Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 14475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5209
  • Reputation: +1951/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #150 on: January 03, 2018, 09:13:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  3 January 2018
    The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue
    Wednesday - January 3, 2018 at 12:36 am

    This post was viewed 71 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?
    As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?
    What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?
    Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.
    Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016 — but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.
    Who produced the dossier?
    Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
    Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”
    Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.
    Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.
    Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year’s Eve by a major revelation in The New York Times. Top headline on page one:
    “Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”
    The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:
    “What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”
    The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:
    “It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”
    The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.
    Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.
    Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.
    The Times’ story pounds home this version of events:
    “The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”
    This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”
    Well, perhaps.
    But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?
    According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.
    And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.
    If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him — as compared to Steele?
    Yet another major question remains unanswered.
    If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?
    If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?
    Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents, than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?
    Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:
    They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.
    Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/times-rides-muellers-rescue-128401

    The New York Times is a Jewish Run Newspaper since 1894

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5209
    • Reputation: +1951/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #151 on: January 05, 2018, 07:41:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Fire Bell in the Night for the Ayatollah
    Friday - January 5, 2018 at 1:51 am

    This post was viewed 48 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    As tens of thousands marched in the streets of Tehran on Wednesday in support of the regime, the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps assured Iranians the “sedition” had been defeated.
    Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari is whistling past the graveyard.
    The protests that broke out a week ago and spread and became riots are a fire bell in the night for the Islamic Republic.
    The protesters denounced President Hassan Rouhani, re-elected last year with 57 percent of the vote, for failing to curb inflation or deliver the benefits he promised when Iran signed the nuclear deal.
    Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commander in chief and head of state, in power three decades, was also denounced, as were Iran’s interventions in wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen.
    In 2009, the uprising of millions in Tehran was driven by middle-class rage over an election stolen by the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This past week’s protests began in the working class, in what might be called Iran’s “fly-over country.”
    The protesters were Red State and Tea Party types, demanding their own version of “Come Home, Iran” and “Iran First!”
    The charge against Rouhani is that he has failed to deliver the good times promised. Against the ayatollah and the mullahs, the charge is that what they have delivered — power and wealth to the clerics, social repression, foreign wars — are not what the Iranian people want.
    The greater long-term threat of the protests is to the Islamic regime.
    For if the protests are about people being denied the freedom and material goods the young enjoy in the West, the protesters are demanding what theocracies do not deliver. How could the ayatollah and the mullahs, who restrict freedom by divine law, accept democratic freedoms without imperiling their own theological dictatorship?
    How could the Republican Guard surrender its slice of the Iranian economy and end its foreign interventions without imperiling its reason for being — to protect and promote the Iranian Islamic revolution?
    Half of Iran’s population is 31 or younger. This new generation was not even born until a decade after the Revolution that overthrew the Shah.
    How does a clerical regime speak to a people, 40 million of whom have smartphones connecting them to an outside world where they can see the freedom and prosperity they seek, but their government cannot or will not deliver?
    The protesters are also telling Rouhani’s “reformers,” in power now for five years, that they, too, have failed.
    Rouhani’s dilemma? To grow Iran’s economy and improve the quality of life, he needs more foreign investment and more consumer goods. Yet any surge in material prosperity Rouhani delivers is certain to undermine the religious faith undergirding the theocratic regime.
    And as any transfer of power to the elected regime has to come at the expense of the clerics and the Guard, Rouhani is not likely to get that power.
    Thus, he and his government are likely to continue to fail.
    Bottom line: The Islamic Republic of Iran was not established to create a materially prosperous and socially free society, because, in the ayatollah’s theology, such societies, like the USA, are of the devil and corruptive of the people.
    Social freedom is irreconcilable with Iranian theocracy.
    And Iranian hard-liners, clerical and military, are not going to permit protests demanding Western freedom and material goods, to cause them to commit what they believe would be ideological suicide.
    Yet the U.S. and President Trump also face a dilemma.
    If as Trump says, we wish the Iranian people well, how do we justify scraping the nuclear deal in which Iranians have placed so much hope, and reimposing the sanctions that will restore the hardships of yesterday?
    How does America proclaim herself a friend of the Iranian people, if we are trying to persuade Europeans to abrogate the nuclear accord and reimpose the sanctions that impoverish the Iranian people?
    Will we urge the Iranians to rise up and overthrow their regime, as we did the Hungarians in 1956, which resulted in their massacre by Soviet tanks sent into Budapest? Ike’s response: He sent Vice President Nixon to greet the surviving Hungarian patriots fleeing across the Andau Bridge into Austria.
    After Desert Storm in 1991, George H.W. Bush urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein. When the Shiites did rise up, they, too, were massacred, as our Army from Desert Storm stood by in Kuwait.
    If there is an Iranian uprising and it results in a Tiananmen Square slaughter in Tehran, do we really want the U.S., which would not likely intervene to save the patriots, held morally accountable?
    The Iranian protests suggest that the Islamic Revolution, after 40 years, is failing the rising generation. It is hard to see how this is not ominous news for the Iranian regime.
    As it was not on the side of the Soviets, time is not on the side of the ayatollahs either.
    We need not go to war with them. Time will take care of them, too.
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/fire-bell-night-ayatollah-128424


    Offline graceseeker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 799
    • Reputation: +89/-125
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #152 on: January 08, 2018, 01:04:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Buchanan

    he is Catholic, I think

    convert? But anyway.. need more Catholics in politics

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5209
    • Reputation: +1951/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #153 on: January 09, 2018, 12:07:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  8 January 2018
    What Is America’s Mission Now?
    Monday - January 8, 2018 at 9:29 pm

    This post was viewed 68 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Informing Iran, “The U.S. is watching what you do,” Amb. Nikki Haley called an emergency meeting Friday of the Security Council regarding the riots in Iran. The session left her and us looking ridiculous.
    France’s ambassador tutored Haley that how nations deal with internal disorders is not the council’s concern. Russia’s ambassador suggested the United Nations should have looked into our Occupy Wall Street clashes and how the Missouri cops handled Ferguson.
    Fifty years ago, 100 U.S. cities erupted in flames after Martin Luther King’s assassination. Federal troops were called in. In 1992, Los Angeles suffered the worst U.S. riot of the 20th century, after the LA cops who pummeled Rodney King were acquitted in Simi Valley.
    Was our handling of these riots any business of the U.N.?
    Conservatives have demanded that the U.N. keep its nose out of our sovereign affairs since its birth in 1946. Do we now accept that the U.N. has authority to oversee internal disturbances inside member countries?
    Friday’s session fizzled out after Iran’s ambassador suggested the Security Council might take up the Israeli-Palestinian question or the humanitarian crisis produced by the U.S.-backed Saudi war on Yemen.
    The episode exposes a malady of American foreign policy. It lacks consistency, coherence and moral clarity, treats friends and adversaries by separate standards, and is reflexively interventionist.
    Thus has America lost much of the near-universal admiration and respect she enjoyed at the close of the Cold War.
    This hubristic generation has kicked it all away.

    Consider. Is Iran’s handling of these disorders more damnable than the thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug dealers attributed to our Filipino ally Rodrigo Duterte, whom the president says is doing an “unbelievable job”?
    And how does it compare with Gen. Abdel el-Sissi’s 2012 violent overthrow of the elected president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, and Sissi’s imprisonment of scores of thousands of followers of the Muslim Brotherhood?
    Is Iran really the worst situation in the Middle East today?
    Hassan Rouhani is president after winning an election with 57 percent of the vote. Who elected Mohammed bin Salman crown prince and future king of Saudi Arabia?
    Vladimir Putin, too, is denounced for crimes against democracy for which our allies get a pass.
    In Russia, Christianity is flourishing and candidates are declaring against Putin. Some in the Russian press regularly criticize him.
    How is Christianity faring in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?
    It is alleged that Putin’s regime is responsible for the death of several journalists. But there are more journalists behind bars in the jails of our NATO ally Turkey than in any other country in the world.
    When does the Magnitsky Act get applied to Turkey?
    What the world too often sees is an America that berates its adversaries for sins against our “values,” while giving allies a general absolution if they follow our lead.
    A day has not gone by in 18 months that we have not read or heard of elite outrage over the Kremlin attack on “our democracy,” with the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails.
    How many even recall the revelation in 2015 that China hacked the personnel files of millions of U.S. government employees, past, present and prospective?
    While China persecutes Christians, Russia supports a restoration of Christianity after 70 years of Leninist rule.
    In Putin’s Russia, the Communist Party is running a candidate against him. In China, the Communist Party exercises an absolute monopoly of political power and nobody runs against Xi Jinping.
    China’s annexation of the Paracel and Spratly Islands and the entire South China Sea is meekly protested, while Russia is endlessly castigated for its bloodless retrieval of a Crimean peninsula that was recognized as Russian territory under the Romanovs.
    China, with several times Russia’s economy and 10 times her population, is far the greater challenger to America’s standing as lone superpower. Why, then, this tilt toward China?
    Among the reasons U.S. foreign policy lacks consistency and moral clarity is that we Americans no longer agree on what our vital interests are, who our real adversaries are, what our values are, or what a good and Godly country looks like.
    Was JFK’s America a better country than Obama’s America?
    World War II and the Cold War gave us moral clarity. If you stood against Hitler, even if you were a moral monster like Joseph Stalin, we partnered with you.
    From Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946 to the end of the Cold War, if you stood with us against the “Evil Empire” of Reagan’s depiction, even if you were a dictator like Gen. Pinochet or the Shah, you were welcome in the camp of the saints.
    But now that a worldwide conversion to democracy is no longer America’s mission in the world, what exactly is our mission?
    “Great Britain has lost an empire,” said Dean Acheson in 1962, “but not yet found a role.”
    Something of the same may fairly be said of us today.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/americas-mission-now-128460

    Offline Tiberius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 14
    • Reputation: +2/-0
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #154 on: January 09, 2018, 09:48:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It would be nice if we had a coherent foreign policy, based on America's true interests.  


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5209
    • Reputation: +1951/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #155 on: January 12, 2018, 09:59:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Little Rocket Man Wins the Round
    Friday - January 12, 2018 at 12:47 am


    Share Pat's Columns!


    By Patrick Buchanan

    After a year in which he tested a hydrogen bomb and an ICBM, threatened to destroy the United States, and called President Trump “a dotard,” Kim Jong Un, at the gracious invitation of the president of South Korea, will be sending a skating team to the “Peace Olympics.”

    An impressive year for Little Rocket Man.

    Thus the most serious nuclear crisis since Nikita Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba appears to have abated. Welcome news, even if the confrontation with Pyongyang has probably only been postponed.

    Still, we have been given an opportunity to reassess the 65-year-old Cold War treaty that obligates us to go to war if the North attacks Seoul, and drove us to the brink of war today.

    2017 demonstrated that we need a reassessment. For the potential cost of carrying out our commitment is rising exponentially.

    Two decades ago, a war on the Korean Peninsula, given the massed Northern artillery on the DMZ, meant thousands of U.S. dead.

    Today, with Pyongyang’s growing arsenal of nuclear weapons, American cities could face Hiroshima-sized strikes, if war breaks out.

    What vital U.S. interest is there on the Korean Peninsula that justifies accepting in perpetuity such a risk to our homeland?

    We are told that Kim’s diplomacy is designed to split South Korea off from the Americans. And this is undeniably true.

    For South Korean President Moon Jae-in is first and foremost responsible for his own people, half of whom are in artillery range of the DMZ. In any new Korean war, his country would suffer most.

    And while he surely welcomes the U.S. commitment to fight the North on his country’s behalf as an insurance policy, Moon does not want a second Korean war, and he does not want President Trump making the decision as to whether there shall be one.

    Understandably so. He is looking out for South Korea first.

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

    Yet Moon rightly credits Trump with bringing the North Koreans to the table: “I give President Trump huge credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, and I’d like to thank him for that.”

    But again, what are the U.S. interests there that we should be willing to put at risk of nuclear attack tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and our bases in Asia, and even our great cities, in a war that would otherwise be confined to the Korean Peninsula?

    China shares a border with the North, but is not treaty-bound to fight on the North’s behalf. Russia, too, has a border with North Korea, and, with China, was indispensable to saving the North in the 1950-53 war. But Russia is not committed by any treaty to fight for the North.

    Why, then, are Americans obligated to be among the first to die in a second Korean War? Why is the defense of the South, with 40 times the economy and twice the population of the North, our eternal duty?

    Kim’s drive for a nuclear deterrent is propelled by both fear and calculation. The fear is that the Americans who detest him will do to him and his regime and country what they did to Saddam Hussein.

    The calculation is that what Americans fear most, and the one thing that deters them, is nuclear weapons. Once Soviet Russia and Communist China acquired nukes, the Americans never attacked them.

    If he can put nuclear weapons on U.S. troops in Korea, U.S. bases in Japan, and U.S. cities, Kim reasons, the Americans will not launch a war on him. Have not recent events proven him right?

    Iran has no nuclear weapons and some Americans clamor daily for “regime change” in Tehran. But because Kim has nukes, the Americans appear more anxious to talk. His policy is succeeding.

    What he is saying with his nuclear arsenal is: As you Americans have put my regime and country at risk of annihilation, I am going to put your cities at risk. If we go down in your nuclear “fire and fury,” so, too, will millions of Americans.

    The whole world is watching how this plays out.

    For the American Imperium, our system of alliances, is held together by a credible commitment: If you attack any of our scores of allies, you are at war with the United States.

    From the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, from the South China Sea to Korea and Japan today, the costs and the risks of maintaining the imperium are growing.

    With all these promissory notes out there — guarantees to go to war for other nations — one is inevitably going to be called.

    And this generation of Americans, unaware of what their grandfathers obligated them to do, will demand to know, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan: What are we over doing there, on the other side of the world?

    America First is more than a slogan.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/little-rocket-man-wins-round-128478

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5209
    • Reputation: +1951/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #156 on: January 16, 2018, 08:50:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trump: In Immigration Debate, Race Matters
    Tuesday - January 16, 2018 at 2:39 am

    This post was viewed 57 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    President Trump “said things which were hate-filled, vile and racist. … I cannot believe … any president has ever spoken the words that I … heard our president speak yesterday.”
    So wailed Sen. Dick Durbin after departing the White House.
    And what caused the minority leader to almost faint dead away?
    Trump called Haiti a “s—-hole country,” said Durbin, and then asked why we don’t have more immigrants from neat places “like Norway.”
    With that, there erupted one of the great media firestorms of the Trump era. On Martin Luther King Day, it was still blazing.
    Trump concedes he may have disparaged Haiti, which, at last check, was not listed among “Best Places to Live” in the Western Hemisphere. Yet Trump insists he did not demean the Haitian people.
    Still, by contrasting Norway as a desirable source of immigrants, as opposed to Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, Trump tabled a question that is roiling the West, the answer to which will decide its fate.
    Trump is saying with words, as he has with policies, that in taking in a million people a year, race, religion and national origin matter, if we are to preserve our national unity and national character.
    Moreover, on deciding who comes, and who does not, Americans have the sovereign right to discriminate in favor of some continents, countries and cultures, and against others.
    Moreover, in stating his own preferences, Trump is in a tradition as old as the Republic.
    The original Colonies did not want Catholics here. Ben Franklin feared Pennsylvania was being overrun by stupid Germans:
    “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”
    Just as anti-immigrant parties have arisen in Europe to stem the flood of refugees from the Mideast and Africa, an American Party (“Know-Nothings”) was formed to halt the surge of Irish immigrants during the Potato Famine of 1845-1849.
    Lincoln wanted slaves repatriated to Africa. In the 19th and 20th centuries, we had Chinese and Japanese exclusion acts.
    “Californians have properly objected” to Japanese migrants, said V.P. nominee FDR “on the sound basic ground that … the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.”
    After the Great Migration of Italians, Poles, Jews and East Europeans, from 1890 to 1920, the Immigration Act of 1925 established quotas based on the national origins of the American people in 1890, thus favoring Brits, Scots-Irish, Irish and Germans.
    Civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph, a major figure in Dr. King’s March on Washington, said of the Harding-Coolidge restrictive quotas:
    “We favor reducing immigration to nothing … shutting out the Germans … Italians … Hindus … Chinese and even the Negroes from the West Indies. The country is suffering from immigration indigestion.”
    The Senate floor leader of the 1965 Immigration Act addressed what were then regarded as valid concerns about the future racial and ethnic composition of the country. Sen. Edward Kennedy pledged:
    “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually … the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. … S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from … the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.”
    What Kennedy assured America would not happen, did happen.
    Today, issues of immigration and race are tearing countries and continents apart. There are anti-immigrant parties in every nation in Europe. Turkey is being bribed to keep Syrian refugees out of Europe.
    Boatloads of Africans from Libya are being turned back in the Med. After building a wall to keep them out, Bibi Netanyahu has told “illegal aliens” from Africa: Get out of Israel by March, or go to jail.
    Angela Merkel’s Party may have suffered irreparable damage when she let a million Mideast refugees in. The larger concentrations of Arabs, Africans and Turks in Britain, France and Germany are not assimilating. Central European nations are sealing borders.
    Europe fears a future in which the continent, with its shrinking numbers of native-born, is swamped by peoples from the Third World.
    Yet the future alarmed Europeans are resisting is a future U.S. elites have embraced. Among the reasons, endless mass migration here means the demographic death of the GOP.
    In U.S. presidential elections, persons of color whose roots are in Asia, Africa and Latin America vote 4-1 Democratic, and against the candidates favored by American’s vanishing white majority. Not for the first time, liberal ideology comports precisely with liberal interests.
    Mass immigration means an America in 2050 with no core majority, made up of minorities of every race, color, religion and culture on earth, a continent-wide replica of the wonderful diversity we see today in the U.N. General Assembly.
    Such a country has never existed before. Are we on the Yellow Brick Road to the new Utopia — or on the path to national suicide?


    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-immigration-debate-race-matters-128528

    I predict that by 2050 America will resemble Haiti and by that time will have ceased as a world power.
    All because the Democrats want votes to win every election.

     

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