Buchanan: The Anti-Reagan

[Baculus]

Buchanan and the Heritage Foundation are focusing on a few negative comments out of a few of Obama's speeches, and ignoring the rest.

<snip>

Obama might provide a little more counterpoint, but the point is still that it's morning again in America.

An excellent retort to the myth of "apologizing": great research.

[Henry]

When there is political change, Presidents will naturally criticize the policies of their predecessors.

"I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt" immediately comes to mind.

[War Paint]

I like the way Buchannon put forward Carter and Wilson as models of unsuccessful Presidents.

Wilson who declared war on germany in WWI, and brought that war to a sucessful conclusion, then went to europe and formed the league of nations. Only to have a stroak on the boat back to America after the WWI peace talks...

That's the model for failure which Buchannon wants to apply to Obama?

Wilson is the one who allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence. He even admitted he ruined the country forever when signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. That is why he was a disaster of a president. We can see today the damage the Federal Reserve is doing to our country.

Wilson Quote:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.

Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,

therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely

controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.

No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by

conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by

the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

[PeterMP]

Wilson is the one who allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence. He even admitted he ruined the country forever when signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. That is why he was a disaster of a president. We can see today the damage the Federal Reserve is doing to our country.

Wilson Quote:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.

Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,

therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely

controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.

No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by

conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by

the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Actually, that quote can't be attributed to Wilson by any real source based on people that have done a whole lot of research on the topic.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Woodrow_Wilson

[PeterMP]

"I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt" immediately comes to mind.

Not defend Bush, but that was in a meeting with various politicians post 9-11. There is no evidence that was meant for public much less international consupmtion.

[PeterMP]

First of all, I think it's a complete lie that Obama doesn't speak about the virtues of America abroad. Buchanan and the Heritage Foundation are focusing on a few negative comments out of a few of Obama's speeches, and ignoring the rest.

I hadn't read the speeches Buchanan was referring to in full. I assumed (clearly, my mistake) that he was being accurate in his criticisms.

[pez]

No one should ever listen to Pat Buchanan... the guy isn't that far off of being another David Duke...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No one should ever listen to Pat Buchanan... the guy isn't that far off of being another David Duke...

I wouldn't say that. Buchanan is a true conservative, and a bit of a product of the old times; the latter of which may be a "negative" on him. He is also however a really smart guy and a true historian.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I wouldn't say that. Buchanan is a true conservative, and a bit of a product of the old times; the latter of which may be a "negative" on him. He is also however a really smart guy and a true historian.

He's very smart and is a true historian.

Though I would still argue that he's a racist. Or at the very least has some serious "issues" when it comes to race relations.

But with that being said, I do find myself occasionally agreeing with him.

[pez]

I wouldn't say that. Buchanan is a true conservative, and a bit of a product of the old times; the latter of which may be a "negative" on him. He is also however a really smart guy and a true historian.

The guy is an obvious racist... you might want to do a bit of research on him...

[War Paint]

Actually, that quote can't be attributed to Wilson by any real source based on people that have done a whole lot of research on the topic.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Woodrow_Wilson

Wasn't it a quote from his book "The New Freedom"?

[JMS]

Wilson is the one who allowed the Federal Reserve to come into existence. He even admitted he ruined the country forever when signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. That is why he was a disaster of a president. We can see today the damage the Federal Reserve is doing to our country.

Peak out from under your tin foil hat for a moment and look back over the last 100 years the federal reserve has been in existence. I realize to some people the Federal Reserve is the root of all evil and all. But most of the country doesn't agree with that sentiment. Most of the country would look back over the last 100 years and think we were the most sucessful economy in the worlds history over that time period. I say it again, Worlds History.

Most people who don't wake up in the morning and think their slippers are trying to kill them, believe the Federal Reserve does a pretty good job. Thus I can't really entertain your suposition that Wilson "re-creating"(*) the federal reserve marks him as an unsucessful president.

Now if you wanted to point to the facts that Wilson was a KKK member, or a racist, or re-segregated the military... Then I think your points would be stronger. In general I would say wilson had a fairly sucessful presidency even though he spent a significant part of it in bed watching his wife run the country.

(*) A national bank or Federal Reserve was actually first created by Alexander Hamilton the father of the American banking system. Only his Bank of the United States was hammered out of existance by Andrew Jackson, who cited some of the same rational you attributed to Wilson about 70 years latter.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.

Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,

therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely

controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.

No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by

conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by

the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

You know Teddy Roosevelt who was president a few terms before Wilson needed a central banking authority to forstall a credit crisis back in 1900. The Federal Reserve didn't exist, you know who he had to rely on? John D. Rockefeller. I'll leave it up to you which is the more reliable and representative way to handle it.

Leave your central banking authority in the hand of the biggest kid on the block who assended to his position by targetting and destroying his compeditors through monopolistic practices like history documents Rockefeller did; or through a Presidentially appointed veted congressional approved board of professional economists who meet publically and report back to congress on a weekly basis.

[PeterMP]

Wasn't it a quote from his book "The New Freedom"?

Read the link. That's why I posted it. (or the book)

[JMS]

I wouldn't say that. Buchanan is a true conservative, and a bit of a product of the old times; the latter of which may be a "negative" on him. He is also however a really smart guy and a true historian.

Exactly right, Buchannon isn't a racist. He's a nationalist. Buchannon's form of conservatism dates back pre-New Deal when conservatives were united around (1)simplifying the financial system and (2)Isolationism as a global doctrine. Isolationaism was the policy the United States since George Washington's recommended it in his fairwell address, up until FDR and Eisenhower put a stake through it's heart. With the notable exception of WWI and Wilson, Isolaitonism remained the central theme to American international policy form 1890's through 1930's. It's appeal died when FDR won four sucessive terms to office against it's proponants and then with Eisenhowers subsequent taking control of the GOP and rejecting a return to isolationist policies.

Buchannon is a palio conservative. he's a smart guy, and he's consistant. He's the cadalac of the conservative talking heads to my mind. His brand of conservatism transends party lines; that's what I like about him.

[jpyaks3]

Exactly right, Buchannon isn't a racist. He's a nationalist. Buchannon's form of conservatism dates back pre-New Deal when conservatives were united in simplifying the financial system and Isolationism as a global doctrine. Isolationaism was the policy the United States followed since George Washington's farewall address recommended it right up until Woodrow Willson violated that premise involveing us in WWI. Then of coarse FDR and Eisenhower shattered it both by FDR involving us in WWII, and by Eisenhowers subsequent rejection of a return to isolationist policies.

I would argue that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't quite Isolationism. While we didn't necessarily take sides in European conflicts we most certainly involved ourselves in matter in Latin and South America which brought us into conflict with some European powers as well as throughout the Pacific.

[JMS]

I would argue that the Monroe Doctrine wasn't quite Isolationism. While we didn't necessarily take sides in European conflicts we most certainly involved ourselves in matter in Latin and South America which brought us into conflict with some European powers as well as throughout the Pacific.

Technically speaking you would be right. historically speaking I find fault with your statement. The Monroe doctrine simple stated, we should be the dominant power in both North and South America, and we should not tollerate European powers playing in our sandbox. If they came here we should oppose them.

You are right that's not strictly Isolationism. Strictly speaking if Europeans came to America's continent Isolationists would move to Australia... So there is a nuanced definition to the word Isolationist being used which must be appreciated. Their basically wasn't any imperial powers we had to worry about outside of Europe. Europe pretty much controlled the wourld. So Washington's call for keeping the United States out of European alliances is the isolationist policy which became defacto law for more than 100 years after Washington first proposed it.

It keep the United States offiically neutral in the worlds policies which were run out of Europe between European powers.

[The Evil Genius]

Buchanan has a long history of borderline racist comments to be considered anything but.

From his book titled, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America

America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing.

And then their is the more recent quote about how blacks should be glad slavery happened here in America...

America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Not to mention his recent attacks on Sotomayor about being "not that intelligent", because she was learning to become fluent in English while at Princeton (did he forget she graduated Summa cum laude?).

Perhaps though, that was Buchanan just being sexist. I mean, in 1983 (according to Wiki), he wrote in a column that woman are,

Simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism.

And then their are his appearances on a white supremacist radio show....

[hokie4redskins]

More on Obama's apology tour.

Thought this article was hilarious. I would've started a new thread, but I think Ann Coulter would've caused ES servers to collapse.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Click link for full article.......

[Koolblue13]

Buchanan has a long history of borderline racist comments to be considered anything but.

Yep, he is a bit racist, just like most. Writing it in your own book proves it. Agreed.

I like Buchanan myself and usually agree with him. (not the racist stuff)

He is right in this article as well.

[War Paint]

Peak out from under your tin foil hat for a moment and look back over the last 100 years the federal reserve has been in existence. I realize to some people the Federal Reserve is the root of all evil and all. But most of the country doesn't agree with that sentiment. Most of the country would look back over the last 100 years and think we were the most sucessful economy in the worlds history over that time period. I say it again, Worlds History.

Most people who don't wake up in the morning and think their slippers are trying to kill them, believe the Federal Reserve does a pretty good job. Thus I can't really entertain your suposition that Wilson "re-creating"(*) the federal reserve marks him as an unsucessful president.

Now if you wanted to point to the facts that Wilson was a KKK member, or a racist, or re-segregated the military... Then I think your points would be stronger. In general I would say wilson had a fairly sucessful presidency even though he spent a significant part of it in bed watching his wife run the country.

(*) A national bank or Federal Reserve was actually first created by Alexander Hamilton the father of the American banking system. Only his Bank of the United States was hammered out of existance by Andrew Jackson, who cited some of the same rational you attributed to Wilson about 70 years latter.

You know Teddy Roosevelt who was president a few terms before Wilson needed a central banking authority to forstall a credit crisis back in 1900. The Federal Reserve didn't exist, you know who he had to rely on? John D. Rockefeller. I'll leave it up to you which is the more reliable and representative way to handle it.

Leave your central banking authority in the hand of the biggest kid on the block who assended to his position by targetting and destroying his compeditors through monopolistic practices like history documents Rockefeller did; or through a Presidentially appointed veted congressional approved board of professional economists who meet publically and report back to congress on a weekly basis.

You are a good sheep.

[BigMike619]

wow hokie4redskins...that article is good IMO but it is going to be shredded here shortly.

[#98QBKiller]

It will get shredded because it's an opinion piece by the Repub's version of Michael Moore.

[Henry]

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't.

Uh ... Hitler declared war on the US?

[hokie4redskins]

wow hokie4redskins...that article is good IMO but it is going to be shredded here shortly.

Typical "attack the character" tactics that go on in the Tailgate.

It's funny watching leftists sit perched upon their moral high ground while blasting Coulter as some hack. Coulter's article is true but nobody will refute the content.

[ACW]

Um, wasn't the Shah so hated that Khomeini (sp?) came to power? Who knew Coulter supported the Islamic Revolution?