PDA

View Full Version : a must-see for those of you who didn't realize this was what Pat Buchanan was about




BarryDonegan
09-11-2008, 02:25 PM
My friends, we come to New Hampshire at a crossroads in our country's history.

The long Cold War between Communism and freedom, in which many of us invested lives and careers, is ending. Some of us thought we would never see the day that Communism was defeated, and the empire of Lenin and Stalin dismantled. By the grace of God, America won the Cold War.

But victory has not brought with it an end to history.

Beyond these shores, a new world is being born for which our government is unprepared, and we are unprepared. The dynamic force shaping that world is nationalism.

From Ukraine to Croatia, old nations are breaking up, new nations are being born. And as we Americans have always stood for freedom and self-determination, we should not fear the future. We should be the first to welcome them into the family of nations. For they all look to America as the ideal of what they too might one day become.

In the Far East, however, nationalism has taken on a different and harder aspect. The rising economic power of Japan has filed a claim to displace the United States as the dominant power of the 21st Century. In Europe, many of the ancient states are signing up to exchange their national birthright for a limited partnership in an economic co-op called the EC. In Holland, a conservative prime minister is today being pressed to lead the Mother of Parliaments into yielding up to bureaucrats in Brussels what generations of British soldiers fought to preserve.

We Americans must not let that happen here.

We must not trade in our sovereignty for a cushioned seat at the head table of anyone's New World Order.

The first challenge we face, then, is economic, presented by the rise of a European super state and a dynamic Asia led by Japan. The 20th Century was the American Century, but they intend to make the 21st, the century of Europe or the Century of Asia.

So, as we Americans congratulate one another on the victory for freedom that we, first and foremost, won, and won together for all mankind in the Cold War, we must begin to prepare for the new struggles already underway.

All the institutions of the Cold War, from vast permanent U.S. armies on foreign soil, to old alliances against Communist enemies that no longer exist, to billions in foreign aid, must be re-examined. With a $4 trillion debt, with a U.S. budget chronically out of balance, should the United States be required to carry indefinitely the burden of defending rich and prosperous allies who take America's generosity for granted as they invade our markets?

Whenever there is a natural disaster, anywhere, from Armenia to Kurdistan to Bangladesh, we Americans will be there, first, with aid and relief. That is our tradition, a tradition that will never change. But it is time to end these routinized annual transfers of our national wealth to global bureaucrats, who ship it off to regimes that pay us back in compound ingratitude. It is time to phase out foreign aid, and start looking out for the needs of the forgotten Americans right here in the United States.

So, today, we call for a new patriotism, where Americans begin to put the needs of Americans first, for a new nationalism where in every negotiation, be it arms control or trade, the American side seeks advantage and victory for the United States.

The people of this country need to recapture our capital city from an occupying army of lobbyists, and registered agents of foreign powers hired to look out for everybody and everything except the national interest of the United States.

It is time also to take a hard look at the welfare state.

Over a quarter century we have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into Great Society programs. Whatever the motives of those who built this mammoth state enterprise, our financial loss has been exceeded only by the social catastrophe it created. High school test scores drop almost every year, as the levels of violent crime reach new heights. Narcotics have ravaged a generation. Our popular culture of books, movies and films is as polluted as Lake Eerie once was. The welfare state has bred a generation of children and youth with no fathers, no faith and no dreams - other than the lure of the streets.

To our economic crisis, however, we Americans know the answer.

It is to end the steadily rising drain of wealth and resources to Washington; to ease up on - not add to, Mr. President - the tax burden on American business; to unleash, not tie down, the genius and energy of American enterprise. As for the predatory traders of Europe or Asia, who have targeted this or that American industry for dumping and destruction, if I am elected, they will find themselves on a collision course with the President of the United States.

When we say we will put America first, we mean also that our Judeo-Christian values are going to be preserved, and our Western heritage is going to be handed down to future generations, not dumped onto some land fill called multi-culturalism.

At the root of America's social crisis - be it AIDS, ethnic hatred, crime or the social decomposition of our cities - lies a spiritual crisis. Solzhenitsyn was right. Men have forgotten God. Not in the redistribution of wealth, but in the words of the Old and New Testament will be found not only salvation, but the cure for a society suffering a chronic moral sickness.

But as we search for the answers we all used to know, we need to take back our streets from the criminals. We need to persuade pastors and preachers to return to their pulpits to reinstruct us in the Commandments and the truths of our traditional faiths, and to leave government to the politicians. We must do what we can to reconstruct the old conscience-forming and character-forming institutions of society - family and church, home and school.

We need God's help, and we need your help.

Why am I running? Because we Republicans can no longer say it is all the liberals' fault. It was not some liberal Democrat who declared, "Read my lips! No new taxes!," then broke his word to cut a back room budget deal with the big spenders. It was not Edward Kennedy who railed against a quota bill, then embraced its twin. It was not Congress alone who set off on the greatest social spending spree in 60 years, running up the largest deficits in modern history. No, that was done by men in whom we placed our confidence and our trust, and who turned their backs, and walked away from us.

What is the White House answer to the recession caused by its own breach of faith? It is to deny we even have a recession.

Well, let them come to New Hampshire.

My friends, we are the sons and daughters of the men and women who brought America through the Depression and crushed fascism on two sides of the world. We ourselves are the men and women who won the Cold War with Communism. We can win the future and we can hand down to those who come after us a country as great and grand and good as the one that was given to us. But first we must take America back.

So we are taking this campaign not just to Republicans, and not just to conservatives. Every American is invited to join, the middle-class of both parties, and of no party. For the establishment that has dominated Congress for four decades is as ossified and out-of-touch with America as the establishment that resides in the White House.

This race will not be about personality; and this campaign will not get into personalities.

George Bush served bravely in America's great war. He is a man of graciousness, honor, and integrity, who has given half a lifetime to his nation's service. But the differences between us now are too deep.

He is yesterday and we are tomorrow. He is a globalist and we are nationalists. He believes in some Pax Universalis; we believe in the Old Republic. He would put American's wealth and power at the service of some vague New World Order; we will put America first. So, to take my party back and take our country back, I am today declaring my candidacy for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States.

this was his announcement speech that he was going to run against war-victor incumbent George H.W. Bush, despite the fact that you are not supposed to run against your own parties incumbent and beat them in new hampshire.

you have to read between the lines in what buchanan says to understand him. all of his lines about cultural changes are just to show how our priorities have slid, he doesn't really ever advocate forcing the change back by force of gun.

for those of you who never understood what he, or the populist wing of the old right was about, this speech sums it up. as much as I regret that i never voted for him in a primary because i bought all the hype about him that the media put out, if pat B. had been prez, we'd have no wars, no nafta, jobs, etc.

Shotdown1027
09-11-2008, 02:29 PM
Pat Buchanan, in spite of his terrible rhetoric sometimes, was a freedom candidate, supported by the whole LRC crowd (Lew Rockwell, DiLorenzo, Thomas Woods, etc) and Ron Paul.

tonesforjonesbones
09-11-2008, 02:30 PM
I love Pat Buchanan...a true paleoconservative. Tones

tonesforjonesbones
09-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Sarah Palin supported Buchanan...but the GOP has decided to cover it up because Pat Buchanan is hated by AIPAC and Israel Firsters. Tones

Kotin
09-11-2008, 02:32 PM
Pat Buchanan is a Jesuit.

tonesforjonesbones
09-11-2008, 02:34 PM
Ok...he's also a shape shifter. Tones

Kalifornia
09-11-2008, 02:34 PM
Why are you suprised? Pat Buchanan has always been a serious nationalist libertarian conservative akin to goldwater and reagan. I very rarely find myself disagreeing with him.

Indy4Chng
09-11-2008, 02:37 PM
A lot has changed in 16 years hasn't it? Why anyone would vote republican is beyond me.

SovereignMN
09-11-2008, 02:40 PM
Many Ron Paul supporters were former Buchanan Brigarders. The Constitution Party was pretty much founded as a vehicle to support a Buchanan candidacy.

gls
09-11-2008, 02:59 PM
..

tonesforjonesbones
09-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Yes I read that story also. As I said BEFORE...the GOP is covering UP her support for Buchanan because AIPAC and the ISRAEL FIRSTERS HATE Buchanan. TONES

Rhys
09-11-2008, 03:17 PM
cool!

dirknb@hotmail.com
09-11-2008, 03:22 PM
Buchanan is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He serves as a gatekeeper. Can't believe I voted for him. Didn't have many other choices though. No friend of liberty gets as much TV time as he does. The Cold War was a scam, the same people who own the Fed. own the Russian central bank. It was just used to consolidate power through fear, the same way the War on Terror is now. Every issue he mentioned is virtually irrelevant as long as the Fed. stays in place and he didn't say one iota about abolishing it or reforming our monetary system. He pays lip service to opposing the New World Order and completely avoids the root of the NWO's power.

tonesforjonesbones
09-11-2008, 03:24 PM
You are incorrect about that. Pat Buchanan may not have said anything about the Fed in this particular article...but he has in others. Tones

angelatc
09-11-2008, 03:25 PM
I am on my way out the door, but I seem to recall that ol' Pat isn't too tolerant of gay people. I think that's why I didn't vote for him.

I would vote for him now, because I am older and wiser.

BarryDonegan
09-11-2008, 03:43 PM
I think he has less of a problem with gay people, and more of a problem with a society that morally accepts outright homosexuality. i don't agree with him there, i think that it is possible to have an outright homosexuality contingency in a nation besides the roman empire, but we are doing a poor job of proving that right! haha. personally, i think that sexual habits don't make sense even as a discussion between a community when your birth rates aren't totally failing

that is where a paleoconservative like pat buchanan drifts away from a libertarian like myself, however, when it comes to the big stuff like the fed, the foreign wars, the domestic market management, im with him.

as far as him being against the Fed, the "foreign agents" he is discussing are a code word for the fed. he is a populist candidate, he speaks to the angry, get-off-my-land redneck. if he starts talking about monetary policy, they will fall asleep.

his whole methodology was to create moral outrage, and use it to push back the international bankers. pat buchanan is a genius, and the media smeared him out of fear of him destroying their game.

its true he was complicit in the cold war, but i think that was just a case of him not really understanding what was happening. to a certain extent, you have to come to know these things via experience.

me3
09-11-2008, 04:11 PM
nm

BuddyRey
09-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Eh...Buchanan's a waffler. He wrote many articles in the early 2000's supporting torture for Guantanamo Bay detainees. He's alright sometimes, but no better than any other blustery right-wing populist.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 04:03 AM
the only stuff I saw which amounted to a possible endorsement of torture was his piece "the case for torture", which reads more as a devil's advocate thing than an endorsement of torture. he was comparing the moral value of torture to the viewpoint of going to war to prevent WMD or using a WMD in WW2.

his point was, why is it ok to kill 30,000 people to prevent the death of a greater number, but to torture 1 to prevent the death of the same number is morally unacceptable.

he is correct in showing that that does not make sense.

im certain, though, that if you said, "ok, well what about a society that finds both morally unacceptable, uses proper law enforcement techniques and trials, and only takes part in defensive war", he would accept that as morally consistent and sensible.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 04:08 AM
I remember an interview with him, where he stated, that Poland should have given Hitler whatever he wanted back in the 1930s, so there would be no WWII. I'm a Pole and I think this guy is a fucking idiot.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 04:19 AM
I remember an interview with him, where he stated, that Poland should have given Hitler whatever he wanted back in the 1930s, so there would be no WWII. I'm a Pole and I think this guy is a fucking idiot.

No, that was not what he said, what he said was that GREAT BRITAIN did not have the MILITARY POWER to FORCE HITLER to leave poland alone. and he was right, as you could see, G.B. did not do such a good job dealing with Hitler.

he never, ever, suggested that Poland should have submitted to Hitler for moral reasons. He was simply commenting on the foreign policy of Great Britain, that Total War might have been avoidable if they had not gone to War with Germany over Poland, which is probably true, with G.B. attacking over Poland, Hitler could make the case to his people that they were under attack, unfairly.(whether that is true or not is irrelevant, he was able to make the case and expand the war based on G.B. actions)

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 04:25 AM
No, that was not what he said, what he said was that GREAT BRITAIN did not have the MILITARY POWER to FORCE HITLER to leave poland alone. and he was right, as you could see, G.B. did not do such a good job dealing with Hitler.

he never, ever, suggested that Poland should have submitted to Hitler for moral reasons. He was simply commenting on the foreign policy of Great Britain, that Total War might have been avoidable if they had not gone to War with Germany over Poland, which is probably true, with G.B. attacking over Poland, Hitler could make the case to his people that they were under attack, unfairly.

No, he was talking about Poland not giving Hitler what he wanted (a corridor to Gdansk etc.) and thus starting WWII - I'm not sure where I have heard it, but it was some interview about his recent book. It was a few months ago maybe. There was nothing about GB, just Poland. And one word about GB - Poland was SOLD OUT by western Europe (incl. GB). We were promised military help in case of Hitler's attack, but nobody gave a fuck when he did attack us. Who knows what the world would be like, if he didn't attack the West? Because nobody cared about the East... Either before WWII or after.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 04:37 AM
No, he was talking about Poland not giving Hitler what he wanted (a "territory tunnel" to Gdansk etc.) and thus starting WWII - I'm not sure where I have heard it, but it was some interview about his recent book. It was a few months ago maybe. There was nothing about GB, just Poland. And one word about GB - Poland was SOLD OUT by western Europe (incl. GB). We were promised military help in case of Hitler's attack, but nobody gave a fuck when he did attack us. Who knows what the world would be like, if he didn't attack the West? Because nobody cared about the East... Either before WWII or after.

you misunderstood what he said, i promise you. The book he was promoting was called

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

his thesis was that G.B.'s war guarantee with Poland is what allowed Hitler the political support to spread the war. England declared War on Germany as a result of Hitler's attack on Poland. I don't get where you believe that Poland was sold out by the west when Hitler attacked. I have yet to ever see any historian say that Great Britain did not declare war as a result of Hitler invading Poland.

literatim
09-12-2008, 04:45 AM
In 1937 Germany wanted a one mile access to their providence in East Prussia and Poland agreed to it until Poland broke off their agreements in 1939. After the Anglo French Assurance Pact which guaranteed Britain and France would come to Poland's defense, Poland saber rattled. The leader of the Poland army declared they would overrun Germany in three days.

Prior to the German invasion of Poland, around 58,000 ethnic Germans were slaughtered by Poland in the Danzig corridor.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 04:53 AM
you misunderstood what he said, i promise you. The book he was promoting was called

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

Yes, I think that was it. Well, I'll try to dig this interview, but I'm 99% sure that's what he said (and the host acutally asked him twice if he meant that). BTW. when you google buchana and Gdansk, it would seem lots of people have misunderstood him :rolleyes:


his thesis was that G.B.'s war guarantee with Poland is what allowed Hitler the political support to spread the war. England declared War on Germany as a result of Hitler's attack on Poland. I don't get where you believe that Poland was sold out by the west when Hitler attacked. I have yet to ever see any historian say that Great Britain did not declare war as a result of Hitler invading Poland.

Well, they declared a war, along with France. But they both just sat and watched as once again in history, Poland is ripped by Germany and Russia. AFAIR, on September 12th 1939 they decided to not send any military help to Poland despite earlier guarantees.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 04:54 AM
In 1937 Germany wanted a one mile access to their providence in East Prussia and Poland agreed to it until Poland broke off their agreements in 1939. After the Anglo French Assurance Pact which guaranteed Britain and France would come to Poland's defense, Poland saber rattled. The leader of the Poland army declared they would overrun Germany in three days.

Prior to the German invasion of Poland, around 58,000 ethnic Germans were slaughtered by Poland in the Danzig corridor.

yeah, i think the general lesson that we need to learn based on that event, is that the situation with Nazi German, Poland, and Great Britain sounds a lot like the situation with Georgia, Russia, and The United States.

I don't mean that in the sense of the genocidal campaign part of the Nazi history, but I mean more along the lines of the capacity for a small country, using a war guarantee to justify a more confident foreign policy than it, itself can actually back up, causing a spread to total war.

this is why war guarantees to smaller nations with weak militaries are a suicidal concept. they will use that guarantee for leverage, and it will cost you.

TXcarlosTX
09-12-2008, 04:57 AM
Pat Buchanan is a Jesuit.




He is also a Knight Of Malta

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/buchanan.html

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 05:02 AM
Yes, I think that was it. Well, I'll try to dig this interview, but I'm 99% sure that's what he said (and the host acutally asked him twice if he meant that). BTW. when you google buchana and Gdansk, it would seem lots of people have misunderstood him :rolleyes:


lots of people have. for some reason when you discuss different views about Hitler, and what foreign policy decisions could have limited the scope of the war, people's intellectual skills drop to the third grade level.. its like theres so much emotion involved in the subject, the average blogger, newspaper editorialist goes on straw man, adhominem mode instantly.


Well, they declared a war, along with France. But they both just sat and watched as once again in history, Poland is ripped by Germany and Russia. AFAIR, on September 12th 1939 they decided to not send any military help to Poland despite earlier guarantees.

no, they declared war, and sent troops as quickly as they could. having a war guarantee with a country in 1939 is not like it is today. today the United States can send an ICBM to your house and nuke you in about a half hour. back then you had to actually raise the army up for a war, and whatever standing army G.B. had was scattered across the four corners of the earth. there isa beaurocratic process in war, and, obviously, G.B. could not respond to a german invasion of poland fast enough to prevent it. that was not the point of the war guarantee. the war guarantee was designed to act as a deterrant, which failed, and G.B. declared war as promised, and went to war and lost, in the name of their treaty with poland.

england definately DID attack with the royal air force on sept 4, 1939. so they definately did honor their war guarantee, and that is definately what spread the war into the west.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 05:07 AM
Wait, so you guys compare Poland in 1939 to Georgia? Is this a sick joke?

literatim
09-12-2008, 05:13 AM
He is also a Knight Of Malta

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/buchanan.html

You do realize that the website has Ron Paul as a 'Jesuit Coadjutor'? :rolleyes:

The funny thing is how they paint Knights of Malta as anti-Semite but then list some Jewish people in the Knights of Malta.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 05:16 AM
Wait, so you guys compare Poland in 1939 to Georgia? Is this a sick joke?

don't become too blinded by emotion to understand on what level the situation is being compared. I am not comparing Poland to Georgia in ALL RESPECTS, I am comparing the situation where a war guarantee by a hegemonial power, given to a smaller nation, gave them too much hubris in a dispute, which resulted in a conflict that widened into a total war.

the lesson that we should have learned from World War II, but have yet to learn, is that when every nation in the world has a war guarantee with every other nation in the world, all it takes is one small dispute to start an entire world war.

the problem with the situation in Poland in 1939, was that Germany was forced via the Treaty of Versailles to give up quite a bit of territory in a way which was technically illegal via international law. this was problematic in the sense that it gave them the feeling that they had the moral authority to ask for some of these land pieces back.(i dont agree with that, morally, i think you never have a right to claim old territories, as the people who inhabit it after the change in rule have to be considered sovereign)

prior to the war, legally speaking, there was a case to be made that the Treaty of Versailles had allowed Germany to be trampled, etc. Hitler was definately aggressive in his pursuit of these lands, and that was a bad deal. No doubt Hitler's foreign policy was monstrous and wrong, but the case that is being made by Buchanan in that book is that, if G.B. and the west had just let the Poland/Germany situation play out however it was going to play out, the war would have not spread west, and the military ambitions of Hitler would have be forced to a stop via a defeat by USSR.

noone is making the argument that there is a moral similarity between the situation in georgia/russia, but there IS a similarity where treaties and war guarantees are concerned. When Georgia makes a foreign policy move, right now, they do so knowing that the U.S. has their back, which makes them bold. When Poland dealt with hitler in 1939, they did so with Great Britain behind them, making them bolder as well. There is a possibility that without the war guarantee from Britain, the war between Germany and Poland might never have occured.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 05:26 AM
There is a possibility that without the war guarantee from Britain, the war between Germany and Poland might never have occured.

From a mathematical point of view you're right. But that's it.

freelance
09-12-2008, 05:29 AM
Buchanan is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He serves as a gatekeeper. Can't believe I voted for him. Didn't have many other choices though. No friend of liberty gets as much TV time as he does. The Cold War was a scam, the same people who own the Fed. own the Russian central bank. It was just used to consolidate power through fear, the same way the War on Terror is now. Every issue he mentioned is virtually irrelevant as long as the Fed. stays in place and he didn't say one iota about abolishing it or reforming our monetary system. He pays lip service to opposing the New World Order and completely avoids the root of the NWO's power.

I'm still not certain that the Russian central bank is NWO controlled. Why did Putin throw out the Oligarchs? Aren't those the people of the same ilk? I don't have enough facts to make an intelligent decision on this, which is why I'm ambivalent toward Russia. Can anyone fill in the blanks?

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 05:37 AM
From a mathematical point of view you're right. But that's it.

thats the only point of view i was coming at it with. I'm not morally endorsing anything having anything to do with hitler, ever. That's not the point of Buchanan's book either. his point was to say that Hitler was destined to suicide himself on USSR, sooner or later, and that G.B.'s foreign policy went ahead and spreaded that war across every continent on earth, and destroyed G.B.'s hegemonial position, forever. Just from a purely analytical position.

BarryDonegan
09-12-2008, 05:38 AM
I'm still not certain that the Russian central bank is NWO controlled. Why did Putin throw out the Oligarchs? Aren't those the people of the same ilk? I don't have enough facts to make an intelligent decision on this, which is why I'm ambivalent toward Russia. Can anyone fill in the blanks?

i have a feeling that the fact that we are warhawking against russia right now, is because he is no longer playing ball with the central bankers, and is because he is trying to use his oil $$ to have some economic hegemonial leverage.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 05:43 AM
In 1937 Germany wanted a one mile access to their providence in East Prussia and Poland agreed to it until Poland broke off their agreements in 1939. After the Anglo French Assurance Pact which guaranteed Britain and France would come to Poland's defense, Poland saber rattled. The leader of the Poland army declared they would overrun Germany in three days.

Prior to the German invasion of Poland, around 58,000 ethnic Germans were slaughtered by Poland in the Danzig corridor.

You have to be Buchanan's fan. The lies in your post are outrageous. At least check the map next time, before posting such nonsense.

szczebrzeszyn
09-12-2008, 06:09 AM
you misunderstood what he said, i promise you. The book he was promoting was called

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

Oh, it was on Colber Report.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/172064/june-05-2008/pat-buchanan

Starts at around 4:20. He actually says Danzig was a German city (which is false) and that Poland should have given it back to Germany. And later on, he says they should have drawn a red line across France and tell Hitler 'cross that line and you're at the war with the West', but at the same time they should have given him everything on the other side (East). That's fine with you, right?

EDIT: Yes, he was talking a lot about GB too, so I agree with your previous replies (I didn't remember that interview that well, it seems). My point was, he suggested Poland and others should have given Hitler what he wanted as long as he does not cross the "red line" (I would call it "the West line") and that somehow would have prevented the WWII? Sorry, I don't buy it.

tonesforjonesbones
09-12-2008, 06:38 AM
NATO...because of this..small rogue countries drag us into their conflicts..and I agree, because they are NATO ...they become emboldened because the USA is behind them. ABOLISH NATO. It's worthless and causes us distress and economic problems. I love Pat Buchanan...he is a truth speaker. He's been labled anti semetic again because of his new book. Ridiculous. Tones