Requiem for a Grand Old Party
Friday - May 10, 2013 at 12:39 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Has the bell begun to toll for the GOP?
The question arises while reading an analysis of Census Bureau statistics on the 2012 election by Dan Balz and Ted Mellnik.
One sentence in their Washington Post story fairly leaps out:

“The total number of white voters actually decreased between 2008 and 2012, the first such drop by any group within the population since the bureau started to issue such statistics.”
America’s white majority, which accounts for nine in 10 of all Republican votes in presidential elections, is not only shrinking as a share of the electorate, but it is declining in numbers, as well.

The Balz-Mellnik piece was primarily about the black vote.
Sixty-six percent of the black electorate turned out, to 64 percent of the white electorate. Black turnout in 2012 was higher by 1.7 million than in 2008. Hispanic turnout rose by 1.4 million votes.

But from 2008 to 2012, the white vote fell by 2 million.
This is the crisis of the Grand Old Party:
Minorities, peoples of color — Hispanic, black, Asian — gave 80 percent of their votes to Obama. And while the minorities’ share of the electorate was 26 percent in 2012, minorities constitute 36.3 percent of the population. And their share of both the electorate and the population is inexorably rising.

Obama won only 39 percent of White America, lowest ever of any victorious presidential candidate. But he did not need any more white votes, when he was carrying people of color 4 to 1.
Any good news in the Census Bureau report for the GOP?

Only this: The tremendous turnout of black Americans in 2012 was surely due to Obama’s being under ferocious attack and in peril of being repudiated. Black folks turned out in record numbers to rescue the first black president. That situation will not recur in 2016.

Yet the bad news for the Republican Party does not cease.
While the total Hispanic vote rose by 1.4 million between 2008 and 2012, some 12 million eligible Hispanics did not bother to vote. And when one considers that Romney lost Hispanics 71-27, any Democratic effort to get out the Hispanic vote is going to be problematic for the GOP.

Only 48 percent of eligible Asians voted. But when they did, they went 70 percent Democratic. Asians’ numbers, too, are growing, and as more go to the polls, the GOP crisis deepens.
The Republican response to this gathering disaster?

Led by Sens. Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republicans are pushing for amnesty and “a path to citizenship” for the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens in the country today.
Who are these folks? Perhaps half are Hispanic, but 90 percent are people of color who, once registered, vote 4-to-1 Democratic. One would not be surprised to hear that the Senate Democratic Caucus had broken out into chants of “Go, Marco, Go!”

Setting aside the illegals invasion Bush 41 and Bush 43 refused to halt, each year a million new immigrants enter and move onto a fast track to citizenship. Between 80 and 90 percent now come from the Third World, and once naturalized, they vote 80 percent Democratic.

This brings us back around to the Electoral College.
After Richard Nixon cobbled together his New Majority, the GOP carried 49 states in 1972 and in 1984, 44 states in 1980 and 40 in 1988. In four elections — 1972, 1984, 1988 and 2004 — the Republican Party swept all 11 states of FDR’s “Solid South.”

Such were the fruits of that evil Southern Strategy.
But when conservatives urged Bush 1 to declare a moratorium on legal immigration in 1992 and build a security fence, the politically correct Republican establishment fought tooth and nail to keep the idea out of the platform.
So, where are we?

Eighteen states, including four of the seven mega-states — California, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania — have gone Democratic in six straight elections. Two others, Florida and Ohio, have gone Democratic twice in a row. And white folks are now a minority in the last mega-state, Texas.

In Ohio, which produced seven Republican presidents, more than any other state, Republicans are dropping out, and may be dying out.
“Eight years ago, blacks and whites voted at about the same rate (in Ohio),” write Balz and Mellnik. In 2008, “the participation rate for whites dropped to 65 percent, while the rate for blacks rose to 70 percent. Last November, the turnout rate among whites fell to 62 percent, while the rate for blacks ticked up to 72 percent.”

From these Census figures, white folks are losing interest in politics and voting. Yet, whites still constitute three-fourths of the electorate and nine in 10 Republican votes.
Query: Is the way to increase the enthusiasm and turnout among this three-fourths of the electorate for the GOP to embrace amnesty and a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal foreign aliens?
Or is it to demand the sealing of America’s borders against any and all intruders?
Just asking.

These might be related:
1. A Grand Old Party in Panic
2. Is GOP Still a National Party?
3. Requiem for a Patriot
4. The Sydney Carton Party
5. Tea Party vs. War Party?
6. The Balkanization of Barack’s Party
7. Is the GOP Becoming a War Party?
8. Is a Tea Party Triumph at Hand?
9. Tea Party’s Winning Hand
10. America’s Party

未分類 | Comments(0) | Trackback(0)


Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?
Tuesday - May 7, 2013 at 2:16 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week, several polls came out assessing U.S. public opinion on intervention in Syria.
According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by 4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1. Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000 dead.

A CBS/New York Times poll found that by 62-to-24 Americans want to stay out of the Syrian war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that by 61-to-10 Americans oppose any U.S. intervention.
But the numbers shift when the public is asked if it would make a difference if the Syrian regime used poison gas. In that case, opposition to U.S. intervention drops to 44-to-27 in Reuters/Ipsos.

Yet on the Sunday talk shows and cable news, the hawks are over-represented. To have a senator call for arming the rebels and U.S. air strikes is a better ratings “get” than to have on a senator who wants to stay out of the war.
In that same CBS poll, however, the 10 percent of all Americans who say they follow the Syrian situation closely were evenly divided, 47-to-48, on whether to intervene.

The portrait of America that emerges is of a nation not overly interested in what is going on in Syria, but which overwhelmingly wants to stay out of the war.
But it is also a nation whose foreign policy elites are far more interventionist and far more supportive of sending weapons to the rebels and using U.S. air power. From these polls, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that the Beltway elites who shape U.S. foreign policy no longer represent the manifest will of Middle America.

America has not gone isolationist, but has become anti-interventionist. This country does not want its soldiers sent into any more misbegotten adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, and does not see any vital national interest in who comes out on top in Syria.
But who is speaking up for that great silent majority? Who in the U.S. Senate is on national TV standing up to the interventionists?
Who in the Republican Party is calling out the McCainiacs?

Another story that came out this weekend, smothered by news of Israeli air strikes on Syrian military installations and missile depots, might cool elite enthusiasm — and kill any public desire to intervene.

“Syrian Rebels May Have Used Sarin Gas,” ran the headline in Monday’s New York Times. Datelined Geneva, the story began:
“United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical workers indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said Sunday.”

The U.N. commission has found no evidence that the Syrian army used chemical weapons. But Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general and a commission member, stated:
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.

“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels.”
In short, the war criminals may be the people on whose behalf we are supposed to intervene. And if it was the rebels who used sarin gas, and not the forces of President Bashar Assad, more than a few questions arise that need answering.

For just two weeks ago, the White House informed Congress:
“Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin.”

A clamor then arose demanding Obama make good on his threat that the Syrian regime’s use of poison gas would cross a “red line” and be a “game changer,” calling forth “enormous consequences.”

If the Syrian military did not use sarin, but the rebels did, who in the U.S. intelligence community blew this one? From whom did U.S. agencies get their evidence that sarin had been used by Damascus? Were we almost suckered by someone’s latest lies about weapons of mass destruction into fighting yet another unnecessary war?
When allegations of the Syrian government’s use of sarin arose, many in Congress, especially in the Republican Party, denounced Obama for fecklessness in backing off of his “red line” threat.

It now appears that Obama may have saved us from a strategic disaster by not plunging ahead with military action. And the question should be put to the war hawks:
If Assad’s use of sarin should call forth U.S. air strikes, ought not the use of sarin by the rebels, if confirmed, cause this country to wash its hands of those war criminals?

These might be related:
1. Their War, Not Ours
2. Goading Gullible America Into War
3. Syria’s Insurrection Is Not America’s War
4. Obama’s War
5. Dress Rehearsal for a Mideast War?
6. A Community Organizer Goes to War
7. Is the GOP Becoming a War Party?
8. Make Congress Vote on War on Iran
9. Negotiations — or War With Iran?
10. Was Obama Stampeded Into War?

未分類 | Comments(0) | Trackback(0)


The Pope and Godless Capitalism
Friday - May 3, 2013 at 2:24 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan
“This is called slave labor,” said Pope Francis.
The Holy Father was referring to the $40 a month paid to apparel workers at that eight-story garment factory in Bangladesh that collapsed on top of them, killing more than 400.
“Not paying a just wage … focusing exclusively on the balance books, on financial statements, only looking at personal profit. That goes against God!”

The pope is describing the dark side of globalism.
Why is Bangladesh, after China, the second-largest producer of apparel in the world? Why are there 4,000 garment factories in that impoverished country which, a few decades ago, had almost none?

Because the Asian subcontinent is where Western brands – from Disney to Gap to Benetton – can produce cheapest. They can do so because women and children will work for $1.50 a day crammed into factories that are rickety firetraps, where health and safety regulations are nonexistent.
This is what capitalism, devoid of a conscience, will produce.

Rescuers at the factory outside Dhaka have stopped looking for survivors, but expect to find hundreds more bodies in the rubble.
The Walt Disney Co., with sales of $40 billion a year, decided – after an apparel plant fire in November took the lives of 112 workers – to stop producing in Bangladesh. “The Disney ban now extends to other countries, including Pakistan,” says the New York Times, “where a fire last September killed 262 garment workers.”

Not long ago, the shirts, skirts, suits and dresses Americans wore were “Made in the USA” – in plants in the Carolinas, Georgia and Louisiana, where the lower wages, lighter regulations and air conditioning that came after World War II had attracted the factories from New England.

The American idea was that the 50 states and their citizens should compete with one another fairly. The feds set the health and safety standards that all factories had to meet, and imposed wage and hour laws. Some states offered lower wages, but there was a federal minimum wage.

How did we prevent companies from shutting down here and going to places like today’s Bangladesh to produce as cheaply as they could – without regard for the health and safety of their workers – and to send their products back here and kill the American factories?
From James Madison to the mid-20th century, we had a tariff.

This provided revenue for the U.S. government to keep other taxes low and build the nation’s infrastructure. Tariffs prevented exploiters of labor from getting rich here on sweatshops abroad.
Tariffs favored U.S. companies by letting them compete for free in the U.S. market, while a cover charge was placed on foreign goods entering the USA. Foreign producers would pay tariffs for the privilege of competing here, while U.S. companies paid income taxes.

Foreigners had to buy a ticket to the game. Americans got in free.
After all, it’s our country, isn’t it?

But in the late 20th century, America abandoned as “protectionism” what Henry Clay had called The American System. We gave up on economic patriotism. We gave up on the idea that the U.S. economy should be structured for the benefit of America and Americans first.
We embraced globalism.

The ideological basis of globalism was that, just as what was best for America was a free market where U.S. companies produce and sell anywhere freely and equally in the U.S., this model can be applied worldwide.
We can create a global economy where companies produce where they wish and sell where they wish.

As one might expect, the big boosters of the concept were the transnational corporations. They could now shift plants and factories out of the high-wage, well-regulated U.S. economy to Mexico, China and India, then to Bangladesh, Haiti and Cambodia, produce for pennies, ship their products back to the U.S., sell here at the same old price, and pocket the difference.

As some who were familiar with the decline of Great Britain predicted, this would lead inexorably to the deindustrialization of America, a halt to the steady rise in U.S. workers’ wages and standard of living, and the enrichment of a new class of corporatists.

Meanwhile, other nations, believing yet in economic nationalism, would invade and capture huge slices of the U.S. market for their home companies, their “national champions.” The losers would be the companies that stayed in the USA and produced for the USA, with American workers.

And so it came to pass. U.S. real wages have not risen in 40 years.
In the first decade of the century, America lost 5 million to 6 million manufacturing jobs, one in every three we had, as 55,000 factories closed.

Since Bush 41 touted his New World Order, we have run trade deficits of $10 trillion – ten thousand billion dollars! Everybody – the EU, China, Japan, Mexico, Canada – now runs a trade surplus at the expense of the U.S.
We built the global economy – by gutting our own.

These might be related:

1. Enron and the Decline of Capitalism
2. The Dog Days of Capitalism
3. A Godless Party Expels the Creator
4. Pope Francis — Against the West?
5. Vulture Capitalism or Populist Demagoguery?
6. Scalia v. the Pope: Who’s Right on the Death Penalty?
7. How Capital Crushed Labor
8. Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
9. Now Korea Is Cleaning Our Clock
10. The Chickens of Globalization Come Home to Roost

未分類 | Comments(0) | Trackback(0)


Who Is Winning the Gun War?
Friday - April 12, 2013 at 3:55 pm

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Attacks from abroad — Pearl Harbor, 9/11 — have united us.
Yet domestic atrocities lately seem only to deepen our divisions.
The bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was seized upon to savage government critics like Rush Limbaugh.

After the murder of six innocents, including a 9-year-old girl, and the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and a dozen others in Tucson, Ariz., by a certifiable lunatic, Sarah Palin was charged with moral complicity.

The slaughter of 20 first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., put the National Rifle Association in the media cross hairs. With the massacres at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood, Tucson and Newtown are now the primary exhibits in the prosecution case for the disarming of America.

Are the gun controllers winning? They have surely made gains.
Maryland, New York, Connecticut and Colorado have outlawed high-capacity magazines used in semiautomatic rifles and pistols. All four have outlawed all versions of the AR-15 rifle used in Newtown. All have imposed background checks on all gun purchasers.

Maryland has gone further. According to The Washington Post, Maryland’s law “would force gun buyers to provide fingerprints and undergo classroom training, target practice and background checks to obtain a license to buy a firearm. No state had sought to impose a licensing requirement in nearly 20 years.”

To make licensing and fingerprinting a condition of buying a gun seems a prima facie violation of the Second Amendment.
At the federal level, the going has been tougher for the gun controllers. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have introduced a bill to require background checks on all gun purchases on the Internet and at gun shows.
Yet Harry Reid has warned that any attempt to outlaw th
e AR-15, the most popular rifle now selling in America, or limit magazines to 10 rounds might not carry 40 votes, let alone the 60 senators needed to stop a filibuster.
So who is winning this ideological and cultural war?

Measured by media coverage, the gun controllers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is treated with a deference Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America will never know.
But measured by wins and losses, LaPierre and Pratt seem to be holding their own.

Polls show support for new gun laws dropping steadily. And there has been an explosion in sales of AR-15s and high-capacity magazines. Makers of the rifles cannot fill back orders. A number of Americans seem so fearful of new restrictions on their gun rights they are stocking up on weapons and ammunition as though the revolution were at hand.

Going back further, gun sales have soared in recent years. According to CNS News, there have been 70 million FBI background checks for gun purchases since February 2009.
In the last two decades, many states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons and reduced the number of sites where weapons may not be carried.

Gun manufacturers like Beretta in Maryland and Colt in Connecticut are talking about moving to more friendly states.
Another problem the gun controllers seem unable to overcome is the suspicion they are not being honest about their ultimate goal — and that goal is a place far beyond having criminal background checks.

What is behind the suspicion?
How many gun controllers who today profess their love of and loyalty to the Second Amendment spoke out against the new Maryland law that requires fingerprints and licensing?

How many said Gov. Martin O’Malley had gone too far?
How many spoke out against the infamous Washington, D.C., gun law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 2007 Heller decision? How many would object to fastening something like that gun law on the entire nation?

Under that law, city residents were forbidden to own handguns, semiautomatics or any unregistered weapon. Only guns registered before 1976 were permitted to private citizens, and guns kept in the home had to be “unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.”

Law-abiding citizens were left naked to a criminal class in a city then known as the murder capital of America.
Joe Biden might call gun rights militants the “black helicopter crowd.” But if Second Amendment folks fear that outlawing the AR-15s is only the beginning for the Biden crowd, they may be not far off the mark.

One need not be paranoid to get the sense that what gun controllers saw in Newtown was not only an atrocity but an opportunity — to advance toward their ultimate goal of overturning Heller and disarming America.
After all, only one more Obama justice is needed.

How often, for example, have Biden and Obama condemned their Hollywood bundlers for glamorizing automatic weapons in a thousand films that have reaped Hollywood untold billions of dollars?

Has Obama ever called on the Hollywood moguls and actors who have contributed mightily to his campaign, or ex-Sen. Chris Dodd, head of the motion picture association, for restraint in the use of guns in films?

未分類 | Comments(0) | Trackback(0)


Did the Brothers Tsarnaev Fail?
Tuesday - April 23, 2013 at 10:30 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan
“Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they’ve already failed,” says President Obama of the Boston Marathon bombers.
“They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because as Americans we refuse to be terrorized.”

Bostonians did react splendidly. From first responders to folks who gave blood, from hospital staffs to the FBI, ATF and state troopers, from the Boston and Watertown cops to the hostage rescue team that talked Dzhokhar Tsarnaev out of that boat.
But did the Brothers Tsarnaev really fail — as terrorists?

On Sunday’s talk shows, a sub-theme was that this had been the “most successful terrorist attack since 9/11.”
For consider what these brothers accomplished.
By brazenly exploding two bombs right at the finish line of the marathon, with TV cameras all around, they killed three and injured, wounded and maimed 178 people for all the world to see.

Within hours, their atrocity had riveted the attention of the nation. Cable channels went wall to wall, as did major networks. By the evening of the attack, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama had gone live to reassure us they would be apprehended and justice done.

Day two, Obama appeared again as the greatest manhunt in U.S. history was underway. On day four, the FBI released photos, imploring citizens to come forward and identify the men in the white and black caps.

That evening, the brothers murdered an MIT police officer, hijacked a Mercedes van and engaged in a gunfight with Watertown police that left Tamerlan Tsarnaev dead and his brother a fugitive.

On Friday morning, Gov. Patrick went before the cameras to tell a stunned nation he was imposing a lockdown on all of Boston and half a dozen neighboring communities. Red Sox and Bruins games were canceled.

A million people in and around the city of Paul Revere, of the Lexington and Concord patriots, of Bunker Hill, locked their doors and hid inside because a lone armed teenager with pipe bombs was on the loose.
Boston, said The New York Times, was a “ghost town.”

“The scene was extraordinary. The hub of the universe, as Boston’s popular nickname would have it, was on lockdown from first light until near dark Friday. A massive dragnet for one man had brought a major U.S. city to an absolute standstill.

“The people were gone, shops were locked, streets were barren, the trains did not run. The often-clogged Massachusetts Turnpike was as clear as a bowling lane.”

Saturday, all six newspapers this writer receives led with the capture of Dzhokhar. “Frenzied Hunt Paralyzes Boston,” ran the Times banner.
TV and print media are still consumed with the brothers, their motives, their travel history, their Chechen background, their Islamic beliefs. And Washington is in a ferocious debate over whether Dzhokhar should be interrogated at length or read his Miranda rights.

Each side of the gun control and immigration debates claims the marathon massacre and its aftermath validates their position.
On April 15, the day the Tsarnaevs set off the pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street, there were 40 bombings and shootings across Iraq that took the lives of 75 and wounded 350. No one in the outside world knows the names of those who set off these bombs, and no one cares. And Baghdad was not locked down.

How, then, when these brothers are now as well-known as Timothy McVeigh, if not Osama bin Laden, and they committed an atrocity that mesmerized America for a week, and they forced a lockdown of one of our greatest cities, can it be said that they failed — as terrorists?
Worse may be yet to come.

For, just as some of the perpetrators of the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Newtown massacres found inspiration and exemplars in mass murderers before them, so the Brothers Tsarnaev may have shown the way for those who hate us to go out in their own special blaze of glory.

All true Americans were with the people of Boston last week. Yet there are individuals to whom these brothers are heroes. Lest we forget. Millions across the Muslim world still believe bin Laden struck a blow for them when he sent those planes into the World Trade Center.

Al-Qaida has been growing and gaining recruits since 9/11. Yet, while Osama targeted the symbols of U.S. economic, military and political power — the Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, the Capitol — the Tsarnaevs hit a “soft target.” They went after innocent people engaged in the purely innocent activity of competing in and watching a sports event.

And from the weapons and bombs they were carrying Thursday night, they were prepared to keep on killing, until killed themselves.
Suicide-seekers going after soft targets such as ballgames, concerts, malls, parades or school events is something other nations have known but we have largely avoided. Our luck may have run out.
Let us pray the Boston Marathon massacre is not the new paradigm for the sick souls
そして木曜日の夜 、武器と爆弾を持ち歩いていたことから、かれらは、自分たちが殺されるまで人を殺し続けるつもりだった。

These might be related:

1. Why the War Party May Fail
2. The Brothers & Sisters War
3. Nixon and Obama Soul Brothers
4. The Unraveling of Obama’s Foreign Policy

未分類 | Comments(0) | Trackback(0)
 | HOME | Next »