Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 29765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7240
  • Reputation: +2462/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #330 on: December 03, 2019, 10:12:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • In Hong Kong, It’s US vs. China Now
    December 3, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.92 Stars!
    This post was viewed 253 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Xi Jinping is no Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not going to let his people go. He is not going to risk a revolution to overturn the Maoist Revolution he has served his entire life.
    At first glance, it would appear that five months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong had produced a stunning triumph.
    By September, the proposal of city leader Carrie Lam that ignited the protests — to allow criminal suspects to be extradited to China for trial — had been withdrawn.
    And though the protesters’ demands escalated along with their tactics, from marches to mass civil disobedience, Molotov cocktails, riots and attacks on police, Chinese troops remained confined to their barracks.
    Beijing wanted no reenactment of Tiananmen Square, the midnight massacre in the heart of Beijing that drowned in blood the 1989 uprising for democratic rights.
    In Hong Kong, the police have not used lethal force. In five months of clashes, only a few have perished. And when elections came last month, Beijing was stunned by the landslide victory of the protesters.
    Finally, last month, Congress passed by huge margins in both houses a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act that threatens sanctions on Hong Kong authorities should they crush the rebels.
    When President Donald Trump signed the bills, the protesters now had the U.S. as an ally, and the Chinese reacted viscerally.
    An enraged Foreign Ministry declared: “The US … openly backed violent criminals who rampantly smashed facilities, set fire, assaulted innocent civilians, trampled on the rule of law and jeopardized social order.
    “This so-called bill will only make the Chinese people … further understand the sinister intentions and hegemonic nature of the United States. It will only make the Chinese people more united and make the American plot more doomed to failure.”
    Thus do the Hong Kong protesters appear victorious, for now.
    Sunday, black-clad masked protesters were back in the streets, waving American flags, erecting barricades, issuing new demands — for greater autonomy for Hong Kong, the release of jailed protesters and the punishment of police who used excessive force.


    This confrontation is far from over.
    Instead, it has escalated, and the U.S. government, having given up its posture of benevolent neutrality in favor of peaceful demonstrators for democracy, has become an open ally of often-violent people who are battling Chinese police inside a Chinese city.
    On Monday, China retaliated, suspending visits to Hong Kong by U.S. military planes and Navy ships and declaring sanctions on the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and half a dozen other U.S. agencies that promote democracy for interfering in the internal affairs of China.
    And there is another issue here — the matter of face.
    China has just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Revolution where Mao proclaimed, “China has stood up!” after a century of foreign humiliations and occupations.
    Can Xi Jinping, already the object of a Maoist cult of personality, accept U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of his country or a city that belongs to China? Not likely. Nor is China likely to accede to demands for greater sovereignty, self-determination or independence for Hong Kong.
    This would only raise hopes of the city’s eventual escape from its ordained destiny: direct rule by Beijing when the 50-year China-U.K. treaty regarding the transfer of Hong Kong expires in 2047.
    For Xi to capitulate to the demands of Hong Kong’s demonstrators could cause an outbreak of protests in other Chinese cities and bring on a crisis of the regime.
    Xi Jinping is no Mikhail Gorbachev. He is not going to let his people go. He is not going to risk a revolution to overturn the Maoist Revolution he has served his entire life.
    A ruler committing the atrocities Xi is committing today in the concentration camps in the Uighur regions of China is staying his hand in Hong Kong only so the world and the West cannot see the true face of the ideology in which this true believer believes.
    In providing moral support for protesters in Hong Kong who desire the freedoms we enjoy, America is on the right side. But to align the U.S. with the protesters’ cause, and threaten sanctions if their demands are not met, is to lead these demonstrators to make demands that Hong Kong’s rulers cannot meet and China will not allow.
    We should ask ourselves some questions before we declare our solidarity with the protesters engaging the Hong Kong police.
    If the police crush them, or if China’s army moves in and crushes the demonstrators whose hopes were raised by America’s declared solidarity, then what are we prepared to do to save them and their cause?
    Are we willing to impose sanctions on Beijing, such as we have on Venezuela, Iran and Vladimir Putin’s Russia?
    Some of us yet recall how the Voice of America broadcast to the Hungarian rebels of 1956 that if they rose up and threw the Russians out, we would be at their side. The Hungarians rose up. We did nothing. And one of the great bloodbaths of the Cold War ensued.
    Are we telling the protesters of Hong Kong, “We’ve got your back!” when we really don’t?


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7240
    • Reputation: +2462/-82
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #331 on: December 17, 2019, 09:48:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Will the Secessionist Epidemic Ever End?
    December 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.85 Stars!
    This post was viewed 204 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    If the secessionism epidemic is to someday expire, then its causes will have to be addressed. And what are they?
    Fresh from his triumphal “Get Brexit Done!” campaign, Prime Minister Boris Johnson anticipates a swift secession from the European Union.
    But if Britain secedes from the EU, warns Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland will secede from the United Kingdom.
    Northern Ireland, which voted in 2016 to remain in the EU, could follow Scotland out of Britain, leaving her with “Little England” and Wales.
    Not going to happen, says Boris. His government will not allow a second referendum on Scottish independence.
    Yet the Scottish National Party won 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats in Parliament, and Sturgeon calls this a mandate for a new vote to secede:
    “If (Boris) thinks … saying no is the end of the matter then he is going to find himself completely and utterly wrong. … You cannot hold Scotland in the union against its will.”
    She has a point. If a majority of Scots wish to secede, how does a democratic Great Britain indefinitely deny them the right of self-determination?
    Is Scotland fated to become for Britain what Catalonia is to Spain?
    Where does this phenomenon, this continuing unraveling of old and proliferation of new nations, this epidemic of secessionism, end?
    The most recent population explosion of new nations began three decades ago, when 15 republics of the USSR became independent nations. Soon, several of the 15 began to unravel further.
    Transnistria seceded from Moldova. South Ossetia and Abkhazia seceded from Georgia. Chechnya sought to break free of Russia, only to be crushed. Since 2015, the Donbass has sought to secede from Ukraine.
    When Josip Tito’s Yugoslavia collapsed, six “nations” seceded from Belgrade.
    When did secessionism begin? The Americans started it all.
    The first great secessionist cause was the Revolution, when the 13 American colonies declared and won independence from the British crown.

    It is solemnly declared today that our Revolution was about ideas, such as the equality of all men. But the author of the Declaration did not believe in equality.
    Jefferson was a Virginia plantation owner, some of whose slaves were with him in Philadelphia. He described Native Americans in the Declaration as “merciless Indian Savages.” The British are fraternally called “brethren” with whom we share “ties of a common kindred,” but who have been “deaf to the voice of consanguinity.”
    I.e, our cousins have been deaf to the call of our common blood.
    John Jay, in Federalist 2, before the Constitution was even ratified, spoke of the elements that formed the nation — “one connected country to one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion … similar in their manners and customs.”
    A second secessionist movement, six decades later, created a second American nation. Texans under Sam Houston rose up and ripped that vast province away from its young mother country, Mexico.
    The third secessionist movement united 11 states that sought to create a new confederated nation outside the Union, as the revolutionary generation had created a new nation outside of Britain.
    In the 19th century, a dozen new nations were created by Latin American secessionists of the Spanish and Portuguese empires who emulated the example of the Americans of 1776.
    After 1945, colonies of the British, French, Portuguese and Belgian empires seceded to produce a baby boom of new nations whose most common characteristic seems to be that all receive foreign aid and all have seats in the U.N. General Assembly.
    If the secessionism epidemic is to someday expire, then its causes will have to be addressed. And what are they?
    Secessionism appears rooted principally in issues of national identity — ethnicity, religion, race, language, culture and “the mystic chords of memory” — most of which Jay identified as both uniting Americans and separating us from our British “brethren.”
    Yet these issues of identity appear not to be receding but rising in the Caucasus, Middle East, Africa and South Asia.
    The Kurds, the Palestinians, the Baluch and many more seek their own nations. Taiwan’s secession is not recognized by China. The secession of Russian-speaking Donbass is not recognized by a U.S.-armed Ukraine, or by us.
    As more and more people identify themselves by who they are, and are not, secessions of people from each other will continue.
    These are not inconsequential matters. In 1939, the question of whether 300,000 Germans in a Polish-controlled city, Danzig, should be restored to German rule led to the worst war in the history of the world.
    The peace of mankind in the 21st century may well depend upon our ability to accommodate this inexorable secessionist drive to some degree.
    In June 1945, the U.N. had 50 members. It begins 2020 with 193.
    Last week, Bougainville, a South Pacific island cluster of Papua New Guinea, voted 98%, in a nonbinding referendum for independence, to become the world’s newest nation. Papua New Guinea won its own independence from Australia when Gerald Ford was president.
    And the beat goes on.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/will-the-secessionist-epidemic-ever-end-137890


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7240
    • Reputation: +2462/-82
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #332 on: December 24, 2019, 07:54:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Today France, Tomorrow the USA?
    December 23, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.75 Stars!
    This post was viewed 360 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    It is worth looking more closely at France because she appears to be at a place where the rest of Europe and America are headed.
    As that rail and subway strike continued to paralyze travel in Paris and across France into the third week, President Emmanuel Macron made a Christmas appeal to his dissatisfied countrymen:
    “Strike action is justifiable and protected by the constitution, but I think there are moments in a nation’s life when it is good to observe a truce out of respect for families and family life.”
    Macron’s appeal has gone largely unheeded.
    “The public be damned!” seems to be the attitude of many of the workers who are tying up transit to protest Macron’s plan to reform a pension system that consumes 14% of GDP.
    Macron wants to raise to 64 the age of eligibility for full retirement benefits. Not terribly high. And to set an example, he is surrendering his lifetime pension that is to begin when he becomes an ex-president.
    Yet, it is worth looking more closely at France because she appears to be at a place where the rest of Europe and America are headed.
    In France, the government collects 46% of the GDP in taxes and spends 56% of GDP, the highest figures in the Western world.
    And Paris appears to be bumping up against the limits of what democratic voters will tolerate in higher taxes, or reductions in benefits, from the postwar welfare states the West has created.
    A year ago, when Macron sought to raise fuel taxes to cut carbon emissions, the “yellow vests” came out in protests that degenerated into rioting, looting, arson, desecration of monuments and attacks on police.
    Paris capitulated and canceled the tax.
    How do we compare?

    The U.S. national debt is now larger than the GDP. Only in 1946, the year after World War II, was U.S. debt a larger share of GDP than today.
    In 2019, the U.S. ran a deficit just shy of $1 trillion, and the U.S. government projects trillion-dollar deficits through the decade, which begins next week. And we will be running these deficits not to stimulate an economy in recession, as President Obama did, but to pile them on top of an economy at full employment.
    In short, we are beginning to run historic deficits in a time of prosperity. Whatever the economic theory behind this, it bears no resemblance to the limited government-balanced budget philosophy of the party of Ronald Reagan.
    The questions the U.S. will inevitably face are the ones France faces: At what point does government consumption of the national wealth become too great a burden for the private sector to bear? At what point must cuts be made in government spending that will be seen by the people, as they are seen in France today, as intolerable?
    While a Republican Congress ran surpluses in the 1990s, when defense spending fell following our Cold War victory, Dwight Eisenhower was the last Republican president to run surpluses.
    Opposition to new or higher taxes appears to be the one piece of ground today on which Republicans will not yield. But if so, where are the cuts going to come from that will be virtually mandated if U.S. debt is not to grow beyond any sustainable level?
    America’s long-term problem:
    Deficits are projected to run regularly in the coming decade at nearly 5% of GDP while economic growth has fallen back to 2%.
    With taxes off the table, where, when and how do we cut spending?
    Or does each new administration kick the can down the road?
    The five principal items in the federal budget are these:
    Social Security, which consumes 25% of that budget. Yet, Social Security outlays will reach the point this year where payroll taxes no longer cover them. The “trust fund” will have to be raided. Translation: The feds will have to borrow money to cover the Social Security deficit.
    Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and other health programs account for another fourth of the budget. All will need more money to stay solvent.
    Defense, which used to take 9% of GDP in JFK’s time and 6% in Ronald Reagan’s buildup, is now down to 3.2% of GDP.
    Yet, while defense’s share of GDP is among the smallest since before World War II, U.S. commitments are as great as they were during the Cold War. We are now defending 28 NATO nations, containing Russia, and maintaining strategic parity. We have commitments in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the global war on terror. We defend South Korea and Japan from a nuclear-armed North Korea and China.
    Yet another major item in the budget is interest on the debt.
    And as that U.S. debt surges with all the new deficits this decade, and interest rates inevitably begin to rise, interest on the debt will rise both in real terms and as a share of the budget.
    Again, is France the future of the West?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/today-france-tomorrow-the-usa-137917

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7240
    • Reputation: +2462/-82
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #333 on: December 27, 2019, 06:10:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is ‘Little Rocket Man’ Winning?
    December 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    This post was viewed 413 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    If U.S. sanctions are insufficient to force Kim to “denuclearize,” as seems apparent, is Trump prepared to force him to do so?
    As of Dec. 26, Kim Jong Un’s “Christmas gift” to President Donald Trump had not arrived. Most foreign policy analysts predict it will be a missile test more impressive than any Pyongyang has yet carried off.
    What is Kim’s game? What does Kim want?
    He cannot want war with the United States, as this could result in the annihilation of the Kim family dynasty that has ruled North Korea since World War II. Kim is all about self-preservation.
    What he appears to want in his confrontation with Trump is a victory without war. In the near-term, Kim seeks three things: recognition of his regime as the legitimate government of North Korea and its acceptance in all the forums of the world, trade and an end to all U.S. and U.N. sanctions, and a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter a U.S. attack, including missiles that can strike U.S. bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam, and the Western Pacific. And he seeks the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead on the U.S. mainland.
    Nor is this last goal unreasonable from Kim’s vantage point.
    For he knows what became of the two other nations of George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” that failed to develop nuclear weapons.
    Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was invaded, and he was hanged and his sons hunted down and killed.
    The Ayatollah’s Iran negotiated a 2015 nuclear deal with America and opened up its nuclear facilities to intrusive inspections to show that Tehran did not have a nuclear weapons program.
    Trump came to power, trashed the deal, reimposed sanctions and is choking Iran to death.
    Moammar Gadhafi surrendered his WMD in 2004 and opened up his production facilities. And in 2011, the U.S. attacked Libya and Gadhafi was lynched by a mob.
    Contrast the fate of these regimes and rulers with the Kim family’s success. His father, Kim Jong Il, tested nuclear weapons and missiles in defiance of U.S. warnings, and now the son is invited to summits with the U.S. president in Singapore and Hanoi.
    If Kim did not have nuclear weapons, would American presidents be courting him? Would U.S. secretaries of state be visiting Pyongyang? If Kim did not have nuclear weapons who would pay the least attention to the Hermit Kingdom?
    Undeniably, with his promised “Christmas gift,” possibly a missile capable of hitting the U.S., Kim is pushing the envelope. He is taunting the Americans. We have told him what he must do. And he is telling us where we can go.
    But by so doing, Kim has put the ball squarely in Trump’s court.
    The question Trump faces: Is he prepared to accept North Korea joining Russia and China as a third adversarial power with the ability to launch a nuclear strike on the continental United States?
    And if U.S. sanctions are insufficient to force Kim to “denuclearize,” as seems apparent, is Trump prepared to force him to do so? Is Trump prepared to use “fire and fury” to remove Kim’s nukes?
    With 28,500 U.S. troops and thousands of U.S. citizens in South Korea, many within artillery range of the DMZ, is Trump prepared to risk a clash that could ignite a second Korean War in the election year 2020?
    Is the president prepared for whatever that might bring?
    How does this confrontation play out?
    A guess: The U.S. has lived with North Korea’s nuclear weapons for a decade, and Trump is not going to risk a second Korean conflict with a military attack on Kim’s nuclear and missile arsenals. Kim Jong Un and his father have created a new reality in Korea, and we are going to have to live with it.
    Where does East Asia go from here?
    South Korea has twice the population of the North and an economy 40 times as large. Japan has a population five times that of North Korea and an economy 100 times as large.
    If the U.S. treaty guarantees, dating to the 1950s, to fight for these two nations come into question as a result of America’s reluctance to face down Pyongyang more forcibly on its nuclear arsenal, these nations are almost certain to start considering all options for their future security.
    Among these are building their own nuclear arsenals and closer ties to the one nation that has shown it can discipline North Korea — China.
    Much is on the line here.
    Kim’s challenge is ultimately about the credibility of the United States, which has treaty commitments and issued war guarantees to scores of nations in NATO Europe, the Mideast and East Asia, but whose people have zero interest in any new war, especially a second Korean War.
    If the world sees that America is reluctant to face down, or fight a North Korea that is threatening us, will they retain the old confidence that the United States will risk war for them?
    What Kim is undermining is not just U.S. security but U.S. credibility

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-little-rocket-man-winning-137932


     

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