headed? Is it a coincidence that Attorney General Bill Barr just said he will begin imposing the death penalty?



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #307 on: August 06, 2019, 09:42:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Exploiting Massacres to Raise Poll Ratings
    August 6, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.88 Stars!
    This post was viewed 208 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Never let a crisis go to waste is an old political adage. And this crowd of candidates was not going to let that happen.
    It was two days of contrast that tell us about America 2019.
    In El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, following the mass murders of Saturday and Sunday morning, the local folks on camera — police, prosecutors, mayors, FBI and city officials — were nonpartisan, patient, polite and dignified in the unity and solemnity of their grief for their dead and wounded.
    But for the Democratic presidential candidates, the El Paso atrocity was like a loose football in the Super Bowl.
    A mad scramble broke out over who would be first and most savage in indicting President Donald Trump for moral complicity in mass murder.
    Never let a crisis go to waste is an old political adage.
    And this crowd of candidates was not going to let that happen. Yet the naked political exploitation of these horrific acts, before the bodies of many had been removed from the crime scene, was appalling to behold.
    Learning in Las Vegas of the slaughter at the Walmart in El Paso, his hometown, Beto O’Rourke flew back that same day and sped to the scene.
    Railed Beto, Trump “is a racist and he stokes racism in this country … and it leads to violence. … We have a president with white nationalist views in the United States today.” He called Trump’s language about Mexican immigrants “reminiscent of something you might hear in the Third Reich.”
    Asked on Sunday by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he believes the president is a “white nationalist,” Beto eagerly assented: “Yes, I do.”
    Bernie Sanders, asked by Tapper if he agreed with Beto, replied:
    “I do. It gives me no pleasure to say this … all of the evidence out there suggests that we have a president who is a racist, who is a xenophobe, who appeals, and is trying to appeal, to white nationalism.”
    On the same CNN show, Sen. Cory Booker almost outdid Beto, “I want to say with more moral clarity that Donald Trump is responsible for this … (mass murder in El Paso) because he is stoking fear and hatred and bigotry.”

    Booker went on: “We have a president of the United States who is savagely fraying the bonds of our nation by speaking consistently words of hatred, words of division, words of demonization and demagoguery. … He is fueling an environment where white supremacists … are finding more and more license to strike out against the vulnerable, to strike out against the immigrant, to strike out against ‘the other.'”
    Booker is saying Trump is rendering moral license to race conflict.
    Elizabeth Warren issued a statement: “We need to call out white nationalism for what it is — domestic terrorism. It is a threat to the United States, and we’ve seen its devastating toll this weekend. And we need to call out the president himself for advancing racism and white supremacy.”
    Ironically, The Washington Times reports that the Dayton shooter, who killed his sister and eight others, “described himself on social media as a pro-Satan ‘leftist,’ who wanted Joe Biden’s generation to die off, hated Trump, and hoped to vote for Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president.”
    “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” Connor Betts, the killer, reportedly tweeted.
    Not to be left behind, Sen. Kamala Harris said of the president after the slaughter, he’s “a racist, there’s no question in my mind.”
    These attacks, unprecedented in their savagery, testify to a hatred of Trump that is broad, deep and implacable, and unlikely to be constrained before November 2020.
    Folks still speak wistfully of a return of the unity America once knew and of a coming together to stand again on common ground.
    But where is the evidence for that hope?
    If Trump’s fabled base is to going to stand loyally by him, and the Democratic candidates are going to unleash this kind of bile against him, whoever wins in 2020 will be not be able to unite us, absent a Pearl Harbor-style attack on this country.
    Clearly the issue in the 2020 campaign is going to be Trump.
    Is impeachment now back on the table? How can it not be?
    Though Robert Mueller found no collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russians, support for impeachment hearings passed the midway mark inside the Democratic caucus in the House last week, even before the horrible weekend.
    And if Democrats believe about Trump what their candidates say about him — that he is a white nationalist racist and xenophobe deliberately stoking fear, hatred and violence, whose words and actions call to mind the fascist Italy of Benito Mussolini and Third Reich of Nazi Germany — how can the Democratic leadership credibly not try to impeach him?
    Yet, blaming the massacre in El Paso on the rhetoric of Donald Trump is a charge that can come back to bite his attackers. Neither the right nor left has a monopoly on political extremism or violence. And the hate-filled rhetoric of the left this last weekend exceeds anything used by Trump.



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #308 on: August 09, 2019, 09:10:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0









  • Biden Goes All In on the Race Issue
    August 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!


       Migrants have been crossing the Mexican border at a rate of 100,000 a month. If one had to choose a word to describe graphically what is going on, would it not be invasion?

    Those who believed America’s racial divide would begin to close with the civil rights acts of the 1960s and the election of a black president in this century appear to have been overly optimistic.

    The race divide seems deeper and wider than at any time in our lifetimes. Most of the aspiring leaders of the Democratic Party have apparently concluded that branding the president a “racist” and “white supremacist” is the strategy to pursue to win the nomination and the White House.

    Here is Joe Biden, speaking in Iowa as President Donald Trump was visiting the wounded communities of Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas: “This president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation. … The energetic embrace of this president by the darkest hearts and the most hate-filled minds in this country says it all.

    “We have a problem with this rising tide of … white supremacy in America. And we have a president who encourages and emboldens it.”

    What had Trump done to invite such a charge?

    The key piece of evidence linking Trump to the mass murderer of El Paso, is a single phrase out of a 2,000-word screed posted on social media, allegedly by the gunman minutes before carrying out his atrocity.

    Patrick Crusius said he was striking this blow against the “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” And Donald Trump has often used that term, invasion, to describe the crisis on the border.

    Yet the word “invasion” to label what is happening on America’s Southern border long predated Trump, and, moreover, is both an accurate and valid description.

    Consider. There are, by most estimates, at least 11 million migrants in the United States illegally, the equivalent of the entire population of Cuba. Lately, migrants have been crossing the Mexican border at a rate of 100,000 a month. If one had to choose a word to describe graphically what is going on, would it not be invasion?

    What a panicked establishment, and its stable of candidates, is doing is transparent. By declaring “invasion” — a legitimate description of what is transpiring on the Southern border — to be inherently racist, it is conceding the word has power and is an effective weapon in the political arsenal of those the establishment seeks to censor, stigmatize and silence.

    Trump’s adversaries want to stop him from using his most powerful and compelling arguments and images, the ones that enabled him to win the presidency and oust them from power. The left is now using “white supremacy” as its new hate term, because “racist” has all but lost its sting from overuse.

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

    But Biden’s raising of the race issue is going to come back and bite him.

    Said Joe in Iowa: “Our president has more in common with George Wallace than George Washington.”

    Yet, that greatest of the Founding Fathers, George Washington, whom Biden invoked as his beau ideal of a leader, was a slave owner and demonstrably more of a white supremacist than Trump.

    And Biden is likely to be reminded of this by Sen. Cory Booker, his rival for the crucial black vote in the primaries, who, as Joe was speaking in Iowa, was at Emanuel AME Zion church in Charleston, South Carolina, tearing into the founding generation of Washington, Jefferson and Madison:

    “Bigotry was written into our founding documents,” said Booker. “White supremacy has always been a problem in our American story.”

    “Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny — these tactics aren’t a new perversion,” Booker went on. “They’ve been ingrained in our politics since our foundation.”

    Are American voters supposed to respond warmly to this?

    Biden’s words in Iowa — “We have a president who has aligned himself with the darkest forces in this nation” — appear to be a lift from Robert Kennedy’s attack on LBJ when Bobby announced for president just days after Lyndon Johnson was badly wounded in the 1968 New Hampshire primary.

    Said Bobby of the father of the Civil Right Act of 1964: “Our national leadership is calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.”

    LBJ and his associates, Bobby went on, “have removed themselves from the American tradition, from the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.”

    “We are fighting for the soul of America,” echoed Biden in Iowa.

    As for Wallace, whom Biden disparages, he was a segregationist, much like Biden’s patron, Sen. Jim Eastland of Mississippi, who called Joe “son,” and Strom Thurmond, whom Biden eulogized and who conducted the longest filibuster in history — against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

    In George Wallace’s salad days, Joe sang a different tune, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer on Oct. 12, 1975:

    “I think the Democratic Party could stand a liberal George Wallace — someone who’s not afraid to stand up and offend people, someone who wouldn’t pander but would say what the American people know in their gut is right.”

    Perhaps Joe can become such a fearless leader in 2020.

    Image Source: WikiMedia…

    https://buchanan.org/blog/biden-goes-all-in-on-the-race-issue-137393

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #309 on: August 13, 2019, 10:29:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • China, Not Russia, the Greater Threat
    August 13, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 294 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    Only Trump has taken on the Middle Kingdom. If the American people and Congress are willing to play hardball and accept sacrifices, we can win this face-off. The U.S. buys five times as much from China as we sell to China. The big loser in this confrontation, if we stay the course, will not be the USA.
    Ten weeks of protests, some huge, a few violent, culminated Monday with a shutdown of the Hong Kong airport.
    Ominously, Beijing described the violent weekend demonstrations as “deranged” acts that are “the first signs of terrorism,” and vowed a merciless crackdown on the perpetrators.
    China is being pushed toward a decision it does not want to make: to use military force, as in Tiananmen Square 30 years ago, to crush the uprising. For that would reveal the character of President Xi Jinping’s Communist dictatorship, as well as Beijing’s long-term plans for this semi-autonomous city of almost 7.5 million.
    Yet this is not the only internal or border concern of Xi’s regime.
    Millions of Muslim Uighurs in China’s west are in concentration camps undergoing “re-education” to change their way of thinking on loyalty, secession and the creation of a new East Turkestan.
    In June, a Chinese vessel rammed and sank a Philippine fishing boat, leaving its 22 crewmen to drown. The fishermen were rescued by a Vietnamese boat.
    President Rodrigo Duterte’s reluctance to resist China’s fortification in the South China Sea of the rocks and reefs Manila claims are within its own territorial waters has turned Philippine nationalism anti-China.
    China’s claim to Taiwan is being defied by Taipei, which just bought $2.2 billion in U.S. military equipment including Abrams tanks and Stinger missiles.
    Any Taiwanese declaration of independence, China has warned, means war.
    While Taiwan’s request to buy U.S. F-16s has not yet been approved, in a rare visit, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen stopped over in the U.S. recently, before traveling on to Caribbean countries that retain diplomatic relations with Taipei. Beijing has expressed its outrage at the U.S. arms sales and Tsai’s unofficial visit.
    The vaunted Chinese economy is growing, at best, at half the double-digit rate of a decade ago, not enough to create the jobs needed for hundreds of millions in the countryside seeking work.
    And talks have been suspended in the U.S.-China trade dispute, at the heart of which, says White House aide Peter Navarro, are Beijing’s “seven deadly sins” in dealing with the United States:
    China steals our intellectual property via cyber-theft, forces U.S. companies in China to transfer technology, hacks our computers, dumps into our markets to put U.S. companies out of business, subsidizes state-owned enterprises to compete with U.S. firms, manipulates its currency, and, despite our protests, ships to the USA the fentanyl drug that has become a major killer of Americans.
    Such practices have enabled China to run up annual trade surpluses of $300 billion to $400 billion at our expense, and, says Navarro, have caused the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
    Moreover, China has used the accumulated wealth of its huge trade surpluses to finance its drive for hegemony in Asia and beyond.
    With President Donald Trump threatening 10% tariffs on $300 billion more in Chinese exports to the U.S., Xi must decide if he is willing to end his trade-war tactics against the U.S., which have gone on during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. If he refuses, will he accept the de-coupling of our two economies?
    Only Trump has taken on the Middle Kingdom.
    If the American people and Congress are willing to play hardball and accept sacrifices, we can win this face-off. The U.S. buys five times as much from China as we sell to China. The big loser in this confrontation, if we stay the course, will not be the USA.
    For three years, the U.S. establishment has not ceased to howl about Russia’s theft of emails of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
    Yet the greatest cybercrime of the century was Beijing’s theft in 2014 of the personnel files of 22 million applicants and employees of the U.S. government, many of them holding top-secret clearances.
    Compromised by this theft, said then FBI Director James Comey, was a “treasure trove of information about everybody who has worked for, tried to work for, or works for the United States government.”
    “A very big deal from a national security … and counterintelligence perspective,” said Comey. And Xi’s China, not Putin’s Russia, committed the crime. Yet America’s elites appear to have forgotten this far graver act of cyberaggresion.
    Undeniably, Russia is a rival. But Putin’s economy is the size of Italy’s while China’s economy challenges our own. And China’s population is 10 times that of Russia, and four times that of the USA.
    Manifestly, China is the greater menace.
    Are Americans willing to make the necessary sacrifices to force China to abide by the rules of reciprocal trade?
    Or will Trump be forced by political realities to accept the long-term and ruinous relationship we have followed since granting China permanent MFN status in 2001?
    This issue is likely to decide the destiny of our relations and the future of Asia, if not the world.

    Image Source: PixaBay…

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #310 on: August 20, 2019, 07:20:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • When, If Ever, Can We Lay This Burden Down?
    August 20, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 132 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!
    Quote
    Is it too soon to ask: What have we gained from our longest war? Was all the blood and treasure invested worth it? And what does the future hold?
    Friday, President Donald Trump met in New Jersey with his national security advisers and envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is negotiating with the Taliban to bring about peace, and a U.S. withdrawal from America’s longest war.
    U.S. troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, in a war that has cost 2,400 American lives.
    Following the meeting, Trump tweeted, “Many on the opposite sides of this 19 year war, and us, are looking to make a deal — if possible!”
    Some, however, want no deal; they are fighting for absolute power.
    Saturday, a wedding in Kabul with a thousand guests was hit by a suicide bomber who, igniting his vest, massacred 63 people and wounded 200 in one of the greatest atrocities of the war. ISIS claimed responsibility.
    Monday, 10 bombs exploded in restaurants and public squares in the eastern city of Jalalabad, wounding 66.
    Trump is pressing Khalilzad to negotiate drawdowns of U.S. troop levels from the present 14,000, and to bring about a near-term end to U.S. involvement in a war that began after we overthrew the old Taliban regime for giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.
    Is it too soon to ask: What have we gained from our longest war? Was all the blood and treasure invested worth it? And what does the future hold?
    If the Taliban could not be defeated by an Afghan army, built up by the U.S. for a decade and backed by 100,000 U.S. troops in 2010-2011, then are the Taliban likely to give up the struggle when the U.S. is drawing down the last 14,000 troops and heading home?
    The Taliban control more of the country than they have at any time since being overthrown in 2001. And time now seems to be on their side.
    Why have they persevered, and prevailed in parts of the country?

    Motivated by a fanatic faith, tribalism and nationalism, they have shown a willingness to die for a cause that seems more compelling to them than what the U.S.-backed Afghan government has on offer.
    They also have the guerrillas’ advantage of being able to attack at times and places of their own choosing, without the government’s burden of having to defend towns and cities.
    Will these Taliban, who have lost many battles but not the war, retire from the field and abide by democratic elections once the Americans go home? Why should they?
    The probability: When the Americans depart, the war breaks out anew, and the Taliban ultimately prevail.
    And Afghanistan is but one of the clashes and conflicts in which America is engaged.
    Severe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have failed to bring down the Nicholas Maduro regime in Caracas but have contributed to the immiseration of that people, 10% of whom have left the country. Trump now says he is considering a quarantine or blockade to force Maduro out.
    Eight years after we helped to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is still mired in civil war, with its capital, Tripoli, under siege.
    Yemen, among the world’s humanitarian disasters, has seen the UAE break with its Saudi interventionist allies, and secessionists split off southern Yemen from the Houthi-dominated north. Yet, still, Congress has been unable to force the Trump administration to end all support of the Saudi war.
    Two thousand U.S. troops remain in Syria. The northern unit is deployed between our Syrian Kurd allies and the Turkish army. In the south, they are positioned to prevent Iran and Iranian-backed militias from creating a secure land bridge from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut.
    In our confrontation with Iran, we have few allies.
    The Brits released the Iranian tanker they seized at Gibraltar, which had been carrying oil to Syria. But when the Americans sought to prevent its departure, a Gibraltar court ruled against the United States.
    Iran presents no clear or present danger to U.S. vital interests, but the Saudis and Israelis see Iran as a mortal enemy, and want the U.S. military rid them of the menace.
    Hong Kong protesters wave American flags and seek U.S. support of their demands for greater autonomy and freedom in their clash with their Beijing-backed authorities. The Taiwanese want us to support them and sell them the weapons to maintain their independence. The Philippines wants us to take their side in the dispute with China over tiny islets in the South China Sea.
    We are still committed to go to war to defend South Korea. And the North has lately test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, none of which could hit the USA, but all of which could hit South Korea.
    Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes and confrontations with almost too many nations to count.
    In how many of these are U.S. vital interests imperiled? And in how many are we facing potential wars on behalf of other nations, while they hold our coat and egg us on?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/when-if-ever-can-we-lay-this-burden-down-137418


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #311 on: August 23, 2019, 07:55:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  



    Greenland: Trump’s MAGA Idea!
    August 23, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
     Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 286 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

       To those of us of who learned our U.S. history from texts in the 1940s and ’50s, President Donald Trump’s brainstorm of acquiring Greenland fits into a venerable tradition of American expansionism.

    To those of us of who learned our U.S. history from texts in the 1940s and ’50s, President Donald Trump’s brainstorm of acquiring Greenland fits into a venerable tradition of American expansionism.

    The story begins with colonial officer George Washington’s march out toward Fort Duquesne in 1754 and crushing defeat and near death at Fort Necessity, where, according to myth, he fired the first shot of what would become the French and Indian War.

    With the British victory, Washington went home to Virginia, only to be called back in 1775 to lead the Continental Army in America’s War of Independence, which lasted six years, until the victory at Yorktown.

    With the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the Americans won title to all the land between the Atlantic and Mississippi, from Canada to Florida.

    Twenty years later, in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison seized Napoleon’s offer and bought for $15 million the vast Louisiana Territory extending from New Orleans into Canada and so far west it virtually doubled the size of the United States.

    In 1818, Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, was ordered by President James Monroe to march south to repel the murderous forays by Seminole Indians from Florida into Georgia.

    Exceeding his orders, Jackson stormed into Florida, crushed the Seminoles, hanged two British “spies” he found there, put the Spanish governor on a boat to Cuba and came home, a national hero again, after almost igniting another war with the British.

    Secretary of State John Quincy Adams now coolly confronted the Spanish. If they could not control the Indians, Adams told the Spanish ambassador, we would. And to avoid more visits by General Jackson, the best solution for Madrid was to cede this derelict province to the United States.


    Spain capitulated. Florida was ours.

    In 1835, American settlers in the Mexican province of Texas, under the leadership of Jackson’s old lieutenant and fellow Indian fighter Sam Houston, seceded. At San Jacinto, they forced General Santa Anna to accept the independence of a new Lone Star Republic.

    In his last days in office in 1845, President John Tyler brought Texas into the Union, and his successor, James Polk, sent an army to Texas to ensure that the U.S. border was now the Rio Grande, much farther south than the Mexicans claimed it to be.

    In the subsequent 1846-48 war, the U.S. army invaded Mexico and marched to the capital, where Nicholas Trist of the State Department negotiated a peace whereby Mexico ceded half of its country — what became the American Southwest, plus California.

    President Ulysses S. Grant, a veteran of that war, would call it the “most unjust war ever fought.” Yet, Mexico would, in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, sell an area twice the size of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. It would become part of the states of New Mexico and Arizona.

    The Mexicans even offered to sell Baja California for $10 million. Congress declined the offer, saying we now had quite enough land.

    When the Civil War ended, Secretary of State William Seward — who narrowly survived an assassination attempt the night John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln — sought to buy the islands of Greenland, Iceland, St. Thomas and the Dominican Republic. He failed, but he bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, putting himself in the history books.

    Thus, from the day President John Adams left office, in just 67 years, America had grown to become the world’s second- or third-largest nation.

    After the Spanish-American War of 1898, William McKinley would make us an imperial power by annexing Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines, the last in a brutal war that cost 200,000 Filipino lives.

    McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, would engineer the secession of Panama from Colombia and America’s acquisition of the Canal Zone.

    “I took Panama!” boasted T.R.

    Ronald Reagan’s opposition to Jimmy Carter’s transfer of the Canal Zone and the canal itself to Panama would prove crucial to Reagan’s 1980 nomination and rout of Carter in a 44-state landslide.

    Harry Truman also wanted to acquire Greenland, and in 1946, he offered Denmark $100 million in gold. The Danes declined, though they had sold the Virgin Islands to Woodrow Wilson in 1917.

    How, then, did America acquire her vast territory?

    By revolution, purchase, invasions, annexations, war, theft and expulsions — of French, British, Mexicans, Spanish and Native Americans. Quite a record.

    While Trump’s diplomacy in the Greenland matter was not as deft as Seward’s in acquiring Alaska, the attitude exhibited would not be unfamiliar to many of the great men in our history.

    And the cancellation of Trump’s state visit to Copenhagen aside, this issue of Greenland’s future has been tabled. It is not going away.

    After all, China, the aspiring superpower of the 21st century, has exhibited an interest in this largest island on Earth, strategically located between Europe and America, amid the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.

    Methinks the Danes are headed for interesting times.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #312 on: August 30, 2019, 06:08:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let Them Howl, Boris!
    August 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 509 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!






    Quote
    Whatever may be said of him, Johnson has shown himself as a man of action, a risk-taker, a doer, like Trump, who has hailed Johnson for the suspension. And leaders like Johnson are today shouldering aside the cookie-cutter politicians to dominate the world stage.
    Facing a Parliamentary majority opposed to a hard Brexit — a crashing out of the EU if Britain is not offered a deal she can live with — Boris Johnson took matters into his own hands.
    He went to the Queen at Balmoral and got Parliament “prorogued,” suspended, from Sept. 12 to Oct. 14. That’s two weeks before the Oct. 31 deadline Johnson has set for Britain’s departure.
    The time his opposition in Parliament has to prevent a crash out of the European Union has just been sliced in half. His adversaries are incensed.
    The speaker of the House of Commons called Johnson’s action “a constitutional outrage.” Johnson’s Tory Party leader in Scotland resigned. Labor Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn said Parliament will start legislating Tuesday to block Johnson. There is talk of a no-confidence vote in the Tory government.
    One recalls the counsel Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol, gave his students: Never retract, never explain, just do it and let them howl! For Johnson has done what he was chosen, and pledged, to do.
    Though he lacks a majority for a “no-deal Brexit,” his suspension of Parliament keeps faith with the hardline Tories who put their trust in him — that he would honor his commitment to get done by October’s end what the British people voted to do in 2016.
    Whatever may be said of him, Johnson has shown himself as a man of action, a risk-taker, a doer, like Trump, who has hailed Johnson for the suspension. And leaders like Johnson are today shouldering aside the cookie-cutter politicians to dominate the world stage.

    Matteo Salvini, interior minister, leader of the League party, and the most popular political figure in Italy, brought down his own government to force new elections he felt he would win. His ambition is to take the leadership not only of Italy but of the European populist right.
    Salvini’s boldness backfired when the League’s ex-partner in the government, the leftist Five Star Movement, joined the Democratic Party to form a new government from which the League is excluded.
    Yet Salvini, too, is in the mold of Trump and Vladimir Putin, who, when he saw a U.S.-backed coup take down the pro-Russian president in Ukraine, seized Crimea, home port of Russia’s Black Sea fleet since the 18th century.
    These leaders are men of action not words. And their countrymen are cheering their decisiveness.
    India’s Narendra Modi is in the mold. After reelection, he revoked Article 370 of India’s constitution that guaranteed special rights to the Muslim-majority in Kashmir, a state over which India and Pakistan have fought two wars. To effect the annexation of Kashmir, Modi sent thousands of troops into the disputed territory, imposed a curfew, shut down the internet and arrested political leaders.
    When Prime Minister Imran Khan asked Trump to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf, Trump, meeting with Modi at the G-7, called it a matter between the two countries.
    While autocrats appear ascendant, there is another phenomenon of our time: popular uprisings and mass demonstrations as shortcuts to political change.
    These began to flourish with the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, the latter of which brought down President Hosni Mubarak after 30 years in power. The Cairo revolution and subsequent election brought to power Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. This was intolerable to the Egyptian army, which executed a coup that led to new elections and the installation of the present ruler and former general Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.
    In 2014 came the protests in Maidan Square that led to the ouster of the pro-Russian government in Kiev and loss of Crimea.
    This year saw mass demonstrations in Puerto Rico bring down the government in San Juan. In France, the Yellow Vest movement, rebelling against a fuel tax Emmanuel Macron imposed to cut carbon emissions, flooded the streets for months, demonstrating, rioting, even vandalizing the heart of Paris to get it repealed.
    Then there is Hong Kong, a city of 7 million claimed by a China of 1.4 billion, where scores of thousands, even millions, have protested, blocked streets, shut down businesses and closed the airport.
    The Hong Kong demonstrators are demanding what the 13 colonies demanded: freedom, liberty, independence. But as Xi Jinping is very much an authoritarian autocrat, the protesters are pushing their luck.
    What motivates the democratic protesters and what propels the rise and welcome reception of the autocrats, the men of action, is not all that dissimilar.
    It is impatience, a sense that the regime is out of touch, that it does not reflect or respond to what people want, that it is torpid and cannot act decisively, that it does not “get things done,” that it is tedious and boring.
    Part of Trump’s appeal to his base is that people sense he feels exactly as they do. And they readily understand why Trump would not want to sit down at a G-7 gathering and gas endlessly about climate change.


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #313 on: September 06, 2019, 10:00:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can Joe Biden Run This Marathon?
    September 6, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.78 Stars!
    This post was viewed 335 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Given months of campaigning in which the principal feature has been his gaffes, why is Joe still the front-runner?
    Thursday, Sept. 14, looks to be a fateful day in the half-century-long political career of Joe Biden.
    That night, a three-hour debate will be held, a marathon in politics.
    Biden will be on stage, taking incoming missiles for 180 minutes from nine rivals, each of whom is hungry for the Democratic nomination and has a huge investment in seeing him stumble and fall.
    A solid showing by Biden that night, marked by wit and a mastery of the issues, would cause a storm surge of relief in the Democratic Party.
    It would provide desperately needed reassurance to millions of Democrats who have a gnawing fear Biden’s time has come and gone, that he is losing it, that his memory is failing, and that, at any moment, from some egregious gaffe, his campaign could crater and crash.
    If he stumbles that night, misremembers or misspeaks repeatedly in the three hours, the apprehension about his nomination, already widespread among the party elite, could turn into panic.
    Why is the Democratic Party apprehensive about Joe Biden?
    Though every poll has him running well ahead of his competitors, the Biden campaign has ranged from dull to embarrassing.
    Biden began by speaking nostalgically of his days as a young senator and the warm friendships he formed with segregationist senators Herman Talmadge and Jim Eastland, the latter a Mississippi pillar of “massive resistance” to civil rights legislation.
    In the first debate, Biden was skewered by Sen. Kamala Harris for having boasted of opposing the court-ordered busing that, Harris claims, enabled her to get an integrated education in California.
    Asked, in Keene, New Hampshire, how it felt to be in the lovely town, Biden volunteered, “Look, what’s not to like about Vermont.”
    Biden spoke of meeting in his vice president’s office with students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the scene of a horrific school shooting. Only the Parkland massacre did not occur until after he left the vice presidency.

    Speaking in the aftermath of shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Biden talked of the recent “tragic events in Houston and also in Michigan the day before.” After the shootings in Odessa, Texas, done with an assault rifle, an outraged Joe said it was “absolutely mindless” not to ban all firearm magazines that carry more than a single bullet.
    “We choose unity over division. We choose science over fiction. We choose truth over facts,” Biden thundered in Des Moines.
    Given months of campaigning in which the principal feature has been his gaffes, why is Joe still the front-runner?
    Because he has been around so long as a senator and vice president, from 1973 to 2017, is well-known and well-liked, is the most acceptable of the candidates to moderates fearful of the rising radicalism in the party — and, above all, because every poll shows Biden has the best shot at beating Donald Trump.
    Biden has undeniable assets. He was Barack Obama’s loyal subaltern. He is seen, even by opponents, as a nice guy, a politician without malice and a pragmatist unencumbered by principle who can slide leftward at the same speed as his party on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
    Biden is a believer in the maxim of Sen. Henry Ashurst of Arizona that the “clammy hand of consistency should never rest for long upon the shoulder of a statesman.”
    Also, Biden’s rivals have proven unimpressive, with the exception of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has steadily plodded upward to challenge the socialist Bernie Sanders for the second position.
    Biden’s crowds are anemic compared to Warren’s. His speeches range from the unexciting to the boring. He has no enticing policy agenda, no inspiring message, no captivating slogan. As a political athlete, he is not even in the same league as Obama or JFK.
    He does not excite the Democratic youth. And if he won in 2020, he would be, at 78, our oldest president. Jill Biden, his wife, made the case for Joe well: “You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who’s going to win… Joe is that person.”
    Like Warren Harding a century ago, Biden holds out to the nation the promise of a “return to normalcy.”
    In his days in the Senate, he was famous for his tough-on-crime stand and his vote to authorize the war in Iraq — a blunder of historic proportions.
    If elected, at the end of his first term, Biden would be 82. If he sought and served the two terms every president seems to seek, he would, in 2028, be 86 years old on leaving office.
    Does the Joe Biden of the summer of 2019 look like he could be, a decade from now, the dynamic leader America could rely on to face down the successors to China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin?
    Prediction: At some point in this campaign, Joe Biden will declare that, if elected, he will only serve one term.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6042
    • Reputation: +2148/-49
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #314 on: September 12, 2019, 07:01:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • After Bolton, Trump Goals Remain Unrealized
    September 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 93 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    It is only among foreign policy elites in Beltway think tanks, the generals who ran the national security state, liberal interventionists in the media and the hierarchy of the GOP that we find echoes of Bolton. The rest of the country has moved on. They want an end to the endless wars and to put America first again.
    The sudden and bitter departure of John Bolton from the White House was baked in the cake from the day he arrived there.
    For Bolton’s worldview, formed and fixed in a Cold War that ended in 1991, was irreconcilable with the policies Donald Trump promised in his 2016 campaign. Indeed, Trump was elected because he offered a foreign policy that represented a repudiation of what John Bolton had advocated since the end of the Cold War.
    Trump wanted to call off Cold War II with Russia, to engage with Vladimir Putin, and to extricate us from the Middle East wars into which Bolton and the neocons did so much to plunge the United States.
    Where Trump demanded that NATO nations and allies like South Korea and Japan start paying the cost of their own defense, Bolton is an empire man who relishes the global role and responsibilities of America as the last superpower and custodian of the New World Order.
    Trump saw in the hermit kingdom of North Korea an opportunity to end its isolation and bring Kim Jong Un into talks to persuade him to give up his nuclear weapons, in return for a full readmission and welcome into the world that Pyongyang turned its back on after World War II.
    In Trump’s passive acceptance of Kim’s resumption of short-range missile tests last August, Bolton surely saw signs of appeasement.
    To Bolton, Trump’s trashing of Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal was the first step toward a confrontation and clash to smash the Tehran regime. To Trump, it was a first step to a Trump-negotiated better bargain with Iran.
    Bolton’s hawkish stance of confrontation, and conflict if necessary to impose our will, from the Eastern Baltic, to Ukraine and the Black Sea, to the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, the Korean Peninsula, today finds almost no broad support among the American electorate.
    It is only among foreign policy elites in Beltway think tanks, the generals who ran the national security state, liberal interventionists in the media and the hierarchy of the GOP that we find echoes of Bolton.
    The rest of the country has moved on. They want an end to the endless wars and to put America first again.
    In the Democratic debates, climate change — the melting ice caps of the Arctic and Greenland — represents the real “existential threat.”
    Only Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has made foreign policy her focus. But she is the antithesis of Bolton, an anti-interventionist who wants to end the wars and bring the troops home.
    Yet, after Bolton’s departure, Trump’s problem is this: What he promised in 2016 he has been unable to deliver.
    Rather than summits with Putin, the U.S. and NATO under Trump have sent additional forces to the eastern Baltic. We have let the U.S.-Russian strategic arms agreements lapse. We have sent lethal military aid to Ukraine to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass.
    Bibi Netanyahu, not Trump, holds the meetings with the Russian president, is in Moscow again this week, and has plastered a huge poster of himself and Putin at his Likud Party’s headquarters in Tel Aviv.
    We blacklist Putin, while Bibi relies on Vlad to help bring home the Russian-Jewish vote in Israel’s election next week.
    We still have troops in Syria and Iraq and are closer to war with Iran than the day Trump took office. Such a war would become the defining event of Trump’s presidency and leave this country tied down in virtual perpetuity in the Middle East.
    Trump’s hopes for a negotiated withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of his first term has been dealt a crippling blow with the cancellation of his Camp David summit with the Taliban.
    Indeed, ex-Defense Secretary James Mattis threw cold water this week on the very idea of bringing our troops home. We must keep “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan, said Mattis, we cannot leave the Afghan forces alone to fight the terrorists and hold the country together:
    “We’re going to have to stick with those countries that are not yet ready to do it on their own and keep … enough boots on the ground not to … turn the ground back over to the very enemy that attacked us before.”
    What Mattis is saying is that Trump’s goal of extracting us from the “forever war” entails too great a risk, and U.S. troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will have to soldier on, indefinitely.
    North Korea continues to test missiles that may not be able to hit the U.S. homeland, but they could hit U.S. troops and bases in South Korea and Japan.
    If, by 2020, Kim Jong Un still refuses to give up his nuclear weapons, Iran is back to enriching uranium, the Taliban atrocities continue unabated, and U.S. troops remain in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan in the same numbers they are today, what does Trump do? What does Trump say?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/after-bolton-trump-goals-remain-unrealized-137495

     

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