Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 25457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • Reputation: +2090/-45
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #285 on: April 23, 2019, 05:26:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • The Democrats Divide on Impeachment
    April 23, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    The credibility of the Democratic Party is now at issue… If Mueller could not find collusion, what reason is there to believe Rep. Jerry Nadler’s judiciary committee will find it, and then convince the country that they have discovered what ex-FBI Director Mueller could not.


    The release of the Mueller report has left Democrats in a dilemma. For consider what Robert Mueller concluded after two years of investigation.
    Candidate Donald Trump did not conspire or collude with the Russians to hack the emails of the DNC or John Podesta. Trump did not distribute the fruits of those crimes. Nor did anyone in his campaign. On collusion and conspiracy, said Mueller, Trump is innocent.
    Mueller did not say Trump did not consider interfering with his investigation. But the investigation went on unimpeded. Mueller’s document demands were all met. And Mueller did not conclude that Trump obstructed justice.
    On obstruction, then, not guilty, by reason of no indictment.
    We are told Trump ranted to subordinates about firing Mueller.
    Yet, as Attorney General Bill Barr pointed out, Trump had excellent reasons to be enraged. He was being pilloried for 2 1/2 years for a crime he not only did not commit but a crime that had never taken place.
    From the fall of 2016 to the spring of 2019, Trump was subjected to scurrilous attacks. It was alleged that his victory had been stolen for him by Russians, that he was an illegitimate president guilty of treason, and an agent of the Kremlin, that he was being blackmailed and that he rewrote the Republican platform on Vladimir Putin’s instructions.

    All bull hockey, and Mueller all but said so.
    Yet the false charges did serious damage to his presidency and the nation.
    Answering them has consumed much of Trump’s tenure and ruined his plans to repair our dangerously damaged relations with the world’s other great nuclear power.
    Yet, it is the Trump haters who are now in something of a box.
    Their goal had been to use “Russiagate” to bring down their detested antagonist, overturn his 2016 election, and put Trump in the history books as a stooge of Putin who, had the truth be known, would never have won the White House.

    Mueller failed to sustain their indictment. Indeed, Mueller all but threw it out.
    Yet Trump’s enemies will not quit now. To do so would be to concede that Trump’s defenders had been right all along, and that they had not only done a grave injustice to Trump but damaged their country with their manic pursuit. And they owe America an apology.
    And admitting they were wrong would instantly raise follow-up questions.
    If two years of investigation by Mueller, his lawyers and his FBI agents could not unearth hard evidence to prove that Trump and his campaign conspired with the Russians, what was the original evidence that justified launching this historic and massive assault on a U.S. presidential campaign and the presidency of the United States.
    If there was no collusion, when did Mueller learn this? Did it take 2 1/2 years to discover there was no conspiracy?
    The names tossed out as justifying the original investigation are George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, with the latter subjected to four consecutive secret FISA court surveillance warrants.
    Yet neither man was ever charged with conspiring with Russia.

    Was “Russiagate” a nothingburger to begin with, a concocted excuse for “deep state” agencies to rampage through the campaign and personal history of Trump to destroy him and his presidency?
    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a presidential candidate, has called for impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. But her call seems less tied to evidence of high crimes in the Mueller report than her own anemic poll ratings and fundraising performance in the first quarter.
    It is difficult to see how those Democrats and their media allies, who have invested so much prestige and so many hopes in the Mueller report, can now pack it in and concede that they were wrong. Their interests will not permit it; their reputations could not sustain it.
    So where are we headed?
    The anti-Trump media and second-tier candidates for the Democratic nomination will press the front-runners to join their call for impeachment. Some will capitulate to the clamor.
    But can Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris, who have agendas they wish to advance, accept becoming just another voice crying out for Trump’s impeachment?
    The credibility of the Democratic Party is now at issue.

    If Mueller could not find collusion, what reason is there to believe Rep. Jerry Nadler’s judiciary committee will find it, and then convince the country that they have discovered what ex-FBI Director Mueller could not.
    With conspiracy and collusion off the table, and Mueller saying the case for obstruction is unproven, the renewed attack on Trump takes on the aspect of a naked and desperate “deep state”-media coup against a president they fear they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/the-democrats-divide-on-impeachment-136914


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #286 on: April 26, 2019, 10:56:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • A Nation at War With Itself
    April 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    The media are already salivating over the possible removal of a president they have come to loathe more than their great nemeses of the 20th century — Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. And the media will reward those who echo the call for impeachment…


    President Donald Trump has decided to cease cooperating with what he sees, not incorrectly, as a Beltway conspiracy that is out to destroy him.
    “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Trump said Wednesday. “These aren’t, like, impartial people. The Democrats are out to win in 2020.”
    Thus the Treasury Department just breezed by a deadline from the House Ways and Means Committee to deliver Trump’s tax returns.
    Thus the White House will invoke executive privilege to deny the House Judiciary Committee access to ex-White House counsel Don McGahn, who spent 30 hours being interrogated by Robert Mueller’s team.
    Thus the Justice Department is withholding from the Oversight Committee subpoenaed documents dealing with the decision to include a question on the 2020 Census about citizenship status.
    Across the capital, the barricades are going up figuratively as they did physically in the 1960s and ’70s. Once more, it’s us against them.
    Cognizant of the new reality, Trump seems to be saying:
    These House investigations constitute a massive political assault, in collusion with a hostile media, to destroy my presidency.

    We do not intend to cooperate in our own destruction. We are not going to play our assigned role in this scripted farce. We will resist their subpoenas all the way to November 2020. Let the people then decide the fate and future of the Trump presidency — and that of Nancy Pelosi’s House.
    In response to Trump’s resort to massive resistance, Rep. Gerald Connolly said: “A respect for the limits of your branch of government, a respect for the role of other branches of government, is sort of the oil that makes the machinery work. … Absent that this breaks down. And I think we’re definitely seeing that.”
    Connolly is not wrong. But the requisite mutual respect between the Democratic House and the Republican White House simply does not exist. It broke down a long time ago.
    The campaign of 2020 is on. And the stakes are huge. Not only are the first and second branches of government in play, so, too, is the third, the Supreme Court. Many Democrats, refusing to accept the success of the 50-year conservative long march to capture the court, are determined to pack an expanded court with liberal justices to overturn the conservatives’ victory.

    With Republicans having won two presidential elections in 20 years, with fewer popular votes, Democrats are also resolved to rewrite the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.
    Not only ex-convicts but felons in prison must now be allowed to vote, says Bernie Sanders, even if that means the Boston Marathon bomber.

    Under the Sanders reform, if someone murders you, he is still entitled to an absentee ballot. The right to vote is apparently more sacred than the right to life. Truly, this is the divination of democracy.
    Trump’s defiance of House subpoenas will fire up his base, which sees the world as he does and has never cottoned to what President Gerald Ford cherished as “the politics of compromise and consensus.”
    Whatever may be said about the “deplorables,” they are not obtuse. They do not believe that people who call them racists, sexists, nativists and bigots are friends and merely colleagues of another party or persuasion.
    Trump’s defiance of subpoenas, however, will force the more moderate Democrats to join the militants in calling for hearings on impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee, which is where we are headed.
    The media are already salivating over the possible removal of a president they have come to loathe more than their great nemeses of the 20th century — Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon.
    And the media will reward those who echo the call for impeachment.
    This week, two more Democrats running for president, including Sen. Kamala Harris, came aboard. Soon, the House will capitulate to the clamor and the stampede will be on.
    The problem for Democrats?

    Attempting to overturn the election of 2016 and remove a president who has the passionate support of a third of the nation will sunder the Democratic Party base as surely as it will unite the Republicans.
    Should impeachment succeed, a wound would be inflicted on the American body politic that would take years to heal.
    In the longer run, however, the question being raised today goes to the long-term health of the republic itself.
    America surely does not lack for diversity. Its diversity — racial, religious, cultural, ethnic, ideological, political — is visible and ever-growing. What is missing is the concomitant of unity.
    Moreover, it is the more racially, culturally, religiously, ethnically, and ideologically diverse of the parties, the Democrats, that seems the more splintered than a Republican Party that is supposed to be afflicted with the incurable and fatal disease of Trumpism.
    The questions raised by the present state of our politics, which might fairly be described as an American civil war without arms, are these: How does a nation so divided stand united in the world?
    And if it cannot stand united in the world, how long does it remain a great nation?

    https://buchanan.org/blog/a-nation-at-war-with-itself-136921



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #287 on: April 30, 2019, 10:36:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote



    Biden Plays the Race Card
     April 30, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!


    With the economy firing on all eight cylinders, and the drive for impeachment losing steam, a new strategy is emerging — to take Trump down by stuffing him in a box with white supremacists.
    As he debated with himself whether to enter the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Joe Biden knew he had a problem.
    As a senator from Delaware in the ’70s, he had bashed busing to achieve racial balance in public schools as stupid and racist.
    As chairman of Senate Judiciary in the hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991, Biden had been dismissive of the charges by Anita Hill that the future justice had sexually harassed her.
    In 1994, Biden had steered to passage a tough anti-crime bill that led to a dramatic increase in the prison population.
    Crime went down as U.S. prisons filled up, but Biden’s bill came to be seen by many African Americans as discriminatory.
    What to do? Acting on the adage that your best defense is a good offense, Biden decided to tear into President Donald Trump — for giving aid and comfort to white racists.
    His announcement video began with footage of the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, highlighting Trump’s remark, after the brawl that left a female protestor dead, that there were “very fine people on both sides.”
    “With those words,” said Biden, “the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it. And in that moment, I realized that the threat to this nation was unlike any I had seen in my lifetime.”
    Cut it out, Joe. This is just not credible. Even he cannot believe Trump had in mind the neo-Nazis and Klansman chanting, “Jews will not replace us!” when Trump said there were “fine people” on both sides.
    If this were truly a road-to-Damascus moment for Biden, calling forth a new resolve to remove so morally obtuse a resident of the Oval Office, why did he have to agonize so long before getting in the race?
    And was Charlottesville, a riot involving Klansmen, neo-Nazis and radicals, really a “threat to this nation” unlike any Biden had seen in a lifetime that covers the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, the riots in 100 cities after Martin Luther King’s assassination and Sept. 11?
    Even the anti-Trump media seemed skeptical. Their first interviews after Biden’s announcement were not about Charlottesville but why it took so long to call Anita Hill to apologize.
    Yet there is an unstated message in the Biden video. It is this:
    With the economy firing on all eight cylinders, and the drive for impeachment losing steam, a new strategy is emerging — to take Trump down by stuffing him in a box with white supremacists.
    The strategy is not original. It was tried, but backfired on Hillary Clinton when she called Trump supporters “deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”
    This didn’t sit well with some white folks in Wisconsin, Michigan and Middle Pennsylvania.
    Yet the never-Trumpers seem to think it could work this time.
    After Saturday’s attack on the Passover service in Poway, California, which took a woman’s life, Trump denounced the atrocity, expressed his condolences, called Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, who had been wounded, and consoled him for 15 minutes.
    “Nevertheless,” wrote The Washington Post Monday in a front-page headline, “President’s words push race to fore of campaign.”
    “The rise of white nationalist violence during Trump’s tenure is emerging as an issue,” said the Post, because Trump “previously played down the threat posed by white nationalism (and) … also has a long history of anti-Muslim remarks.”
    The article should be taken seriously. For the Post is not only an enemy of Trump but a powerful institutional ally of the left. And during presidential campaigns, it doubles as an oppo research and attack arm of the Democratic Party.
    “Violence, Hate Crimes Emerge as 2020 Issues” declared the inside headline on the Post story. The Post is not talking about customary crimes of violence in America or D.C. — robbery, rape, assault, battery, murder — a disproportionate share of which are committed by minorities of color.
    The crimes that interest the Post are those committed by white males against minorities, which can be used to flesh out the picture of America that preexists in the mind of the left, if not in the real world.
    Yet it does appear that issues of race, tribe and identity are becoming an obsession in our politics. This weekend, The New York Times faced charges of anti-Semitism for a cartoon of a blind Trump in a skullcap being led by a seeing-eye dog with the face of “Bibi” Netanyahu, who had a Star of David on his collar.
    Recoiling under fire, the Times pulled the cartoon and apologized.
    On Monday, Rev. Al Sharpton met with “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg. Subject of discussion: Reparations for slavery, which ended more than a century before the mayor was born.
    “All is race,” wrote Disraeli in his novel “Tancred.” “There is no other truth.”

    https://buchanan.org/blog/biden-plays-the-race-card-136931

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #288 on: May 07, 2019, 07:12:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0










  • Is Bolton Steering Trump Into War with Iran?
    May 6, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    Did President Donald Trump approve of this? …If it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?
    Last week, it was Venezuela in America’s gun sights.
    “While a peaceful solution is desirable, military action is possible,” thundered Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “If that’s what is required, that’s what the United States will do.”
    John Bolton tutored Vladimir Putin on the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine: “This is our hemisphere. It’s not where the Russians ought to be interfering.”
    After Venezuela’s army decided not to rise up and overthrow Nicholas Maduro, by Sunday night, it was Iran that was in our gun sights.
    Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
    What “attack” was Bolton talking about?
    According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.
    Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:
    “We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”
    Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.
    Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.
    Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.
    Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.
    Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.

    Iran has also warned that if we choke off its oil exports that exit the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait could be closed to other nations. As 30% of the world’s oil shipments transit the Strait, closing it could cause a global crash.
    In 1973, when President Nixon rescued Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC Arabs imposed an oil embargo. Gas prices spiked so high Nixon considered taking a train to Florida for Christmas vacation.
    The gas price surge so damaged Nixon’s standing with the public that it became a contributing factor in the drive for impeachment.
    Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.
    While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?
    In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.
    Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.
    “President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.
    “People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”
    But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?
    Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”
    And who makes up “the B-team”?
    Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
    Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #289 on: May 10, 2019, 08:54:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are All the World’s Problems Ours?
    May 10, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!



    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time?
    In 2003, George W. Bush took us to war to liberate Iraq from the despotism of Saddam Hussein and convert that nation into a beacon of freedom and prosperity in the Middle East.
    Tuesday, Mike Pompeo flew clandestinely into Baghdad, met with the prime minister and flew out in four hours. The visit was kept secret, to prevent an attack on the Americans or the secretary of state.
    Query: How successful was Operation Iraqi Freedom, which cost 4,500 U.S. lives, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion, if, 15 years after our victory, our secretary of state must, for his own security, sneak into the Iraqi capital?
    Topic of discussion between Pompeo and the prime minister:
    In the event of a U.S. war with Iran, Iraqis would ensure the protection of the 5,000 U.S. troops in country, from the scores of thousands of Iranian-trained and Iranian-armed Shiite militia.
    That prospect, of war between the U.S. and Iran, had been raised by Pompeo and John Bolton on Sunday, when the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier task force and a squadron of U.S. bombers were ordered into the Middle East after we received reports Iran was about to attack U.S. forces.
    The attack did not happen. But on Thursday, Tehran gave 60 days’ notice that if it does not get relief from severe U.S. sanctions, it may walk out of the nuclear deal it signed in 2015 and start enriching uranium again to a level closer to weapons grade.
    The countdown to a June confrontation with Iran has begun.
    Wednesday, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, for the second time in a week, test-fired two missiles, 260 miles, into the Sea of Japan. Purpose: To signal Washington that Kim’s patience is running out.
    Kim rejects the U.S. demand that he surrender all nuclear weapons and dismantle the facilities that produce them before any sanctions are lifted. He wants sanctions relief to go hand in hand with disposal of his arsenal. Few believe Kim will surrender all of his nukes or his ability to replicate them.
    The clash with Kim comes days after the failed U.S.-backed coup in Caracas, which was followed by Pompeo-Bolton threats of military intervention in Venezuela, a country 100 times the size of Puerto Rico with 10 times the population and a large well-equipped army.
    This week also, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford told Congress that the U.S. will have to keep counter-terrorism forces in Afghanistan “until there is no insurgency left in the country.”
    Which sounds like forever, as in “forever war.”
    Before flying to Baghdad, Pompeo was in Finland. There, he warned the eight-nation Arctic Council about Russian aggression in the region, suggested China’s claim to be a “near-Arctic” nation was absurd, and told Canada’s its claim to the Northwest Passage was “illegitimate.”
    Our Canadian friends were stunned. “Those waterways are part of the internal waters of Canada,” said the government in Ottawa.
    After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”
    Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.
    If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
    Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Sunni Arabs?
    Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.
    The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?
    During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.
    Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.



    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #290 on: May 14, 2019, 09:24:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Tariffs: The Taxes That Made America Great
    May 13, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan





    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America’s schoolchildren have been indoctrinated for decades. The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain: The Federal Reserve…
    As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington Post: “Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs.”
    The story began: “National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot the bill.”
    A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.
    A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax.
    If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.
    China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China’s economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.
    Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
    Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party’s path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade.
    The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, “the encouragement and protection of manufactures.” It was the second act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.
    After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.
    Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln’s War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer “has no right or claim to equality with our own. … He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties.”
    That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.
    The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson’s income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades — the Roaring ’20s.
    That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America’s schoolchildren have been indoctrinated for decades.
    The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain: The Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures.
    Milton Friedman taught us that.
    A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.
    The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher tuition than their American counterparts.
    What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith in a system crafted by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people?
    What great nation did free traders ever build?
    Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws, the British showed the folly of free trade.
    They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the USA and ended it with an economy half of ours, and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American System.
    Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries — the British before 1850, the United States between 1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades — how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism.
    The problem for President Trump?
    Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.
    Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/tariffs-the-taxes-that-made-america-great-136986

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #291 on: May 17, 2019, 11:06:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Who Wants This War with Iran?
    May 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!
    Quote
    Quote
    Outside a few precincts, America has no enthusiasm for a new Mideast war, no stomach for any occupation of Iran.
    Speaking on state TV of the prospect of a war in the Gulf, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to dismiss the idea.
    “There won’t be any war. … We don’t seek a war, and (the Americans) don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests.”
    The ayatollah’s analysis — a war is in neither nation’s interest — is correct. Consider the consequences of a war with the United States for his own country.
    Iran’s hundreds of swift boats and handful of submarines would be sunk. Its ports would be mined or blockaded. Oil exports and oil revenue would halt. Air fields and missile bases would be bombed. The Iranian economy would crash. Iran would need years to recover.
    And though Iran’s nuclear sites are under constant observation and regular inspection, they would be destroyed.
    Tehran knows this, which is why, despite 40 years of hostility, Iran has never sought war with the “Great Satan” and does not want this war to which we seem to be edging closer every day.
    What would such a war mean for the United States?
    It would not bring about “regime change” or bring down Iran’s government that survived eight years of ground war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
    If we wish to impose a regime more to our liking in Tehran, we will have to do it the way we did it with Germany and Japan after 1945, or with Iraq in 2003. We would have to invade and occupy Iran.
    But in World War II, we had 12 million men under arms. And unlike Iraq in 2003, which is one-third the size and population of Iran, we do not have the hundreds of thousands of troops to call up and send to the Gulf.
    Nor would Americans support such an invasion, as President Donald Trump knows from his 2016 campaign. Outside a few precincts, America has no enthusiasm for a new Mideast war, no stomach for any occupation of Iran.
    Moreover, war with Iran would involve firefights in the Gulf that would cause at least a temporary shutdown in oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — and a worldwide recession.
    How would that help the world? Or Trump in 2020?

    How many allies would we have in such a war?
    Spain has pulled its lone frigate out of John Bolton’s flotilla headed for the Gulf. Britain, France and Germany are staying with the nuclear pact, continuing to trade with Iran, throwing ice water on our intelligence reports that Iran is preparing to attack us.
    Turkey regards Iran as a cultural and economic partner. Russia was a de facto ally in Syria’s civil war. China continues to buy Iranian oil. India just hosted Iran’s foreign minister.
    So, again, Cicero’s question: “Cui bono?”
    Who really wants this war? How did we reach this precipice?
    A year ago, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a MacArthurian ultimatum, making 12 demands on the Tehran regime.
    Iran must abandon all its allies in the Middle East — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza — pull all forces under Iranian command out of Syria, and then disarm all its Shiite militia in Iraq.
    Iran must halt all enrichment of uranium, swear never to produce plutonium, shut down its heavy water reactor, open up its military bases to inspection to prove it never had a secret nuclear program and stop testing missiles. And unless she submits, Iran will be strangled with sanctions.
    Pompeo’s speech at the Heritage Foundation read like the terms of some conquering Caesar dictating to some defeated tribe in Gaul, though we had yet to fight and win the war, usually a precondition for dictating terms.
    Iran’s response was to disregard Pompeo’s demands.
    And crushing U.S. sanctions were imposed, to brutal effect.
    Yet, as one looks again at the places where Pompeo ordered Iran out — Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Syria, Iraq — no vital interest of ours was imperiled by any Iranian presence.
    The people who have a problem with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon are the Israelis whose occupations spawned those movements.
    As for Yemen, the Houthis overthrew a Saudi puppet.
    Syria’s Bashar Assad never threatened us, though we armed rebels to overthrow him. In Iraq, Iranian-backed Shiite militia helped us to defend Baghdad from the southerly advance of ISIS, which had taken Mosul.
    Who wants us to plunge back into the Middle East, to fight a new and wider war than the ones we fought already this century in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen?
    Answer: Pompeo and Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Sunni kings, princes, emirs, sultans and the other assorted Jeffersonian democrats on the south shore of the Persian Gulf.
    And lest we forget, the never-Trumpers and neocons in exile nursing their bruised egos, whose idea of sweet revenge is a U.S. return to the Mideast in a war with Iran, which then brings an end to the Trump presidency.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/who-wants-this-war-with-iran-137040

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5833
    • Reputation: +2090/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #292 on: May 21, 2019, 09:32:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Has the Day of the Nationalists Come?
    May 20, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!

    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!



    Quote
    “If one could identify a cry common to populists, it might be: “We want our country back!”
    A week from today, Europeans may be able to gauge how high the tide of populism and nationalism has risen within their countries and on their continent.
    For all the returns will be in from three days of elections in the 28 nations represented in the European Parliament.
    Expectation: Nationalists and populists will turn in their strongest performance since the EU was established, and their parliamentary group — Europe of Nations and Freedom — could sweep a fourth of the seats in Strasbourg.
    Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party is predicted to run first in the British elections, winning two to three times the votes of the ruling Tory Party of Prime Minister Theresa May.
    In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is running even with the party of President Emmanuel Macron, who pleads for “more Europe.”
    Matteo Salvini, interior minister and leader of the League, predicts his party will finish first in Italy and first in Europe.
    At Salvini’s invitation, a dozen nationalist parties gathered in Milan this weekend. A week from now, they could be the third-largest bloc in the European Parliament. If so, their gains will come at the expense of the center-left and center-right parties that have dominated European politics since World War II.
    Speaking before tens of thousands in front of Duomo Cathedral in Milan, Salvini threw back in the faces of his enemies the taunt that these new parties are rooted in the old ugly politics of the 1930s.
    “In this piazza, there are no extremists. There are no racists. There are no fascists. … In Italy and in Europe, the difference is between … those who speak of the future instead of making trials of the past.”
    Tomorrow versus yesterday, says Salvini.
    While the European establishment draws parallels between the populist parties of the present and what happened in the 1930s, it fails to recognize its own indispensable role in generating the mass defections to the populist right that now imperil its political hegemony.
    The populist-nationalist parties are energized and united by both what they detest and what the EU has produced.

    And what is that?
    They resent the inequities of the new economy, where the wages of the working and middle class, the core of the nation, have fallen far behind the managerial class and the corporate and financial elites.
    People who work with their hands, tools and machines have seen their wages arrested and jobs disappear, as salaries have surged for those who move numbers on computers.
    The disparities have grown too great, as has the distance between national capitals and national heartlands.
    Then there is immigration. Native-born Europeans do not welcome the new ethnic groups that have come uninvited in considerable numbers in recent decades, failed to assimilate and created enclaves that replicate the Third World places whence they came.
    If one could identify a cry common to populists, it might be: “We want our country back!”
    Whatever may be said of populists and nationalists, they are people of the heart. They love their countries. They cherish the cultures in which they grew up. They want to retain their own unique national identities.
    What is wrong with that?
    Patriotism is central to nationalist and populist movements. Globalism is alien to them. They believe in De Gaulle’s Europe of nation-states “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” not in the abstract Europe of Jean Monnet, and surely not in the Brussels bureaucracy of today.
    The nation, the patria, is the largest entity to which one can give loyalty and love. Who would march into no man’s land for the EU?
    Europe’s nationalists are not all the same. The ruling Polish Law and Justice Party disagrees on Putin’s Russia with the ruling Fidesz Party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary.
    While the EU Parliament does not possess great power, these elections are not without great meaning.
    Consider Farage. Should his Brexit Party run first in Britain, how can the Tory Party not carry through on the 2016 vote to withdraw from the EU, without betraying its most loyal constituency on its most critical issue?
    Nationalism in Europe is spreading, even deepening rifts between the premier powers in the NATO alliance.
    Germany will not be reaching the promised 2 percent of GDP for defense President Donald Trump has demanded. And Berlin is going ahead with a second natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany from Russia, Nord Stream 2.
    Turkey is taking possession of a Russian-built S-400 air defense system this summer, despite a U.S. warning that our sale of 100 F-35s will not go through if the Turks go forward with the Russian system.
    Have the nationalists of Europe caught the wave of the future?
    Or will the future see the revival of the idea of One Europe, a political and economic union that inspired the dreamers of yesteryear?
    From here it looks like Matteo, not Macron.




     

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