Writes patriot Pat Buchanan:
“No longer free of foreign entanglements, as Thomas Jefferson urged, we now have commitments to defend 50 countries. The old Hamiltonian policy of “Prosper America First” has given way to worship of a Global Economy, at whose altars we sacrifice daily the vital interests of our own manufacturers and workers.
“Interdependence” is now the desired end of the new elite.
And so we have become again a dependent nation. We borrow from Europe and Japan to defend the oil of Europe and Japan in the Persian Gulf. We borrow from China to buy the goods of China. We are as dependent on foreign borrowing as we are on foreign oil.
And the questions arise: If the men of ‘76, who led those small and vulnerable states, were wiling to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for America’s independence, what is the matter with us?
Do we not value independence as they did? Or is it that we are simply not the men our fathers were?
Happy Independence Day.”
13 Comments
Despite my revulsion to Buchanan’s personal beliefs, I agree with him on this issue. But I do not advocate economic isolationism, and believe that the principal of free trade should extend into the international realm, as reflected in the platform of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party.
Pat Buchanan should be very careful about ascribing the current decline of our country to a lack of folks willing to place thier lives, fortune and sacred honor on the line for liberty. He is one of the folks responsible for the prsent5 sad state of things. He pledged his life and his fortune — and lost his honor (something of which he is well aware), in the service of people who were determined (and eventually successful) in destroying the honesty and fair play that undergirded the founding of our country (see Teapot Dome, Standard Oil, the robber barons of the late 19th century, crook presidents such as Warren Harding, the erosion of the wall between banking and investing that cratered in the Depression, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Bebe Rebozo, Enron, WorldCom…etc).
The replacement of America’s renowned work ethic by Reagan’s feel-good-now (or should it be the I’m gonna-get-mine-and-be-damned-to-you?), in the wake of Nixon’s glorification of crooked behavior, even as he invoked the sacred shade of his hard-working mother, set the stage for the worship of the golden calf (also known as the bottom line, or profit margin) that stands at the center of American life (let’s not forget the Rev. Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, Larry Parsley, Kenneth Copeland and his $8m jet — all of whom are unceasing in their assurances that God doesn’t care about sin but about how much money you can shovel out at Costco.
Buchanan is a shameful stain on the face of the “Church” he claims to follow with fervent devotion. Even the Pope might hesitate in the face of this breath-taking hypocrisy.
Pat’s a great man and a true patriot. I salute him!
Forgive me, Palmetto, but I can’t help but wonder if you would feel the same way about Buchanan if he happened to be gay.
Now, hang on, Ecuiram LeVar, let’s not put Joel Osteen in that materialistic greed mix. I think he preaches a great message of encouraging oneself not to be a victim and feeling good about oneself, to use your talents to achieve your dreams in this life. I have a good feeling when I watch him, he is not like those “others.”
On the other hand, I agree with Brad Bailey’s opinion that Buchanan appears to be a mean-spirited homophobe. Definitely nothing like Joel Osteen….or the kind-hearted Ron Paul for that matter, either!
Brad, is that what everything comes down to for you – whether or not someone is homosexual? I don’t focus on that.
Focus on it in this one instance, then, and see what happens.
Pat Buchanan gets it right again.
Anyway, after having gone full force with the Libertarian Party, I’ve found that a lot of its policies leave a lot of unanswered questions, especially about how you ensure safety in a completely deregulated market. That and the fact that libertarianism is a highly theoretical ideology. What I think, at the moment, we should focus on is the BALANCE OF TRADE as opposed to free trade, since nations that we don’t impose tariffs on impose them on us. i.e. we should either be working to break down trade walls or if that doesn’t work building some of our own.
As for “homophobia,” a large percentage of America is “homophobic.” His social conservatism really doesn’t get to me b/c I know more than a few people personally who have apprehensions about gay marriage.
Pat Buchanan gets it right again.
Anyway, after having gone full force with the Libertarian Party, I’ve found that a lot of its policies leave a lot of unanswered questions, especially about how you ensure safety in a completely deregulated market. That and the fact that libertarianism is a highly theoretical ideology. What I think, at the moment, we should focus on is the BALANCE OF TRADE as opposed to free trade, since nations that we don’t impose tariffs on impose them on us. i.e. we should either be working to break down trade walls or if that doesn’t work building some of our own.
As for “homophobia,” a large percentage of America is “homophobic.” His social conservatism really doesn’t get to me b/c I know more than a few people personally who have apprehensions about gay marriage.
I also think we need a Pat Buchanan type figure to correct our immigration situation.
I hate to say this, but if immigration is your greatest concern, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party is the presidential candidate who is most adamant about securing our borders. He’s as close to Pat Buchanan in his views as you’re going to get in this election.
I agree with your assessment of Libertarianism as a highly theoretical philosophy. My problem with it is that it doesn’t adequately address health care. Over a third of this country’s citizens cannot afford to pay monthly health insurance premiums. When catastrophic illness strikes, they are screwed. I don’t believe that leaving this issue in the hands of the states will work. Most of them simply can’t afford the high cost of a universal health care system.
Of the three parties, Libertarianism sticks most closely to the original ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. My question is this: will the basic premises of these documents, made for a nation of a few hundred thousand citizens, still work in a nation of over three hundred million?
And my question still stands: If Pat Buchanan was homosexual, would it or would it not affect your view of him as a patriot?
Brad, I supported the recent Dutch politician (mayor of Amsterdam) who was openly gay but wanted to preserve his culture and national identity. He proposed very strong anti-immigration measures. Ultimatly he was murdered by Muslim immigrants. Personally, someone’s sexuality (as long as they don’t parade it in front of me one way or another) is of little concern.
Thank you Palmetto. I really appreciate your honesty.
What about Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party? As a columnist and a Talk Show host he’s been very critical of illegal immigration and neoconservative foreign policy.
Anyway, yes if Pat were gay I’d still like him. I’m a Justin Raimondo fan too, and he’s gay.