The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Crossfired

By on 2.20.12 @ 6:09AM

MSNBC’s purge of Pat Buchanan.

The young British journalist knows his timing is good. Timothy Stanley is at Politics and Prose, a trendy independent bookstore in northwest D.C., to promote his new tome The Crusader: The Tumultuous Life and Times of Pat Buchanan. Yet he possesses the modesty to realize that few people came out on a Friday night to see him. The overflow crowd was there to greet his subject, on hand just a day after his separation from the network for which he worked for ten years became common knowledge. Standing next to Buchanan, Stanley quipped, “MSNBC’s loss is my gain.”

To his critics, Buchanan is a vile hatemonger who must be hounded from the airwaves to purify the public debate. His biographer reaches a different conclusion. “Whatever you think of Pat Buchanan’s politics, he was always motivated by two things: duty and love,” Stanley said at the end of his remarks. “And that’s rare among politicians today.”

So rare that those who knew Buchanan personally could see it across the political divide.”Pat sticks up for his people like nobody I know,” Chris Matthews reminded MSNBC viewers. “He’ll laugh with you about the frailties and foibles of those he served but he never, ever quits being loyal to them.”

Democratic consultant Peter Fenn told Politico, “I greatly respect Pat’s intellect, his honesty and his decency.” He lamented that Buchanan was sacked to make way for ideologically segregated “niche TV.” Even as Andrew Sullivan labeled Buchanan “a reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism,” he defended the conservative commentator as “a compassionate and decent man in private and an honest intellectual in public.”

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, called Buchanan “a sincere, colorful and opinionated personality, and a decent man who deserved better.”

Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller, a conservative writer without the “paleo” prefix, observed, “Philosophy aside, if you were to poll the makeup artists, camera techs, and drivers, Pat Buchanan is one of the best-liked pundits in the biz.”

Buchanan could have measurably improved both his political career and his standing as a media personality if he suppressed his most controversial views and discarded his more troublesome friends. He had ascended to the top of the Washington power structure alongside Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that is not his way.

The man’s loyalty has probably been questioned by only two associates: George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996, both on the night of the New Hampshire primary. Perhaps they got the last laugh in 2000, when Buchanan’s opponents were Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump, Ross Perot, and people who believed they could fly.

Echoes of Buchanan can nevertheless be heard throughout the Republican presidential field: the no-holds-barred social conservatism of Rick Santorum, the skepticism of post-Cold War military adventures of Ron Paul, the 1990s “Republican revolution” aura of Newt Gingrich. His sister Bay Buchanan is a Mitt Romney supporter.

The casus belli of Buchanan’s ouster was his most recent book, Suicide of a Superpower. It contains ideas, MSNBC president Phil Griffin told reporters, unfit for “national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”

Remaining on the network is Al Sharpton, whose denunciations of “white interlopers” and “diamond merchants” helped provoke violence against Freddy’s Fashion Mart and the Jewish communities of Crown Heights. You will search Buchanan’s oeuvre in vain for anything approaching Sharpton at his most hateful.

Many of the demographic claims made in Buchanan’s book aren’t particularly controversial. He borrowed the chapter titles about the end of Christian America and white America from cover stories in Newsweek and the Atlantic, respectively. His tone is generally wistful, not angry. His thesis is less that diversity is inherently undesirable than that it is difficult to manage without other bonds, values, or experiences that bring countrymen together.

Buchanan hasn’t always succeeded in bringing his countrymen together either, often using words that wound people of colors and creeds who don’t feel welcome in his vision of America. Despite that real shortcoming, he is a patriot who has consistently believed that his views are open to debate. Do his critics?

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (271) |

Chef Schnauzer| 2.20.12 @ 6:17AM

Pat Buchanan is a remarkable man. Any organization Mr. Buchanan chooses to associate himself with is the better for it. His faith, conduct and intellectual clarity are an inspiration. God bless Pat Buchanan, more.

Jack in Wi.| 2.20.12 @ 7:43AM

Pat was fired because the anti-christian hate groups like the ADL, SPLC, and AIPAC have been been out to get him ever since he called Congress Israeli occupied territory in 1991. They also hounded the late , great Joe Sobran, till his death, for telling the truth about Israel and it's lobby. They recently got Judge Napolitiano off at Fox business because he was to honest from them, even if he stayed away from direct criticism of Israel. I wish Pat and Ron Paul would get together and run on the Constitution Party ticket. With what the Republicans and Democrats are running, I would think that they have a chance to win.

Bobloblaw| 2.20.12 @ 8:14AM

Well of course Jack the Jew-hater thinks Pat was fired for stuff he wrote back in the early 1990s. Jack sees Joos hiding behind every tree and every rock just waiting to grind the bones of christinan children into matza or to sell him, Jack a good christian a defective product. Obviously question is then, why did it take the Joos so long to get Pat, 20 years????

Pat was useful to MSNBC as a caricature of a conservative.

Pat Buchanan's books on demographics were spot on and cannot and really were not argued with.

Even Pat Buchanan would be revolted by Jack in WI.

Jack in Wi.| 2.20.12 @ 8:38AM

The ADL and the rest of the gang has been out to get Pat for over 20 years. He and Ron Paul have been against endless wars for Israel. They actually want an America at peace with the world, minding our own business. They want a solvent America, not a a bankrupt shell, like the old Soviet Union. We are going to win. The country does not want these wars anymore. The Neocons will have to go back to the Democrats, who don't want them either.

Oldefarte| 2.20.12 @ 10:02AM

'....We pulled this comment from an ad that accuses Rick Perry of trying to “undo the Reagan Revolution” when he backed Al Gore for president in 1988. Photos show Ron Paul looking chummy with the Gipper as a deep-voiced narrator describes the Texas congressman as a bold Reagan supporter. The gist: Paul has impeccable Reaganite credentials; Perry does not. We examined Paul’s relationship with Reagan during the late 1980s to find out whether he was really so supportive of the Republican icon. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org covered this topic before, but we figure it’s worth another look as we continue our series on biographical claims of the 2012 Republican candidates.
THE FACTS
Paul has little room to criticize politicians for changing their party affiliations. He campaigned for president as a Libertarian in 1988, after running for office seven times as a Republican and serving as a GOP member of the U.S. House for more than six years at that point.
So why didn’t he vie for the Republican nomination? Because he’d renounced the party — along with Reagan’s presidential policies — a few years earlier, resigning from the GOP and forgoing a bid for reelection to Congress.
Paul supported Reagan once in 1976, when the former California governor ran against Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. But he appears to have fallen out of love with the party’s hero during year one of his administration.
“It didn’t take me more than a month after 1981 to realize there would be no changes,” he told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987, referring to Reagan.In 1987, Paul broke ranks with the GOP, writing to the Republican National Committee: “I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government.” He added: “Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly doubled national debt.”Paul mentioned Reagan 14 more times as he accused the party of violating the conservative principles of free enterprise, limited government and balanced budgets. He knocked the former president for supporting anti-communist guerrillas, for increasing deficit spending, for expanding the federal payroll and for giving the Internal Revenue Service more power. He even reached back in time to criticize Reagan for his sparse use of the line-item veto as governor of California — which makes us wonder why he endorsed him in 1976. The Perry campaign posted a copy of the letter to the RNC as it appeared in the Libertarian Party News.
Paul continued disparaging Reagan throughout the 1988 nominating process, telling the L.A. Times at one point that he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself with the two-term president. We asked the Paul campaign what changed between then and now. “Dr. Paul loved President Reagan’s campaign platform and sincerely hoped he would govern that way,” said spokesman Gary Howard. “Dr. Paul remained personal friends with Reagan, flying on Air Force One with him several times, but was saddened with the weakening of the Reagan Revolution and the co-opting of Reagan’s great message by the Establishment.”Howard said he doesn’t think Paul endorsed any candidates during the years when Reagan won the White House, so it doesn’t appear the congressman “stood with” the Republican favorite beyond 1976. The Paul campaign has a history of manipulating the facts when it comes to Reagan-related issues. The group produced an ad in July claiming the former president had reluctantly raised the debt ceiling because of pressure from Democrats. In reality, his reluctance had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, but instead with a set of automatic defense cuts that would take effect if he and Congress couldn’t reach a deficit-reduction deal.
Reagan said at the time that he had “no objection whatsoever” to raising the debt ceiling, according to FactCheck.org.
THE PINOCCHIO TEST
Paul “stood with” Reagan, but his support didn’t last for long. He endorsed the charismatic Republican in 1976 and later ostracized him while chasing his own presidential dreams — at the same time Perry backed Gore, nonetheless.
The Texas congressman may be more Reagan than the Gipper himself, but he can’t “totally disassociate” himself from the conservative icon only to invoke his name once he needs more support from the Republican base. He earns two Pinocchios for trying to have it both ways....'

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 8:57PM

What does this have to do with the article?
Oh! I'm sorry. You're just a troll.

Jim | 2.20.12 @ 12:57PM

What nonsense. We've done the isolationist thing before, and it wasn't good for America. Does anyone want wars? No, but until Christ comes, don't count on America being able to dodge being involved in them. Or is Christ, a Jew, in on this too?
Also, Ron Paul is a NUT! If you like his ideas so much, please give them to a sane individual to run with.

Hobbes| 2.20.12 @ 4:35PM

What makes you an expert in what's good for America? War is good for America, I presume? People like you are anti-conservative. "Conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …” William F. Buckley Jr

Jim | 2.21.12 @ 1:09PM

Coming to terms with the world as it is? And the world is so safe we needn't defend ourselves???
And as for knowing what is good for America, I have my opinions as we all do, and I rather doubt you're shy about sharing yours. I guess even WFB didn't know what was good for America in your sense either, so why quote him?

As for conservatism, what you seem to want is a perfect world where we just sit in our living rooms and ignore the rest of the world. As I said, how has this worked out for us? Pretty badly, most times. Not all wars are necessary, surely, but not all are unecessary. America typically fights wars where we are not directly attacked because we see an interest we have in the country being attacked. Think a little more before you post a comment, or perhaps for you it should be called, "post a spleen."

Bobloblaw| 2.20.12 @ 8:11PM

Which war has the US fought for Israel??

Quartermaster| 2.20.12 @ 8:48AM

The anti-Clint coterie really makes fools of themselves with the sort of language Bobloblaw uses. When you descend to the level you think he is at, you don't elevate yourselves, or your opinions, you simply lose the argument by attacking him rather than what he says. When you do that you aren't acting a leftist, you are one.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 12:17PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government."
“That is the message of the Reagan years.”

Paul explains the contrast between embracing Reagan now and considering him a failure in 1987 as a result of his frustration with the former president’s vision versus his actions. “The message was great,” Paul said during a Sept. 7 debate. “But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves, it was not all that great.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 12:22PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 2.20.12 @ 1:06PM

Ya old man's a hypocrite who alternates between association and dis- whenever politically convenient to propagandize his lemmings!!!!!!!

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 3:07PM

Don't Ya Badmouth The Durchman Like That RINO-CINO Israel Firster Smear Bund, Gas Man.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:33PM

I'm sorry---you will not have to search Buchanan's oevre in vain to find similarly hateful stuff to Sharpton. They are peas in a pod on antisemitism: one Left, one Right. Debbie Schlussel thinks he is a pissant from her meeting with him. Good enough for me.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 9:18PM

You Should Be Sorry, Agenda Hustler,Tool Job.

You're A Mirror Image Of Al Sharpton, Israel Firster Hustler,Tool Job.

Occam's Tool| 2.21.12 @ 4:34PM

Mirror image of Al Sharpton: oh--I'm Conservative, patriotic and non-racist. Thanks, Clint.

JmsA| 2.21.12 @ 8:33PM

No, he did not get fired because of what had written more than twenty years ago. He was fired because his is a dissenting voice, and such will not be tolerated by the socialists. Your being one of those, should easily understand that.

Dave | 2.20.12 @ 9:25AM

First of all, I tend to agee with several posters that, other than the seventeen or eighteen viewers MSNBC has listed in their last Nielson's, the only people who might miss Buchanan will be the designated Morning Joe assistants who's primary job is to go from city to city with a felt marker, drawing nose and glasses on Pat's p.a. posters.

Having noted that ...

Cutting him from this panting, Marxist herd is simply a preview of what they have in mind, and would have ALWAYS liked to do to the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Levin's in their ongoing march to radically change the fabric of America. For those not fully up to speed, I've seen the new uniform designs. As shirts go, the basic brown seem to work well, but the S.S. logo, clashes with the red and black swastica. (perhaps something in a puce might be better.) However, the uniform's basic "butch" look DOES blend nicely with Fraulein Madow's chin whiskers and the Brett Favre haircut.

What a guy!

As a fashion look, maybe the new uni's wouldn't be all that bad. But as an altered way of living? Well, the writing's already on the wall. Let's just hope enough of us learned how to read.

Good luck!

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:36PM

Don't be an idiot. there is nothing anywhere close to the Nazis on the right or the left. Making statements like this just throws your opinions in the trash where they belong.

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:00PM

Except maybe Sock Puppet's "Truth Teams," coming to a kneecap near you. Or the SEIU Purpleshirts (a much nicer shade of brown) who have already made a name for themselves as legbreakers and thugs, whose contribution to public discourse favors shutting up dissent by any means available.

Purp| 2.21.12 @ 2:19PM

Same response needed here ... they're all out to get you, so be afraid, they're listening and can pick you up and ship you off to Siberia, with no one the wiser. Watch what you say, you could be next. Oooooohhhh!

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.20.12 @ 10:12AM

Is anyone surprised? As Mr. Antle observes, MSNBC has a Black RACIST/ JEW HATER on the Air. A Black Man who, for 3 days, was involved in a POGROM, in Crown Heights, where his "Followers" went searching from building to building, looking for JEWS. An Australian Jew as STABBED to Death, by one of Sharpton's Mob.

Pat Buchanan's views are "Unfit for National Dialogue, much less on MSNBC".

Seven NON BLACK people were MURDERED, inside Freddy's Fashion Mart, as the future On Air Personality, and the POS in the White House' "Liaison to the Black Community" - Tawana Brawley Sharpton - was outside of the Store demanding the ouster of the "WHITE INTERLOPERS". A Black went in to Freddy's, with a GUN, and ordered everyone who was Black, out the store. Then he SHOT the rest of them. THEN, Freddy's was set ABLAZE.

Pat Buchanan's views are "Unfit for National Dialogue, much less on MSNBC".

Al Sharpton owes MILLION$ in Taxes. Al Sharpton has owed MILLION$ in Taxes, for as long as I can Remember.

Pat Buchanan's views are "Unfit for National Dialogue, much less on MSNBC".

Ed Schultz is a PIG. Rachael Maddow just plays one on T.V. Cent Uger (Or whatever the Hell his name is) should go back working at one of Joe Biden's Delaware Convenient Stores, and Joe Scarborough might wanna get his Chromosome Count checked.

Pat Buchanan's views are "Unfit for National Dialogue, much less on MSNBC".

This what you get from the Big Tent Democrats. You get "The Most Ethical Administration" of the RAPIST Bill Clinton. You get one Scandal after another, after another, after another, and then you get IMPEACHMENT.

You get the "Most Ethical and Open House of Representatives Ever" of Nancy Pelosi. You get EVERYTHING happening Behind Closed Doors. You get one Scandal after another, after another, after another, and then you get a LANDSLIDE against them.

This is what you get from "The one we've been waiting for, and his "Most Transparent Administration Ever". You get Secret Deals for the Black Panthers. You get Secret Deals with the UAW. Secret Deals with BRAZIL (For Oil Drilling off their Coast) Secret Deals, involving FORGED DOCUMENTS, to put in place an ILLEGAL Drilling Moratorium. You get Secret Deals for Solyndra/Global Crossing/ a No Bid Contract for an Anthrax Drug with no Shelf Life, and whatever else Obama's big Campaign Contributors can come up with.

He was gonna Bring us together with his POST RACIAL Abilities. We are more Divided than ever, and if you don't believe that? Go to Webster's Dictionary and look up "RACIST". You will find that it is: "Anyone who disagrees with a Black Far Left Marxist President. ie: Barack Hussein Obama.

He RUNS GUNS to Mexican Drug Cartels. He enables the Islamists to take over Egypt and Libya, even as they establish themselves in Tunisia and Yemen. He threatens to unleash a Wave of Illegals across the land, upon Re-election, but:

Pat Buchanan's views are "Unfit for National Dialogue, much less on MSNBC".

Howard| 2.20.12 @ 10:55AM

Al got caught with blueberry pie on his face.

Dennis| 2.20.12 @ 12:50PM

Does this mean you won't be voting for Obama?

SHERMAN RIDES AGAIN| 2.20.12 @ 12:51PM

Good post Tim. I wish I could wake up from this reality and find it is just a bad dream. I fear the death spasms of a great country are now happening.

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:39PM

the fact that one radical ideologue is removed from the air has nothing to do with the other one. Give them time - Sharpton hasn't been on the air that long and Buchanan had 10 years.
Altho I didn't agree with Buchanan on much, he was a good debater, funny, and cordial - which is more than I can say for little Timmy here, who unfortunately is rabidly against or for whatever he is espousing.

Purpthepurplepoopforbrainsguy | 2.20.12 @ 9:28PM

Ironic you mention radical ideologues:

Purpthepurplepoopforbrainsguy:
"It's simple - if you choose any[thing you want], it's your choice...Keep the government out of it by offering it to all and let the person choose, not by cost, but by choice."

reality:
"Is it OK if I choose an Aston-Martin?"

Purpthepurplepoopforbrainsguy:
"I'm sure your free to do so. But if made in the U.S., the automaker must abide by U.S. Labor Laws, period."

reality:
"I don't mind if Aston-Martin abides by U.S. labor laws or not. I'll leave that up to you. I just want you to pay for the car."

truth:
"Keep the government out of it by not offering it to any, and let the person choose, as long as any person choosing pays for it"

Purpthepurplepoopforbrainsguy:
"By that logic, oh brilliant one, you have discriminated against a whole class of people who can't afford [whatever they want]. You are wrong and it is unconstitutional."

Purp| 2.21.12 @ 2:21PM

Thanks, Timmy ... I needed a laugh.

Reality| 2.21.12 @ 3:37PM

You do know you are referred to as Purpthepurplepoopforbrainsguy, above, and that the quotes are your own words?

Those residing in reality might wonder what, specifically, made you laugh.

Woodrow| 2.21.12 @ 1:35PM

Well said, TLP!!!

Jack McCartney| 2.20.12 @ 1:02PM

A remarkable man? A man who denies the Holocaust occurred, defends the murderers of Jews in the concentration camps, calls, in his book, for a limit on the number of Asian and Jewish students permitted to attend colleges and universities in America, is a racist and homophobe is NOT a remarkable man. What's remarkable is that he was allowed to have a venue to air his views. Allowing Buchanan the opportunity to have a major cable network to promote his hatred would be equivalent to MSNBC hiring Louis Farrakhan as one of their commentators. One hates whites but they both hate Jews.

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:02PM

*[multiple citations needed]

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 9:34PM

Anyone with the last name McCartney who goes on a PC rant like that is obviously a self-loather. Get some therapy Mr. "McCartney."

Occam's Tool| 2.21.12 @ 4:35PM

Red:

what is wrong on Asians and Jews attending college in America?

Don| 2.20.12 @ 11:31PM

Jack McCartney, or whatever your real name is, you are an outright LIAR. Give the sources of your insane charges or retreat to the slime pit whence you emerged.

Alan Brooks| 2.20.12 @ 9:07PM

But again and again the question needs to be asked: why can't Jack dislike Israel (you cannot prove he dislikes Jews, though perhaps he does),
if some of you dislike blacks, gays, Catholics, etc.?
You think your biases are tolerable yet Jack's-- or anyone else's-- are not?

Alan Brooks| 2.20.12 @ 9:09PM

"Pat Buchanan is a remarkable man. Any organization Mr. Buchanan chooses to associate himself with is the better for it. His faith, conduct and intellectual clarity are an inspiration. God bless Pat Buchanan, more."

Well, he does stand firm- if nothing else. If the status quo is correct, then so is Buchanan.

Carol| 2.20.12 @ 6:40AM

Pat Buchanan was fired at the behest of the Obama Regime and Obama's boss George Soros.

Truth is their enemy and that is why Beck, Judge Napolitano and Pat Buchanan are all gone from the public airways. I hope Beck hires them both.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.20.12 @ 8:10AM

Buchanan was Juan Williams'd. Isn't it amazing that the so-called "open-minded," "tolerant," and "compassionate" liberals are almost always the ones to cull and destroy anyone that disagrees with them. Pat should have known better to get involved with such scum.

I am the proud owner of six of Buchanan's books, and I haven't gotten his new addition yet. He is brilliant, and while I don't agree with him on his anti-free trade positions, I love his work. I, unlike liberals, am tolerant of other views!

Teaghan| 2.20.12 @ 8:46AM

How right you are Von.
Those who scream and demand TOLERANCE are usually the least tolerant.

John Drake| 2.20.12 @ 9:12AM

Yeah, I seem to recall someone railing against "the politics of personal destruction". Of course, that was after the Democrats invented "Borking".

pottfullofpith| 2.20.12 @ 12:57PM

The lack of tolerance for dissent is nicely summed up in near-Freudian elegance by the MSNBC president Phil Griffin's justification for removing Buchanan: what he has to say is unfit for "national dialogue, much less on MSNBC." Griffin and those on the left want to control the national dialogue, he wants to set bounds around what can be talked about and what cannot, and all the while MSNBC cloaks itself in the mantle of free speech. If it weren't so scary it would be funny. The same thing happens whenever conservative voices try to be heard in the media (including showbiz), or on a college campus. Fundamentally, the mentalities and sentiments at work are no different from the Ministry of Truth, from state controlled media anywhere, from book burning, or from the imprisonment or exile of dissidents in China or Myanmar. Orwellian Thoughtcrime has already appeared in the guise of "hate crime" legislation and the trial of Tyler Clementi, q.v.

If you want to save the Republic, now is the time: show up at the polls in November and bring a friend.

Huck Finn| 2.21.12 @ 12:27AM

So true!! The liberal media is trying its best to take control of the airwaves and all other printed media as well. And Obama and his ilk are for it a hundred percent!! If we are going to keep this nation"The Land of the Free!! And The Brave"" We'd better show up and vote for a good statesman type conservative. Someone who is in it for this country, not for power or personal gain, but for God and Country!! God Help America!!

jimH| 2.20.12 @ 1:35PM

I never watched Buchanan on MSNBC. I guess he was there to provide some cover to allow the pretense of being an objective news organization. I don't think he'd have played the tame conservative the way Williams is the house liberal on FOX.

Mimi| 2.20.12 @ 8:40AM

Carol....what do those three men, have in commen...,They are all super, strong PATRIOTS!!

Kurt| 2.20.12 @ 8:57AM

Check out the video on youtube with over 900,000 views called "How to get fired from fox news in 5 minutes" and you will then see the reason why Murdoch "the coward" fired the most honest man on cable news, that being Judge Napolitano! Sad day in America when a man strong enough to tell the truth with very high ratings is let go!

Kurt| 2.20.12 @ 9:03AM

Not a peep from any of the "so called" conservative blogs on the Judge Napolitano firing! Why no article on this, American spectator, human events, American thinker and town hall? They all must be in the tank with Fox news!

jimH| 2.20.12 @ 10:18AM

I did not know he had been fired. He was the one voice of intelligence and integrity on FOX.

Kurt| 2.20.12 @ 11:12AM

I bet the writers on the conservative websites are worried that if they write about this they might find a pink slip in their mailbox, I'm sure a blackout on the Judge's firing has been issued by the writers superiors! The videos on the Judge's firing have gone viral on youtube and not a peep from them!

SHERMAN RIDES AGAIN| 2.20.12 @ 12:54PM

I agree with you Jim and Kurt.
Not a peep anywhere. This is terrible that the news media is a blatant whore to be sold to the highest bidder.

Teaghan| 2.20.12 @ 5:15PM

highest bidder being Soros?

Jim | 2.20.12 @ 1:06PM

Get real, Kurt. Perhaps the coservatives saw having Buchanan and Napolitiano removed from a Jewish-hating, bigoted, mush-headed cable channel as a good thing. Of the people who listen to MSNBC (MESS-NBC) what percentage do you think keep the show on once Buchanan comes on? Zero? Less than zero?

Also, Pat has an image problem not because of conservatives or neocons, but because he writes books stating that Hitler didn't start WWII (but guess who did??? I'll give you one guess!!)

aware| 2.20.12 @ 4:31PM

Without Judge Napolitano there is now absolutely no reason to ever turn on a stupid idiot box. Now it is 100% State propaganda to stupefy the Herd.

If it wasn't for Antle's paleo leanings you wouldn't even be hearing about Buchanan from "conservative" punditry. If he starts to question the tenants of right wing Statism that passes for "conservatism" today, he too will find his defenders on the "right" equally non-existent.

Garfield| 2.20.12 @ 5:09PM

We're assuming he was fired...

He may still be employed at Fox News, but he has some project he's working on that takes up too much time.

It could be something health related...

I want to know all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

albert constantine jr.| 2.20.12 @ 7:13PM

Aware:

Tenants (hopefully) pay rent. Tenets are what make up a philosophy.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:37PM

Napolitano, on the other hand, was a decent man with Libertarian views. They should not have fired him.

But Buchanan deserved his knee in the crotch long ago. I tell you, I spend more time at Weasel Zippers nowadays. Fewer Paulbots and antisemites.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 9:20PM

You Spend You Time At Bibi's Zipper, Israel Firster Smear Bund Maniac, Tool Job.

Kurt| 2.20.12 @ 9:12PM

Judge Napolitano. How to get fired in under 5 mins...littletammy20 on youtube tells it all!

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:40PM

Truth? hahahahaha

Joe| 2.20.12 @ 7:12PM

Would like to agree - except the G Beck part??? I used to like Mr. Beck but quit listening. I have a four year old who is less full of himself than G. Beck. G Beck was his own truth - much like Bill O'Reilly. Can you ever predict which side of an argument they'll end up on? Not usually, at any rate.

jimbeaus| 2.21.12 @ 10:01PM

Citation anyone? Though none of us knows for certain, I believe Pat was fired because he no longer was a viable commentator, having just a few too many skeletons in his closet. Read his book on WW II and Hitler, and see if you don't agree.

Kenny| 2.20.12 @ 6:50AM

Pat's a true American hero.

TTL| 2.20.12 @ 6:55AM

One, whether a political commentator on tv or you and I at our place of work, can not ever, Ever, EVER say that we may want the USA to remain a majority Caucasian, Christian, English speaking country.

The left, the Neocons and the Establishment GOP will crucify you if you do, for they all want continued open borders, mass immigration and the displacement of native born Americans.

As Buchanan says over and over - "Either the GOP will put an end to mass immigration or mass immigration will put an end to the GOP".

Well said.

Why? Because non-white people vote overwhelmingly for big government, left wing, Democrat policies. That's why.

SmokeCamels| 2.20.12 @ 7:00AM

And who watches MSNBC anyway?

Teaghan| 2.20.12 @ 8:43AM

Makes one wonder how the hell they stay on the air.

loulou| 2.20.12 @ 11:01AM

It stays on the air because GE makes it stay on the air.

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:41PM

Apparently a lot of people to get you all so riled up about it.

Joe| 2.20.12 @ 7:14PM

I wish you folks wouldn't be so rude. Somebody's mother out there watches MSNBC. Literally. I hope she doesn't read your post.

W| 2.20.12 @ 8:00AM

"Ideas unfit for a natinal dialogue?"
I read Buchanan's books and don't see any ideas unfit for a national dialogue. He has strong, clear, controversial opinions but how are his ideas unfit, when every day you can hear Maxine Walters, Harry Reid, and worse in Congress?

Teaghan| 2.20.12 @ 8:45AM

".......they're DEMONS!!!!"

What vile human being. Or something of the like.

Bobloblaw| 2.20.12 @ 8:09AM

My guess is that MSNBC could no longer pigeon hole Pat Buchanan as a wacko conservative, so they had no more need for him.

Pat's books on demographics have always been spot on. You simply cannot argue with them.

KennesawJack| 2.20.12 @ 8:37AM

Tyrants are, by defintion, intolerant of opposition. Leftists in America are tyrannical. Ergo, Buchanan is gone. It's really as simple as that.

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:43PM

On the air 10 years - kind of a slow Tyrant, isn't it?

KennesawJack| 2.20.12 @ 2:10PM

Not really.

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 5:33PM

Hahaha ... Buchanan's been on the MSNBC air for 10 years - over 3 years while a Democrat has been President. Pick your time frame - pretty slow response even if "Obama has ordered him fired" ... this is such bs - this is all they have to write about?

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:04PM

Why not? Leftards were dancing in the streets and circle wanking for weeks over getting Beck fired.

Purp| 2.21.12 @ 2:23PM

Guess it matters if you have no class or morals and will say anything on the air, huh? Wow, a civilized country weeding out the troglodytes and airheads, who'd a thunk it?

Dr. X| 2.20.12 @ 8:53AM

Oh, come on. You don't REALLY believe that the "causus belli" of Buchanan's firing was his book, do you?

He worked for a network run by Obama flack Jeffrey Immelt, a firm that paid NO TAXES, a firm that is the government's biggest "green" contractor and biggest defense contractor.

And it's an election year. Buchanan was a conservative who reminded white voters about their demographic peril in a year in which a black president was seeking re-election, and was critical of Obamacare. So Pat had to go.

Buchanan could not be controlled like the rest of the Beltway journalists. Do you recall that president-elect Obama had a dinner at George Will's house with the "conservative" journalists? Brooks, Krauthammer and Kristol were there. (And Brooks is still in love with Obama.)

Buchanan was not invited.

There's no question that the White House gave Immelt the order to purge Buchanan.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 2.20.12 @ 10:00AM

GE is NOT the biggest defense contractor. Not even close. GE is higher on the Fortune 100 list than any other defense contractor, 4th, but it earns the vast majority of its revenue from civilian contracts.

As DOD data, published every year, has been showing for over a decade, the biggest defense contractor is Lockheed Martin, followed by Boeing, followed by Raytheon.

Purp| 2.20.12 @ 1:45PM

Facts are not wanted on this site - they don't fit the day's talking points.

W| 2.20.12 @ 7:08PM

Facts? We don't want purp-like facts, or clintonian facts, which are made up facts.

Purp| 2.21.12 @ 2:26PM

dispute Zbigniew's facts, not mine. You can't, of course, and so just ignore them, just like I said - they don't fit your stilted worldview, so they must be unimportant, right?
Prove any one of MY facts is made up. You just sit there and criticize.

Fusch| 2.23.12 @ 11:37AM

From one literally gay color to another, you have NEVER provided one fact. Ever.

Lesser Weevil| 2.20.12 @ 3:03PM

You apparently don't know what "casus belli" means, Dr. X. Casus (note spelling) does not mean cause, it means occasion, accident, chance, and the casus belli is the pretext or chance event that triggers a war, not its underlying cause.

Nemo| 2.20.12 @ 8:56AM

The conservative movement can do without this anti-Semitic, pro-Putin crackpot. He discredits conservatism and has done it more harm than many self-avowed leftists. If you have any doubts, look at the garbage his misnamed "American conservative" publishes, including a lunatic claim the Joos were responsible for, or at least knew in advance about, 9/11. No, he didn't write this himself but TAC published it. He claims Poland was responsible for WW II by not giving good, patient Adolf Hitler a corridor across its territory. Good riddance to human rubbish.

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 9:26AM

This is from his blog:
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
"But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?"

The answer is that he apparently blew his cool and went to war too soon. He saw an opportunity for an alliance with Stalin in addition to dealing with the problems created by the economic disaster of his autobahn construction and expenses from his military buildup.

Nemo| 2.20.12 @ 9:53AM

The answer is very simple. He did not understand sea-power. It takes years to build a surface fleet, and Germn had lost its fleet in 1918. Why did he build 45,000 ton battleships, the Bismarck and Tirptiz? The steel taken up being the equivalent of about year's tank productiuon. Did he plan to sail them overland to Moscow?

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 10:06AM

I saw on the History channel that he advised the Navy that he was planning to go to war in 1942. Hitler didn't understand manufacturing or R&D and had several redundant programs to develop fighters. I suspect his plan for the navy was to knock out England and his fear of the water kept him from a channel invasion.

loulou| 2.20.12 @ 11:03AM

I agree. He went over the line with his passionate defense of Ivan the terrible Demjanjuk.

Don| 2.21.12 @ 12:55AM

Nemo, Hard to believe. Clearer source required. Month and year of issue would be helpful. Too easy to claim TAC published article claiming Jews knew of 9-11 attacks beforehand . I reject both contentions without proof.

Mimi| 2.20.12 @ 8:56AM

The LEFT is getting desparate as they go down! The few bones they threw the PATRIOTS have to be gotten rid of,
Pat was working for the wrong outfit...I don't know how he stood it all those years....he was on the FRONT line and defended Conservatism well...and in enemy territory at that.
Good job Pat...The fight goes on but the good LORD wants you to serve in another territory...Their going after top guns like the Catholic Church....lot of boldness there ....but just more desperation....and their biting on the wrong carcus...WE ARE AWAKE !!

laka| 2.20.12 @ 8:59AM

My first memory of Pat Buchanan comes from a day after I saw this a long time ago: Justice Douglas, the victim of a paralyzing stroke, was the subject of intense debate as to whether he should retire from SCOTUS. As Douglas was being carried in his wheelchair up the courthouse steps, some imbecile reporter asked him if his life had changed in any way since his stroke. Douglas stared at him in disbelief and said, "Well yes. I used to walk twenty miles a day, but now I only walk ten."

Now, I'm no fan of the very liberal Justice Douglas, but only an imbecile or a liar could have failed to recognize that comment as sarcasm. But the next day, the editorial by the young Pat Buchanan did just that. The headline went something like: "Douglas so senile that he believes he still walks ten miles a day, even though confined to a wheelchair."

Ever since that day, it has been my personal opinion that Pat Buchanan is an unprincipled liar. Now even MSNBC fires him. Good riddance!

canuckistani| 2.20.12 @ 10:01AM

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Period.

He knew the game, was an architect of the game and is a victim of the game due to his hubris. Rather was, just as Olbermann is/was and even Carlos "winning" Estevez was last year. The black guy on CNN also felt the swift guillotine of editorial control for his lamebrained tweets.

No tears for his demise. He was amusing in an absurd Liddy-esque way, but lately had become a comical shadow of his old self.

MSNBC has carved out an editorial space populated by shrill dem apologists and RINOs desperately knocking on locked GOP doors. Buchanan was one of them and outlasted his usefulness by failing to realize the old century had passed over a decade ago.

KennesawJack| 2.20.12 @ 2:13PM

Canuck, you're penultimate sentence was the most lucid thing you've written on this site. Did you steal it from someone or actually come up with it yourself? It just seems so out of character for you.

Joe| 2.20.12 @ 7:25PM

Wow. Don't mean to call you a liar, but I find your comment very hard to believe. I am no great fan of Pat Buchanan, but he never came across as stupid, unprincipled, or a liar. Perhaps you missed something in the article and acted, and are acting, in a way very much like the way you are accusing Mr. Buchanan of acting.

albert constantine jr.| 2.20.12 @ 9:20AM

“Philosophy aside, if you were to poll the makeup artists, camera techs, and drivers, Pat Buchanan is one of the best-liked pundits in the biz."
One of the curious observations I’ve made is how frequently statements like this are made about conservatives and Republicans, or more appropriately, how the opposite is usually reported about liberal Democrats. Books written by White House service staff, Secret Service members, etc. refer to the decency and respect they received from Reagan, GHW Bush, etc. They also seem to universally note the disdain and poor treatment at the hand of the Clintons, Carter, Johnson et al.

I guess if you believe you represent the “little people” or “the masses”, you are relieved of the obligation to treat others well. On the other hand, if you see people as individuals possessing dignity and not as members of groups whose votes you wish to exploit, your interactions with them take on a different character.

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 10:23AM

Spot on!!

CRAIG| 2.20.12 @ 9:20AM

Pat is a anabashed anti semite and racist.

Bob in Maryland| 2.20.12 @ 9:32AM

Unlike several of the other people leaving comments to this article, I am a proud Blue State left-leaning liberal Democrat. But I respect a man of dignity and honesty, whatever his views. I have admired Bat Buchanan for as long as I can remember (and that's a long time - I was born during the Truman presidency). Whenever he was on the TV or radio, I stopped what I was doing to listen to a great mind at work. (You don't have to agree with a person to admire his intellect.) I have fond memories of the one and only time I met him (in the early 1980's). We discussed women in the military, and I actually won him over to my point of view in the course of our talk. Pat is nothing if not intellectually honest!

So please, folks. there's no need for the left (or right) bashing that I read in some of these other comments. Pat Buchanan would not appreciate such.

canuckistani| 2.20.12 @ 10:04AM

I take my screen name from a Buchanan rant. He amused me to no end for years, but lately he started to shows signs of rot.

Dave Williams| 2.20.12 @ 1:20PM

Thank you for your civility, sir. Would that there were more on your side of the aisle like you.

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 6:45PM

"So please, folks. there's no need for the left (or right) bashing that I read in some of these other comments. Pat Buchanan would not appreciate such."

No kidding. The irony of all these people coming out of the woodwork to make partisan GOP points about Buchanan's "firing" (actually, his contract wasn't renewed) is just rich. Buchanan hasn't been a part of the mainstream GOP or conservative movement since Buckley cut him loose in National Review's "In Search of Anti-Semitism" issue.

William F. Buckley: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament."

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 9:54PM

Oh, so Buckley is the be all and end all of who should and shouldn't be part of the conservative movement? I'll stack Buchanan's conservatism next to Buckley's any day of the week.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 1:47AM

Buckley built the movement, Buchanan gave it a bad name. Buckley articulated conservative ideas in a way that has persisted, and allowed the movement to grow. Buchanan articulates conservative ideas in a way that causes other conservatives to say, "I'm a conservative, but I'm not a racist like that guy."

But go ahead: believe that your little fringe racist, who has spent his life saying things that lose him jobs with the respectable world, is a "true conservative." At least Buckley was smart enough to know where the bounds of respectable discourse lie.

Crassus| 2.20.12 @ 9:37AM

Buchanan reached assclown status a long time ago. That's why CNN got rid of him and the only place that would give him a forum was the hard left MSNBC. Now even they have tired of him and his rants. Time for Pat to take the highway and take all he can hold.

Fredx| 2.20.12 @ 10:04AM

What was he doing there in the first place? I can't stand PMSNBC but occasionally would tune past to see Pat sitting there with a bunch of goons that he could think circles around. If he enjoyed it, that's good enough for me, but he deserves better. His intellect and experience, his humor and charm, and his candidness were way more than the "progressive" zombies at PMSNBC could handle. They deserve Sharpton; they don't deserve Buchanan. I don't know what took so long.

Anthony M| 2.20.12 @ 10:14AM

Now I can block out msnbc on my cable box, Pat was the only reason I'd ever even glance at that channel.

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 10:18AM

So, what's the issue here? He can simply sign on with FOX and - BOOM - his audience will triple!!

It's beyond rich and goes without saying that they choose to release Buchanan and keep Sharpton, a man who struggles with the English language more than my 10 year old son and whose pure racism and hatred is without bounds.

To Mr. Buchanan,

Resist We Much!!

Zbigniew Mazurak | 2.20.12 @ 10:24AM

Hahahaha. This is ridiculous and laughable, just like most of what Antle writes. Buchanan is not a conservative (except on social issues and trade) by any standard, so there is absolutely no reason to shed tears for him. He's not one of us conservatives. In fact, he's a socially conservative liberal who has been fighting against us conservatives and the policies we support - and pushing for liberal policies except on social issues and trade - for his entire adult life.

Buchanan supports appeasement towards all of America's enemies, from Russia to Iran, and blames all of the world's evil on America. He advocates an isolationist (in the strict definition of the word) foreign policy. He supports the KGB regime of Vladimir Putin and acts as its apologist in the US. He sided with the Putin regime and its mobs against US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, a pro-Russian dove. He wants to throw Israel under the bus. He has called the Congress an Israeli-occupied territory. He has repeatedly called for massive defense cuts and for the ratification of the disastrous, treasonous New START treaty.

That explains why liberals love him (even if they sometimes disagree with him and find some of his opinions unpalatable). It also proves beyond any doubt that Pat Buchanan, despite his and his apologists' protestions, is a defense weakling who doesn't want the US military to be able to defend the US - let alone America's key allies. Just like Ron Paul and is minions who, despite Jim Antle's desperate protestations that Paul merely opposes "post-Cod War military adventures", supports massive defense cuts and doesn't want to defend even America itself - let alone its key allies. Antle lies on Paul's and Buchanan's behalf because, as I know from testy exchanges with him, he more or less agrees with their views.

GW| 2.20.12 @ 6:04PM

Is there any other form of conservatism, but the conserving of our culture? I disagree with most of his foreign policy goals as well, but he is one of a very few "conservatives" to point to the problems mass 3rd world immigration has on America.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 10:00PM

Zbig, you defense industry hack, you wouldn't know conservatism if it bit you on the rear. In your ignorant deluded mind globalist one world militarism is conservative, but any fool knows conservatism is localist and parochial. Go learn some political philosophy 101 and quit making a damn fool of yourself.

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 10:40AM

"His tone is generally wistful, not angry. His thesis is less that diversity is inherently undesirable than that it is difficult to manage without other bonds, values, or experiences that bring countrymen together."

------------

This idea is completely lost by those on the left. Mr. Buchanan's pragmatism and honesty about race is refreshing in a World where thought control via coerced political correctness runs rampant in our society. That same political correctness which threatens to cause what's it's whole existence is allegedly supposed to prevent: balkanization and mistrust.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:40PM

Pat's views on Islam are interesting for being so spastic. He understands that Islamization can be a problem, but his innate antisemitism impedes him from coming to obvious foreign policy conclusions. Worthless.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 10:03PM

In Occam's fervid mind the "obvious foreign policy conclusions" means indiscriminately nuking Muslims.

Howard| 2.20.12 @ 10:52AM

MSNBC can only have a token conservative. They added Mike Steele to the morning team. He has the added advantage of being black.

loulou| 2.20.12 @ 11:05AM

Steele is not a conservative, token or otherwise. But he is black.

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 11:06AM

Great, the Scarboroughization of another "conservative" on MSNBC.

Not surprising, his days as RNC chair seemed to be more about him and less about the party.

Let 'em have him.

James Morton| 2.20.12 @ 11:09AM

Ah, free speech!

Frank Drackman | 2.20.12 @ 11:21AM

I like Pat, like I like Newt, for what he is,
a big blowhard,
Point of Evidence(C-Span probably still has the tape) this was 1992, Pat was at a Gunshow, and he walked up to a table that held a Ruger Mini-14.
"Hey, an M-14" remarked Pat
"Um actually, its a Mini-14" the dealer replied politely,
"what do you mean "Mini"-14?, this is an M-14, just like I carried in ROTC"
at this point the dealer just nodded politely, cause he knew he was dealing with an idiot, in regard to guns anyway.
Pat probably carried an M-1 Carbine, which is similar in size to the Mini-14.
But especially back then, ANY politician who supported gun rights got my vote...

Frank

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 12:29PM

" Pat Buchanan was a senior advisor to American Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 2.20.12 @ 1:08PM

And Paul was NOT to either!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 3:13PM

Neither Was Your RINO-CINO Ruling Elite Patrician Fop, Mittens Romney.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:06PM

O STFU about it! Paulifarians are worse than Jehovahs Witlesses.

Clint| 2.20.12 @ 9:22PM

But Then Again, You're Psycho.

albert constantine jr| 2.20.12 @ 12:36PM

You may remember the old four man fire team, with the Fire Team Leader, Automatic Rifleman, Grenadier and Rifleman. In the days before selective fire M16s, M203s, SAWs, etc, the T/O weapon for the leader and the rifleman were M14s, without the selective fire lever. The Grenadier had an M79 and a .45, and only the Auto Rifleman was supposed to have the selective fire lever installed on his M14.

As some variations of the semi-auto Mini 14 strongly resemble the M14, except they are chambered in 5.56mm instead of 7.62mm, the fog of advancing age might account for Mr. Buchanan’s confusion, or the limited amount of time he actually spent drilling with or cleaning it might, as well.

Frank Drackman | 2.20.12 @ 1:08PM

While the M-14 was introduced in 1959, it was not in widespread use until several years later.
As Pat Buchanana graduated Georgetown in 1960, then promptly achieved 4-F status, its highly unlikely he ever saw an M-14 except maybe in the Movies.
I still like him,

Frank

albert constantine jr| 2.20.12 @ 2:13PM

One is not likely to mistake a Garand for an M14. Though I'm not aware of the M1 carbine having been used for drill purposes, you are correct that it does more closely resemble the Ruger Mini 14.

Fiscal| 2.20.12 @ 11:31AM

It seems that most of you miss the point completely because you seem to be blinded by your ideology. MSNBC is a BUSINESS, just like Fox News. It's all about ratings and profits. Fox News says what you want to hear, not the truth. The same is true for MSNBC as they try to be the Fox News of the left. Just as Hannity dropped Colmes because of viewer preferences, Buchanan was dropped from MSNBC. We no longer have an electorate on either the right or left who wants to search for truth -- only for opinions that bolster specific ideologies. How long do you think a Chris Matthews would last on American Spectator?

Personally, I like Buchanan -- he is always a happy warrior. I happen to agree with him on a number of issues and disagree with him on others, but then again, I'm not ideologically driven. What the comments on this blog show is that people just don't understand how businesses make decisions...

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 11:56AM

So good of you not to be ideologically driven.

If you will, please tell all of us ideologues what news outlets you consider "balanced".

Fiscal| 2.20.12 @ 2:44PM

I have yet to find a "balanced" news venue. When I've checked the facts, Fox is the one with the most incorrect statements. MSNBC is rapidly approaching it, however, with the "preach", Maddow, etc. Fox will blatantly lie, however, with MSNBC really skewing the balance. The problem with CNN is that they only parrot what people say with focus group lines that will attract viewers.

Therefore, the only way to get a balanced view is to watch both Fox and MSNBC and then do the homework yourself. If you find that you are watching a certain network because it makes you feel better about your own views, then you are already in trouble. I prefer to watch opposing views and then question my own assumptions. Personally, I'd like to see a more libertarian point of view. But that won't happen because both Republicans and Democrats want big government to force their beliefs on all of us. Whether the issue is single payer or abortion/marriage, these parties want government to create laws that support their personal ideologies. As a fiscal conservative, I personally want to make government smaller and have it stay away from nationalized services and forced laws on abortion and marriage. But I'm a very small minority. Remember, analysis shows that both Democrats and Republicans make government larger because neither will go beyond rhetoric when it comes to entitlements and the military.

Fiscalmouthfulloffecalmatter| 2.20.12 @ 9:33PM

"Fox will blatantly lie"

Cite an example.

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 12:32PM

During the 50's, the writers' guild and actors' union blackballed openly communist members. The left never forgot that and they engage in similar behavior with a vengeance. I saw a glimpse of it in a debate with a leftist on a washington post blog where he said that he was amazed I had a job in the DC metro area because they took care of "racist bigots" like me by knowing whether we attended the right parties or had the right friends. It's a crony good-ol'-boy system.

Journalism has several components only one of which is political news coverage. There's boring stuff such as fires, earthquakes, and sports scores. There's advertising which is a product in itself (the Sunday and black Friday edition). These were apolitical ways to make money and the left has seen them drain out leaving them with a core of too many leftist media outlets and too few actual interested readers (most Democrat voters do so out of personal entitlements and not ideology.)

So Foxnews is successful because it's a one stop outlet, the Microsoft if you will, of right wing TV news. I'd like to see another network start up and there's certainly bandwidth in the cable market to do so.

Paul from SA| 2.20.12 @ 11:50AM

I have little respect for people like Pat Buchanan who sit at the same table with liars and to try to discuss issues with them. Same goes for Michael Steele.

When asked to respond to the liberal, the standard answer should be, "You're lying."

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 12:23PM

Pat Buchanan is a white supremacist (Period) and to other white supremacist of course he is NOT a white supremacist (in public). To that same group of charlatans, Pat is not racist, hell nothing is racist, blacks are racist, hispanics are racist, asians are racist, everyone is a racist except those of white innocence; hell people are racist for calling them racist. Victimhood is the new GOP calling card, we once thought that Democrats were victims look at Newt, Palin, Rush, Beck, and now Pat lovers; all victims of the "liberal media", whining on every network they spew their venom. However, viewpoints won't change if you believe Pat Buchanan is NOT a white supremacist. It's like an alcoholic who never thinks they're an alcoholic or drug users who never thinks they are a drug user or a killer who never thinks they have killed. My quibble is not with Pat, my quibble is with those that support his views. It reminds readers of the Klan that lynched people in the south; lynching was only part of the problem, the main problem were the spectators that enjoyed it. NO PUN INTENDED!

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 12:35PM

What political party did the south belong to at the time? The left only REVERSED the discrimination, they didn't end it.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 12:44PM

Really are you really playing this game. Dude, CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSERVATIVES whether they are DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN. Don't play the switcharoo the tree lynchers were definitely CONSERVATIVES. Don't try to play that game as if people are ignorant we understand the evils of Conservatism, we have seen them play out. Now your victims. Party never matters ideology does. The parties don't create a mindset your ideology does. STOP IT. STOP PLAYING THE STUPID GAME. DOESN'T WORK HERE, Buddy! LMAO

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 1:06PM

Er, the left played the switcharoo game and now excuse hate crimes against whites and the only whites still voting leftist are cronies who are government union workers or collaborators, etc. or fools. I suspect you belong in the latter category.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 1:15PM

Frustration does not work...prayer works better. No I am not on the left, because I can't stand democrats either because they are opportunist that have used the minority community for votes, BUT at least the left does not want to exterminate and suppress the minority community. I would agree there is some hate crimes committed against whites, but there has been 300 + years of hate crimes committed against minorities, LGBT community and once again CONSERVATIVES do not want to speak about hate crimes until the crimes are directed towards individuals you feel are like you. I believe you have the right to your opinion but not to your own facts.

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 1:33PM

Your rationalization for "some" hate crimes against whites due to "300+ years of hate crimes committed against minorities" is just that: a rationalization. The lynch mobs usually had rationalizations as well usually involving chivalrous protection of white women. It's funny when these emotional knee-jerk drives collide such as Hillary Clinton supporters colliding with Obama supporters.

Nobody's hands are perfectly clean, but it's the left's whose hands are the most dirty while pretending to be the ones doing the cleaning up.

In the meantime, the typical ideological leftist doesn't want to live among minorities at all. They're nearly all limosine liberals. Hilarious.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 2:12PM

Agreed in the North there are quite a few "limousine liberals"; however, there are more "White sheet" conservatives that despise ANYONE who does not resemble their beliefs, gender, or race. Rationalizations? Whistling at a white woman is not a rationalization for murder. It's a sick act. These were the types of sick acts committed NOT during slavery, but during the time of the GREAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION called JIM CROW. But back to the MAIN POINT of discussion; Pat Buchanan is not the problem, he has the right to be a white supremacist however, those who except and continue the beliefs of racial, ethnic hostility and bigotry are the true hoarders of hatred in this country. God doesn't like Ugly!

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 3:50PM

Actually, most of the gangs that engage in such violence tend to be non-white: the crips, bloods, MS-13, etc. all loyal "progressive"/liberal voters (if they don't yet have a felony record, of course.) Indeed, you equated Jim Crow to Affirmative Action which reveals that the left are not just hypocrites but Orwellian level doublespeakers as well. You've rationalized and attempted to minimalize hate crimes against whites while engaging in a hyperbole about the nobility of opposing "conservativism."

The great paradox of liberal limosine liberalism is that they wish to make the world into Western Europe even as their demographics they're creating, including in Western Europe, will be nothing like their utopia. That's not just hypocrisy, it's insanity.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 6:28PM

I don't oppose conservatism. I ask conservatives to answer the obvious and respect the truth; which is STOP trying to avoid the history of bigoted conservatism. Sure there are conservatives that are not white supremacist, but their are MANY white supremacist that hide within the ranks. STOP trying to pull the switcharoo saying Liberals were the one's historically lynching blacks in the fields (America is NOT STUPID) and STOP defending white supremacist. American's don't ask for a UTOPIA American's ask for a society where they will not be deemed guilty based upon their race or ethnicity. Those gang members you are referring too. How do you know they are liberals? Actually, many gang members hate the LGBT community and they also target minorities. Aren't those conservative gold stars, aren't they pretty much doing the conservative dirty work. You may be surprised who the GANG MEMBERS are voting for; however, we know who the white supremacist are voting for.

PolishKnight| 2.21.12 @ 9:38AM

So this game of yours is to simply call all bad things conservativism even when it's clearly leftists and Democrat party members engaging in such behavior. This is known as a "You're wrong, I'm right" argument. Why won't people who are wrong by definition be reasonable and stop deliberately being wrong? Aren't they stupid?

And there are a lot of people out there like that. It's the classical leftist living in a fantasy world where they are the very epitome of what they claim to oppose but they don't see it since they have a political party on their side. At the time, the lynch mobbers probably thought they were being caring too and that those who opposed them were "bigots" in their own way. How many people wake up thinking: "I'm going to be a bad person today?"

You'll have a right to call the right white supremacists when the leftists are all living in the inner city rather than burning gasoline to drive their limosines to the suburbs while crying about global warming! Hahahahaha!

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 2:46PM

YOUR IN DENIAL. Stop defending white supremacist let me guess you defend pedophiles too; how about serial killers? BTW your last paragraph makes no sense. So, I didn't get your point. HAHA! STOP THE HATE!

LIBERALDROWNINGINDENIAL| 2.21.12 @ 3:46PM

Racists! Bigots! Denialists! I win! Racists! Bigots! Denialists! You lose! Racists! Bigots! Denialists! You Lose! Racists! Bigots! Denialists! I win!

I'm to smart for you're nonsense! Next!

PolishKnight| 2.21.12 @ 4:23PM

At a certain level, Liberaldrowningindenial, I feel sorry for the poor guy. I know a lot like them: They're losers and want to feel important so they want to cheer on the leftist team and stab their fellow white males in the back. They're like George Soros only GS found a way to make money off of stabbing people in the back.

White male leftists are LOSERS! If they had a great government union job or some crony no-show political job, etc. then they wouldn't bother with the ideology at all. Winners like that really don't care about ideology because they're too busy chucking back the champaigne in business class at 30,000 feet (gotta love the aviation industry thinks in miles!) Anyways, the only white male leftists out there who really believe that stuff are LOSERS who haven't woken up yet.

DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 4:42PM

"White male leftist are losers?" You gotta be a George Lincoln Rockwell follower. "LOSERS who haven't woken up yet". Woken up to what? HAHAHAHA! Dude you are nuts. Your not just in denial, your nuts. I don't partially feel bad for you; I truly feel sorry for you because your anger towards minorities is a representation of the lack of what you have downstairs, your jealousy of their success, your hatred for your own lack of success.

PolishKnight| 2.21.12 @ 4:17PM

The last paragraph is quite clear: You can't plausibly engage in accusing the right of racism when the left are a bunch of limosine liberals in love with Sweden and Western Europe which is the continent of white people they like to hate since they can now only win elections in the states by appealing to a non-white racist-entitlement electorate. (whew!) But perhaps you and I both have the same point: It doesn't make sense and you can't see it. It doesn't make sense to trash the USA via white bashing while simultaneously wanting a Swedish paradise.

I don't think you're a troll. You're just a loser who drank too much leftist white-bashing cool aid. If you were a genuine minority such as the Wise Latina then you wouldn't bother talking to me and instead would be cashing in. You're both angry at me for standing in the way of a nonsensical paradise above in addition to your own ideology making you into a chump cheerleader. Get a life. Move out of your mother's basement. Get a girlfriend (good luck with this leftist spiel. The ones who look reasonably human with less than 10 body piercings want a conservative protector male.) Hmm, speaking of that: Most mainstream feminist chicks want guys with money and don't care how the men got it. In the 1800's if they sold slaves, they didn't care. Yet, the feminists and leftists regard these women as oppressed. If they didn't like oppressor brutal men, they wouldn't get so turned on by us!

DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 4:43PM

IN DENIAL.

jppc| 2.20.12 @ 12:38PM

Limp-wristed libtard. Wanting the US to remain a caucasian majority nation, speaking English is not exactly "white supremiscism". If so, then French who want France to remain majority French and Japanese who want Japan to remain Japanese are also "supremicists".

Grow up libtard.
PS - lynching in the deep South was something that was done for centuries, against both blacks and whites. Learn some history beyond what the DNC tells you.

PolishKnight| 2.20.12 @ 1:34PM

And in 50 years, France won't look anything like France anymore which explains the anger and hysteria of modern leftists: When they've won, how will they ask their limosine driver to take them to white suburbs when they don't exist anymore?

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 2:18PM

Phew! Pretty hostile talk. You can drop your hand now "Das Fuhrer"

PolishKnight| 2.21.12 @ 9:40AM

Sounds like you've sputtered out of even a counter argument. Limosine liberals are hypocrites because the whole leftist fantasy utopia agenda is hypocrisy. It's like the radical Islam religion (now voting leftist!) that promises a utopia just as soon as all the infidels are killed and mullahs are in charge of everything. That's their version of "Sweden". Ironically, the direction that Sweden and Western Europe is going is probably the direction of the future. Move to Detroit and enjoy the leftist future today!

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.21.12 @ 2:58PM

WTH are you talking about. HAHAHAHAHA! Your nuts, dude. You use more Fox News, Glen Beck, Jerry Fallwell talking points than I ever heard. "There version of Sweden". What are you saying? OK, your tirade makes ZERO sense. I am sure you say this stuff to your self but to the rest of everyday hard working American's not those receiving filtered Turner Diary talking points you speak of nothing more than unfiltered ignorance. It's clear you are apart of the David Duke wing of the Republican party which is killing off the rational Republicans in America. So, you probably should direct your venom to websites like the National Alliance where your hate can compete with others that hate.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.21.12 @ 3:53PM

Even sheep can tell intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers posting whether as DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER or Balthazar or Diogenes or Orr, Gasm and Associates or jharp or fckewe.

Intellectually 'elite' liberal democrat Markist scab snot bubble sodomizers always reek of ram feces.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Purplegay| 2.21.12 @ 7:02PM

HAHAHAHAHA! Your nuts, sheep. Your sheep don't know nothin fooled you're ZEROE sense tirade your can't tell me from other geniuses who know better. So, you probably should direct you're sheep venom where you're hate can compete with others that have hate like you're hate. You're Das Sheep Fuhrers hate makes ZEROE sense. Its clear you're sheep hate is killing America. Your ZEROS. Bigoted sheep HAHAHAHAHA!

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:05PM

HUH? Who failed to teach you how to write properly? Perhaps you left school before entering third grade? Social promotions hampering you now?

DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 4:44PM

WTH is all of this nonsense. HAHAHAHA!

PolishKnight| 2.21.12 @ 4:38PM

Accusing a right winger of being a drone of foxnews is a stereotypical leftist response. It just never gets old! FYI, I spelled "That's their version of Sweden" correctly, you didn't. Ironically, conservatives are a more diverse group of thinkers than the left whose PC dogma is written by a bunch of spoiled elitist drones at the NYT and then filtered down through ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. and even to SNL where they're lucky to have maybe one funny skit a month nowadays. That's why you're here: Being a leftist is mindnumbingly boring. It's like going to church and hearing the same prayers over and over again.

I made several points about how the left bashes whites even as they prefer to live among them and regard white western Europe as their ideal and you blew it off. You can't acknowledge it because the truth hurts so now you have to live with your subconscious nagging at the back of your mind that your pathetic belief system doesn't make sense. At least church hands out wine and bread!

Regarding the rational Republicans: Rational republicans, by the left's definition, become Democrats. That's what happened with John McCain who appealed to LaRaza. How far did that get him? And the left despises hard working Americans. They worship welfare mothers, government union cronies warming chairs, or corporate welfare recipients cashing in stimulus checks while giving jobs to relatives of Democrat (and Republican) politicians who are friendly to them. In other words, both of us lose but at least I'm under no delusion about it.

Well, both of us "lose" except for one thing: You're just a loser cheering on the left and bashing your own identity group and have nothing to show for it. How pathetic is that? I think if you were a non-white woman, you'd have surely played the victim card by now.

Son, some advice for you: Grow up. Get a Life. Forget politics for a while. Really. There are plenty of dirty, smelly hippies to carry on the cause. Get a good job, find a girlfriend preferably whose not totally covered in tattoos and piercings, and enjoy life a little. For yourself. Then you can come back and trash talk with me later if I'm here. I'll be waiting!

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:06PM

Great reply, P.K.

DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 5:04PM

Maybe people say that to you because it's.......TRUE. I agree with you on one thing I don't believe in being politically correct that is why I refrain from calling you a racist. That's PC. Your more than that, you are clearly a white supremacist that represents the David Duke Wing of the Republican party which is why you constantly defend your fellow SS brethren like Pat Buchanan. Simply calling you and Pat a racist isn't the best description, white supremacist. Your written tirade clearly explains that your goal is the same as those in the National Alliance. It's that simple.

Victim Card? CONSERVATIVES ARE KINGS & QUEENS OF VICTIMHOOD. "The liberal media is being mean to me...The Liberal Media this, liberal media that, whine, whine, whine. Conservatives are always whining about their fantasy of being oppressed in America. And I'm not your son, because my father is not a white supremacist.

albert constantine jr| 2.20.12 @ 12:43PM

I will agree that Pat Buchanan is a racist if you stipulate Sharpton is a racist, Obama is a racist, Holder is a racist, Clinton is a racist, Sotomayor is a racist, etc.

The problem with the casual overuse of a loaded term is that it ceases having meaning after a while.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 12:51PM

Ohhh Mr. Name Caller, clearly that represents your intelligence on issues. WTF, "white supremicism"? say that five times, lol. What's that? Let me define supremacy for you.

[noncount] : the quality or state of having more power, authority, or status than anyone else : the state of being supreme.

Does this help? Pretty simple, Pat Buchanan feels his race is supreme to others.

I know it hurts when White Supremacist are called out, alcoholics often suffer withdrawal and it hurts the same. God is with you through all of your trials and tribulations. He will be with you even when you hate. God Bless you.

albert constantine jr| 2.20.12 @ 2:46PM

If one can't spell "white supremicism" correctly, one should refrain from commenting on anyone's lack of intelligence.

If one uses the word racist at least 8 times in approximately 8 run-on sentences, I don't think it is a sign of intelligence to try to distract if someone calls you on a word you use synonymously throughout your rant.

I haven't called anyone a name, I asked if you would make stipulations.

If I were to call you a name, it would probably be "fckewe", "Orr, Gasm et al" or any of the other monikers you tend to post under, for the sake of clarity.

I also haven't commented on Pat Buchanans views on race or your characterization of same.

I would recommend that you take a remedial reading comprehension course, preferably before your next therapy session. Afterwards, I recommend you learn to distinguish hate and disagreement.

Then, since you've brought God up, I suggest that you ask Him for the strength to stop behaving hatefully, as it oozes from between every word you type.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 6:38PM

Actually...lol if you read a bit yourself you would see I was quoting the loser above. Is your "racist" comment, one of those conservative talking points like "your a racist for calling me a racist". It's obviously a way to distract the reader from your blatant ignorance. My relationship with Jesus Christ is very close that's why I cast my words defending him from the demons that post bigotry such as yourself. Ohh the hate and disagreement argument...I guess this is the conservative talking point "Just because I disagree with the President doesn't mean I'm a racist". The last thing I need is recommendations from individuals that defend the wrath of a white supremacist like Pat Buchanan. However, I do forgive you because you not what you speak of.

albert constantine jr.| 2.20.12 @ 7:31PM

As your comments were directly below mine, I followed the logical conclusion you were addressing your rant to me.

I did later read what you had written below what you wrote, so thank you for answering my questions.

I stand by my remarks and recommendations to you, though, as my original point posted at 12:43 p.m. pointed out that poorly chosen and overused terms cease to have meaning, and your continued casual use emphasizes the point.

I have not sought your forgiveness, and I generally don't try to speak for God (though I occasionally direct a prayer to Him).

My expectation, though, is that if Jesus were to speak, he might ask you to take some time off to reconsider your defense, and offer you some books and pamphlets for the Krishna faith. You'd fit in well with the cultists.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:08PM

"...you not what you speak of?" Tarzan no speak good.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 4:50PM

I don't believe Pat Buchanan is a White Supremacist. Buchanan does believe in the supremacy of Roman Catholic European culture and what's wrong with that. I am an Orthodox Christian who believes in the supremacy of Eastern Orthodox Christian culture. This is no different than a Hindu believing in the supremacy of Hindu Indian culture or a Navajo indian believing in the supremacy of traditional Navajo religion and culture. It is also no different than Western liberal secularists believing in the supremacy of their culture which as we see with MSNBC's decision to fire Pat Buchanan is alive and well. Buchanan's tribalism ought not be feared because except for the Never Never land that is the United States and the West, tribalism is how most of the world operates and always has and always will.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 12:59PM

No i don't necessarily say Sharpton, Clinton, Sotoymayor, etc...are racist. I say Pat Buchanan is a WHITE SUPREMACIST. Pat is not fixated on a color; Pat has a bigger goal in guaranteeing that white people are supreme to others. Al Sharpton is a race baiter yes definitely not a fan of him by any means, similar to Rush Limbaugh. Do i believe Rush is racist; hell no, because he is interested in money. The race he likes is GREEN. So, he says anything that will get you to follow, same with Beck. He is a race baiter which galvanizes people like "JPPC" to tune in to guarantee his advertisers contribute to his cash pot. Very big difference. Pat doesn't care, he is a white supremacist he is endorsed by the likes of the National Alliance. Major difference. He's editorial writings are equivalent to material you would find in the Turner Diaries.

jppc| 2.20.12 @ 1:32PM

Stop your chronic masturbating, libtard.

You need to grow up. There ARE differences in people due to their race, religion, language, culture and if you don't believe that, which as a limp-wristed lefty, as I'm sure you don't, you belong to the lost crowd of lefties, socialists, Marxists, Occupy fools, etc.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 2:15PM

HAHAHA!! You left some out (Leftist, Marxist, Occupy fools...standard Conservative talking points) I'm none of those but you sir are definitely a Neanderthal and may I add a tyrant of terror spreading their fascist white nationalist talking points.

Purplegay| 2.21.12 @ 8:02PM

HAHAHA!! Im just to clever by .5/2 for you terror spreading fascist neenerthal tyrantisoreuses and all you're phixed phaux phox talking points!! HAHAHA!!

DENIALISNTJUSTARIVER| 2.22.12 @ 4:46PM

NO COMMENT.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:43PM

Sharpton is a racist, Obama is a racist, Holder is a racist. So stipulated. Second?

Buchanan is a vicious antisemite. As to his racism, I will leave that to others beter versed. But I do not trust himwith my kids.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:43PM

Sorry. "Better versed."

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 1:12PM

Denial,

Quite a screed you've got there. Heh. Can I trouble you for specific examples of Buchanan's racism, at least what YOU would consider racism?

Now a personal question. Are you a member of the Protected Class, i.e. a minority?

Be honest.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 1:36PM

Sure, here is something to get you started...more to come

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

"This is a country built by white folks" (Buchanan) LMAO!

I guess free labor never contributed?

BTW I would consider the "PROTECTED CLASS" the Majority. Considering the laws that have protected the majority for over 300 years.

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 1:52PM

No one cares a wit about your definition of the term Protected Class. My simple question is are you a member of the Protected Class, i.e. one who - legally - is protected from discrimination against others?

Answer me or let's move on!

Bob Grant| 2.20.12 @ 1:53PM

That would be "by others" ...

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 2:02PM

HAHA! No one cares a wit about your definition about "Protected Class" either but it sounds like you are a part of the class.

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:08PM

"Pat Buchanan is a white supremacist"*

*[citation needed]

Noone| 2.20.12 @ 12:23PM

Just curious, how many liberal commentators does FOX have?

GW| 2.20.12 @ 6:09PM

Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Doug Schoen, Bill Schultz, Ellis Henican, Marc Lamont Hill, Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Robert Reich, Laura Schwartz, Lis Wiehl, Tanya Acker, and even Bill O'Reilly somedays.

greg bachelis | 2.20.12 @ 1:08PM

I'm sorry, but Buchanan had to go. Holocaust denier, racist and bigot that he is. He was denounced by none other than Norman Podhoretz in 1999.
Al Sharpton is in a different category.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:34PM

Mr. Buchanan ws not a Holocaust denier...that is bullshit. Buchanan believes WWII could have been avoided and that the slaughter of Jews could have been avoided as well. He never said the persecution of Jews could have been avoided but he believes the wholesale slaughter could have been averted. 27 million Soviet Citizens perished during WWII. Some were Jews yes but much more were gentile Slavs. How much better would it have been for all the nations involved had WWII been averted somehow.

greg bachelis | 2.20.12 @ 4:20PM

From the Huffington Post:
On these pages today, Menachem Rosensaft, general counsel of the World Jewish Congress and adjunct professor of law at Cornell re-posts an article that previously ran in the New York Daily News, describing the extent to which Pat Buchanan is "enabling Holocaust deniers."

In a March 17, 1990, syndicated column, Buchanan wrote that it would have been impossible for Jews to die in the gas chambers of the Treblinka death camp, and referred to a "so-called Holocaust survivor syndrome," which he described as involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics."

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 5:00PM

Greg show me proof that Buchanan has outright denied the Holocaust? As we know Hitler threw everyone in concentration camps that he didn't like or considered political advesaries and given the amout of Christian Slavs, gypsies and others who died in those camps the Jews cannot claim to be the sole victims of the Holocaust.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:44PM

No, Dimitry. Buchanqan holds that we could have stayed out of WWII, and Britain, as well. How this would have stopped the Holocaust only an imbecile can say.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 6:28PM

So what I said was correct that Buchanan is not by a "Holocaust denier" as Greg suggests.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 7:51PM

So Norman Podhoretz's denouncement is dispositive? You have got to be kidding me. Pod the Elder is a stake holding neocon. You can't possibly believe that his assessment is without bias.

Skeptic All| 2.20.12 @ 1:08PM

There's a diference between being a bigot and pandering to bigotry through dog whistle rhetoric. Apparently, America's preeminent Hitler apologist was a gentleman among his friends, though he like to use code words to assail Jews, Holocaust victims, homosexuals and AIDS victims. There's a direct line between the Germany's Kulturkampf and Buchanan's culture wars.

Jim| 2.20.12 @ 1:08PM

Let's not forget that Pat Buchanan gave us Bill Clinton. He spent $35 a vote in New Hampshire in a quixotic effort to injure George H.W. Bush in 1988 at a time when President Bush could easily have defeated the "seven dwarves." While he didn't have the money to continue much longer, Ross Perot did. And the rest is history.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:17PM

George H.W. Bush...Bill Clinton...What's the difference. They were both globalist free traders who embraced NAFTA as well as foreign interventions that we should have never been involved in. I will say that H.W. was better than his son W., But really there was no significant difference between H.W. Bush and Clinton. Just as you take away differences on social policy and George W. Bush and Barrack Hussein Obama are not much different either. Both were Goldman Sachs men.

Jim| 2.21.12 @ 7:08AM

Ask the families of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United 93 if the 1992 election made a difference.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 2.23.12 @ 12:57AM

I disagree with you Jim because as we saw with his son W. the Bush family is very close to the Saudis and of course Bin Laden's father was a wealthy Saudi Arabian contractor with ties to the Bush family. I don't think anything would have been different. 9/11 would have still happend and don't forget one of the main reasons cited for OBL's declaration of war against the United States in 98 was the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula during and after the first Gulf War.

HTuttle| 2.20.12 @ 1:29PM

To Liberals it's racist to not support free handouts to all minorities. It's as simple as that.

DENIALISNOTJUSTARIVER| 2.20.12 @ 2:04PM

Actually members in CONSERVATIVE district receive the most Handouts in the US. Its a simple as that.

PsychoDad| 2.20.12 @ 9:09PM

[citation needed]

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 1:53AM

Hey, PsychoDad: this is s COMMENT THREAD

If you're interested in seeing if someone has presented a logical case, do the damn research yourself.

Rich D| 2.21.12 @ 11:08AM

OK, this is a comment: You are nuts! Now, do your own research.

Good news| 2.20.12 @ 1:42PM

Glad to hear it. I quit watching msnbc some time back. I got tired of watching a dizzy squirrel roll her eyes around like she was in a eyeball gymnastics contest, sighing and fidgeting like she had a bad case of hemmroids. Joe wasn't any better,best to be said of him would be to think of him as a RINO. Also got wore out of him telling of when he was in the senate. Hell he must be 85 years old to have all the recollections he's blabbed about. Maybe now I can see more of Pat on another channel.

Brian F.| 2.20.12 @ 1:53PM

Don't forget Sharpton's quote, "Now they got pigs out here. You ain't offed one of 'em yet. What I believe in, I do." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.20.12 @ 2:09PM

I'm not a fan of Pat's, however I think his canning from LSDNBC was wrong. So now people aren't allowed to write books outside the scope of their employment at a news channel?

Un-freaking-real.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:13PM

This is now happening to the general public at large. I don't use Facebook because you risk your job if you write things on Facebook that your employer could consider controversial that would reflect badly on them. It's not just Mr. Buchanan its all of us who's First Amendment right to freedom of speech is being threatened and its not always being threatened by the government a lot of times it is being threatened by private corporations

Con Chef (NB) | 2.20.12 @ 4:24PM

I agree & would only make one correction. Those private companies are also now in bed with the gov't. Entities like Google are BALLS DEEP in leftism. Troubling, when you consider all the info they have about as many people as they do.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 5:17PM

Con Chef you are absolutely correct. Another troubling thing is that a lot of FBI databases are actually being sub contracted out to Lockheed Martin. When I had to get my TWIC (Transportation Worker Identification Credential) card to work out of the Port of San Francisco it wasn't the Department of Homeland Security that did the background check or that I cut MY CHECK too it was...guess who? LOCKHEED MARTIN

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:47PM

I do very little on Facebook. I don't necessarily think Pat should have been canned; I don't watch him when he comes on. Indeed, I watch very little Fox, etc. I get NRO/The Corner/Atlas Shrugged/Powerline/City Journal/American Thinker on my Kindle, and read Schlussel and Weasel Zippers routinely, as well as the Morning Jolt. That's enough.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 6:31PM

I'm usually on this or American Conservative Magazine (Pat's magazine). I get my news from different sources. I watch CNN and Fox as well as Russia Today, BBC World and I read Reuters Online. I get to read the London based financial times when commuters leave them at my work.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:12PM

Hello, Sir:

I have read "AC" magazine a number of times, and why I can't say I agree with a lot of what is written there, my larger problem with the magazine is that I read the entire magazine without knowing exactly what it is they want me to believe. It is rather like "Chronicles" in that way. I don't doubt the intelligence of the authors at either magazine, I just wish it was easier to get a fix on what their foundational beliefs are.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 2.23.12 @ 12:46AM

Traditional conservatism or Paleo Conservatism is the foundation for most of the AmConMag authors as it is for Pat Buchanan the founder. That is opposed to the NEO-conservatism that most of today's GOP holds as its foundation.

s solomon| 2.20.12 @ 2:19PM

While it's not surprising that pundits and other inhabitants of the Fourth Estate would speak well of one of their own, the reality is that Buchanan has a career-long history of thinly-veiled racism and anti-Semitism, among other hatreds--irrespective of his alleged personal "decency." One of our country's great freedoms is the ability to articulate such sentiments. He just shouldn't be permitted to do so on the public airwaves. The fact that MSNBC provides the vile Al Sharpton a prominent platform merely shows the channel's hypocrisy. Desperate to find a 6 pm host to boost ratings, they have been willing to try any number of ill-conceived strategies. As long as Griffin is cleaning house, Sharpton should be given a one-way ticket.

I'm a liberal who finds MSNBC's effort to occupy the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from Fox to be pathetic. It's obvious that MSNBC causes heartburn for its NBC mothership--and deservedly so.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:08PM

The ADL's Abe Foxman that called on MSNBC to fire Buchanan is a vile anti-Christian who even demanded that my Church the Russian Orthodox Church should change parts of our age old liturgy because HE viewed parts of the liturgy as anti-semitic. I have no respect for Mr. Foxman or the ADL.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:48PM

Dimitry: you hate Jews. That's obvious.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 6:41PM

No I don't hate Jews. Actually I respect Orthodox Jews very much and I love the music of Mikhail Shufitinsky who wrote the song Evreiisky Portnoy (or Jewish Music Box). I have never had anything against Jews, but Foxman has made it clear he has no respect for traditional Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity both of which he considers anti-semitic and says they must change their liturgies.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 7:30PM

Foxman has also said that the Gospel of John, which conservative Christians believe is the inspired Word of God, is anti-Semitic. Foxman is a PC clown.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:04PM

Pat Buchanan is a great man who's writings helped me find my place in the American political spectrum. I have been a Republican since my 18th birthday in 2000. I voted for George W. Bush twice and up until recently voted a straight Republican ticket every election. During the Bush Administration and ever since I have been completely disgusted with the uber-hawkish foreign policy (including nation building) and the GOP embrace of globalist free trade policies that have gutted our manufacturing base over the last 30 years. Only Buchanan (and now Ron Paul at least on foreign policy) were bringing up these issues within the Republican party.

It's a shame that Pat Buchanan's enemies (who are also the enemies of the First Amendment of the Constitution) were able to put enough pressure on MSNBC to fire Mr. Buchanan.

betwyan| 2.20.12 @ 3:20PM

Was it "uber hawkish" to respond to being attacked, as on 9/11?

If not, then you say Bush was "uber hawkish" for one incident, one action - Iraq?

Is Obama uber hawkish for getting us involved with Libya? And if we see a general war erupt in the Middle East, starting with Iran and Israel, and then many other nations jumping in, Bush will be somewhat vindicated for actually wanting the US to be the "big dog in the neighborhood" in order to prevent said general war.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 3:45PM

It was not only "uber hawkish" but completely stupid to bomb and invade Iraq and depose of its secular leader (Hussien) resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Iraq's ancient Christian community and basically handing Iraq into Iran's Shia sphere of influence all the while creating the conditions necessary for a hotbed of Sunni Wahhabist radicalism (of the type Osama Bin Laden was). It was even more stupid to remain there for over 8 years filling the coffers of Halliburton and Blackwater who were effectively fleecing the American taxpayer for anything and everything the military needed in Iraq

As for Afghanistan...yes I believe our initial military action there was just, but once the Taliban (which harbored Osama Bin Laden) was smashed and the Northern Alliance plus any Pushtun warlords could have divided the nation up as they saw fit and we could have left years ago without wasting American lives and resources. However we stayed and consequently are still there holding up a corrupt puppet government that will fall as soon as we leave.

In the meantime Saudi Arabia has been the biggest exporter of Sunni Islamist terrorism throughout the whole world but they are our allies and we say nothing to them because of cheap oil.

Yes Obama's Libyan war is unconstitutional and shameful and just as hawkish as Bush's Iraq.

betwyan| 2.20.12 @ 4:14PM

Ah "Dimitry" was worried about Haliburton making money........if only "Dimitry" really knew that Obama employs the big, bad, evil Haliburton more than Bush did. lol

"Dimitry" wants that money for social programs, so libs can buy more votes.

"Dimitry", we've been in conflict with Islam since the 1970s. It has nothing to do with Bush or Obama or Clinton or any US President. It is civilizational and it's not going to change any time soon. European nations were against it because they get much of their oil from Iraq (and Iran), were we don't.

Besides, back in in early 2000's, after 9/11, it was a more dangerous time, with threats being broadcast by jihadi groups all over the place. It was probably prudent for Bush to answer back in a strong, forceful way. In fact, some have aruged that the best reason for the Iraq war was to create a "battle-space", a battle ground to purposefully attract Islamic militants, in order to collect and then kill then in one, convenient place. I'd say it worked quite well.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 5:12PM

Listen Jerk...do I support Obama? No. Did I vote for Obama? No. I wrote in Ron Paul because I couldn't hold my nose and vote for John McCain the way I voted for Bush in 2004. So what if I am pro-labor? Buchanan has been a friend to labor on many occasions and has had a lot of support from union members over the years. Am I a liberal...am I a leftist...hell no. Actually I'm probably to the right of you on the political spectrum.

As for the notions of a civilizational war with Islam our nation (the United States of America) has used and continues to use Sunni Wahhabists/Islamists backed by Saudi oil money and Pakistani intelligence to do its dirty work throughout the Middle East. This network was set up to fight the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan war and I believe it exists today as the Sunni Jundullah are being used to fight the Shia Iran.

You obviously are ignorant when it comes to the REALITIES that exist in the Middle East and if creating a "battle space" in Iraq was so important was the ethnic cleansing of nearly 2 million Iraqi Christians necessary. That's what are damned invasion and occupation facilitated. While our troops were guarding oil pipelines Sunni Islamists were bombing Assyrian and Chaldrean Christian Churches and kidnapping young Iraqi Christian women and carrying out all other kinds of attrocities. The blood of those Christians is on the hands of America and its allies just as much as its on the hands of the goddamned Saudi backed Wahhabist scum.

betwyan| 2.20.12 @ 5:46PM

A Paul-bot.....I should have known. "It's the Jews fault, all the Jews fault!".

Crazy Uncle Ron also thinks WWII was "blowback" for US "meddling" in the world.

What a joke Uncle Ron is.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 6:34PM

I am a Buchananite who voted for Paul. Buchanan too was opposed to the Iraq war and questioned the wisdom of leaving US forces in Afghanistan indefinitely. Like Paul, Buchanan is a harsh critic of US foreign policy whether the administration be Republican (like with George W.) or it be Democrat (like with Obama).

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 7:42PM

Ron Paul doesn't think WWII was blowback from US meddling you idiot. I can't speak for Paul, but the non-interventionist take on American involvement in WWII is that we deliberately provoked the Japanese so as to back door us into the War in Europe, a thesis confirmed by the recently posthumously released book by Herbert Hoover. The non-interventionist position is also that WWII was blowback, so to speak, from WWI and the unjust Treaty of Versailles.

Don| 2.21.12 @ 1:34AM

Dimitry, you are wise beyond your years. I am 77, born in the second year of FDR's 1st term, and I admire your good sense at age 29 or 30. I agree with every single point you have made.

Pat Buchannan sees the West committing cultural suicide and has the courage to speak out. The melding of Greco-Roman civilization and Judaeo-Christian theology and philosophy are responsible for all the things we treasure most in Western Civilization: human rights, science, respect for women, civil liberty, etc. If leftists knew history, they would know this.

Leftists are children of the Enlightenment and Rousseau's Romanticism, the forerunners of all the murderous totalitarian movements of recent history. Like Diderot, they despise Christianity, and have established secular religions, fascism, communism, oneworldism, all leading to an end of what made America great and special.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:22PM

Hmm..melding...different from suicide??

I agree with you on Rousseau, but I doubt on in a thousand Americans have even heard of him. Do we follow his dictums? What are they? How did they cause secular religions that caused communism, etc.? I don't know if you are right or wrong, but I do know that you haven't demonstrated the truth of your beliefs in the least.

Occam's Tool| 2.20.12 @ 5:49PM

"whose writings" Dimitry.

Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 2.20.12 @ 6:38PM

Pat Buchanan's writings which I first read in the New Oxford Review when I was attending the Tridentine Latin Mass at St. Margaret Mary's in Oakland, California. The NOR newsletter was readily available at the Church which is in communion with Rome, but offers the Latin Mass daily. That was when I was still Roman Catholic before I converted to Russian Orthodoxy.

clawhammerjake| 2.20.12 @ 4:08PM

My guess is the truth is far less sinister than some readers have posted. My guess is PB was canned because he was on a news program saying essentially the same thing, essentially the same way a little too often. Consumers of news want news, not a rehash of 70s, 80s, 90s broadcast notes. A pleasing personality is irrelevant.

betwyan| 2.20.12 @ 4:29PM

Tell me, where and when have you ever heard some ideas like Buchanan's? Do any, repeat, any, commentators in the MSM talk about things such as keeping the US Caucasian majority? English language? About deporting illegal aliens and actually reducing legal immigration? Is there anyone who expresses those views in the MSM? I submit the majority of Americans share the side of those views/issues I expressed above with Buchanan, yet they are never mentioned in the media.

With Beck gone, now Buchanan gone, all we are left with is socialist views (Democrats) and moderate liberal views (GOP).

clawhammerjake| 2.20.12 @ 4:49PM

Please excuse me, I expressed myself badly. What I meant was BP has been essentially repeating himself. The news business favors new ideas, new slants, new faces. Most news organizations that thrive find ways to introduce those.

darcy| 2.21.12 @ 3:37AM

[C]lawhammerjake, you might want to check out the recent story over at the Daily Caller relating the successful efforts of Media Matters to silence the right, unless, of course, you've already done so -- though I doubt it given your 4:08pm post.

Rickey | 2.20.12 @ 5:00PM

I want to read this book. With Obama in office, the constitution is being trampled on. I really like Pat Buchanan. Maybe he will go work for Fox, a network that actually reports the news, and believes in free speech. You may not believe in what he says in the book, but always defend his right to say it. I always look forward to hearing pat talk on the PBS channel every Sunday morning at 11:30 am

Rickey | 2.20.12 @ 5:09PM

There is nothing in the constitution that says the government is suppose to feed people. Welfare meant to provide safety for people with the armed forces, not food stamps. Read your constitution libs. I read it a lot. Obama has to go . either through impeachment, or the nov. elections.

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 7:48PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 6:51PM

"Remaining on the network is Al Sharpton, whose denunciations of "white interlopers" and "diamond merchants" helped provoke violence against Freddy's Fashion Mart and the Jewish communities of Crown Heights. You will search Buchanan's oeuvre in vain for anything approaching Sharpton at his most hateful."

Yes, but Sharpton has admitted his error.

You will search Buchanan's oeuvre in vain for anything approaching such an admission from Buchanan.

Besides, National Review beat MSNBC to the punch 22 years ago:

"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament." -- William F. Buckley

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 7:32PM

Buckley was sucking up to the neocon crowd when he wrote that, as he was when he sacked Sobran.

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 7:45PM

No, Buckley was responding directly to the content of Buchanan's writings and public statements. Buckley wanted to keep his friends Pat and, especially, Sobran, with NR. But Buckley couldn't ignore the evidence. Those guys provided the rope for their hangings.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 8:10PM

OK. I get it. Say anything against the party line on Israel and get canned.

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 8:20PM

If his comments had been limited to Israel, you would have a point. They weren't. He has criticized "jews" too.

Red Phillips | 2.21.12 @ 6:07PM

So mere "criticism" (your word) of Jews qualifies one as an anti-Semite? Well isn't that convenient.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:24PM

Blah, blah, blah. If Buchanan had never uttered a word on Isreal, he'd still be a kook. The shocking thing is not that he was fired, but that he was ever hired in the first place.

Paul| 2.20.12 @ 7:48PM

I completely disagree with Buchanan ideologically, but I will say that he has always seemed to be a rare honest actor in his political commentary and was very upfront about his agenda.

That said, the man is clearly stuck in the 1950s with respect to race and ethnicity. His 1992 speech at the Republican Convention, in which he used the Rodney King riots as his central theme was shameless and disgusting, as are his assertions that the decline of the United States is the result of miscegenation, which I'm sure will be the central theme of his book. The decline of the United States is simply the result of more competition on the global scale. After WWII the U.S. represented 50% of the world's GDP, largely because Europe was in shambles. Did Buchanan really think it was possible that 4% of the world's population could control 50% of the wealth forever?

I also read the Atlantic article the author mentioned some time ago, and couldn't believe that the Atlantic let something that baseless and stupid onto the pages of their magazine. The author of that article never really defines exactly what "white culture" is, but seems to feel comfortable making the case that it is in decline, anyway. It's no wonder Buchanan was a fan.

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 8:16PM

Buchanan's '92 Convention speech was the best piece of political oratory since Bryan's Cross of Gold speech and raised the Republican Party's poling numbers immediately afterwards. It was only later revisionist hand-wringing that re-wrote the narrative about that speech. You are a PC clown.

I agree that some of the US's relative decline was inevitable.

Sean| 2.20.12 @ 8:33PM

I was a local Buchanan campaign manager in 1992, but I agreed even then that the speech was far too strident.

As for GOP's polling: look at demographics, smart guy. Bashing minorities is becoming an even worse recipe for political success than it has been for the last few decades. Buchanan is conservatism's past, not its future. (Assuming it has one.)

Red Phillips | 2.20.12 @ 9:30PM

Demographics is EXACTLY why Buchanan has been right all along, smart guy. The changing demographics brought about by mass immigration is why halting it is an existential issue for the GOP and conservatism as we know it. Current demographic trends doom the GOP at the national level. Any Republican or "conservative" who supports current levels of immigration obviously can't do simple math.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 1:33AM

"The changing demographics brought about by mass immigration is why halting it is an existential issue for the GOP and conservatism as we know it."

Unless you believe that "all men are created equal." In that case, you look at the demographic changes and say: "this is where the world is going, and this isn't the kind of thing that people can stop.

Conservatism is not about using the government to change society to fit some peoples' image. Conservatives are supposed to see the world as it actually is. Which is to say: becoming less white.

Deal with it. No government program is going to stop it anyway.

Don| 2.21.12 @ 2:00AM

Sean, Sealing our borders to illegal entry and having sensible quotas for legal immigrants would stop it. Countries that want to keep their demographics stable do it all over the world. Try becoming a citizen of Norway or Switzerland, Japan or Taiwan.

It's not inevitable if we have the will to do it. You sound so willing to surrender; unless it is you are one of those lefties who despise the America that most of us love, like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who told the Egyptians that the constitution of South Africa is preferable to the American Constitution.

darcy| 2.21.12 @ 3:47AM

Ted Kennedy poo-pooed the idea that his 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act would change America -- he lied. The browning of America has been by design; the importation of third-worlders, by design; the diluting of our Western culture, by design. Only an ostrich or a leftist could fail to see this is not good for the perpetuation of the country bequeathed to us by our Founders. The leftist, of course, will see but cheer on the destruction.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 2:47PM

The "browning of America"? I'm always amazed at the blithe, casual racism in the coments section of any conservative site. This is a major reason why I, along with a lot of others, can't call myself a "conservative" any more.

"All men are created equal," you small-minded bigot. No exceptions.

Red Phillips | 2.21.12 @ 6:20PM

All men are created equal in a certain metaphysical sense. All men are equally guilty of Adam's sin and all are equally in need of a savior. But what is actually self-evident is that men are not created equal in a real sense and such blank slate nonsense is both naive and rank liberalism and no amount of quoting nice sounding platitudes will make it otherwise. What Jefferson was most likely attempting to say was that Englishmen in the Colonies were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen in England. It is egalitarian ideologues who have attempted to make that saying meaning something it wasn't intended to mean. All you have to do is look at the grossly inegalitarian society that Jefferson inhabited to know he didn't mean what you are implying he meant.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 2:44PM

"Sealing our borders to illegal entry and having sensible quotas for legal immigrants would stop it."

Central to the conservative critique of the "planning mentality" is humility regarding the ability of government to change human nature. I observe that people come to this country because they believe they can have a better life here. I also observe that wanting a better life is something no government will ever be able to legislate away.

Therefore, it is not at all reasonable to conclude that a big government program (no, really: that's what it would be) would actually "solve" this problem.

As for Supreme Court Justices and their love for our Constitution, here's qa quote from Justice Scalia, taken as out-of-context as your quote from Ginsberg:

"The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better."

Don| 2.21.12 @ 3:29PM

Sean, We all know that Scalia went on to say that the Soviet bill of rights was never implemented.

However, Ginsberg's comments were not qualified. She went on to say that these other constitutions provided greater rights through their judiciaries.

And enforcing our laws that forbid illegal immigration does not mean Big Government. It means enforcing our laws.

And finally, desiring to remain a country with the same culture in which it was founded, ie. Western European Christian culture which informed the fabric of free society, is not shameful. Every people has a right to preserve itself. Immigrants who blend into this ethos have always been welcome. Diversity is fine; but we are headed towards a balkinized nation in the next 50 years or so. Look at Europe where Muslims are demanding Sharia law. Look at the secularists who seek to destroy religion. Look at the liberals who despise our constitution.

If you prefer an open bordered, one world amalgam ruled by something like the United Nations, that's your choice; but understand, then you become my enemy as surely as the foreign enemies I fought for my country.

I

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 3:47PM

"And enforcing our laws that forbid illegal immigration does not mean Big Government. It means enforcing our laws."

Consider this re-write: "And enforcing our laws that forbid the reading of the Bible does not mean Big Government. It means enforcing our laws."

See the problem here? "Big government" operates almost exclusively by "enforcing laws." You don't get to make an exception to your opposition to big government because you really want the result of a big government program to come to fruition. Either "big government solutions" can work, or they can't.

I fought for my country too, alongside people from Puerto Rico and several foreign countries. My experience in Iraq was that if we didn't have a bunch of Muslims who could speak Arabic, we would have been blind to the situation on the ground and who knows how many thousands more would have been killed.

Muslims can demand Sharia law all they want. The same laws that prevented Mormons from adjudicating their community disputes by religious law in the 19th Century still apply today. Not all of Europe has that precedent. So good news! You can stop worrying about Sharia Law! It will never come to this country!

Paul| 2.21.12 @ 8:21PM

"Demographics is EXACTLY why Buchanan has been right all along, smart guy. The changing demographics brought about by mass immigration is why halting it is an existential issue for the GOP and conservatism as we know it. Current demographic trends doom the GOP at the national level. Any Republican or "conservative" who supports current levels of immigration obviously can't do simple math."

So conservatives oppose government regulations, unless stringent enforcement of those regulations result in a higher percentage of the vote for conservatives in the next election? How perverse is that? If conservatives spent half as much time trying to reach out to these groups as they do trying to screw them over, they may actually find that many of those immigrants have natural conservative tendencies-- particularly those from Latin America. (In fact, that conservatives have been slow to realize this has been a tremendous gift to the Democratic Party)

Further, immigration is NOT an existential threat to western society, as Buchanan claims, because about 40% or so of those immigrants come from Latin America anyway, which, last time I checked was comprised of Western, Christian societies. About 25% of them come from Mexico. Many of those people identify as white.

So let's get down to the nitty gritty of this thing-- the big problem that anti-immigration activists have, is that Americans in 2112 will be a little more tanned than Americans in 2012-- and the people who have a problem with immigration aren't concerned about the propagation of Western Culture (which will continue for several hundred years with these demographic trends-- in the U.S. at least), they're concerned about the propagation of slightly darker skin pigmentation which they associate with cognitive and cultural inferiority. And we have a word for that: racism. It's as simple as that.

That said, I actually find Buchanan's brand of Paleoconservatism to be appealing in almost as many ways as I find it repellant. He's way off the mark on race and ethnicity, but Buchanan has always had interesting things to say about foreign policy as well as trade policy.

The "dog whistle racism," however, in Buchanan's case, has never been particularly subtle. It doesn't take much "reading into things" to see his bigotry, and if you couldn't even see it in the '92 convention speech, of all places, then you either don't want to see it, or are simply incapable of doing so. Either way, I feel sorry for you.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:26PM

WJ Bryan was a populist kook. The "cross of gold" argument was and is absurd.

Red Phillips | 2.22.12 @ 2:01AM

I wasn't arguing in favor of the content of Bryan's speech. I was just acknowledging that it was great oratory. He won the nomination on that speech alone. Although regarding the content, I think it is note worthy that you call Bryan's call for free coinage of silver populist kookery. I guess it is safe to assume then that you oppose the Fed and support sound money.prp

Black & Support Buchanan| 2.20.12 @ 8:05PM

As a black foreign born scientist and medical student and hospital volunteer, since coming to the US, I have followed Mr. Robertson from CNN to MSNBC and PBS.

While I do not always agree with his parsing of some issues, I will continue to applaud his honesty about the inferiority of Black Americans and the decaying of America via 3rd world immigration policies.

All other foreign born people of colour (hues of vanilla, yellow and chocolate) understand hard work and preservation of America's culture. The so-called "african Americans" have shamed America, and its decline can be found in black convictions, illiteracy, teen pregnancy, culturally, and dragging down the US economy.

Black Americans have had the most support from their emancipation from slavery to the welfare state America provides them today. Yet Black Americans fail to excel in academics, science and mathematics, performing last among all other foreign born people of colour.

I look forward to seeing Mr. Robertson on another media platform or on another channel.

Art| 2.20.12 @ 9:12PM

Buchanan is a Jew hater. Simple as that.

POST American| 2.20.12 @ 10:36PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

GE (Globalism and EUGENICS) has long
owned NBC

The Rothchilds have always owned FT
and Reuters

The BBC has ALWAYS been a tool of the
Oxford Fabian establishment

The White House itself is subsidizing
the major networks

And, NOW, disclosed that Bill Gates has been
paying off major media on BOTH sides of
the Atlantic, for ages, to air brush
his horrific capstone EUGENICS age-enda

-TRULY, aleternative media is the ONLY
media.

ALEX JONES ----------IS-----------THE PRESS

DRUDGE REPORT----IS--------THE SURVEY

ALAN WATT-----------IS-----THE CONSCIENCE

All else is sawdust n' lipstick and mind control.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:27PM

Good grief, take your medicine and go to bed.

Balthazar| 2.21.12 @ 1:17AM

When exactly is Buchannan the Fraud going to tell us all WHO the NEXT PRESIDENT will be? he has done nothing biblical in his life except follow that old time religious tradition of hoodwinking millions in donations from easily decieved marks with his sideshow carnival barking sermons.

jimbeaux| 2.21.12 @ 10:28PM

Good for you, sir. Buchanan drove a Mercedes, until he discovered he could demagogue about America while driving an American made car.

Delmar Jackson| 2.21.12 @ 7:57AM

I am a democrat,environmmetalist and mostly liberal, who find pat Buchanans focus on massive immigartaion, unfair one sided trade policy, and our troops sent foolishly overseas in harms way for no reason, a beacon of light in an insane political world.

Sure, I disagree with pat on social issues, but when we become a 3rd world Mexifornia driven by massive immigration, or go broke sending our troops in harms way like North korea or eastern europe, or lose all our industry through one sided trade, all of those social issues will seem quaint.
mr Antle did a great job, wil have to read him more often.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 3:55PM

You're getting your Pats confused.

Sean| 2.21.12 @ 3:55PM

(That was supposed to be in reply to Balthazar)

POST American| 2.21.12 @ 11:51PM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

"America better watch it or in
a couple of decades we're going
to be a minstrel show ---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985
(the heyday of the
Ray-gun 'revolution')

---------------------A DONE DEAL-----------------------

---The Bushes ---Rockefellers ---Clintons
---Gores ---Gingrichs ----McCains ---Kissingers
and Brzezinskis ---WERE THERE---.

-----------WHY are they STILL here??????----------

Andrew| 2.25.12 @ 3:22PM

Buchanan's critics are the real fascists.

POST American| 2.25.12 @ 11:49PM

-------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE---------------------

NIXON-----MAO 1972

The Rockefeller CNP front op
--'Pat' 'Bee--YOU--cannon' ---was there!

He's NEVER done the neccessary full 180
on the nature of this TREASON.

He's even dissed little Korea ---and laid endless
ground, apologies, smoke & mirrors and
DIS---traction for --OUR-- U.S. taxpayer
empowered and unwritten RED China
'mere--ICK--CULL'.

FUKISHIMA burns----

9 out of 10 nuke plants here are leaking----

GMO food and CHEM-trials saturate us----------

MANDATORY injections are on the way-----------

----------CRIMINAL TOTAL EUGENICS-------------
------------------TOTALLY TAX FREE-----------------
--------------------IS UNFOLDING-----------------------

------------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN-------------

What more can we say?

NO time for tears for Buchanan
or any of the other FAKE OPS of
yesteryear.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Another Perspective

The United States of El Norte

May 24, 2013 | Larry Thornberry

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

May 23, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

The Other Gosnells

May 22, 2013 | Jordan Gonzalez

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

May 21, 2013 | Lars Walker

Stifle This, Mr. President

May 16, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/20/crossfired

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|29 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|92 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|96 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|36 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

We Are Not as Nice as You

F.H. Buckley | 7:50PM

Amanda Bynes Joins the Long List of Young Stars in Trouble

Benjamin Brophy | 2:49PM

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.