Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 29030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6102
  • Reputation: +2168/-51
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #315 on: September 17, 2019, 08:49:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •   



    ‘Locked and Loaded’ for War on Iran?
    September 16, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars Votes: 4.97 Stars!
    This post was viewed 426 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!


       The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.

    “Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    Putting America’s credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.

    On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear, in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:

    “There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!”

    Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.

    Pompeo dismissed their claim, “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

    But while the Houthis claim credit, Iran denies all responsibility.

    Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo’s charge, that the U.S. has simply replaced a policy of “maximum pressure” with a policy of “maximum deceit.” Tehran is calling us liars.

    And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on the Saudis’ crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation, leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.

    Tehran being behind Saturday’s strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.

    U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.



    According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.

    But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.

    Given Pompeo’s public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering next week may be a dead letter.

    The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the call for a commensurate response is put directly to our “locked-and-loaded” president.

    If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?

    For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country attacking them.

    Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi war in Yemen.

    If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?

    What about Iran itself?

    If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday — shutting down about 6% of world oil production — imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.

    In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?

    Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?

    Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Sen. Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”

    Divided again: The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.

    How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.

    John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/locked-and-loaded-for-war-on-iran-137502

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #316 on: September 27, 2019, 07:34:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  



    Joe Biden: Impeachment’s First Casualty
    September 27, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

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



        By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.

    Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to the impeachment of Donald Trump by the Democratic House.

    Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a “quid pro quo,” Pelosi set in motion a process that is already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.

    The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath of office.

    Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.

    She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party’s fate and future on the line.

    With Pelosi’s assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi’s career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party’s hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.



    One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?

    The first casualty of Pelosi’s cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.

    By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.

    What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.

    Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son’s business ties.

    All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.

    There is another question raised by Biden’s ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?

    Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New Hampshire.

    This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi’s decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.

    Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives’ first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.

    Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable nominee.

    One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.

    If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/joe-biden-impeachments-first-casualty-137542


    -



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #317 on: October 01, 2019, 09:46:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘Heartbroken’ Pelosi Fast-Tracks Impeachment
    October 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 445 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    For three years, the media-deep state axis has sought to overturn the election of 2016 and bring down Trump, starting with Russia-gate. Now it appears to have tailored and weaponized the impeachment process… This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to challenge or dispossess it.
    “This is a very sad time for our country. There is no joy in this,” said Nancy Pelosi Saturday. “We must be somber. We must be prayerful. … I’m heartbroken about it.”
    Thus did the speaker profess her anguish — just four days after announcing that her Democratic House would conduct an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
    But is this how it really went down? Is this how Pelosi came to authorize an impeachment inquiry before she read the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?
    Another explanation, based on the actual events, suggests itself.
    By late September, Pelosi was under constant fire from the House “resistance” that wanted Trump impeached and whose numbers were slowly growing. What was the speaker to do?
    The judiciary committee is the body historically authorized by a vote of the full House to conduct impeachment inquiries. But to Pelosi this was looking like a loser, a dead end, a formula for failure followed by a backlash against House Democrats and her own removal as speaker in January 2021, if not before.
    How so? Her judiciary committee chairman, Jerrold Nadler, in his investigation of Trump, had presided over a debacle of a hearing where Trump ally Corey Lewandowski mocked the members. House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth called the hearing a “fiasco.”
    Thus, when news broke of a July 25 conversation between Trump and the president of Ukraine, during which Trump allegedly urged Zelensky “eight times” to investigate Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden’s connections to corrupt oligarchs, Pelosi seized upon it to solve all her problems.
    To satisfy the red-hots in her Democratic caucus, she announced an impeachment inquiry on her own. To spare her moderates the pain of having to vote for or against an inquiry, she skipped the floor vote.
    To ensure the investigation was done swiftly, she took the franchise from Nadler and his judiciary committee and handed it to Adam Schiff and the intelligence committee. Now she is urging a narrowing of the articles of impeachment to just one — Trump’s request of Ukraine’s president to look into the Bidens.

    Pelosi’s hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then send it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi’s fast track to impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency. But, to be sure, she is “heartbroken” about all this.
    For three years, the media-deep state axis has sought to overturn the election of 2016 and bring down Trump, starting with Russia-gate. Now it appears to have tailored and weaponized the impeachment process.
    That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan’s presidency, after his 49-state landslide, chortled, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”
    This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to challenge or dispossess it.
    How should the Republican Party and Trump’s base respond?
    Recognize reality. Whether or not Trump was ill-advised to suggest to the president of Ukraine that passing on the fruits of the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, the end game is bringing down Trump, democracy’s equivalent of regicide.
    While the “whistleblower,” whose memo is the basis of these impeachment hearings, is well on his way to Beltway beatification, no campaign to depose the president can be allowed to cloak itself in anonymity indefinitely, for one man’s whistleblower is another man’s seditionist.
    Whom did the whistleblower collaborate with to produce his memo? What is his background? What are his biases? The people have a right to know. And democracy dies in darkness, does it not?
    Not until 30 years after Watergate did we learn the “whistleblower” known as “Deep Throat” was a corrupt FBI veteran agent who leaked grand jury secrets to The Washington Post to discredit acting Director Pat Gray and thereby become FBI director himself.
    His identity was sheltered for three decades. For whose benefit?
    Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral that establishment.
    Force all the Democratic candidates for president to take a stand on removing Trump for high crimes — over a nebulous phone call to Kiev.
    And the U.S. Senate should refuse to take up and should return to the House any bill of impeachment done in a short-circuited and savagely partisan manner, as this one is being done. There should be no rush to judgment.
    If the election of 2020 is going to be about President Trump, tell the nation that the people will decide his political fate in November 2020, and that of Joe Biden if Democrats believe he is as pure as the driven snow and choose to nominate him.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/heartbroken-pelosi-fast-tracks-impeachment-137553

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #318 on: October 04, 2019, 08:26:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is China the Country of the Future?
    October 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 252 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!




    Quote
    Under Xi Jinping, the mask of benign giant has slipped and the menacing face of 21st-century China is being revealed, for its people, its neighbors, and the world to see.
    With the fall of the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek, the defeat of his armies and the flight to Formosa, that was the question of the hour in 1949. And no one demanded to know more insistently than the anti-Communist Congressman John F. Kennedy:
    “Whatever share of the responsibility was Roosevelt’s and whatever share was (General George) Marshall’s, the vital interest of the United States in the independent integrity of China was sacrificed, and the foundation was laid for the present tragic situation in the Far East.”
    Tragic indeed was the situation. The most populous nation on earth, for which America had risked and fought a war with the Japanese Empire, had been lost to Stalin’s empire.
    A year after Peking fell to Mao Zedong, Chinese armies stormed into Korea to drive the Americans back from the Yalu River and back across the 38th parallel, threatening to throw them off the Peninsula.
    In the seven decades since October 1949, millions of Chinese have perished in ideological pogroms like the “Great Leap Forward” of the ’50s, and the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” during which President Nixon came to China.
    Yet in terms of national and state power over those 70 years, and especially in the last 30 when America threw open her markets to Chinese goods and Beijing ran up $4 trillion to $5 trillion in trade surpluses with the U.S., a new China arose. It was on display this week in Tiananmen Square.
    The China of Xi Jinping boasts land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers that provide a strategic deterrent against the United States. Beijing’s conventional forces on land, sea, and in air and space rival any on earth.
    Since Y2K, its economy has swept past that of Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Japan to become the world’s second largest. China is now the world’s premier manufacturing power.
    Yet, under Xi Jinping, the mask of benign giant has slipped and the menacing face of 21st-century China is being revealed, for its people, its neighbors, and the world to see.

    The Uighurs of west China are being forced into re-education camps to be cured of their tribalist, nationalist and Islamic beliefs. Christians are being persecuted. Tibetans are being replaced in their homeland by Han Chinese. The Communist Party’s role and rule as the font of ideological, political and moral truth is being elevated and imposed.
    The Chinese still hold land seized from India 50 years ago. China now claims as sovereign territory virtually all of a South China Sea, which encompasses territorial waters of six nations. It has begun building air, naval and military bases on rocks and reefs belonging to Manila.
    China has warned foreign warships to stay out of the Taiwan Strait and has built up its force on the mainland opposite the island, warning that any move by Taiwan to declare independence would be regarded as an act of war. It claims the Japanese-held Senkaku Islands.
    In its Belt and Road projects to tie China to Central and South Asia and Europe, China has lent billions to build ports, only to take possession of the facilities when local regimes default on their loans.
    But not all is going well for the regime on its 70th birthday.
    The people of Hong Kong, who are surely being cheered by many on the mainland of China, have been protesting for months, demanding the liberty and independence for which American patriots fought in our Revolution, not Mao’s revolution.
    Nor are the newly prosperous Chinese people fools. They relish the rising power of China and the respect their country commands in the world, but they know it was not Marx, Lenin or Mao who produced their prosperity. It was capitalism. They cannot but be uneasy seeing the freedoms and benefits they enjoy being dissipated in a trade war with the Americans and the new repression issuing from Beijing.
    Among the epochal blunders America has committed since the end of the Cold War, three stand out.
    The first was our disastrous plunge into the Middle East to create regimes oriented to the West. The second was the expansion of NATO to the front porch of Russia, driving the largest nation on earth, and one of its most formidable nuclear powers, into the arms of China.
    The third was to throw open America’s markets to Chinese goods on favorable terms, which led to the enrichment and empowerment of a regime whose long-term threat to U.S. interests and American values is as great as was that of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
    The question for America’s statesmen is how to cope with the rising challenge of China while avoiding a war that would be a calamity for all mankind. Patience, prudence and perseverance commend themselves.
    But the first necessity is to toss out the ideological liberalism which proclaims that David Ricardo’s free trade dogmatism is truth for all nations at all times and that John Locke’s ideas apply to all cultures and countries.


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #319 on: October 08, 2019, 10:45:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Trump At Last Ending Our ‘Endless Wars’?
    October 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.83 Stars!
    This post was viewed 358 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    Among those objecting most loudly to an American withdrawal from the forever wars of the Middle East are those who were the most enthusiastic about plunging us in.
    The backstage struggle between the Bush interventionists and the America-firsters who first backed Donald Trump for president just exploded into open warfare, which could sunder the Republican Party.
    At issue is Trump’s decision to let the Turkish army enter Northern Syria, to create a corridor between Syrian Kurds and the Turkish Kurds of the PKK, which the U.S. and Turkey regard as a terrorist organization.
    “A disaster in the making,” says Lindsey Graham. “To abandon the Kurds” would be a “stain on America’s honor.”
    “A catastrophic mistake,” said Rep. Liz Cheney.
    “If reports about US retreat in Syria are accurate,” tweeted Marco Rubio, Trump will have “made a grave mistake.”
    “The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake,” said ex-U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, “we must always have the backs of our allies. ” But of our NATO ally of almost 70 years, Haley said, “Turkey is not our friend.”
    Sen. Mitt Romney called it a “betrayal”:
    “The President’s decision to abandon our Kurd allies in the face of an assault by Turkey is a betrayal. It says that America is an unreliable ally; it facilitates ISIS resurgence; and it presages another humanitarian disaster.”
    Trump tweeted this defense of his order to U.S. forces not to resist Turkish intervention and the creation of a Turkish corridor in Syria from the eastern bank of the Euphrates to Iraq:
    “The Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. … I held off this fight for … almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.”
    When, in December, Trump considered ordering all U.S. troops home from Syria, Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned in protest.
    Behind this decision is Trump’s exasperation at our NATO allies’ refusal to take back for trial their own citizens whom we and the Kurds captured fighting for ISIS.
    The U.S. has “pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they … refused,” said a Sunday White House statement. “The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost. … Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years.”
    What are the arguments interventionists are using to insist that U.S. forces remain in Syria indefinitely?
    If we pull out, says Graham, the Kurds will be forced, for survival, to ally themselves with Bashar Assad.
    True, but the Kurds now occupy a fourth of Syria, and this is not sustainable. We have to consider reality. Assad, the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah have won the war against the Sunni rebels we and our Arab friends armed and equipped.
    We are told that the Kurds will be massacred by Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan, who sees them as terrorist allies of the PKK.
    But the Turks occupied the Syrian border west of the Euphrates and the Kurds withdrew without massacres. And how long must we stay in Syria to defend the Kurds against the Turks? Forever?
    If we depart, ISIS will come back, says Cheney: “Terrorists thousands of miles away can and will use their safe-havens to launch attacks against America.”
    But al-Qaida and ISIS are in many more places today than they were when we intervened in the Middle East. Must we fight forever over there — to be secure over here? Why cannot Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States deal with ISIS and al-Qaida in their own backyard?
    Why are ISIS and al-Qaida over there our problem over here?
    “This will throw the region into further chaos,” says Graham.
    But if Trump’s decision risks throwing the region into “further chaos,” what, if not wholesale U.S. intervention, created the “present chaos”?
    Consider. Today, the Taliban conduct more attacks and control much more territory than they did in all the years since we first intervened in 2001.
    Sixteen years after we marched to Baghdad, protests against the Iraqi regime took hundreds of lives last week, and a spreading revolt threatens the regime.
    Saudi Arabia is tied down and arguably losing the war it launched against the Houthi rebels in 2015. Iran or its surrogates, with a handful of cruise missiles and drones, just shut down half of the Saudi oil production.
    Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is awakening to his nation’s vulnerability and may be looking to negotiate with Tehran.
    Among those objecting most loudly to an American withdrawal from the forever wars of the Middle East are those who were the most enthusiastic about plunging us in.
    And, yes, there is a price to be paid for letting go of an empire, but it is almost always less than the price of holding on.



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #320 on: October 10, 2019, 08:41:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Impeachment Now Inevitable?
    October 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 106 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Col






    Quote
    Declaring for impeachment also gives Biden a way to deflect questions about what son Hunter did for that $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company, while Joe Biden was Barack Obama’s point man battling corruption in Ukraine.
    “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader,” is a remark attributed to a French politician during the turbulent times of 1848.
    Joe Biden’s Wednesday declaration that President Donald Trump should be impeached is in that tradition. Joe is scrambling to get out in front of the sentiment for impeachment in the party he professes to lead.
    Several factors surely influenced Biden’s change of mind.
    Beset by gaffes and mental lapses while campaigning, which rivals like Cory Booker have seized upon to imply that Biden, at 76, is losing it and may not be up to the demands of the presidency, the former vice president has been on a steady slide in the polls.
    This week, he was displaced as Democratic front-runner by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. And the $15 million Biden boasts of raising in the third quarter was eclipsed by the $25 million raised by Warren.
    Moreover, with Bernie Sanders hospitalized after a heart attack, the possibility of a stampede to Warren as the socialist-progressive flag-bearer of the party has become real.
    Biden concluded that he could not remain ambivalent and allow his rivals to appear tougher on Trump, especially when the cause of impeachment unites and animates the party and media establishment as powerfully as it does.
    By taking his stand, Biden has made the question — Where do you stand on impeaching Trump? — the big issue in Tuesday’s Democratic debate.
    Declaring for impeachment also gives Biden a way to deflect questions about what son Hunter did for that $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company, while Joe Biden was Barack Obama’s point man battling corruption in Ukraine.
    So it was that Biden came to tell a rally in New Hampshire:

    “To preserve our constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, he should be impeached. … He’s shooting holes in the constitution … we cannot let him get away with it.”
    With polls showing a majority of Americans favoring an inquiry, and a Fox News poll showing a majority favoring Trump’s conviction and removal, impeachment appears inevitable.
    What is Trump’s defense strategy?
    Earlier this week, with a defiant letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone dismissing the House inquiry as a fraud and a farce, Trump seemed to signal a strategy of massive resistance.
    Wrote Cipollone: “Your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections. … The Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.”
    By Wednesday, however, Trump had backed away from Armageddon.
    His new position: If the full House votes to open an impeachment inquiry, and he is given the same rights and protections Richard Nixon was given in 1974, he, Trump, would respect House subpoenas, while retaining the right to challenge them in the Supreme Court.
    Thus, as Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats seek to ram through a bill of impeachment by Thanksgiving, based on Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukraine’s president, Trump is preparing for siege warfare.
    As Trump has himself conceded, impeachment is probable, even if the outcome of this historic collision between the president and Congress, which will decide the fates of Pelosi, Trump and Biden alike, is, as of yet, undetermined.
    Yet in this struggle, Trump is not without assets.
    The first is Adam Schiff, who has become the prosecution’s face in the impeachment battle. This is good news for the White House. For Schiff’s visceral hatred of Trump and desire to see him impeached, convicted, deposed, disgraced and imprisoned is a matter of record.
    As long as Schiff heads up the impeachment inquiry, many will see it as simply a savage, partisan and vindictive exercise.
    Then are also two potentially explosive inquiries into the roots of the Mueller investigation that are well-advanced. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into allegations that the FBI and DOJ abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to launch the probe and kick-start the Russia investigation.
    The Horowitz report is expected to be released within weeks.
    U.S. Attorney John Durham has also spent months investigating the origins of the counter-intelligence investigation of Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos.
    Among Durham’s questions: Were intel agents of Britain, Italy and Australia enlisted to spy on Americans by U.S. intelligence agencies? For any counterintelligence operation against a presidential campaign would have required a signoff by then-President Obama.
    Administration officials have also told Fox News that when Robert Mueller met with Trump in May 2017, Mueller was pursuing the open post as director of the FBI, something the former special counsel denied under oath during his congressional testimony.
    Emails released this month through a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch indicate Mueller knew he could be named as special counsel if he wasn’t chosen as FBI director.
    Russiagate consumed the first three years of Trump’s presidency. “Ukrainegate” and impeachment give promise of dominating the fourth.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-impeachment-now-inevitable-137603

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #321 on: October 15, 2019, 05:26:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is the Interventionists’ Era Over for Good?
    October 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 276 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    Denunciation of Erdogan for invading Syria is almost universal. Congress is clamoring for sanctions. NATO allies are cutting off weapons sales. But before we act, some history should be revisited.
    President Donald Trump could have been more deft and diplomatic in how he engineered that immediate pullout from northeastern Syria.
    Yet that withdrawal was as inevitable as were its consequences.
    A thousand U.S. troops and their Kurdish allies were not going to dominate indefinitely the entire northeast quadrant of a country the size of Syria against the will of the Damascus regime and army.
    Had the U.S. refused to vacate Syrian lands on Turkey’s demand, a fight would be inevitable, whether with Turkey, Damascus or both. And this nation would neither support nor sustain a new war with Turks or Syrians.
    And whenever the Americans did leave, the Kurds, facing a far more powerful Turkey, were going to have to negotiate the best deal they could with Syria’s Bashar Assad.
    Nor was President Recep Erdogan of Turkey going to allow Syrian Kurds to roost indefinitely just across his southern border, cheek by jowl with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK that Erdogan regards as a terrorist threat to the unity and survival of his country.
    It was Russia that stepped in to broker the deal whereby the Kurds stood down and let the Syrian army take over their positions and defend Syria’s border regions against the Turks.
    Some ISIS prisoners under Kurdish control have escaped.
    But if the Syrian army takes custody of these prisoners from their Kurdish guards, those ISIS fighters and their families will suffer fates that these terrorists have invited.
    Denunciation of Erdogan for invading Syria is almost universal. Congress is clamoring for sanctions. NATO allies are cutting off weapons sales. But before we act, some history should be revisited.
    Turkey has been a NATO ally, a treaty ally, for almost seven decades. The Kurds are not. Turkish troops fought alongside us in Korea. Turkey hosted Jupiter missiles targeted on Russia in the Cold War, nuclear missiles we withdrew as our concession in the secret JFK-Khrushchev deal that ended the Cuban missile crisis.
    The Turks accepted the U.S. weapons, and then accepted their removal.

    The Turks have the second-largest army in NATO. They are a nation of 80 million, a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. They dominate the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, the entrance to and exit from the Black Sea for all U.S. and Russian warships.
    U.S. warplanes are based at Turkey’s Incirlik air base, as are 50 U.S. nuclear weapons. And Turkey harbors millions of refugees from the Syrian civil war, whom Erdogan keeps from crossing into Europe.
    Moreover, Erdogan’s concern over the Syrian Kurdish combat veterans on his border should be understood by us. When Pancho Villa launched his murderous 1916 raid into Columbus, New Mexico, we sent General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army deep into Mexico to run him down.
    With no allies left fighting on our side in Syria, the small U.S. military force there is likely to be withdrawn swiftly and fully.
    Today, the Middle East and world have been awakened to the reality that when Trump said he was ending everlasting commitments and bringing U.S. troops home from “endless wars,” he was not bluffing.
    The Saudis got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone strike from Iran or Iranian-backed militias, which shut down half of Riyadh’s oil production, did nothing.
    Said Washington, this is between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
    Hence, it was stunning that the administration, at the end of last week, under fire from both parties in the House and Senate for “abandoning” the Kurds, announced the deployment of 1,500 to 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia to bolster the kingdom’s defense against missile attacks.
    The only explanation for the contradiction is Sen. Henry Ashurst’s maxim: “The clammy hand of consistency should never rest for long upon the shoulder of a statesman.”
    Yet, this latest U.S. deployment notwithstanding, Saudi Arabia has got the message: Trump will sell them all the weapons they can buy, but no Saudi purchase ensures that the Yanks will come and fight their wars.
    Thus, the Saudis have begun negotiating with the Houthi rebels, with whom they have been at war in Yemen since 2015. And they are seeking talks with Iran. A diplomatic resolution of quarrels seems to have come to commend itself to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, once he learned that the Americans do not regard Saudis as we do NATO allies.
    Undeniably, the decisions — not to retaliate against Iran for the attack on Riyadh’s oil facilities, and the decision to terminate abruptly the alliance with Syria’s Kurds — sent shock waves to the world.
    Where the Americans spent much of the Cold War ruminating about an “agonizing reappraisal” of commitments to malingering allies, this time the Yanks may be deadly serious.
    This time, the Americans may really be going home.
    Every nation that today believes it has an implied or a treaty guarantee that the U.S. will fight on its behalf should probably recheck its hole card.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-interventionists-era-over-for-good-137617

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #322 on: October 18, 2019, 09:02:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Putin the New King of the Middle East?
    By Patrick J. Buchanan


     
    Friday - October 18, 2019

    "If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United States of America, 6,000 miles away?"


    "Russia Assumes Mantle of Supreme Power Broker in the Middle East," proclaimed Britain's Telegraph. The article began:

    "Russia's status as the undisputed power-broker in the Middle East was cemented as Vladimir Putin continued a triumphant tour of capitals traditionally allied to the US."

    "Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate" was the title of a Telegraph column. "Putin Seizes on Trump's Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role," said the Financial Times.

    The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is us.

    Before concluding that Trump's pullout of the last 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria is America's Dunkirk, some reflection is needed.
     

    Yes, Putin has played his hand skillfully. Diplomatically, as the Brits say, the Russian president is "punching above his weight."

    He gets on with everyone. He is welcomed in Iran by the Ayatollah, meets regularly with Bibi Netanyahu, is a cherished ally of Syria's Bashar Assad, and this week was being hosted by the King of Saudi Arabia and the royal rulers of the UAE. October 2019 has been a triumphal month.

    Yet, consider what Putin has inherited and what his capabilities are for playing power broker of the Middle East.

    He has a single naval base on the Med, Tartus, in Syria, which dates to the 1970s, and a new air base, Khmeimim, also in Syria.

    The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med — Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf.

    We have the world's largest economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, and not a tenth the size of ours.

    And now that we are out of Syria's civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin's lap. He is now the man in the middle between Turkey and Syria.

    He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.

    Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops.

    Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin's problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.

    "Putin is the New King of Syria," ran the op-ed headline in Thursday's Wall Street Journal.

    The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.

    If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United States of America, 6,000 miles away?

    Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi's Democrats to denounce Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.

    But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?

    And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey's Incirlik air base to attack Turkish soldiers fighting in Syria?

    If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war for them — against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran — why does Congress not declare those interests and authorize war to secure them?

    Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values.

    If Putin is king of Syria, it is because he was willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to keep his Russia's toehold on the Med and save his ally Bashar Assad, who would have gone under without him.

    Who dares wins. Now let's see how Putin likes his prize.
     



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #323 on: October 22, 2019, 08:33:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Democracy a Dying Species?
    October 22, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.94 Stars!
    This post was viewed 198 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!





    Quote
    How does a democracy that has spawned within itself a powerful and implacable enemy deal with it?
    What happens when democracy fails to deliver? What happens when people give up on democracy?
    What happens when a majority or militant minority decide that the constitutional rights of free speech, free elections, peaceful assembly and petition are inadequate and take to the streets to force democracy to submit to their demands?
    Our world may be about to find out.
    Chile is the most stable and prosperous country in Latin America.

    Yet when its capital, Santiago, recently raised subway fares by 5%, thousands poured into the streets. Rioting, looting, arson followed. The Metro system was utterly trashed. Police were assaulted. People died. The rioting spread to six other cities. Troops were called out.
    President a Sebastian Pinera repealed the fare hike and declared a national emergency, stating, “Chile is at war against a powerful, implacable enemy who does not respect anything or anyone and is willing to use violence and crime without any limits.”
    How does a democracy that has spawned within itself a powerful and implacable enemy deal with it?
    Last week, tens of thousands of Lebanese of all faiths and political associations rioted in Beirut and Tripoli to demand the overthrow of the regime and the ouster of its president, speaker of parliament and Prime Minister Saad Hariri. All must go, the masses demand.
    In Barcelona, Friday, half a million people surged into the streets in protest after the sentencing in Madrid of the secessionists who sought to bring about the independence of Catalonia from Spain in 2017.
    In all of China, few enjoy the freedoms of the 7 million in Hong Kong. Yet, for five months, these fortunate and free Chinese, to protest a proposal that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to be extradited to China, stormed into the streets to defy the regime and denounce the conditions under which they live.
    These protests have been marked by riots, vandalism, arson and clashes with police. “Hong Kong streets descended into chaos following an unauthorized pro-democracy rally Sunday,” writes the Associated Press. Protesters “set up roadblocks and torched businesses, and police responded with tear gas and a water cannon. Protesters tossed firebombs and took their anger out on shops with mainland Chinese ties.”
    What are the Hong Kong residents denouncing and demanding?
    They are protesting both present and future limitations on their freedom. The appearance of American flags in the protests suggests that what they seek is what the agitators behind the Boston Tea Party and the boys and men at Concord Bridge sought — independence, liberty and a severing of the ties to the mother country.
    Yet, because the Communist regime of Xi Jinping could not survive such an amputation, the liberation of Hong Kong is not in the cards. The end to these months of protest will likely be frustration, futility and failure.
    Perhaps it is that realization that explains the vehemence and violence. But the rage is also what kills the support they initially received.
    In 1960s America, the first civil rights demonstrations attracted widespread sympathy. But the outburst of urban riots that followed in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and 100 cities after Martin Luther King’s assassination sent millions streaming to the banners of Gov. George Wallace in the campaigns of 1968 and 1972.
    When the “yellow vest” protests broke out in 2018 in Paris, over a fuel tax, the demonstrators had the support of millions of Frenchmen.
    But that support dissipated when protesters began smashing windows of boutique shops on the Champs-Elysee, assaulting police and desecrating monuments and memorials.
    This reversion to violence, ransacking of stores and showering of police with bricks, bottles and debris, is costing the protesters much of the backing they enjoyed. In the trade-off between freedom and order, people will ultimately opt for order.
    Yet, one wonders: Why are these outbursts of violent protests and rioting taking place in stable, free and prosperous societies?
    Chile is the most stable and wealthy country in South America. Catalonia is the most prosperous part of Spain. Paris is hardly a hellhole of repression. And Hong Kong is the freest city of China.
    If the beneficiaries of freedoms and democratic rights come to regard them as insufficient to produce the political, economic and social results they demand, what does that portend for democracy’s future?
    For, despite the looting, arson and attacks on cops in Hong Kong, Xi Jinping is not going to order his satraps to yield to popular demands for autonomy or independence. Nor is Madrid going to accept the loss of Barcelona and secession of Catalonia. Nor is the conservative Chilean government going to yield to the street rebels and revolutionaries. Nor is Paris going to back down to the “yellow vests.”
    Yet, one wonders: If the “end of history” and worldwide triumph of democratic capitalism thesis has, as most agree, been disproven, is it possible that the Age of Democracy is itself a passing phase in the history of the West and the world?

    Image Source: PixaBay…

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #324 on: October 25, 2019, 09:03:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • Imperial Capital but America-First Nation
    October 25, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.96 Stars!
    This post was viewed 297 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Is America still the world’s last superpower with global policing obligations? Or should we shuck off this imperial role and make America, again, in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s phrase, “a normal country in a normal time”?
    “Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand,” said President Donald Trump in an impassioned defense of his decision to cut ties to the Syrian Kurds, withdraw and end these “endless wars.”
    Are our troops in Syria, then, on their way home? Well, not exactly.
    Those leaving northern Syria went into Iraq. Other U.S. soldiers will stay in Syria to guard oil wells that we and the Kurds captured in the war with ISIS. Another 150 U.S. troops will remain in al-Tanf to guard Syria’s border with Iraq, at the request of Jordan and Israel.
    And 2,000 more U.S. troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Iran, which raises a question: Are we coming or going?
    In his conflicting statements and actions, Trump seemingly seeks to mollify both sides of our national quarrel:
    Is America still the world’s last superpower with global policing obligations? Or should we shuck off this imperial role and make America, again, in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s phrase, “a normal country in a normal time”?
    In Middle America, anti-interventionism has carried the day. As Trump says, no declaration at his rallies is more wildly welcomed than his pledge to end our Middle East wars and bring the troops home.
    But in this imperial capital, the voice of the interventionist yet prevails. The media, the foreign policy elite, the think tanks, the ethnic lobbies, the Pentagon, the State Department, Capitol Hill, are almost all interventionist, opposed to Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds. Rand Paul may echo Middle America, but Lindsey Graham speaks for the Republican establishment.
    Yet the evidence seems compelling that anti-interventionism is where the country is at, and the Congress knows it.
    For though the denunciations of Trump’s pullout from Syria have not ceased, one detects no campaign on Capitol Hill to authorize sending U.S. troops back to Syria, in whatever numbers are needed, to enable the Kurds to keep control of their occupied quadrant of that country.
    Love of the Kurds, so audible on the Hill, does not go that far.
    While surely loud, the neocons and liberal interventionists who drown out dissent in D.C. appear to lack the courage of their New World Order convictions.
    In 1940-41, the anti-interventionists of “America First” succeeded in keeping us out of the world war (after Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in September of 1939 and Britain and France went to war). Pearl Harbor united the nation, but not until Dec. 7, 1941, two years later — when America First folded its tents and enlisted.
    Today, because both sides of our foreign policy quarrel have powerful constituencies, we have paralysis anew, reflected in policy.
    We have enough troops in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from overrunning Kabul and the big cities, but not enough to win the war.
    In Iraq, which we invaded in 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein and install a democracy, we brought to power the Shia and their Iranian sponsors. Now we battle Iran for political influence in Baghdad.
    Across the Middle East, we have enough troops, planes and ships to prevent our expulsion, but not enough to win the wars from Syria to Yemen to Afghanistan.
    Bahrain in the Persian Gulf is the home base of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. We have 13,000 troops and a major air base at Al Udeid in Qatar. U.S. Army Central Command and 13,000 U.S. troops are in Kuwait. Trump has sent more troops to Saudi Arabia, but it was the “infidel” troops’ presence on sacred Saudi soil that was among the reasons Osama bin Laden launched 9/11.
    To the question, “Are we going deeper into the Middle East or coming out?” the answer is almost surely the latter.
    Among the candidates who could be president in 2021 — Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders — none is an interventionist of the Lindsey Graham school. Three are anti-interventionist and anti-war, which may help explain why Democrats are taking a second look at Hillary Clinton.
    According to polls, Iran is first among the nations that Americans regard as an enemy. Still, there is no stomach for war with Iran. When Trump declined to order a strike on Iran — after an air and cruise missile attack shut down half of Saudi oil production — Americans, by their silent acquiescence, seemed to support our staying out.
    Yet if there is no stomach in Middle America for war with Iran and a manifest desire to pull the troops out and come home, there is ferocious establishment resistance to any withdrawal of U.S. forces. This has bedeviled Trump through the three years of his presidency.
    Again, it seems a stalemate is in the cards — until there is some new explosion in the Mideast, after which the final withdrawal for America will begin, as it did for the exhausted British and French empires after World War II.
    That we are leaving the Middle East seems certain. Only the departure date is as yet undetermined.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/imperial-capital-but-america-first-nation-137653

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #325 on: November 01, 2019, 07:11:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 50 Years Ago: The Day Nixon Routed the Establishment
    November 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    This post was viewed 500 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share This

     



        Ten days after the “silent majority” speech, Vice President Spiro Agnew, in Des Moines, launched an assault on the unholy matrimony of media power and liberal bias. Agnew questioned whether the networks near-monopoly over the primary source of information for the American people should be permanently ceded to so tiny and unrepresentative an elite.

    [Note: Agnew speech video included below]

    What are the roots of our present disorder, of the hostilities and hatreds that so divide us? When did we become this us vs. them nation?

    Who started the fire?

    Many trace the roots of our uncivil social conflict to the 1960s and the Johnson years when LBJ, victorious in a 61% landslide in 1964, could not, by 1968, visit a college campus without triggering a violent protest.

    The morning after his narrow presidential victory in 1968, Richard Nixon said his goal would be to “bring us together.” And in early 1969, he seemed to be succeeding.

    His inaugural address extended a hand of friendship to old enemies. He withdrew 60,000 troops from Vietnam. He left the Great Society largely untouched and proposed a Family Assistance Plan for the poor and working class. He created a Western White House in San Clemente, California.

    In July, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon.

    America approved. Yet the elites seethed. For no political figure of his time was so reviled and hated by the establishment as was Richard Nixon.

    By the fall of 1969, that establishment, which had led us into Vietnam and left 500,000 U.S. troops there as of January 1969, had turned against their own war, declared it “an unwinnable war” and “Nixon’s war,” and begun to cheer the huge anti-war protests scheduled for October and November.

    David Broder of The Washington Post was one who saw clearly what was happening: “It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969. The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”

    In a cover story titled “Nixon in Trouble,” Newsweek echoed Broder:

    “From almost every quarter last week the nine-month-old Administration of Richard M. Nixon was under sustained attack and angry fire, and increasingly the target of the attacks was Mr. Nixon himself and his conduct of the Presidency.”

    On Oct. 15, some 250,000 descended on the capital for the largest demonstration in history. A stunned Time declared that, instead of resisting its demands, Nixon should prepare “the country for the trauma of distasteful reversal.”

    Time wanted Nixon to declare Vietnam a lost cause.

    But by now, Nixon, realizing his presidency was in danger of being broken like LBJ’s — but believing he was reading the nation better than the establishment — had decided to wheel and fight.

    On Nov. 3, 1969, Nixon delivered an Oval Office address that was carried live on every network. After reciting the case Ike, JFK and LBJ had all made for resisting a Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Nixon laid out his own policy, the rationale for it, and urged the “great silent majority” to stand by him for peace with honor.

    The network commentators almost universally disparaged Nixon’s address as repetitive and unresponsive to the crisis of his presidency.

    Washington’s elites, however, had misread the nation.


    An instant poll found that 70% of the country supported Nixon’s declared policy. A coalition of 300 House members endorsed Nixon’s stand. Liberal Democrats in the Senate rejected Nixon’s policy, but Southern and conservative Democratic senators backed him.

    Ten days after the “silent majority” speech, Vice President Spiro Agnew, in Des Moines, launched an assault on the unholy matrimony of media power and liberal bias. Agnew questioned whether the networks near-monopoly over the primary source of information for the American people should be permanently ceded to so tiny and unrepresentative an elite.

    VIDEO: Spiro Agnew: Television News Coverage Speech – Des Moines, Iowa – Nov 13, 1969
    Note: Audio version and full text of speech can be viewed here…]

    All three networks carried Agnew’s speech live, but were rocked on their heels by the reaction. Scores of thousand of telegrams and letters poured into network offices and the White House, with the vast majority agreeing with the vice president.

    The liberal establishment had sustained a historic defeat.

    By December, Nixon was the most admired man in America. His approval rating in the Gallup Poll was 68%. Only 19% disapproved of how he was conducting his presidency. Dr. Billy Graham was the second-most admired man, and Agnew third.

    Nor was this but a blip in the Nixon presidency. When, three years later, Democrats nominated the most impassioned and articulate of their anti-war senators, George McGovern, Nixon would crush him in a 49-state landslide.

    In Watergate, the establishment would get its pound of flesh for its rout by Nixon in November 1969 and its humiliation in November 1972. But that establishment would never recover what it lost — the respect and regard of the American people in the ’60s and early ’70s.

    JFK’s “best and brightest,” whose hour of power was “Camelot,” were broken on the wheel of Vietnam. After taking us into Southeast Asia, they had washed their hands of their own war and declared it immoral.

    So great was the loss of esteem for the establishment among the silent majority, America’s elite would soon cease to call themselves liberals and change their names to “progressives.”

    https://buchanan.org/blog/50-years-ago-the-day-nixon-routed-the-establishment-137693


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #326 on: November 08, 2019, 09:53:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Will ‘Sexist’ White Males Derail Warren?
    November 8, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 175 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    The three white males are denigrating and piling on the woman who is the front-runner with attacks on her personality for which conservatives, if they used such tactics, would be charged with “dog-whistling” the white working class.
    After celebrating Tuesday’s takeover of Virginia’s legislature and the Kentucky governorship, the liberal establishment appears poised to crush its biggest threat: the surging candidacy of Elizabeth Warren.
    From the tempo and tenor of the attacks, establishment fears of Warren’s success are real — and understandably so.
    Two Wednesday polls show Warren running even with Joe Biden nationally. And a new Iowa poll shows Warren in front of the field with 20%, and Biden falling into fourth place with 15%.
    The danger for Democrats: While Warren is now the party’s front-runner, they fear she’s a sure loser to Donald Trump in 2020.
    And, again, with reason. A recent poll of six battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, showed Trump beating or tying Warren in all of them except for Arizona.
    Nightmare scenario: Warren wins the nomination, but when her neo-Marxist agenda is exposed, Middle America recoils in horror.
    The economic elite is already sounding the alarm.
    Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase says Warren “vilifies successful people.” Microsoft founder Bill Gates says her proposals would imperil “innovation” and “capital formation.”
    Writing in The New York Times, Obama adviser Steven Rattner describes a Warren presidency as “a terrifying prospect.”
    Warren would “extend the reach and weight of the federal government far further into the economy than anything even Franklin Roosevelt dreamed of (and) … turn America’s uniquely successful public-private relationship into a dirigiste European-style system.”
    “If you want to live in France” — where half the GDP is controlled by the regime — says Rattner, “Warren should be your candidate.”
    What finally shocked anti-Warren liberals into action was her recent revelation of how she intends to pay for her “Medicare for all” plan.
    Warren’s plan would require at least $23 trillion more in federal spending over a decade. Other experts say the added costs could run to $32 trillion, raising the U.S. government’s share of the GDP by one-half and abolishing the private health insurance plans of 156 million Americans.
    “Many of America’s global champions, like banks and tech giants, would be dismembered,” writes Rattner, “Shale fracking would be banned, which would send oil and natural gas prices soaring and cost millions of Americans their jobs.”
    Beyond “Medicare for All,” Warren has other plans. Universal child care and free schooling from pre-kindergarten through college and the cancelation of student loans, plus a new look at reparations for slavery.
    How would President Warren pay for all her “plans”?
    She would raise the corporate rate to 35% from 21%, and slam a 40% tax on the profits of companies that try to flee the country.
    She would raise the capital gains tax, impose new estate taxes, raise Social Security taxes on folks with higher incomes, and confiscate 2% of the wealth of those with $50 million in assets and 3% of the wealth of those with $1 billion, every year.
    Writes Politifact: “All told, we counted $7 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period, and that’s without Medicare for All. On the flip side, Warren offered specific tax proposals that came to $4.55 trillion.”
    Still, Warren’s socialism is not what her main rivals, all white men, are zeroing in on. They’ve decided to play hardball.
    Thursday, under a headline, “Warren Faces Accusations that She’s ‘Angry,’ Which Supporters Say is Sexist,” The Washington Post reported:
    “Two of the leading male candidates in the Democratic presidential primary race — Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — have escalated separate lines of attack as they attempt to counter the field’s most prominent woman: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is antagonistic and angry.”
    Warren has a “my way or the highway” approach, said Buttigieg, she is “so absorbed in the fighting that it is as though fighting were the purpose.”
    Biden says Warren, who has a real shot at taking the nomination, reflects “an angry unyielding viewpoint that has crept into our politics.”
    This is “treacherous,” warns the Post, “given that many Democrats remain upset over what they view as the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton, the party’s last nominee.”
    The Democratic Party today defines itself as an inclusive party of women, gays, Hispanics, African Americans and other people of color.
    Yet three months out from the decisive early contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the party is going into the semifinals of its contest for a leader and future president without a single person of color in the final four.
    Moreover, the three white males are denigrating and piling on the woman who is the front-runner with attacks on her personality for which conservatives, if they used such tactics, would be charged with “dog-whistling” the white working class.
    When one looks at the approval-disapproval rating of the president, re-election appears problematic. When one looks at the Democrats’ agenda and field of candidates, the odds of Trump’s re-election seem a good deal better.
    This thing is by no means over.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/will-sexist-white-males-derail-warren-137724

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #327 on: November 12, 2019, 08:00:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bernie Leads His Party to Open Borders
    November 12, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 106 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    With cartel battles escalating into a war that Mexico City has no stomach for fighting, and a record number of migrants from Central America crossing Mexico to flood into the USA, what is the Democratic Party’s policy for halting the rising tide?
    Some 100 members of an American Mormon community in northern Mexico, nine of whom — women, children, toddlers — were massacred a week ago on a lonely stretch of highway, just crossed over into Arizona.
    Other family members who have lived there for decades will follow.
    The atrocity was the work of one of the cartels battling for control of the drug traffic into the United States.
    In Mexico’s Sinaloa state in October, an arrest of Ovidio Guzman Lopez, son of “El Chapo,” who sits in a New York prison, brought a military-style cartel attack on the state capital, Culiacan, followed by a surrender to the cartel gunmen by national guard and army troops, and a release of the captive.
    “Is Mexico a failed state?” asks The Washington Times. Its editorial describes “Another Blood-Soaked Year in Mexico” where 17,000 people were murdered by July and the 2019 death toll is expected to reach 32,000.
    USA Today reports: “Through August of the current fiscal year, the Border Patrol apprehended 457,871 migrants arriving as ‘family units’ … a 406% increase compared to the 90,554 family unit apprehensions during the same period the previous year. Migrant families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador made up almost 92% of the total.”
    With cartel battles escalating into a war that Mexico City has no stomach for fighting, and a record number of migrants from Central America crossing Mexico to flood into the USA, what is the Democratic Party’s policy for halting the rising tide?
    Democrats are moving toward an “open door” policy on the U.S. border, an open borders embrace of any and all who wish to come.
    America, apparently, does not belong to those who live here and love the country. America belongs to anyone who chooses to come. America belongs to the world.
    Consider Bernie Sanders’ immigration proposal, outlined the week of the massacre of Mormon women and children.

    On Day One, President Sanders would declare a moratorium on deportations and offer a “swift pathway to citizenship” for all illegal migrants who have been here for five years.
    Bernie would break up ICE. Border-jumping would cease to be a crime and become a civil offense like jaywalking. The “Muslim ban” would be abolished.
    President Sanders would back sanctuary cities that refuse to work with U.S. law enforcement. Asylum seekers would not have to wait in Mexico as their claims were processed but would be welcomed into the USA.
    Family separations would end. Trump’s wall, which Bernie calls “racist,” would be history. The administration’s treatment of illegal immigration “as a criminal and national security matter is inhuman, impractical and must end.”
    Migrants who enter illegally would qualify for federal health care and the same social welfare benefits as U.S. citizens. Immigrant officials say Sanders’ proposals would create an irresistible magnet for millions of migrants from all over the world to stampede into the USA.
    The Nation magazine calls Sanders’ plan “one of the boldest immigration plans any major politician has put forward in years, and comes amid a campaign season that has seen a major shift to the left among Democratic candidates on immigration.
    “With calls for a total moratorium on deportations, abolishing ICE and providing a path to citizenship for undocumented migration, the plan serves as a road map for what a fair and just immigration can be.”
    From another standpoint, Sanders’ proposal is a surrender to the reality that a leftist regime lacks the conviction or will to stop an endless stream of people from migrating here.
    Americans troubled over what is happening on the Syrian-Turkish border, or Ukrainian-Crimean border, might take a closer look at what will happen at our own border, and to our own country, if Democrats win the presidency and throw open the doors to unrestricted immigration.
    The federal budget, already running trillion-dollar deficits, and state budgets, too, will see huge increases in the cost of social programs, without the commensurate income tax revenues to pay for them.
    Even at present levels, illegal immigration is bringing in millions of people without the work, education or language skills to compete and assimilate rapidly in a first world, Western economy.
    These migrants pay virtually no income taxes, yet, would qualify for the same benefits as U.S. citizens. The inevitable result: another run-up in an annual deficit already running $1 trillion in the red.
    Politically, so massive a migration of peoples who, once they become citizens, vote 70%-90% Democratic means an end of the GOP as a truly national party.
    If we open the borders, how do we stop the drugs from coming in? How do we stop the cartels from following MS-13, which is already here?
    Socially, this country is as splintered as it has been since the 1960s.
    Will a barrage of migrants add to its diversity, or deepen the ethnic, racial and cultural divides that are turning us into two, three, many Americas?


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6102
    • Reputation: +2168/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #328 on: Yesterday at 03:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What’s Behind Our World on Fire?
    November 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.71 Stars!
    This post was viewed 486 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!






    Quote
    The issues pulling continents, countries and capitals apart thus appear to be growing, enduring, and, indeed, perhaps insoluble.
    When the wildfires of California broke out across the Golden State, many were the causes given.
    Negligence by campers. Falling power lines. Arson. A dried-out land. Climate change. Failure to manage forests, prune trees and clear debris, leaving fuel for blazes ignited. Abnormally high winds spreading the flames. Too many fires for first responders to handle.
    So, too, there appears to be a multiplicity of causes igniting and fueling the protests and riots sweeping capital cities across our world.
    The year-long yellow vest protests in Paris, set off by fuel price hikes that were swiftly rescinded, seemed to grind down this weekend to several thousand anarchic and violent die-hards.
    The riots in Chile were started to oppose a small hike in train and subway fares in a country with the highest per capita income and least inequality in all of Latin America. Yet the protesters have succeeded in forcing the elected government to capitulate and write a new constitution.
    Bolivia’s uprising was over an election stolen by longtime president Evo Morales, who fled to Mexico to be welcomed by the foreign minister.
    Among the issues dividing Bolivians are economic inequality and tribalism — indigenous peoples living alongside a European-descended elite.
    In Hong Kong, where protesters appear to be making a last stand in the city’s universities, the cause that first united them was a proposal to allow the city’s citizens to be extradited to China for trial.
    While that proposal was withdrawn, the rioting has continued for half a year and now involves Molotov cocktails, slingshots, bows and arrows, and catapults to hurl bricks at police.
    The latest demands include investigating and punishing police for excessive force, restoration of all liberties and freedoms Hong Kong enjoyed in the last years of British rule, and the right to elect their own leaders.
    If Hong Kong can resist mighty China for half a year, imagine what Taiwan, with three times Hong Kong’s population, significant military forces, and 100 miles of water between the island and mainland, could do to resist the rule of the Party of Xi Jinping.

    In Baghdad, the protests went violent early, and hundreds are now dead.
    A primary cause of the rioters’ rage — Iranian influence in Iraqi politics that arose among the Shiite majority after George W. Bush overthrew the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein.
    The Iranian-backed Shiite militia who helped stop the Islamic State group’s drive to Baghdad in the days of the caliphate are now less welcome. “Iranians, go home!” is a popular demand.
    The recent violent protests inside Iran are rooted in both politics and economics. U.S. sanctions keep millions of barrels of Iran’s oil off world markets every day, causing surging deficits, exacerbating the plunging value of Iran’s currency and contributing to rising inflation.
    The triggering event for the riots in Iran was a rise in the price of gas, which is still only a fraction of what Americans pay per gallon, but is deeply painful for working- and middle-class Iranians who are stretched to the limit.
    The issues pulling continents, countries and capitals apart thus appear to be growing, enduring, and, indeed, perhaps insoluble.
    Consider. The economic issues propelling workers into the streets to protest inequalities of wealth and income are occurring at a time when our world has never been more prosperous.
    The ethnic and racial clashes within and between nations seem increasingly beyond the capacity of democratic regimes to resolve peacefully.
    As for matters of fundamental belief — political, ideological, religious — the divides here, too, seem to be deepening and widening.
    India’s Hindu majority of 1 billion seeks suppression of its Muslim minority. Secular Chinese put Muslim Uighurs and Kazakhs in concentration camps by the thousands to root out their birth loyalties and convert them into Marxist nationalists. Han Chinese are moved into Tibet and Xinjiang to swamp indigenous populations.
    In Hong Kong, the struggle is ideological and political, between believers in democracy and advocates of authoritarianism.
    President Trump’s America wants to secure the Southern border against an ongoing invasion of Latin American and Third World people, who could soon create here a new majority that votes reliably Democratic.
    Europe resists with growing alarm a decades-long invasion of the Old Continent by desperate people fleeing the failed states of Africa and the Mideast.
    In Spain, a nationalist party, Vox, vaults to third place to resist a leftist regime in Madrid that is seen as too accommodating to Catalan secessionists and refugees from across the Mediterranean.
    Americans are not at actual war with one another, but our divisions are as wide and deep as they have been since the 1960s, if not since the Civil War.
    We have Republicans standing united against the impeachment and removal of a president they overwhelmingly elected — by a united Democratic Party dominated by implacable ideological adversaries.
    Neither authoritarians nor the world’s democracies seem to have found a cure for the maladies that afflict our world’s unhappy citizens.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/whats-behind-our-world-on-fire-137777

     

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