Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns  (Read 21314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5597
  • Reputation: +2031/-41
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
« Reply #240 on: November 16, 2018, 06:18:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  16 November 2018
    Trump Raises the Stakes With CNN
    Friday - November 16, 2018 at 12:23 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Last week, the White House revoked the press pass of CNN’s chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, and denied him access to the building.
    CNN responded by filing suit in federal court against the president.
    Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated, said CNN. The demand: Acosta’s press pass must be returned immediately and his White House press privileges restored.
    “If left unchallenged,” CNN warned, “the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.” A dozen news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, are filing amicus briefs on CNN’s behalf.
    On Thursday, the Trump administration raised the stakes.
    Justice Department lawyer James Burnham declared in court: “If the president wants to exclude all reporters from the White House grounds, he clearly has the authority to do that.”
    After all, whose house is it if not the “President’s House,” the home of Donald Trump as long as he serves in the office to which he was elected by the American people?
    The West Wing contains the Oval Office and the offices of senior staff. As for the West Wing briefing room, it was built by President Richard Nixon in 1969, when White House passes were regarded as privileges.
    When did they become press rights or press entitlements?
    Is Trump obligated to provide access to whomever CNN chooses to represent the network in the West Wing, even if the individual assigned routinely baits the press secretary and bashes the president?
    Whence comes this obligation on the president?
    White House aides can be fired, forced to surrender their passes and be escorted out of the building.
    Whence comes the immunity of White House correspondents?
    The First Amendment guarantees CNN reporters and anchors the right to say what they wish about Trump. It does not entitle Acosta to a front-row seat in the White House briefing room or the right to grill the president at East Room press conferences.
    Why was he expelled from the White House?
    Says press secretary Sarah Sanders, “The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor.”
    Acosta baits the president, argues, refuses to yield the floor, manifests a hostility to Trump and trashes him regularly on-air.
    Such conduct has made him a champion to Trump haters. But to others, it makes him a biased witness to the Trump presidency who has no legal or constitutional claim to a chair in the West Wing briefing room.
    When this writer entered the White House in January 1969, a reporter who had traveled in the 1968 campaign came by to explain that I had to understand that he was now part of “the adversary press.”
    What we had done to be declared an adversary, I do not know. I had assumed that the opposition party would become the adversaries of a Nixon White House.
    But if the press declares itself an adversary of the White House and if it acts as an adversary — as it has a First Amendment right to do — such members of the media are no more entitled to the run of the West Wing than would be a member of Congress who regularly attacks the president.

    Theodore White wrote in “The Making of the President 1972” that the real enemies of Nixon’s White House were not Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and House Speaker John McCormack but CBS News, The Washington Post and The New York Times.
    This holds true for Trump. If the media are not “the enemy of the people,” the major media are certainly — and proudly — the enemy of Trump.
    Trump’s most visible and persistent adversaries are not Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. And it is Trump’s attacks on CNN and “fake news” that bring his loyalists to their feet. With his use of Twitter, Trump has found a way around an overwhelmingly hostile media.
    Former FBI Director Robert Mueller gets a favorable press, as he is seen by the media as the instrument of their deliverance from Trump.
    But should the special counsel bring in a report that says, “Donald Trump did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election, and we could find no obstruction of justice in how he dealt with our investigation,” Mueller’s indulgent press would turn on him overnight.
    CNN says that if Trump succeeds in pulling Acosta’s press pass, it could have a “chilling” effect on other White House correspondents.
    But if it has a chilling effect on journalists who relish confronting the president and reaping the cheers, publicity and benefits that go with being a leader of the adversary press, why is that a problem?
    The White House should set down rules of conduct for reporters in the briefing room, and if reporters repeatedly violate them, that should cost them their chairs and, in cases like Acosta’s, their credentials.
    This confrontation is healthy, and the republic will survive if the press loses this fight, which the press itself picked.

    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-raises-the-stakes-with-cnn-130537

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2143
    • Reputation: +523/-120
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #241 on: November 17, 2018, 11:50:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is Kelly an Obama holdover given a federal judgeship by Trump in a deal that Demoncrats would approve future Trump appointees?

    Is this why he ruled in favor of CNN?

    Or could this be a temporary one step backwards blow to the Trump Administration to disarm CNN into thinking that they are winning just before the hammer hits and sends CNN crawling out of the White House?

    Stay tuned for the next scenario with the Drama Queen Acosta.

    This could be a Wag the Dog scenario played by Trump to distract us from other important events like the upcoming FISA DECLASS.

    Two can play this game.
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5597
    • Reputation: +2031/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #242 on: November 20, 2018, 05:41:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Will Democratic Rebels Dethrone Nancy?
    Monday - November 19, 2018 at 11:32 pm


    Share Pat's Columns!


    By Patrick J. Buchanan

    After adding at least 37 seats and taking control of the House by running on change, congressional Democrats appear to be about to elect as their future leaders three of the oldest faces in the party.

    Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny Hoyer of Maryland have led the House Democrats for 16 years. For 12 years, they have been joined in the leadership triumvirate by Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

    If these three emerge as speaker, majority leader and majority whip, all three Democratic leaders will be older than our oldest president, Ronald Reagan, was when he went home after two terms.

    By 2020’s election, all three House leaders would be over 80.

    Was this gerontocracy what America voted for when it awarded Democrats control of the U.S. House?



    Hardly. Some Democrats won in 2018 by pledging not to vote for Pelosi as speaker, so unpopular is she in their districts. And if all who said they want new leadership were to vote for new leaders on the House floor Jan. 3 — when the speaker will be chosen — Pelosi would fall short. The race for speaker could then break wide-open.

    Some 16 Democrats vowed Monday to oppose Pelosi on the House floor, one shy of being enough to block her return to the speakership after eight years.

    In a letter that went public, the 16 declared: “Our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts, and across the country, want to see real change in Washington. We promised to change the status quo, and we intend to deliver on that promise.”

    The likelihood of the rebellion succeeding, however, remains slim, for no credible challenger to Pelosi has yet announced.

    What explains the timidity in the Democratic caucus?

    Pelosi punishes enemies. Democrats calling for new leaders have already been branded as sexists with the hashtag “#FiveWhiteGuys.”

    Yet evidence is mounting that a Pelosi speakership would prove to be an unhappy close to her remarkable career.

    One week after the election, 150 protesters from the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats blocked Pelosi’s House office to demand action on climate change. They were joined by the youngest member of the incoming Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    Pelosi declared herself “inspired” by the protesters, 51 of whom were arrested. She urged police to let them exercise their democratic rights and pledged to revive the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Republicans abolished.

    Dismissing the committee as “toothless,” the protesters demanded that Pelosi’s party commit to bringing an end to the use of all fossil fuels and to accepting no more campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

    Not going to happen with Pelosi as speaker. For when it comes to the leftist agenda of liberal Democrats from safe districts — Medicare for all, abolish ICE, impeach Trump — Pelosi would pigeonhole such measures to avoid the party’s being dragged too far to the left for 2020.

    And if the House were to pass radical measures, the bills would die in the Senate or be vetoed by the president.

    Moreover, within Pelosi’s party in the House, the various factions are going to be demanding a new distribution of the seats of power, of which there are only so many to go around.

    Democratic women, who won more seats than ever, will want more, as will the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanics. It will most likely be white male Democrats, that shrinking cohort, who will be the principal losers in the new House.

    That adage about Democrats being a collection of warring tribes gathered together in anticipation of common plunder has never seemed truer.

    What, then, does the new year promise?

    As it becomes apparent that there is little common ground for bipartisan legislation on Capitol Hill — except perhaps on infrastructure, and that would take a long time to enact — the cable news channels will look elsewhere for the type of action that causes ratings to soar. That action will inevitably come in the clashes between Trump and his enemies and the media that sustain them.

    Out of the House — with Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, Maxine Waters and Jerrold Nadler as new chairs — will come a blizzard of subpoenas and a series of confrontations with witnesses.

    From special counsel Robert Mueller’s office will almost surely come new indictments, trials and the long-anticipated report, which will go to the Justice Department, where Matthew Whitaker is acting attorney general.

    Then there is the presidential race of 2020, where the Democratic Party has yet another gerontocracy problem.

    By spring, there could be 20 Democrats who will have announced for president. And five of the most prominent mentioned — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg — are also over 70, with Elizabeth Warren turning 70 in June.

    While some candidates will be granted airtime because they are famous, the lesser-known will follow the single sure path to the cable studios and the weekend TV shows — the trashing of Trump.

    Trading barbs is not Nancy Pelosi’s kind of fight.


    --
    Share Pat's Columns!

    http://buchanan.org/blog/will-democratic-rebels-dethrone-nancy-130567


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5597
    • Reputation: +2031/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #243 on: November 30, 2018, 05:24:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Posted on November 28, 2018 by Pat Buchanan
    Trump’s Crucial Test at San Ysidro
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick j, Buchanan
    Mass migration “lit the flame” of the right-wing populism that is burning up the Old Continent, she said. Europe must “get a handle on it.”
    “Europe must send a very clear message — ‘we are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support.'” Should Europe fail to toughen up, illegal migration will never cease to “roil the body politic.”
    And who is the lady who issued the dire warning and dispensed the tough-love advice to Europe? Marine Le Pen?
    No. It is Hillary Clinton, spouse of the Great Triangulator.

    Democrats may have piled on Clinton for selling out progressivism, but her political instincts here are dead on. She has grasped something her party willfully refuses to recognize — the growing salience of the issue of mass illegal migration into Western societies.
    According to a new Gallup Poll, concern over immigration and illegal aliens soared from 13 to 21 percent of the public in November, as the No. 1 problem on the minds of the American people.
    And this was before Sunday’s violent collision at San Ysidro where the Border Patrol fired rubber bullets and used tear gas to stop a mob of hundreds — out of the thousands of migrants housed in a stadium in Tijuana — from breaching our border and pouring into our country.
    TV footage of the attempted breach, and photos and stories that major newspapers are putting on Page One, will sustain the national focus on what, since the election, has re-emerged as the nation’s primary concern.
    With Mexico about to install a leftist government and new caravans forming in Central America to move through Mexico to the U.S. border, this issue is not going away before the 2020 election.
    And with nearly 10,000 migrants being held in Tijuana for more than a week, in what the city’s mayor calls a humanitarian crisis, new and more desperate attempts to breach our border can be expected.
    Rocks and bottles were hurled at the men and women of the Border Patrol Sunday, which brought the tear gas and temporary closing of the San Ysidro crossing. New, more serious, casualties cannot be ruled out.
    Monday, Trump called on Mexico City to deal with the migrants seeking to breach our border, and threatened that if Mexico does not act, he could close one of the world’s busiest crossings, and for good:
    “Mexico should move the flag waving Migrants, many of whom are stone cold criminals, back to their countries. Do it by plane, do it by bus, do it anyway you want, but they are NOT coming into the U.S.A.,” Trump tweeted, “We will close the Border permanently if need be. Congress, fund the WALL!”
    Trump thus laid down a marker for himself. Either he halts the caravans, or he will be seen as the failed enforcer of America’s border.
    In that Gallup Poll there is other major news.
    Among the problems facing America, in the eyes of her people in November, not one of the top 10 involved a foreign threat. In the following order, all involve the troubled state of our splintered nation: immigration/illegal aliens; dissatisfaction with government/poor leadership; health care; unifying the country; race relations/racism; lack of respect for each other; ethics/moral/religious/family decline; economy in general; unemployment/jobs; and education.
    Immigration, race, culture, the economy and education appear to be the agenda Americans want addressed in 2020.
    What does this portend?
    While progressives may have piled on Clinton for her comments, and she may have “clarified” what she said, she has hit on something. Mass migration from the Third World has not only been the major progenitor and propellant of the right-wing populism that is raging across Europe, it also played an indispensable role in defeating her and electing Donald Trump.
    And if the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates in 2020 are seen as abolish-ICE, pro-amnesty, open borders liberals, they will pull their party out of the mainstream of this nation on the most divisive issue of our time — the Third World invasion of the West.
    For Trump, the die is cast. Not only are border security, the wall, and his pledge to halt the illegal invasion of his country what got him elected, they appear to be a primary argument for his re-election.
    Washington’s think tank and media elites may be focused on other issues — Brexit, the Russia-Ukraine naval clash in the Kerch Strait, Kim Jong Un’s nukes, the South China Sea, Syria, Iran, the Saudi crown prince’s role in the grisly murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.
    But according to Gallup, none of these issues is a top concern or problem for the American people.
    Progressives fail to understand that what they describe as greater and ever more desirable diversity, millions of Americans see as the conquest of their country by an endless flood of uninvited strangers.
    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/trumps-crucial-test-at-san-ysidro-130686

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5597
    • Reputation: +2031/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #244 on: December 04, 2018, 10:47:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Will Paris Riots Scuttle Climate Accord?
    Tuesday - December 4, 2018 at 5:33 am


    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    In Katowice, Poland, all the signers of the 2015 Paris climate accord are gathered to assess how the world’s nations are meeting their goals to cut carbon emissions.
    Certainly, the communications strategy in the run-up was impressive.
    In October came that apocalyptic U.N. report warning that the world is warming faster than we thought and the disasters coming sooner than we thought.
    What disasters? More and worse hurricanes, uncontrollable fires, floods, the erosion of coastlines, typhoons, drought, tsunamis, the sinking of islands into the sea.
    In November, a scientific report issued by 13 U.S. agencies warned that if greater measures are not taken to reduce global warming, the damage could knock 10 percent off the size of the U.S. economy by century’s end.
    At the G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires, 19 of the attending nations recommitted to the Paris accord. Only President Trump’s America did not.
    Yet, though confidence may abound in Katowice that the world will meet the goals set down in Paris in 2015, the global environmentalists seem to be losing momentum and losing ground.
    Consider what happened this weekend in France.
    Saturday, rage over a fuel tax President Emmanuel Macron has proposed to cut carbon emissions brought mobs into the heart of Paris, where they battled police, burned cars, looted, smashed show windows of elite stores such as Dior and Chanel, and desecrated the Arc de Triomphe.
    In solidarity with the Paris rioters, protests in other French cities erupted.
    Virulently anti-elite, the protesters say they cannot make ends meet with the present burdens on the working and middle class.
    Specifically, what the rioters seem to be saying is this:

    We cannot see the benefits you are promising to future generations from cutting carbon emissions. And we cannot survive the taxes you are imposing on us in the here and now.
    What is happening in Paris carries a message for all Western countries.
    Democracies, which rely on the sustained support of electorates, have to impose rising costs on those electorates, if they are to deeply cut carbon emissions.
    But when the electorates cannot see the benefits of these painful price hikes, the greater the likelihood the people will rise up and repudiate those whom progressives regard as far-sighted leaders — such as Macron.
    Paris shows that Western elites may be reaching the limits of their political capacity to impose major sacrifices upon their constituents, who are turning to populists of the left and right to dethrone those elites.
    Trump has been using tariffs to cut the trade deficits America has been running in recent decades, to bring manufacturing back to the USA, and to restore America’s economic independence.
    Excellent goals all. But the immediate impact of those tariffs is rising prices at the mall and retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. Before the long-term benefits can be realized, the pain comes and the protests begin.
    No one wins a trade war, we are told. But an America willing to endure lost access to British imports in the 19th century emerged in the 20th as the greatest manufacturing power history had ever seen, a nation independent of all others, and able to stay out of the great wars of that century.
    Are the American people willing to make the sacrifices to restore that independence? Are the British people willing to pay the price that the restoration of their national independence, via Brexit, entails?
    Authoritarians have it easier. Morally revolting and socially ruinous as its hellish policy was, China was able to impose, for decades, a one-couple, one-child mandate on the most populous nation on earth.
    According to the Paris agreement, poorer nations were promised $100 billion a year, starting in 2020, to cut carbon emissions. Anyone think that the newly nationalistic peoples of the West will tolerate that kind of wealth transfer to the Third World indefinitely?
    In the Paris climate accord, China and India were given a pass to produce carbon emissions, while reductions were mandated for the Western powers.
    How long will the West go along with that, while paying ever-rising prices to cut their own carbon emissions?
    China, according to The New York Times, “consumes half the world’s coal. More than 4.3 million Chinese are employed in the country’s coal mines. China has added 40 percent of the world’s coal capacity since 2002.”
    Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, is planning new coal-fired power plants and financing them across Asia.
    What we are witnessing is an irrepressible conflict between democratic governments committed to cutting carbon emissions “to save the planet,” and their constituents who can refuse to bear those sacrifices by throwing out politicians like Macron.
    Perhaps it says something about the future that the host city for this meeting of Paris climate accord signatories, Katowice, is in Silesia, a region that is home to some 90,000 coal workers — around half of all the coal workers in the EU.


    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/will-paris-riots-scuttle-climate-accord-130719


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5597
    • Reputation: +2031/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #245 on: December 07, 2018, 12:23:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who Lost the World Bush 41 Left Behind?
    Friday - December 7, 2018 at 12:45 am

    This post was viewed 363 times.
    Votes: 5.00 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    George H.W. Bush was America’s closer.
    Called in to pitch the final innings of the Cold War, Bush 41 presided masterfully over the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the liberation of 100 million Eastern Europeans and the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.
    History’s assignment complete, Bush 41 was retired.
    And what happened to the world he left behind?
    What became of that world where America was the lone superpower, which 41 believed should lead in creation of the New World Order?
    The Russia that back then was led by Boris Yeltsin, a man desperate to be our friend and ally, is now ruled by an autocratic nationalist.
    Was not Vladimir Putin an inevitable reaction to our treating Russia like an untrustworthy and dangerous recidivist, by our expansion of NATO into the Balkans, the eastern Baltic and the Black Sea — the entire front porch of Mother Russia?
    Did the America that in her early decades declared the Monroe Doctrine believe a great nation like Russia would forever indulge the presence of a hostile alliance on her doorstep led by a distant superpower?
    In this same quarter century that we treated Russia like a criminal suspect, we welcomed China as the prodigal son. We threw open our markets to Chinese goods, escorted her into the WTO, smiled approvingly as U.S. companies shifted production there.
    Beijing reciprocated — by manipulating her currency, running up hundreds of billions of dollars in trade surpluses with us, and thieving our technology when she could not extort it from our industries in China. Beijing even sent student spies into American universities.
    Now the mask has fallen. China is claiming all the waters around her, building island bases in the South China Sea and deploying weapons to counter U.S. aircraft carriers. Creating ports and bases in Asia and Africa, confronting Taiwan — China clearly sees America as a potentially hostile rival power and is reaching for hegemony in the Western Pacific and East Asia.
    And who produced the policies that led to the “unipolar power” of 1992 being challenged by these two great powers now collaborating against us? Was it not the three presidents who sat so uncomfortably beside President Donald Trump at the state funeral of 41?
    Late in the 20th century, Osama bin Laden declared war on us for our having planted military bases on the sacred soil of Mecca and Medina; and, on Sept. 11, 2001, he made good on his declaration.
    America recoiled, invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban, and set out to build an Afghan regime on American principles. Bush 43, declaring that we were besieged by “an axis of evil,” attacked and occupied Iraq.
    We then helped ignite a civil war in Syria that became, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions uprooted, the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century,
    Then followed our attack on Libya and support for Saudi Arabia’s war to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a war that many believe has surpassed Syria as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
    Where are the fruits of our forever war in the Middle East that justify the 7,000 U.S. dead, 60,000 wounded and untold trillions of dollars lost?
    Since George H.W. Bush left the White House, the U.S. has incurred 12 trillion dollars in trade deficits, lost scores of thousands of manufacturing plants and 5 million manufacturing jobs. Our economic independence is ancient history.
    After 41 left, the Republican Party supported an immigration policy that brought tens of millions, mostly unskilled and poor, half of them illegal, into the country. Result: The Nixon-Reagan coalition that delivered two 49-state landslides in the ’70s and ’80s is history, and the Republican nominee has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.
    From 1992 to 2016, the American establishment contemptuously dismissed as “isolationists” those who opposed their wars for democracy in the Middle East, and as “protectionists” those who warned that by running up these massive trade deficits we were exporting America’s future.
    The establishment airily dismissed those who said that pushing NATO right up to Russia’s borders would enrage and permanently antagonize a mighty military power. They ridiculed skeptics of our embrace of the Chinese rulers who defended the Tiananmen massacre.
    The establishment won the great political battles before 2016. But how did the democracy crusaders, globalists, open borders progressives and interventionists do by their country in these decades?
    Did the former presidents who sat beside Trump at National Cathedral, and the establishment seated in the pews behind them, realize that it was their policies, their failures, that gave birth to the new America that rose up to throw them out, and put in Donald Trump?


    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/who-lost-the-world-bush-41-left-behind-130749

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5597
    • Reputation: +2031/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patrick J. Buchanans weekly columns
    « Reply #246 on: Yesterday at 08:20:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  11 December 2018
    How Democracy Is Losing the World
    Tuesday - December 11, 2018 at 12:16 am

    This post was viewed 3,205 times.
    Votes: 4.75 Stars!
    Share Pat's Columns!

    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    If Donald Trump told Michael Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels about a one-night stand a decade ago, that, says Jerome Nadler, incoming chair of House Judiciary, would be an “impeachable offense.”
    This tells you what social media, cable TV and the great herd of talking heads will be consumed with for the next two years — the peccadillos and misdeeds of Trump, almost all of which occurred before being chosen as president of the United States.
    “Everywhere President Trump looks,” writes The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough, “there are Democrats targeting him from New York to Washington to Maryland… lawmakers, state attorneys general, opposition researchers, bureaucrats and activist defense lawyers.
    “They are aiming at Russia collusion, the Trump Organization, the Trump Foundation, a Trump hotel, Trump tax returns, Trump campaign finances and supposed money laundering.”
    The full-court press is on. Day and night we will be hearing debate on the great question: Will the elites that loathe him succeed in bringing Trump down, driving him from office, and prosecuting and putting him in jail?

    Says Adam Schiff, the incoming chair of the House intelligence committee: “Donald Trump may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.”
    And what will a watching world be thinking when it sees the once-great republic preoccupied with breaking yet another president?
    Will that world think: Why can’t we be more like America?
    Does the world still envy us our free press, which it sees tirelessly digging up dirt on political figures and flaying them with abandon?
    Among the reasons democracy is in discredit and retreat worldwide is that its exemplar and champion, the USA, is beginning to resemble France’s Third Republic in its last days before World War II.
    Also, democracy no longer has the field largely to itself as to how to create a prosperous and powerful nation-state.
    This century, China has shown aspiring rulers how a single-party regime can create a world power, and how democracy is not a necessary precondition for extraordinary economic progress.
    Vladimir Putin, an autocratic nationalist, has shown how a ruined nation can be restored to a great power in the eyes of its people and the world, commanding a new deference and respect.
    Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. After the attempted coup in the summer of 2017, Erdogan purged his government and military of tens of thousands of enemies and jailed more journalists than any other nation.
    Yet he is welcomed in the capitals of the world.
    What does American democracy now offer the world as its foremost attribute, its claim to greatness?
    “Our diversity is our strength!” proclaims this generation.
    We have become a unique nation composed of peoples from every continent and country, every race, ethnicity, culture and creed on earth.
    But is not diversity what Europe is openly fleeing from?
    Is there any country of the Old Continent clamoring for more migrants from the Maghreb, sub-Sahara or Middle East?
    Broadly, it seems more true to say that the world is turning away from transnationalism toward tribalism, and away from diversity and back to the ethno-nationalism whence the nations came.
    The diversity our democracy has on offer is not selling.
    Ethnic, racial and religious minorities, such as the Uighurs
    and Tibetans in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, minority black tribes in sub-Sahara Africa and white farmers in South Africa, can testify that popular majority rule often means mandated restrictions or even an end to minority rights.
    In the Middle East, free elections produced a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon. After this, a disillusioned Bush 43 White House called off the democracy crusade.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, relates how one minority is treated in much of the Muslim world:
    “Christians face daily the threat of violence, murder, intimidation, prejudice and poverty…”
    “In the last few years, they have been slaughtered by so-called Islamic State. … Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. Many have been killed, enslaved and persecuted or forcibly converted. Even those who remain ask the question, ‘Why stay?’
    “Christian communities that were the foundation of the universal Church now face the threat of imminent extinction.”
    And all the while this horror is going on, Ronald Reagan’s treaty that banned all U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles faces collapse. And President Trump’s initiative to bring about a nuclear-free North Korea appears in peril.
    Yet, for the next two years, we will be preoccupied with whether paying hush money to Stormy Daniels justifies removing a president, and exactly when Michael Cohen stopped talking to the Russians about his boss building a Trump Tower in Moscow.
    We are an unserious nation, engaged in trivial pursuits, in a deadly serious world.


    Image Source: PixaBay…
    Share Pat's Columns!

    https://buchanan.org/blog/how-democracy-is-losing-the-world-130768

     

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