First time visitor? Learn more.

Patrick Buchanan: Traditional Americans are losing their nation

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 222 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Patriotism at October 21st, 2009 - 2:22 am

Agree or not with Buchanan most of the time, this is spot-on…

In the brief age of Obama, we have had “truthers,” “birthers,” tea party activists and town-hall dissenters.

Comes now, the “Oath Keepers.” And who might they be?

Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are “either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia.”

Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.

“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.

“We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.”

Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.

And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them “un-American,” “Nazis” and “evil-mongers,” one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers.

As with Jimmy Carter’s long-range psychoanalysis of Joe Wilson, the reflexive reaction of the mainstream media will likely be that these are militia types, driven to irrationality because America has a black president.

Yet, the establishment’s reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality.

Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily understand that urban riots that took scores of lives and destroyed billions in property were an inevitable reaction to racism, poverty and despair. They could empathize with the rage of campus radicals who burned down the ROTC building and bombed the Pentagon.

[...]

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

Read the whole article here

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

222 Responses to “Patrick Buchanan: Traditional Americans are losing their nation”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Lost
    1 | October 21, 2009 2:33 am

    Am I really first?


  2. Lost
    2 | October 21, 2009 2:33 am

    Wow. Sorry I couldn’t resist!


  3. linoleumknife
    3 | October 21, 2009 2:39 am

    So this is where everyone went. LOL

    Hey lost check out my comment on the last thread. It was for you.


  4. Lost
    4 | October 21, 2009 2:39 am

    Whilst I agree with the sentiment that we are losing our country, I don’t know if the answer is an armed militia.

    Its almost as if we had to elect Obama to prove to the world that we could elect a black president. Now that we’ve done it, next election we prove to the world that we can elect a woman.

    Let’s go Sarah!


  5. Lost
    5 | October 21, 2009 2:43 am

    re: #3 by linoleumknife

    Interesting. I’ve heard that expressed by others as well. I usually posted on the LNDT as I was most comfortable there but on occasion debated during the day too. A part of me wishes that all the banned ended up here as it’s so hard to trace the old nics.


  6. linoleumknife
    6 | October 21, 2009 2:49 am

    re: #5 by Lost

    It would be nice, but I think it’s best for people to go where they are most comfortable.

    On topic though, I’m not usually all about Pat, but this is a good article. Straight and to the point. We are demonized for our race, told to accept others regardless of any concerns we might have. Then when we do, they push us more. Call us wayccisssts, and white devils. I’m tired of it personally. I am not a racist, never really saw a value to it. I was raised as a Christian and I know that blind hate will lead you to hell. I do my dead level best to judge each person as an individual, and for all of this I am shunned by the Proggies. They have to be defeated and exiled from our society


  7. typicalwhitey
    7 | October 21, 2009 2:51 am

    Hey all.
    Haven’t slept a wink all night
    It is almost 5am here.


  8. linoleumknife
    8 | October 21, 2009 2:52 am

    re: #7 by typicalwhitey

    Where you be?


  9. Lost
    9 | October 21, 2009 2:55 am

    I’ve always wondered what the founding fathers would say if they could spend a week in our times.

    I reckon it wouldn’t all be roses….


  10. typicalwhitey
    10 | October 21, 2009 3:01 am

    about 45 minutes ne of KCMO


  11. linoleumknife
    11 | October 21, 2009 3:01 am

    re: #9 by Lost

    You’re not kidding. I would imagine that Jefferson would be screaming and throwing anything he could find at the whores in D.C.


  12. Number6
    12 | October 21, 2009 3:01 am

    Pat has stepped on his own foot so many times with his excessive remarks but he is on the money with this piece. We just saw ‘the rich’ get bailed out and the average family left holding the bill--again. I hope an armed militia movement never becomes necessary but I can’t put sown those who think it is. There are people in our current government who think all of our rights are open to renegotiation.

    Of course, race is the last consideration in any of this to most people. This isn’t about the color of his skin. It is about the color of his politics.


  13. linoleumknife
    13 | October 21, 2009 3:02 am

    re: #10 by typicalwhitey

    Cool, I’m down in Texas. Love my state. :-) I was just curious because we are in the same time zone.


  14. vagabond trader
    14 | October 21, 2009 3:06 am

    Good morning.

    We’ll see if these disenfranchised whites who voted for people like Murtha and Hussein have changed their minds.I mean what the he11 were the folks in Murthas district thinking? Yeah, nevermind, the allure of free stuff and all.

    Seriously, Pat Buchanan? He can kiss my rosie Jewish tuchus.

    :-)


  15. linoleumknife
    15 | October 21, 2009 3:07 am

    re: #12 by Number6

    Excellent points. I don’t care what color someone is, one of my best friends is a hispanic. Politics is the killer for me though. I will not hang out or work with commies. I refuse to do it. They are vile disgusting people.


  16. Number6
    16 | October 21, 2009 3:07 am

    OT: Sarah Pailin’s Facebook page has as many readers as the Washington Post’s circulation number.


  17. linoleumknife
    17 | October 21, 2009 3:09 am

    re: #14 by vagabond trader

    Morning Vagabond.

    re: #16 by Number6

    Heh, that’s awesome. She has great potential. I can’t wait to see how she does.


  18. typicalwhitey
    18 | October 21, 2009 3:13 am

    I visited Texas once.
    Went to Gilley’s


  19. goddessoftheclassroom
    19 | October 21, 2009 3:14 am

    Good morning, y’all and hugs all around. Typicalwhitey, I’m so sorry about your insomnia.


  20. vagabond trader
    20 | October 21, 2009 3:14 am

    re: #17 by linoleumknife

    Morning linoleum.I am curious about this Oprah appearance.Oprah is congenial but solidly in the enemy camp and guarantee she will be coached by her deity.


  21. Number6
    21 | October 21, 2009 3:15 am

    Hi, Goddess! Top of the morning to you!


  22. typicalwhitey
    22 | October 21, 2009 3:15 am

    re: #19 by goddessoftheclassroom

    Oh thats ok, thanks!


  23. Bumr50
    23 | October 21, 2009 3:17 am

    re: #14 by vagabond trader

    Mornin all!

    Hey now! You’re gettin close to me!

    Most of Johnstown’s residents are people who lost their jobs when USS Johnstown, Johnstown America Steel, Johnstown Corp., and strip mining left YEARS ago. Also a surprisingly large number of housing projects with a primarily African-American population that reportedly sprung up out of nowhere 15-20 years ago.

    They aren’t many, but enough to offset the vote of rural small business owners that profitably use the gorgeous Laurel Highlands.


  24. vagabond trader
    24 | October 21, 2009 3:17 am

    re: #19 by goddessoftheclassroom

    Good morning Goddess!Did you get the request from Nothreat2U? Prayers for her stepson deploying to Afghanistan.Don’t know if I have her nic correct.

    :-)


  25. typicalwhitey
    25 | October 21, 2009 3:17 am

    re: #20 by vagabond trader

    Big contrast though.
    Everyone knows that she voted for the O and yet Sarah will still go on her show.

    Everyone knows about the Fox attack from obama and how he will not go on there.

    Compare and contrast


  26. linoleumknife
    26 | October 21, 2009 3:17 am

    re: #18 by typicalwhitey

    It’s a wonderful state. Of course I am extremely biased. :-)

    re: #19 by goddessoftheclassroom

    Morning Goddess. Good to see you.

    re: #20 by vagabond trader

    I’m going to be blunt. I can not stand Oprah. I think she is a bitch. She is manipulative and condescending. I have a feeling she will try and appear friendly, but then turn into a viper.


  27. typicalwhitey
    27 | October 21, 2009 3:18 am

    Goddess do you still do the prayer list?


  28. Bumr50
    28 | October 21, 2009 3:19 am

    re: #18 by typicalwhitey

    Hey so did my Dad! My first vehicle was a 79 Ford F-150 with a numbered Gilley’s bumper sticker on it.

    It’s still on the road BTW. And if anything went wrong I could sit inside the hood, actually SEE the problem, and fix it without a metric wrench that bends six ways.


  29. vagabond trader
    29 | October 21, 2009 3:20 am

    re: #26 by linoleumknife

    LOL! Ok, now you’re talking. I was trying to be, um, diplomatic, a herculean effort for me. I do not like Oprah myself and hope that Sarah is prepared for the onslaught.


  30. Bumr50
    30 | October 21, 2009 3:21 am

    re: #14 by vagabond trader

    The Johnstown newspaper is called the Tribune-Democrat for goodness sake.


  31. Bumr50
    31 | October 21, 2009 3:22 am

    re: #26 by linoleumknife

    I think Sarah will be ready.


  32. goddessoftheclassroom
    32 | October 21, 2009 3:23 am

    re: #24 by vagabond trader

    Done--thanks.


  33. vagabond trader
    33 | October 21, 2009 3:23 am

    re: #30 by Bumr50

    That explains a lot. Hey, not picking on the good folks of PA, just look at the rest of our country full of bitter clingers and bible thumpers who voted for the commie.


  34. linoleumknife
    34 | October 21, 2009 3:23 am

    re: #29 by vagabond trader

    Diplomacy is lost on those that want nothing but your destruction. I thought for the longest time that I should be polite and tame, but they have drawn the line in the sand. It is a fight to the death now.

    /metaphorically


  35. linoleumknife
    35 | October 21, 2009 3:25 am

    re: #31 by Bumr50

    I have faith in her, but Opera, as I have said, is manipulative. Her followers are devout. If Sarah can win them over it will go a long way for her.


  36. Number6
    36 | October 21, 2009 3:26 am

    re: #31 by Bumr50

    “I think Sarah will be ready.”

    I agree. Because…if Sarah is going to be competitive she has to be able to deal with hostile interviews. She can’t “not” be ready.


  37. vagabond trader
    37 | October 21, 2009 3:26 am

    These oathkeepers, I predict a racially charged screed out of Bedlam on this topic.


  38. Bumr50
    38 | October 21, 2009 3:28 am

    re: #36 by Number6

    The grocery store tabloids tell me that Oprah and Michelle O are feuding.

    They say Michelle says that Oprah ruined the Olympic bid.


  39. vagabond trader
    39 | October 21, 2009 3:29 am

    re: #38 by Bumr50

    But the aliens, any mention of the alien visitations to 1600???


  40. goddessoftheclassroom
    40 | October 21, 2009 3:29 am

    re: #38 by Bumr50

    Oh, wouldn’t it be DELICIOUS if Oprah gave Sarah a boost?


  41. typicalwhitey
    41 | October 21, 2009 3:30 am

    Goddess are you still here?


  42. goddessoftheclassroom
    42 | October 21, 2009 3:30 am

    Got to run--too much to do--take care.


  43. Bumr50
    43 | October 21, 2009 3:33 am

    re: #37 by vagabond trader

    I was at their site yesterday. I totally support them. I’m not as optimistic as Glenn Beck. I share the belief that violence while not to be instigated on our part, will in fact be a grim reality if the powers that be are allowed to gain any ONE of their platform goals.

    Many have suggested nonviolent resistance, the crux of the argument being that they can’t arrest all of us. But I’m pretty sure that there is some cleverness going on that’s not as obvious as that.


  44. Bumr50
    44 | October 21, 2009 3:34 am

    re: #40 by goddessoftheclassroom

    We’ll have to see which came first, the invitation or the supposed dust-up.

    Have a great day!


  45. 45 | October 21, 2009 3:34 am

    Pat Buchanan is like Ron Paul to me: on some issues, he’s plain crazy, but on others, he makes perfect sense.

    This article of Buchanan’s makes sense.


  46. Bumr50
    46 | October 21, 2009 3:36 am

    re: #39 by vagabond trader

    They’re too busy driving around in their new cars from cash-for=clunkers. Oh, and attending union functions.


  47. Number6
    47 | October 21, 2009 3:39 am

    re: #43 by Bumr50

    I agree with you over all. Violence will become inevitable if the current regime is not hampered/stopped: In 2010 by the loss of the House or by massive civil dissatisfaction expressed vocally and constantly.


  48. vagabond trader
    48 | October 21, 2009 3:40 am

    re: #43 by Bumr50

    My motto has always been hope for the best prepare for the worst.A lot of good people have yet to grasp that this administration, as inept as they may appear, are dangerous and have a Marxist inspired agenda. I weary of the words naive,Urkel,and other diminutives used to describe The Obama.They ignore or deny the danger he presents imho.


  49. vagabond trader
    49 | October 21, 2009 3:43 am

    re: #46 by Bumr50

    These aliens.

    http://www.rockthelist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/clinton-alien.jpg


  50. mfhorn
    50 | October 21, 2009 3:44 am

    It’s nice to see Pat write something that makes sense, and that isn’t anti-Semitic.

    Still, a broken clock is right twice a day. This must be one of his times.


  51. Da_Beerfreak
    51 | October 21, 2009 3:45 am

    re: #39 by vagabond trader

    By alien do you mean the undocumented Keyan carpetbagger?


  52. vagabond trader
    52 | October 21, 2009 3:47 am

    re: #50 by mfhorn

    Could be mistaken but I don’t think he is addressing angry JEWS in this essay.My guess is he doesn’t even consider Jews to be white.


  53. linoleumknife
    53 | October 21, 2009 3:47 am

    Well I’ve got to run. Y’all have a great day. :-)


  54. vagabond trader
    54 | October 21, 2009 3:48 am

    re: #51 by Da_Beerfreak

    See 49, but point taken.

    :-)


  55. mfhorn
    55 | October 21, 2009 3:48 am

    re: Sarah Palin.

    I like her, I think she’d do a great job in the W.H. or in Congress. BUT, I don’t think she’s electable because 1) the MSM would tear her apart and 2) She didn’t come across as well as she could have last year during some of her speeches.

    Re: Obama/impeachment

    I love the idea, but on what grounds? Sheer incompetence?


  56. Bumr50
    56 | October 21, 2009 3:49 am

    re: #47 by Number6

    re: #48 by vagabond trader

    Note Newt Gingrich. Supposed leader. We can hate him all we want here, but average Joe Hatespolitics looks at him and sees “Republican.”

    We got problems.


  57. mfhorn
    57 | October 21, 2009 3:50 am

    re: #52 by vagabond trader

    I don’t think he’s addressing Jews either. My point was that so many of his columns are pretty blatantly anti-Semitic. It’s nice to see him not blame something on Israel, or to do something other than suggest we throw Israel under the bus.


  58. Iron Fist
    58 | October 21, 2009 3:50 am

    re: #43 by Bumr50

    Armed resistance or open Civil War isn’t where any sane person wants to see us go. The question is can we preserve our liberty without it? I am very troubled when you have the government asking American troops if they will fire on American citizens in order to disarm them, as was done during the Clinton Administration (I have not even heard rumors that Obama has done anything similar). It is not assuring that there are many in Law Enforcement today who would fire on American citizens persuing such a course of action.

    That is where the first line of defense needs to be. We need our military and police openly stating that they will not obey an unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) order. If that happens we have nothing to fear. The Federal Government can “go piss up a rope”, if you’ll pardon the term.

    Things get more dicey if the military and/or police split on the issue. Instead of asking soldiers if they would fire on civillians in the course of disarming them, the question becomes would they fire on other soldiers and/or police who tried to enforce such an order through violent means?

    That more than citizen militia groups, is a recipe for civil war. Such questions should not even be on the table. We should simply stamp this out with simple, clear legal guidance that Military and Police will not be used to enforce such an order because that order will never be given. The onus for peace is not on the American citizen, but on the Legislature and the Executive branch of government that have been too eager to violate civil rights that their leadership did not approve of or respect.


  59. vagabond trader
    59 | October 21, 2009 3:50 am

    re: #55 by mfhorn

    If we had authentic investigative journalism I’m sure they could come up with something equivalent to a 3rd rate in at the Watergate.


  60. vagabond trader
    60 | October 21, 2009 3:51 am

    re: #59 by vagabond trader

    3rd rate break in that is.


  61. Bumr50
    61 | October 21, 2009 3:51 am

    re: #52 by vagabond trader

    Funny story! Saw my store manager yukking it up with a couple of gals yesterday and remarked that one of them looked familiar to me.

    She described her circumstances and I said, “Well I guess it’s not her then. She has very Greek features.”

    My manager got all hushed and said: “She’s Jewish.”


  62. Rightside
    62 | October 21, 2009 3:53 am

    Morning everybody.


  63. vagabond trader
    63 | October 21, 2009 3:54 am

    re: #61 by Bumr50

    LOL!I have been mistaken for German whilst traveling overseas. Hows that for irony?


  64. mfhorn
    64 | October 21, 2009 3:58 am

    re: #59 by vagabond trader

    *Contented smile at THAT thought*


  65. Bumr50
    65 | October 21, 2009 4:01 am

    re: #62 by Rightside

    Morning!

    The local radio host was pointing out that medieval serfs only had to give 25% to the Baron, and in return he ensured their safety.

    We are headed for <serf.


  66. Number6
    66 | October 21, 2009 4:01 am

    Hi, Rightside. How it goes?


  67. vagabond trader
    67 | October 21, 2009 4:04 am

    re: #58 by Iron Fist

    They are already split as evidenced by a few minor incidents off the top of my head.Probably many more. Remember the cop who stopped the guy with a Gadsen flag on his truck? How about the one who demanded the protester remove an Obama Joker poster? Non violent yes, but indicative of where this could go.

    Combine that with a DoJ that has shown little interest in defending the Constitution.I see a huge potential for these leaders attempting to use the local police and military for illegal seizure.Not just guns either.I’m glad there is a professional group aware of these possibilities and being proactive about it.This alone will give big gov hacks pause before they try to implement any nonsense.


  68. Bumr50
    68 | October 21, 2009 4:07 am

    re: #58 by Iron Fist

    Agreed. What’s troubling about Obama is his stated intent to create a Civilian Corps or something of that ilk “as large or larger” than our current military.

    Katimavik on HGH and steroids.

    Also with him supposedly (does this man ever actually DO anything but apologize and grandstand) trying to do away with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” he could possibly find compassion among the cavalry.

    I still don’t believe he said that in the middle of a war in which he won’t make a decision on whether or not to keep our soldiers safer, with absolutely no plan or method of implementation. He couldn’t keep up at Subway as a Sandwich Artist.


  69. vagabond trader
    69 | October 21, 2009 4:10 am

    Campaigner in chief. Hope he gets his commie arse handed to him with total defeat of his candidates.

    :mrgreen:


  70. vagabond trader
    70 | October 21, 2009 4:12 am

    re: #69 by vagabond trader

    man I so need more caffeine.

    Link:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BF4G600&show_article=1


  71. Rightside
    71 | October 21, 2009 4:17 am

    re: #65 by Bumr50

    morning bumr50

    re: #66 by Number6

    hi #6, just out of the shower, headed to work soon, and also concerned the direction our country has taken.

    In the next 3+ years, when does someone actually ask zero, “at what point, when everything you have tried has failed, do you admit it, and reverse course?”

    Yeah, I didn’t think so either.


  72. waldensianspirit
    72 | October 21, 2009 4:19 am

    re: #71 by Rightside

    What do you mean? He is right on course for what he wants


  73. vagabond trader
    73 | October 21, 2009 4:20 am

    Thank you Mr President,

    Love,

    FOX NEWS

    http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/20/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-october-19-2009/31032


  74. Rightside
    74 | October 21, 2009 4:21 am

    re: #72 by waldensianspirit

    The drive bys can only cover for so long… no jobs, higher taxes… it will get a lot uglier.


  75. Number6
    75 | October 21, 2009 4:21 am

    re: #71 by Rightside

    He’ll never get it. He will go into his old age talking about how the Bitter Clingers weren’t ready for change, or worse, turn into a vile old anti-semite bitch like Jimmy Carter and balem it all on the you-know-whos.


  76. waldensianspirit
    76 | October 21, 2009 4:23 am

    re: #74 by Rightside

    He likes ugly to happen to the USA. This is his dream; a world without the USA as the superpower.


  77. Rightside
    77 | October 21, 2009 4:25 am

    re: #76 by waldensianspirit

    I understand your point, and I agree, that is how he sees it; returning the nations wealth to its “rightful owners” as Rush likes to say.

    However, it’s not what “Americans” want.

    *spit*


  78. Bumr50
    78 | October 21, 2009 4:26 am

    re: #75 by Number6

    I think that Barack Obama will eventually find his own identity.

    When I look at his background, his parents, his youth, I actually have a bit of sympathy for him.

    It’s almost like he never had a chance to go in any other direction. The hands and money guiding his path have been swift and strong.

    I can’t stand to even look at or hear the arrogant son-of-a-bitch, but I keep a bit of compassion for him. He’s young. People CAN change. No pun intended.


  79. Number6
    79 | October 21, 2009 4:27 am

    re: #74 by Rightside

    It will be jobs that gets him/them. There are no excuses and no blaming that will take that away. If Obama doesn’t start creating jobs (which his policies cannot do) the unpacified, unemployed voters will “Fire him in Four”.


  80. Bumr50
    80 | October 21, 2009 4:28 am

    re: #77 by Rightside

    What I find extremely bothersome is that any time they even begin to implement the smallest policy of globalism ANYWHERE, the corruption starts almost instantaneously.

    How can they not notice?


  81. Rightside
    81 | October 21, 2009 4:28 am

    Great topic first thing in the morning, gets my blood pumping.

    Have to head to work, be back in a bit. Fresh coffee when I return.


  82. Number6
    82 | October 21, 2009 4:29 am

    re: #78 by Bumr50

    I know what you mean but that kind of narcissist always looks outside for explanations as to why things go wrong. He would have to change his personality in fundamental ways. The only way that ever happens is if Life kicks the living shit out of you AND you pay attention.


  83. vagabond trader
    83 | October 21, 2009 4:32 am

    re: #78 by Bumr50

    He is pushing 50 not 20.


  84. Bumr50
    84 | October 21, 2009 4:34 am

    re: #76 by waldensianspirit

    He’s an idealist, a true-believer. It’s those whispering in his ear that are the true evil.

    I can respect a liberal idealist that states his opinion and goals clearly and rationally.

    I commented yesterday that I read a piece by Bono from the fishwrap of record and while I almost completely disagreed with the whole thing, it was honestly refreshing to read because it was honest, well presented, and somewhat open to dialogue.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18bono.html

    What I see from the American Left is misdirection, dishonesty, and downright nastiness.


  85. African Moondog
    85 | October 21, 2009 4:35 am

    OT,

    Melanie Phillips really slam dunks the AGW crowd in the Speccie:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5443341/sinking-fast.thtml


  86. mfhorn
    86 | October 21, 2009 4:37 am

    re: #74 by Rightside

    The sad thing is that when the economy does turn around, he’ll get all the credit, even though economists were saying the recession would end by the end of this year before Stimulus II was passed.


  87. mawskrat
    87 | October 21, 2009 4:37 am

    Good Morning All….I see that the sun is gonna rise today and that’s a good thing!


  88. Bumr50
    88 | October 21, 2009 4:38 am

    re: #83 by vagabond trader

    Sorry. I promise to hate him more in the future!;-)


  89. vagabond trader
    89 | October 21, 2009 4:39 am

    re: #83 by vagabond trader

    He is President of the United States, not the Columbia Debating Society. The only ones who should be growing up in the WH are his daughters.

    I respectfully disagree with the idealism meme. He is a hardcore cynic with no love for his country.


  90. Number6
    90 | October 21, 2009 4:40 am

    re: #84 by Bumr50

    “What I see from the American Left is misdirection, dishonesty, and downright nastiness.”

    …and smugness. Their most endearing quality. It makes it easy for me to wish them ill.


  91. Bumr50
    91 | October 21, 2009 4:41 am

    re: #86 by mfhorn

    That depends. I think that the American people are getting wiser by the second in the internet age, and many (like me) are educating themselves on things like economics and politics.

    I think that’s why they’re pushing a Net Neutrality vote so quickly.


  92. 92 | October 21, 2009 4:49 am

    I don’t agree with this. Pat Buchanan is a racist POS. By traditional Americans, he really refers to White people. As if Hispanics and others aren’t traditional. Sorry I don’t support the writings of a NAZI.

    Pat Buchanan is a National Socialist and I will have nothing to do with this Progressive shit head.

    Pat Buchanan is also an Islamo-Fascist supporter, he is my enemy.


  93. 93 | October 21, 2009 4:52 am

    Good morning…. whose got the coffee?? Oh yea, that would be me… coffee anyone?


  94. RIX
    94 | October 21, 2009 4:53 am

    Greetings & Salutations. Great news, I have once again navigated the complexities of airport security.
    I have been thoroughly vetted by a crack team of TSA agents. I am pretty sure that noone managed to smuggle even an extra ounce of shampoo past them. Stinger Missles, not so sure.


  95. mawskrat
    95 | October 21, 2009 4:54 am

    re: #93 by doriangrey

    yes I’ll take some of that bitter bean juice


  96. vagabond trader
    96 | October 21, 2009 4:55 am

    re: #88 by Bumr50

    Nothing to do with hate on my part Bumr. Hes the one who sat in the anti American Jew hate church for 20 years. No excuses no pity.

    :-D


  97. vagabond trader
    97 | October 21, 2009 4:56 am

    re: #94 by RIX

    Glad to hear this and hope you were able to maintain your dignity during these rigors?

    ;-)


  98. bp_sf
    98 | October 21, 2009 4:57 am

    Dear Lord:

    Take Pat Buchanan. Now.

    Thanks

    bp


  99. Number6
    99 | October 21, 2009 4:58 am

    BBL. Time for sleep. Have a good one, All!


  100. RIX
    100 | October 21, 2009 4:58 am

    re: #97 by vagabond trader

    With all the courage that I could muster I faced the TSA.
    Boarding now, see ya.


  101. Bumr50
    101 | October 21, 2009 4:59 am

    re: #94 by RIX

    The agents were on crack? Doesn’t surprise me a bit.


  102. 102 | October 21, 2009 4:59 am

    re: #96 by vagabond trader

    Pat Buchanan is an anti-American POS. He sympathizes with Hitler, hates Israel and supports Islamists. He is a racist jerk who deserves no respect. Pat Buchanan is a Racist Progressive aka National Socialists.


  103. vagabond trader
    103 | October 21, 2009 5:00 am

    re: #92 by Rodan

    Feeling better huh?

    Yup notice how Buchanan emphasizes WHITE in his article. Hispanics, blacks and Jews need not apply.He does not represent my conservative views that is for sure.


  104. typicalwhitey
    104 | October 21, 2009 5:01 am

    Hey Dorian!


  105. Bumr50
    105 | October 21, 2009 5:03 am

    re: #92 by Rodan

    re: #98 by bp_sf

    Separate messenger from message! It’s easy!

    I think that it’s an indispensable skill.

    For example I LOVE the music of Pink Floyd and Radiohead but HATE Roger Waters (socialist) and Thom Yorke (avowed Marxist).

    I would lose out on a lot of good stuff if I couldn’t do this.

    I think it has to do with the fact that my Dad is an extremist in this regard, preventing him from seeing movies, listening to music, and participating in events that I know he’d enjoy and that would greatly enhance his life.

    To each their own I guess.


  106. Delectable
    106 | October 21, 2009 5:03 am

    re: #102 by Rodan

    I agree, Rodan.

    I am personally offended to see this article on Blogmocracy.

    Buchanan is supportive of Hitler and hates Israel, and it is repugnant and disgusting to see anyone on Blogmocracy to approvingly quote from the man.

    As a regular contributor to Blogmocracy, I am OUTRAGED to see this post.


  107. Delectable
    107 | October 21, 2009 5:04 am

    I have been telling very well known Israel activists to start posting on Blogmocracy.

    But I will stop doing that if this post stays up or is unrefuted.


  108. 108 | October 21, 2009 5:04 am

    re: #95 by mawskrat

    <—-- passes mawskrat coffee


  109. Bumr50
    109 | October 21, 2009 5:04 am

    re: #103 by vagabond trader

    Uh-oh! No disassemble! No disassemble Bumr50!


  110. vagabond trader
    110 | October 21, 2009 5:06 am

    re: #109 by Bumr50

    Aren’t you late for work or something?

    :-D


  111. 111 | October 21, 2009 5:06 am

    re: #104 by typicalwhitey

    Morning… Coffee???


  112. bp_sf
    112 | October 21, 2009 5:11 am

    Bumr50:

    Completely disagree.

    Sorry. Buchanan is a puke pile.

    He is what libtards think a typical angry white guy looks and sounds like.

    He’s a Jew hatin’ fvck.


  113. Bumr50
    113 | October 21, 2009 5:11 am

    I don’t like Pat Buchanan, but support the mission of these Oath Keepers.

    I would hope that it made some people aware of their presence and would perhaps direct them to support what some of us think is a noble cause.

    Perhaps we could find a piece not attributed to Buchanan that also gets the message out, so as not to offend anyone.

    My posts above about separating message from messenger were honest, and I hope no one takes offense at them.

    As a white American I can’t properly empathize with those in opposition to this post, but I have enough respect for their feelings that I think it would be best to honor their wishes.


  114. Bumr50
    114 | October 21, 2009 5:12 am

    re: #110 by vagabond trader

    Eight hours early! You’re stuck with me all day!


  115. Mrs.Robinson
    115 | October 21, 2009 5:13 am

    This traditional American says all this stuff gives her a headache!

    re: #85 by African Moondog
    Two thumbs up and a snap for that ! :)


  116. 116 | October 21, 2009 5:14 am

    re: #103 by vagabond trader

    Exactly, It’s about Progressivism not ethnicity that the problem is. Buchanana actually agree with Progressive economic policies like Corporate subsidies, pro-Union and Tariffs. he is a Leftist of a Racialist bent.


  117. vagabond trader
    117 | October 21, 2009 5:14 am

    re: #113 by Bumr50

    Now seriously,you can’t “properly empathisize” with those who find Buchanan offensive, but you just empathized with Obama upthread?? How come?


  118. vagabond trader
    118 | October 21, 2009 5:18 am

    re: #85 by African Moondog

    That is rich! Those who called skeptics deniers are now in denial! lmao!

    Love Melanie Phillips.


  119. Mrs.Robinson
    119 | October 21, 2009 5:22 am

    My grandfather was Greek. I guess that makes me Olive?


  120. Bumr50
    120 | October 21, 2009 5:23 am

    re: #117 by vagabond trader

    I had “a bit of sympathy” for Obama. Empathy, as I’ve learned the term, is being able to fully understand the condition of another person. If I said that I empathized with someone that has suffered persecution for their beliefs, race, sexual orientation, or gender where applicable, I feel that I would be insulting their level of emotion regarding the impact that the bias has had on their lives.

    Obama’s quandary is ideological, and as I see it with the information available, he was so surrounded with Leftism his whole life he was destined to becoming the America hating, flaming liberal that he is.

    And it was only a bit of sympathy, in a attempt to better understand a man that holds such sway, yet so little is known about.

    Don’t worry -- I’m not jumping ship, just trying to gain perspective from both sides (I’m a Libra!) I’m sorry if you disagree with my pattern of thought. I hope you’re not confused about my loyalties.:-)


  121. Delectable
    121 | October 21, 2009 5:25 am

    I hope some action is taken regarding this article. I hope it is taken down, deleted, or alternatively, an admin edits it in some way.

    Bob in Breckenridge contributed NOTHING of value in this article, other than copyright infringement. All he did is quote from the article whole cloth, without commentary. And the article is clearly racist, and written by a progressive and racist (Buchanan).

    As it stands, you can be sure CJ will post something about the Blogmocracy approvingly citing to a Hitler admirer (Buchanan).

    And this time, he would actually have a point.


  122. Mrs.Robinson
    122 | October 21, 2009 5:27 am

    re: #120 by Bumr50

    I see what you mean.
    I’m a Gemini! LOL


  123. vagabond trader
    123 | October 21, 2009 5:34 am

    re: #120 by Bumr50

    Yeah I tried using the detached method but still came out with the same result.I’m an old hand at seeing through bs and my detector went off the scale after learning of the “church.” He does have an unusual background and had little opportunity to see both sides of anything until he purposely landed in Chitown to gain his Afram creds.Unfortunately the “other” side he saw was the culture of victimhood and how to manipulate it for personal gain. An upmarket Jesse Jackson.


  124. pbird
    124 | October 21, 2009 5:35 am

    Must say I was a little shocked to see old Pat here. Perhaps in the spirit of open discourse, maybe. Eh?


  125. Rightside
    125 | October 21, 2009 5:36 am

    Back everyone, and I brought some coffee with me.

    Beck is having a field day with the inept white house. Having that person watching the “red phone” wearing a chairman mao outfit was a thumb to their collective eye. He’s making a laughing stock out of them (not that they weren’t already), and his numbers are through the roof.

    Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes must send thank you cards to the white house for this boon.


  126. Mrs.Robinson
    126 | October 21, 2009 5:36 am

    re: #121 by Delectable

    Hey it’s a teachable moment! I dont’ know anything about Pat Buchanan. I’ve heard his name and seen him on tv a few times and know he’s a political player etc, but he certainly doesn’t influence me in any way. NEITHER will this article. And I am taking note of the comments like yours. And I am a white person (or Olive-hee hee); and kinda sick of white people bashing also I don’t give a rats ass what color people are or even what they believe or not. I wish Americans would GET OVER IT really. Like I said; this all gives me a headache. Diversity-what a joke.


  127. 127 | October 21, 2009 5:36 am

    re: #121 by Delectable

    Hold on a second, I have two points to state.

    1) I thought Blogmocracy was a site where we didn’t have to worry about walking on eggshells. Am I wrong in any way?

    2) As far as copyright infringement goes, tell Bob about the infringement. Write Joseph Farah and find out how many words from a WND article are allowed to be published without needing written permission to do so (I think it’s no more than 20-25 words), and then make the necessary changes.


  128. vagabond trader
    128 | October 21, 2009 5:37 am

    re: #121 by Delectable

    I’m not down with crediting Buchanan the racist bigot with anything. If he happens to stumble on a truth that truth is available from a non offensive source. I concur with you, we are better than that.

    Oh yeah, as I stated above Buchanan and his ilk may bend low and kiss my Jewish tuchus.


  129. Bumr50
    129 | October 21, 2009 5:37 am

    re: #122 by Mrs.Robinson

    Thanks! I’m much meaner on other days!

    My sign also makes me a peacemaker. I’m a Christian, but strongly believe in some, select aspects of astrology. The attributes given to my Sun sign are uncannily accurate.

    re: #121 by Delectable

    I hope that this post doesn’t keep you from Blogmocracy, no matter what happens! You did some really excellent work on the J Street thing. I’ve been hounding Jason Altmire about it.

    You’ve got friends here. I think the admins try and keep it more open than at 1.0.

    The only thing I feel that I must point out is that I don’t give a rat’s ass what Charles Johnson thinks about anything.

    Does anyone care anymore? (besides the NYT Magazine)


  130. Bumr50
    130 | October 21, 2009 5:39 am

    re: #123 by vagabond trader

    Don’t underestimate the debt he owes to Michelle. She can BREAK him.


  131. vagabond trader
    131 | October 21, 2009 5:39 am

    Finally something we can agree on this AM! Pheeeew!

    “The only thing I feel that I must point out is that I don’t give a rat’s ass what Charles Johnson thinks about anything.


  132. Moe Katz
    132 | October 21, 2009 5:40 am

    Ummm, I’m half asleep here and maybe not on my game, but I agree with Vagabond Trader that this piece has racist overtones.


  133. vagabond trader
    133 | October 21, 2009 5:40 am

    re: #130 by Bumr50

    Yes, she is certainly not the benign dutiful wifey.Her Dad was quite a big wheel in his Chitown ward iirc. Any links?


  134. Mrs.Robinson
    134 | October 21, 2009 5:41 am

    re: #127 by Morgan

    1) I hope not!


  135. mimi
    135 | October 21, 2009 5:42 am

    re: #38 by Bumr50

    Ruined how? I tried to google but didn’t find anything. I am really curious.


  136. 136 | October 21, 2009 5:43 am

    re: #127 by Morgan

    Hold on a second, I have two points to state.

    1) I thought Blogmocracy was a site where we didn’t have to worry about walking on eggshells. Am I wrong in any way?

    Indeed it is, and Delectable is likewise free to express his/her outrage at something posted here. Rodan could have bitch-slapped this article straight into Chuckles the Clowns memory hole if he had chosen to, instead he allowed to to be posted, and then made damned sure everyone knew his personal opinion of Dichhead Buchanan. No eggshells here my friend…


  137. Mrs.Robinson
    137 | October 21, 2009 5:45 am

    re: #129 by Bumr50

    Hee hee, we both used..”dont’ give a rats ass”!
    LOL


  138. vagabond trader
    138 | October 21, 2009 5:45 am

    re: #132 by Moe Katz

    Looks around furtively. Was it my rosie tuchus comment?

    Seriously, Rodan and Delectable are more outraged than moi,tho I am not thrilled with anything related to this hater.

    Will maintain my disguise to hide my shame.

    :cool:


  139. Moe Katz
    139 | October 21, 2009 5:48 am

    re: #138 by vagabond trader

    The way he goes on about white this, white that, it’s pretty damn clear. But then who gives a rat’s ass about the opinion of a guy that detests Rush….


  140. 140 | October 21, 2009 5:49 am

    re: #138 by vagabond trader

    Will maintain my disguise to hide my shame.

    Just dont disguise your rosie tuchus… ROTFLMAO…


  141. 141 | October 21, 2009 5:49 am

    re: #136 by doriangrey

    Bob is an Admin like me. I would never do that to him. I get along very well with him and would never disrespect him, plus We don’t delete other admins posts.

    However, I will speak out when I don’t agree. I 100% don’t agree with anything this POS Pat Buchanan says. He is a Progressive and is no friend of the Right. He’s also a bigoted racist and will call out Buchanan on this.


  142. 142 | October 21, 2009 5:50 am

    re: #139 by Moe Katz

    Moe,
    Flying pig moment, I agree with you!!!!!!!!!!


  143. Moe Katz
    143 | October 21, 2009 5:51 am

    re: #142 by Rodan

    About Buchanan, that is…


  144. Speranza
    144 | October 21, 2009 5:52 am

    Fuck Pat Buchanan!


  145. 145 | October 21, 2009 5:53 am

    re: #143 by Moe Katz

    Yup, Look at what I wrote. Normally we clash on some Non Terror stuff but on this Buchanan thing, we are on the same side.


  146. Moe Katz
    146 | October 21, 2009 5:54 am

    re: #145 by Rodan

    Hey, Rodan, you interested in anything in the health and fitness area? This is my big passion.


  147. vagabond trader
    147 | October 21, 2009 5:55 am

    re: #139 by Moe Katz

    Don’t you be startin’here now!!! Rush is no Pat Buchanan.This creep stands alone and has been rightfully shunned by most conservatives. Thats why the only network that’ll have him is MSLSD/MSNBC

    :D


  148. vagabond trader
    148 | October 21, 2009 5:56 am

    re: #144 by Speranza

    Good morning!


  149. Speranza
    149 | October 21, 2009 5:56 am

    re: #12 by Number6

    If pat Buchanan wrote that he believes in baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet I still would not be interested in any thing that mother ****** had to say. He is a vile, Jew hating, Republican hating, isolationist assmunch. He is MSNBC’s type of “conservative.” I am fucking shocked to see an article of his posted here. Bad judgement guys!


  150. Speranza
    150 | October 21, 2009 5:57 am

    re: #148 by vagabond trader

    Good morning to you. Not happy to open up my favorite blog and be greeted by this.


  151. Moe Katz
    151 | October 21, 2009 5:57 am

    re: #147 by vagabond trader

    Rush is popular here. It saddens me, but I have to admit he’s popular here :)


  152. Russia on ice
    152 | October 21, 2009 5:58 am

    re: #121 by Delectable

    I’m with you and Rodan. Sure, even broken clocks may be right twice a day, but sorry, the racialist collectivist Pat Bullcrapon is not somebody I want anything to do with. Full stop.


  153. vagabond trader
    153 | October 21, 2009 5:58 am

    re: #140 by doriangrey

    LOL, figure of speech Dorien, the reality, lets not go there!


  154. kansas
    154 | October 21, 2009 5:59 am

    Could someone explain why talking about white is racist, while black caucus, black journalist, black whatever, and there are a lot of whatevers, is not? Fact is it is racist.

    And traditional Americans can be any race, any color if they so chose.


  155. Bumr50
    155 | October 21, 2009 5:59 am

    re: #133 by vagabond trader

    re: #135 by mimi

    It’s pure conjecture on my part that I believe Michelle Obama is close enough to the Daley machine that she GAVE Barry his Senate seat.

    My conjecture is based on the pattern of corruption in Illinois and Chicago in particular. And something is extremely fishy about his background. I mean, didn’t they spend a ton of money on lawyers just to make ALL of his records inaccessible.

    My bad.


  156. 156 | October 21, 2009 6:00 am

    re: #141 by Rodan

    My point exactly. Buchanan is a POS, Freedom of speech means having on occasion to hear things that make your blood boil, disagreeing with what is said, but supporting the right of those making offensive statements to freely express themselves.

    Our founding fathers understood this and wrote it right into our Constitution, it’s clear that those of you who administer this site likewise understand it.

    Kudos to you and Delectable for standing up and calling Buchanan exactly what he is, a racist anti-Semitic fascist asshole. This is how Freedom of Speech is suppose to work, allow everyone to have their say, and then allow them to take the heat for what they say…


  157. Russia on ice
    157 | October 21, 2009 6:01 am

    re: #149 by Speranza

    I couldn’t believe my eyes either. Pat Buchanan, as the pet batshit looney “conservative” (my arse) of the drive-by media, has single-handedly done more damage to the image of conservatism in the USA than all leftists done together.


  158. Speranza
    158 | October 21, 2009 6:01 am

    re: #128 by vagabond trader

    “I’m not down with crediting Buchanan the racist bigot with anything. If he happens to stumble on a truth that truth is available from a non offensive source. I concur with you, we are better than that.”

    Exactly. Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer et al -- I would listen to them, I have pure visceral hatred towards the jowly fascist.

    This article will not bring any new netizens over to LGF2.


  159. Russia on ice
    159 | October 21, 2009 6:03 am

    re: #144 by Speranza

    Fuck Pat Buchanan

    And the donkey he rode in on. This piece of shite is the best ally the Dems have to marginalise us all.


  160. Speranza
    160 | October 21, 2009 6:04 am

    re: #157 by Russia on ice

    Pat Buchanan is a piece of shit. He is a stple on MSNBC becsue he can relaibly be coutned on to trash

    Israel
    Jews
    Republicans
    “neo cons”
    The Bush family

    The Mother fucker supported the Russian invasion of Georgia last yer and felt that Churchill was the one (not Hitler) responsible for World War II.


  161. 161 | October 21, 2009 6:05 am

    re: #154 by kansas

    Could someone explain why talking about white is racist, while black caucus, black journalist, black whatever, and there are a lot of whatevers, is not? Fact is it is racist.

    Talking about being white isnt automatically racist, Celebrating being white isnt automatically racist, it becomes racist when being white somehow makes you superior to others for no reason other than your being white.


  162. 162 | October 21, 2009 6:06 am

    re: #153 by vagabond trader

    LOL, figure of speech Dorien, the reality, lets not go there!

    ROTFLMAO…. Sorry, it’s the Nearly Practically Almost Famous Rock Star in me, just cant seem to bring that under control….


  163. Speranza
    163 | October 21, 2009 6:07 am

    re: #121 by Delectable

    “As it stands, you can be sure CJ will post something about the Blogmocracy approvingly citing to a Hitler admirer (Buchanan).”

    Oh you know he will. It’s like Custer selling guns to the Indians.


  164. vagabond trader
    164 | October 21, 2009 6:07 am

    re: #155 by Bumr50

    Have you read David Fredosso or Michele Malkins book? Fredosso wrote a reasoned critique before the election of Obamas Chitown activities, many bordering on illegal. Too bad more folks didn’t read it.Smart guy, good investigator too.


  165. Russia on ice
    165 | October 21, 2009 6:09 am

    re: #116 by Rodan

    Exactly, It’s about Progressivism not ethnicity that the problem is. Buchanana actually agree with Progressive economic policies like Corporate subsidies, pro-Union and Tariffs. he is a Leftist of a Racialist bent.

    Exactly. Is his collectivist bilge what we want to promote here?


  166. vagabond trader
    166 | October 21, 2009 6:10 am

    re: #162 by doriangrey

    Quite alright,I used to be half a groupie back in the day.My best friend worked in the business and we were always getting free tickets and backstage passes to some great shows in NYC and Boston.These days I’d qualify as a den mother of sorts.

    :mrgreen:


  167. 167 | October 21, 2009 6:11 am

    re: #164 by vagabond trader

    Fredosso wrote a reasoned critique before the election of Obamas Chitown activities, many bordering on illegal. Too bad more folks didn’t read it.Smart guy, good investigator too.

    Which probably puts him way up near the top of the list of individuals soon to be shipped off to the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Conservative Elimination Facility…


  168. vagabond trader
    168 | October 21, 2009 6:14 am

    re: #167 by doriangrey

    Have to check what he has been up to. This is one fine writer unafraid to tell the truth. Like a real “investigative journalist” an art we seem to have abandoned.


  169. Number6
    169 | October 21, 2009 6:18 am

    Buchanan is not a conservative and has not been for 20 years, at least. He is a populist of the old Huey Long variety and fancies himself a gadfly since his losing presidential bid. He revels in making people upset with his words, which has guaranteed him a spot on the MSM until he dies. I have no doubt he is ant-Israel to his core and an anti-semite as well.

    I would not walk across the street to see him pissed off or pissed on. I am not, however, offended to see him quoted here.


  170. Number6
    170 | October 21, 2009 6:20 am

    Buchanan is not a conservative and has not been for 20 years, at least. He is a populist of the old Huey Long variety and fancies himself a gadfly since his losing presidential bid. He revels in making people upset with his words, which has guaranteed him a spot on the MSM until he dies. I have no doubt he is ant-Israel to his core and and anti-semite as well.

    I would not walk across the street to see him pissed off or pissed on. I am not, however, offended to see him quoted here.


  171. Russia on ice
    171 | October 21, 2009 6:26 am

    re: #170 by Number6

    I would not walk across the street to see [Putz Buchanan] pissed on.

    Maybe in a future Zombie “Up your alley” reportage this item will feature. She could charge admission for that one.


  172. Speranza
    172 | October 21, 2009 6:27 am

    re: #170 by Number6

    “I am not, however, offended to see him quoted here.”

    I am. Anti-Semites need to be ridiculed, not respected and quoting that pig is respecting him. I can dig up Goebbels quotes which on the face of it if you did not know who the speaker was would seem reasonable As VT said, if Buchanan occasionally stumbles upon the truth, big deal! It’s nothing that Krauthammer, Steyn, Victor Davis Hansen or scores of other true conservatives could not come up with. Being around Buchanan makes one dirty.


  173. Bumr50
    173 | October 21, 2009 6:28 am

    re: #164 by vagabond trader

    Have not, unfortunately.

    I purchased Ellison’s ‘Invisible Man’ last night at the recommendation of buzzsawmonkey, and plan on busying myself with it for a bit.

    Afterward Terry Pratchett has a new Discworld book out, this time tackling the subject of athletics.

    I try and alternate between serious and humor/horror/sci-fi.


  174. 174 | October 21, 2009 6:35 am

    re: #172 by Speranza

    I have a post coming up in 2 1/2 hours. Although it’s not about Pat Buchanan, I do make a special not on my opinion on this clown.


  175. Speranza
    175 | October 21, 2009 6:38 am

    re: #174 by Rodan

    Thanks. This current thread here does us zero good.


  176. 176 | October 21, 2009 6:55 am

    re: #172 by Speranza

    You mention that being around Pat Buchanan makes one dirty. I have a question: How is this guilt by association different from the guilt by association games played by Charlie all the time?


  177. Delectable
    177 | October 21, 2009 7:04 am

    re: #176 by Morgan

    If the Blogmocracy quoted approvingly to Sheikh Qaradawi, would you have no problem with it?

    Buchanan supports Radical Islam. He repeatedly argues on behalf of Hamas on national TV, and has praised Islam in his columns.

    It is a disgrace to see him quoted here.


  178. Speranza
    178 | October 21, 2009 7:14 am

    re: #177 by Delectable

    You and I park our cars in the same garage. He supported Hamas in the Gaza war and in the April 2002 war. Shame on this blog!!


  179. Speranza
    179 | October 21, 2009 7:16 am

    re: #176 by Morgan

    Pat Buchanan is a fucking dirt bag pig Nazi that’s what. Don’t even bring Johnson in, at least Johnson was right about Buchanan being a fucking Nazi. Johnson was wrong in linkinng Buchanan to conservatives though.

    Fuck Pat Buchanan, I hope a run away truck runs him down.


  180. snork
    180 | October 21, 2009 7:19 am

    I think a lot of people are missing a subtle but very important point. When people like Buchanan and Paul start making sense, even partially, that means we’ve arrived at a point in history similar to Wiemar Germany.

    I was commenting years ago (back at the old place) that the European center-right parties were handing the their far-right parties a gift by refusing to deal foursquarely with Islamofascism. I certainly wasn’t supporting the neo-Nazis when I said that; I was bemoaning the fecklessness of the center-right, and how, in fact, they were aiding the neo-Nazis.

    What Buchanan says here says less about Buchanan than it does about us. It says something very, very disturbing about our times and our leaders. We’re in for a very rough ride when the nut cases like this have anything valid to say. And like Buchanan or not, what he said here was valid.

    Hitler was right about the Bolsheviks. And he rode that into office. The Wiemar political elites handed him that issue on a silver platter. Similarly, our political elites are handing the extremists these issues on a silver platter. Whites do have a reason to feel cornered, with these vindictive leftists and their take-no-prisoners approach.

    It’s 1930 again. The choices are looking pretty grim. Dismiss what Buchanan is saying about us and our elites at your peril. Make the wrong choice, and we could end up with President Buchanan or President Duke.


  181. RickMZ
    181 | October 21, 2009 7:20 am

    Buchanan should never be quoted approvingly. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler created jobs in the human mass slaughter industry. Stalin made a few omelettes. Cripes! Quoting Bushanan, a Jew-hating, Nazi-loving bigot, approvingly? {GAG} Sorry, there’s no place for such nonsense, especially on a blog that regularly takes well-aimed pot shots at progressives. I want to hear Buchanan approvingly quoted, I’ll turn on MSLSD.


  182. Jesusland
    182 | October 21, 2009 7:26 am

    “Traditional America”, “middle America”, “white America”, whatever name you give them, this rightwing hispanic has got their back. I don’t care about anybody’s race or ethnicity, just their values. Traditional America is this country’s last best hope as far as I’m concerned.


  183. kansas
    183 | October 21, 2009 7:28 am

    re: #182 by Jesusland

    Thank you Jesusland!


  184. Jesusland
    184 | October 21, 2009 7:30 am

    ps., but the idea of “armed militias” is not something I support. It’s far far FAR too premature for that, and it only discredits us at this point.


  185. kansas
    185 | October 21, 2009 7:33 am

    re: #181 by RickMZ Quoting Buchanan, a Jew-hating, Nazi-loving bigot, approvingly.

    Obama seems to gravitate to Jew hating Nazi loving bigots in the middle east.


  186. Speranza
    186 | October 21, 2009 7:35 am

    re: #181 by RickMZ

    I agree. what the hell were they thinking? I can quote Stalin on some interesting stuff but I never would. Buchanan is no conservative.


  187. mjazz
    187 | October 21, 2009 7:38 am

    re: #92 by Rodan
    I thought I’d scroll through before posting & was thinking of posting “Buchanan is a bum. I won’t even read what he has to say.” and read your post at the same time.
    He’s an anti-Semite.


  188. Carolina Girl
    188 | October 21, 2009 7:44 am

    re: #175 by Speranza

    My personal favorite quote about Pat Buchanan (and I totally detest him as well) comes from Dick Cavett. Buchanan gave an incendiary speech at, I believe, the 1988 Republican Convention. When asked his opinion of the speech, Cavatt said “it was far better in the original German.”


  189. Jesusland
    189 | October 21, 2009 7:44 am

    >>>I don’t agree with this. Pat Buchanan is a racist POS. By traditional Americans, he really refers to White people. As if Hispanics and others aren’t traditional.

    Sorry, Rodan, I have to disagree with some of what you said. To the extent that hispanics are for open borders then they are not “traditional” in the sense Buchanan is using the term. Also, most in the hispanic community-- like most Liberals-- are more concerned with their “communal rights” than in the concepts of individual liberty. Those are two big ones.

    And I’m not a racist because I’m hispanic and my college professor told me minorities can’t be racist! ha!


  190. mjazz
    190 | October 21, 2009 7:46 am

    re: #107 by Delectable
    Haven’t you been reading the comments?


  191. Delectable
    191 | October 21, 2009 7:50 am

    re: #189 by Jesusland

    Wow, Jesusland.

    You support “white America”?

    I do not.

    I support an America that believes in values, and as such, I support freedom, equality, and liberty. That is not happening with statements such as “white America.”

    I exist in a post-racial world, where the color of the skin is irrelevant to me. All I care about is content of your character.

    And Buchanan’s character stinks.

    I would rather live in a Spanish-speaking country than have him as president.


  192. mjazz
    192 | October 21, 2009 7:51 am

    re: #139 by Moe Katz
    You’ve never quoted what Rush has said that you disagreed with- other than that sound bite.


  193. Delectable
    193 | October 21, 2009 7:52 am

    re: #190 by mjazz

    My concern is that most people do not read comments -- they read the underlying article only.

    Unless the article itself is edited, it will be a stand-alone example of Blogmocracy’s support for white nationalism.


  194. Jesusland
    194 | October 21, 2009 7:55 am

    Wow, Jesusland.

    You support “white America”?

    I do not.

    Not as you mean it. The gist of my comment was that I don’t care what you call them, I don’t care about race, but that I support their values.


  195. Delectable
    195 | October 21, 2009 7:56 am

    re: #194 by Jesusland

    Okay -- that was not clear.

    I too support traditional values. But we need to call it that -- traditional values.

    And never tack on a race badge to what are values.


  196. mjazz
    196 | October 21, 2009 8:02 am

    This would be a good thread to post this on:
    FM Liberman meets with EU High Representative Solana

    “Armed struggle is a strategy, not a tactic. The armed revolution of the Arab Palestinian people is a crucial element in the battle for liberation and for the elimination of the Zionist presence. This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated.”
    -Fatah said this in August


  197. snork
    197 | October 21, 2009 8:05 am

    I agree with Morgan. This moral posing is getting a little too ’1.0′. I still see a ’2′ in the url bar, but this thread sure has the smell of that other place.


  198. mjazz
    198 | October 21, 2009 8:09 am

    It’s not guilt by association.
    Buchanan’s a bum and an anti-Semite.


  199. buzzsawmonkey
    199 | October 21, 2009 8:09 am

    re: #195 by Delectable

    Hey, Delectable: liked your post yesterday.

    I hope it was clear that my “human rights” oration(s) were not a quarrel with your premise as such—that Obama is not a supporter of liberty—but rather an effort to point out how deeply the parasite locution of “human rights” has burrowed into political discourse over the past several decades, passing itself off, like a mockingbird or a hermit crab, as something it is not.


  200. Iron Fist
    200 | October 21, 2009 8:10 am

    You can count me on the side of the Buchannan haters. Any transitory correct point he might have is burried in the awful baggage of racism and anti-Semitism that he carries around with him. I support the Oath Keepers, at least from what I know of them, but there has to be a better vehicle for getting their message out than Pat Buchannan.


  201. Jesusland
    201 | October 21, 2009 8:11 am

    And never tack on a race badge to what are values.

    100% agree. I myself would never call traditional America “white.” “White America” is a term Liberals use in order to discredit middle/traditional America as a voice. That doesn’t mean whites don’t exist. They’re just another demographic as far as I’m concerned. But to their they don’t think as “collectively” as much as other demographics do. That’s part of what makes them “traditional.” Make sense? If not, I perfectly understand!


  202. mjazz
    202 | October 21, 2009 8:13 am

    Pat buchanan in his own words


  203. 203 | October 21, 2009 8:17 am

    Pat Buchanan?

    I don’t want to be associated with him in any way, shape or form.

    Bob in Breckenridge, I support your free speech and/or your right to cut and paste (whatever the case may be).

    And I express my objection to that man on principle. I won’t be reading what he wrote: my mind is already made up about him.

    I also appreciate that I can disagree with one of the blog admins without the threat of insults or banning. With that said, I’ll check out another thread.


  204. Speranza
    204 | October 21, 2009 8:18 am

    re: #203 by Josephine

    I did a double take when I saw a Pat Buchanan article posted.


  205. Speranza
    205 | October 21, 2009 8:24 am

    re: #188 by Carolina Girl

    “My personal favorite quote about Pat Buchanan (and I totally detest him as well) comes from Dick Cavett. Buchanan gave an incendiary speech at, I believe, the 1988 Republican Convention. When asked his opinion of the speech, Cavett said “it was far better in the original German.””

    My favorite is

    “Buchanan had a relative who was killed in World war II -- he fell out of a watch tower at Treblinka.”


  206. Speranza
    206 | October 21, 2009 8:28 am

    re: #197 by snork

    “I agree with Morgan. This moral posing is getting a little too ‘1.0′. I still see a ‘2′ in the url bar, but this thread sure has the smell of that other place.”

    It is not moral posing to object to an article by an anti Semite, progressive, isolationist, bigoted, bum.


  207. snork
    207 | October 21, 2009 8:33 am

    re: #206 by Speranza

    It’s completely Johnsonian to refuse to talk about an issue because of the personality attached to it.

    Here’s my question: if those exact same words were written by some schmo named John Smith, what would be different?

    On top of that, we have a tangential issue that I described in 180. Again, ignore the message at your peril. Ignoring Buchanan risks making him more powerful.


  208. kansas
    208 | October 21, 2009 8:37 am

    re: #191 by Delectable
    Wow, Jesusland.

    You support “white America”?
    I do not.
    I support an America that believes in values, and as such, I support freedom, equality, and liberty. That is not happening with statements such as “white America.”
    I exist in a post-racial world, where the color of the skin is irrelevant to me. All I care about is content of your character.
    And Buchanan’s character stinks.
    I would rather live in a Spanish-speaking country than have him as president.
    Wow, just like old times. Putting words in people’s mouth and then attacking them for what they didn’t say.

    Jesusland said traditional, not white. Clarence Thomas is traditional, Condy Rice is traditional. And if you exist in a post racial world, then you are not living within the borders of the USA. Let me know when BET, the Black Congressional Caucus, the Black Chamber of Commerce, The Black Journalist Association, Miss Black America, La Raza, and any number of racist/racial organizations cease to exist.

    So am I going to banned here now?


  209. buzzsawmonkey
    209 | October 21, 2009 8:44 am

    re: #207 by snork

    There you go, talking about Johnson bars.


  210. Delectable
    210 | October 21, 2009 8:46 am

    re: #199 by buzzsawmonkey

    Thanks -- and I know that, and had no problem with your comments.

    As far as everything else -- to morgan and kansas…

    Jesusland defended what Buchanan said, and he spoke about “white America” repeatedly in his post.

    He then clarified, and I accepted the clarification.

    Maybe I wrongly reacted when I called for this to be deleted. Perhaps it is better to see this post thoroughly rejected by the Blogmocracy community.

    But then again, I do not believe in total and complete free speech. That would then mean that an admin would be able to come in and post Islamic propaganda as “free speech.”

    I have no problem with people defending Buchanan in the comments -- if they choose to do so. I then can refute them. But an admin represents Blogmocracy, and so when an admin posts approvingly to a racist/antisemite/progressive…it is a much bigger problem.


  211. Delectable
    211 | October 21, 2009 8:48 am

    To clarify -- I meant to type that *Buchanan* spoke of White America in his post, and Jesusland defended Buchanan’s statements.

    However, after clarification, I understand where Jesusland was coming from.


  212. Speranza
    212 | October 21, 2009 9:01 am

    re: #207 by snork

    I can talk about an issue (any issue) but I find Buchanan to be a repulsive reptile. Let us not parse words. Buchanan is such a mother fucker that any decent person ought to shun all contact with him. It was a huge and tactless mistake to post an article of his. Anyone wanting to read his rantings can go to TownHall or Human Events or World Net Daily (to their shame).


  213. 213 | October 21, 2009 9:11 am

    re: #177 by Delectable

    I don’t know who Sheikh Qaradawi is.

    re: #179 by Speranza

    Just because Charlie said somebody is a Nazi didn’t make it so, and the “proof” he brought up was questionable. My point is this: is there unquestionable proof of Pat Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, and is it worth applying the guilt by association label to those who cite his work.

    re: #197 by snork

    I was simply asking a question, that’s all.


  214. 214 | October 21, 2009 9:27 am

    I have something further to say about Pat Buchanan’s article: Buchanan mentions the alienation and radicalization of white America by progressives, who think in terms of race. I don’t care about race, but I don’t like it when any race gets shafted in favor of another (something mentioned already in previous comments here). It also cheapens the true value of people when we are categorized by race or ethnicity.

    Whether Buchanan’s motives were genuine or ulterior doesn’t matter in one respect: he points out the fact progressives think in terms of race, ethnicity and masses and not in terms of individual people.

    It also leads me to ask this question: Outside of 2.0, who else points out the truth about progressives and their actions in regards to races and ethnicities?


  215. Speranza
    215 | October 21, 2009 9:35 am

    re: #213 by Morgan

    “Just because Charlie said somebody is a Nazi didn’t make it so, and the “proof” he brought up was questionable. My point is this: is there unquestionable proof of Pat Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, and is it worth applying the guilt by association label to those who cite his work.”

    Yes there is.

    and this is only from 1991. He supported Hamas last year as well.

    Fuck Buchanan

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/patrick-j--buchanan-and-the-jews-7783


  216. Speranza
    216 | October 21, 2009 9:37 am

    re: #213 by Morgan

    Why would you want to site that pigs work?

    How about I site Stalin’s work -- after all I am sure I can find some reasonable stuff he wrote in his 74 years on this earth..


  217. 217 | October 21, 2009 9:49 am

    re: #216 by Speranza

    I hardly read Pat Buchanan, so I honestly don’t know for sure if he can be equated with Stalin. By the way, in case you haven’t read this, I’d like an answer to the question.


  218. 218 | October 21, 2009 9:56 am

    re: #216 by Speranza

    By the way, I didn’t say anything about wanting to cite Buchanan’s work. Thanks also for the link to the Commentary article.


  219. sk (skzion)
    219 | October 21, 2009 10:27 am

    re: #218 by Morgan

    Morgan, just for the record, Buckley himself concluded that Buchanan was an anti-Semite--and that was years ago.

    I agree with Rodan on this one (even if He constantly and Inappropriately Capitalizes words and makes us all Look Silly).


  220. 220 | October 21, 2009 10:36 am

    re: #219 by sk (skzion)

    Yeah, I know about Buckley’s conclusions, but again, I’m not familiar with Buchanan’s work. I need to do some homework before I can conclude the same thing.


  221. Scott Madsen
    221 | October 21, 2009 10:40 am

    Buchanan is irrelevent to the subject of Oaths to support the Constiution and resistance to illegal orders. He is gloming on to try and legitimize his illegitiment cohort before they are rejected and left in the dust by politically reawakening mainstream Americans .

    This is not fresh news….. here is an accordant link dump on the matter:

    http://www.threepercenter.org/index.php

    http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html

    …and while I am at it, Billy Beck’s book list:

    http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php?id=P942

    Wed May, 26 2004
    A List Of Books
    This will be a long post.

    A mad impulse having overtaken me, despite Bob Hunt’s periodic desperate harangues to get on with this for at least six months, I now set out to list some important books around here.

    “Around here” means: the half or so of my library which is immediately within reach and not still languishing in boxes not unpacked from Atlanta. Like: the whole of Frederick Copleston’s nine-volume history of philosophy, for instance. You won’t see that in this list (or, perhaps, “these lists”, which seems more likely as I sit here typing this at nearly midnight — no time to start something like this, really) for the simple reason that it’s not present for me to gather publication details. I know I could do that on the Web, but that would really go against the grain of what I have in mind. This is about real books that I’ve actually read and noted in my own hand. These are my books. I currently have my hand on them, which is not true of the entire collection, some of which resides in storage.

    You will not see here trivialities like “Gravity’s Rainbow”, “Slaughterhouse Five”, or “Catch-22″. (I’ve read two of those three examples, with immediate regret for the time wasted on every page.) If that sort of thing interests you, there are any number of other blogs and Websites that will interest you more than what I’m about to put up. I therefore invite you to haul your narrow ass out of here, because I’m serious. I don’t have time for rubbish.

    I will begin at one end of my top shelf, and work through every book at hand, with no serious scheme of organization, principally because the physical objects in this space are not that organized. There are piles of them laying around here and there, as they circulate, which happens constantly. Last night, for example, I was reading Rose’s “After Yalta”, and had to get out of bed to retrieve volumes by Klehr and Haynes (the Yale University “Annals of Communism” series), Schlesinger, and John T. Flynn (“The Roosevelt Myth” — 1948) for cross-indexing. This happens all the time, and the upshot is that my library is a very dynamic thing. It never rests.

    Note that “every book at hand” does not mean that I will list them all here. What it means is that I will actively consider every one of them for this list. “Important” is a qualification that I will not quite make up on-the-fly. All these books are “important”, else I would not have bought or read them. What it means here is that, in a single pass, these books stand out in my mind as eminently survivable of a purge. Something like: if I had to abandon this house and run out the door, I would linger over these titles and try to figure a way to take them along.

    Here we go:

    The Black Book of Communism, 1999, Stephane Courtois, et. al. — Comprehensive catalogue of the consequences of a manifestly evil philosophy. Unprecendented in its global scope. All the rats in one bag.

    Trotsky — The Eternal Revolutionary, 1996, Dmitri Volkogonov — People admire this man, to this day, for no other reason than that he opposed Stalin. This is like admiring Bugsy Segal because he was killed by the mob. Study his life and realize that one of the worst criminal mentalities of the 20th century was killed in Mexico by one of the worst criminal mentalities of the 20th century.

    Hitler And Stalin — Parallel Lives, 1991, Alan Bullock — It’s astonishing to me that it took until the last decade of the 20th century for someone to write this book, because the comparisons are so obvious. It was worth the wait, because Bullock thoroughly exhausts the comparisons. Indispensible.

    The Soviet Tragedy — A History of Socialism In Russia, 1917-1991, 1994, Martin Malia — Although not extremely outstanding on any decent shelf of Sovietology, this is yet a very good recap of the history, worth inclusion in this list.

    Let History Judge — The Origins And Consequences of Stalinism, 1989, Roy Medvedev — A crucial work of what I call the “loose-hair coif of history” school of Soviet apologetics condemning Stalin as an aberration.

    The Great Terror — A Reassessment, 1990, Robert Conquest — The landmark study of the most virulent madness that the world ever saw.

    Reflections On A Ravaged Century, 2000, Robert Conquest — Worthwhile thoughts on why the 20th century went the way it went.

    Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime, 1994, Richard Pipes — The most finely detailed history of the Bolshevik Revolution and early USSR (1917-1924) that I own.

    The Gulag Archipelago — An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956 (three volumes), 1973, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — An enormous look at hell rendered with the original 20th century aptitude for the work of the thing. Even after many years of familiarity with the worst Nazi crimes, this was shocking to me. It matches its 1900-odd page heft with psychic impact. Huge, in every dimension.

    The Secret World of American Communism, 1995, Klehr, Haynes, and Firsov — A history of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) documented from Soviet archives, illustrating its subversion and espionage. The state of the data, today.

    The Soviet World of American Communism, 1998, Klehr, Haynes, and Anderson — Essentially an extension of the preceding volume, detailing the CPUSA’s intimate subordination to Moscow. Again: documented from Soviet archives. These two books present immutable facts against which there can be absolutely no rational argument.

    Stalin’s Letters To Molotov, 1995, Lih, Naumov, and Khlevniuk — The mind of a monster, in his own hand.

    Witness, 1952, Whittaker Chambers — The statement of a principal in what is arguably the single most important direct antagonism in 20th century American politics: one man against another, each archtypical of world crisis at that moment.

    Economic Theory of the Leisure Class, 1914, Nikolai Bukharin — The golden-boy of Bolshevik economics attempts to sneer-off the Austrian School, twenty-three years before Stalin thanks him with a bullet in the back of the head.

    Shattered Peace — The Origins Of The Cold War And The National Security State, 1978, Daniel Yergin — This is a period-piece, eminent for its generational take on the subject at hand. Finely documented, it works as cross-reference, even though its thesis (very roughly: “There are two sides to every story, so don’t be judgmental unless you’re ready to blame America, too.”) is generally disposable.

    Waging Peace And War — Dean Rusk In The Truman, Kennedy, And Johnson Years, 1988, Thomas J. Schoenbaum — An important Secretary of State’s time in the crucible.

    Russia At War, 1941--1945, 1964, Alexander Werth — Enormous, panoramic view of the biggest fight in human history.

    Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-1945, 1965, Alan Clark — Splendid rendering of all the special military aspects of the biggest fight in human history.

    The Second World War (six volumes), 1948-1953, Winston S. Churchill — If you only ever read one thing about World War II, make this that one thing. If you can resist the conclusion that Churchill saved the world (do struggle, dear reader), you will nonetheless have a better grasp of the worst woe that the whole world ever shared, altogether, than you could manage from any other single work on the subject.

    The Twelve Year Reich — A Social History of Nazi Germany, 1933-1945, 1971, Richard Grunberger — This book comprehends Nazi culture in uncommon ways. Here’s your feel for all the little things that people in those straits lived in those years, in one book.

    Hitler’s Justice — The Courts of The Third Reich, 1991, Ingo Muller — Nazi legal theory and practice: the complicity of a miserable profession in a wretched business.

    Gestapo: Instrument of Tyranny, 1956, Edward Crankshaw — An important examination of the mechanics of one species of totalitarianism.

    Downfall: The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire, 1999, Richard B. Frank — The push & shove across an ocean that culminated on August 6, 1945 (Hiroshima). What the Last Days looked like in the highest councils — on both sides — just before the whole world turned on an atom.

    Radical Son — A Generational Odyssey, 1997, David Horowitz — An important confessional. If you don’t believe me, then track down your own copy of…

    Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War, 1971, David Horowitz — This is a marvelous example of 1960′s “New Left” delusion at the height of its intellectual ambition. Where Horowitz used to live, and that’s what makes “Radical Son” so important.

    Letters To A Young Contrarian, 2001, Christopher Hitchens — Instruction for the Angry Young Man, exquisitely rendered by a master of the life.

    Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought In Twentieth Century America, 1997, Richard Rorty — Know your enemy. That is all.

    Vietnam: A History, 1983, Stanley Karnow — “The First Complete Account of Vietnam At War”. Consider that sentence very carefully, ladies and gentlemen. It’s true. It’s also important to understand that this book is about Vietnam at war, which is not the same thing as America at war in Vietnam. Read the whole book very carefullly.

    Contract With America, 1994, Gingrich, Armey, and the House Republicans — The Declaration of Foolishness, by stupid cowards who promptly got their asses kicked all over hell and half of Georgia by a nation that simply does not value freedom. Read it and weep. Personally, I laughed all day long.

    In Defense Of Elitism, 1994, William A. Henry III — 212 pages of fact and truth, shortly after the publication of which the author promptly died of a heart attack. His own mother said that it was probably all for the best, because Henry would not have to face the abuse he would take over this thing from all the caring and loving shitbags on the scene.

    The Crisis Of The Old Order, 1957, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. — A horribly maudlin thing: the kitty brings a ratty present to FDR’s grave. If you think today’s expiring hippies are nostalgic for utter nonsense, wait’ll you get a load of this gummy paean to the second Great American Moral Adventure of the 20th century.

    Tenured Radicals — How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, 1990, Roger Kimball — A twit named Rudy Dutschke is often credited with announcing a “long march through the institutions” in 1968. This happens under the pens of ignoramuses who don’t know Antonio Gramsci. Whole herds are marching, now, and Kimball’s book illustrates how they’re taught to step.

    The Closing Of The American Mind, 1987, Allan Bloom — A fairly feeble flail at an extremely important subject. Not stellar, but a keeper.

    Socialism And War — Essays, Documents, Reviews, 1997, F.A. Hayek (edited by Bruce Caldwell) — A terrifically dense collection of articles illustrating Hayek’s evolution from economist to philosopher through contemplation of events and issues of the 1930′s and 1940′s.

    From Dawn To Decadence — 1500 To The Present, 2000, Jaques Barzun — If you want to get from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King, you have to go through Jean Jaques Rousseau and John Dewey.

    The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, 1938, translated and edited by Dr. A. A. Brill — the drawings of the architect of the powder-room of philosophy.

    The Rhetoric Of Reaction, 1991, Albert O. Hirschman — the only book I’ve ever seen exclusively devoted to the the history of the logic of political stimulus and response, and where it all lays, today.

    Critique of Pure Reason, 1781, Immanuel Kant (translation by F. Max Muller) — Where the Enlightenment went off the rails for real.

    The Papers Of Martin Luther King, Jr. — Volume I, 1992, edited by Clayborne Carson — The intellectual birth of a genuinely tragic American character.

    Essays On Philosophical Subjects, 1980, edited by W.P.D. Wightman — Adam Smith, the neglected philosopher.

    The Fatal Conceit — The Errors Of Socialism, 1988, F.A. Hayek — This is the book that Hayek should not have written.

    The Big Spenders, 1966, Lucius Beebe — You might not know this, but America was once a place where gloriously rich people knew how to play with their money in a big, big way. Try to imagine Texans shooting holes in medieval tapestries with six-guns at their dinner parties, replete with solid gold baskets at table to catch the hot cartridges so as not to burn the antique carpets. And that ain’t the half of it. This is a wonderful history of a culture savagely beaten to death by envy.

    Carnage And Culture — Landmark Battles In The Rise Of Western Power, 2001, Victor Davis Hanson — A finely integrated history of combat according to a specific set of traditions culturally unique. Damned good argument.

    Morgan: American Financier, 1999, Jean Strouse — A fine biography of one of the most viciously and wrongly maligned Americans of all time: J. Pierpont Morgan.

    The Prize: The Epic Quest For Oil, Money, And Power, 1991, Daniel Yergin — Indispensible history of the oil industry.

    Darkness At Noon, 1941, Arthur Koestler — One of the very few novels you’re going to see here. It’s about a man whose beliefs led him to the bitter end, in Stalin’s murder cellars. I took the name of my blog from this book.

    Animal Farm, 1946, George Orwell — A fable, of timeless pertinence.

    A World Lit Only By Fire — The Medieval Mind And The Renaissance, 1992, William Manchester — There is a reason for Manchester’s success: he’s a splendid writer. Here, he takes up a subject fairly remote to the life of, say, a person who’s crashed Harley-Davidsons, flies airplanes, and plays loud electric guitars, and I thank him for it.

    Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report On The Banality Of Evil, 1963, Hannah Arendt — The most singularly probing examination of the actual character of Nazi monsters — and their victims — this book was an act of great courage. The questions in your mind will occur of necessity by implication.

    Common Sense, 1776, Thomas Paine — You can still read the original spark of The American Revolution, and you bloody well should.

    The Fundamentals Of Liberty, 1988, Robert LeFevre — A theoretical and historical exposition by a disgracefully neglected modern American libertarian.

    God Is My Co-Pilot, 1943, Col. Robert L. Scott — This is the first adult book I ever read, in the fourth grade. One man’s fight to get into the fight, culminating in his command of the 23rd Fighter Group (successors of The Flying Tigers), in China.

    The Count Of Monte Cristo, 1844, Alexander Dumas — One of the finest adventure stories of all time, this book makes possible a belief in the existence of “indomitable human spirit”.

    The New Individualist Review, 1981, various — This is a complete collection of The New Individualist Review, published at the University of Chicago, from April 1961 through Winter 1968. A deeply rich look at individualist academics living and writing the 60′s. Very, very good.

    Ayn Rand — The Russian Radical, 1995, Chris Matthew Sciabarra — This book is invaluable. This is the first full-blast examination of That Woman’s philosophy to issue from academia, the province where she was never before tolerated. Sciabarra gets it all right, in a book so completely documented that I use it as a master index to her own works. Only ignoramuses ignore Rand, now. (Their huge numbers are meaningless in the face of this fact.) If you cannot bring yourself to read her in the original, you should stop being an ignoramus and read Sciabarra. He’ll do you right.

    Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, 1979, Ayn Rand — This book represents the premier advance in all of 20th century philosophy. In an era when thought was abused as pretense in practice, Rand was working out elements stretching back 2500 years in error passed down the ages. I was going to write that “Using the word ‘thought’ without grasping what this book is all about is a manifest irresponsibility”, until I thought about it, and then I wrote it, deliberately.

    The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, Ayn Rand — An ethical outrage, which the culture richly deserved.

    Atlas Shrugged, 1957, Ayn Rand — “The most subversive political implication of ‘Atlas Shrugged’, is that individual freedom is possible only to those who are strong enough, psychologically and morally, to withdraw their sanction from any system that coercively thrives off their productive energies.” (Sciabarra — “The Russian Radical”, pp. 301-302) Say no more.

    The Good Society — The Humane Agenda, 1996, John Kenneth Galbraith — It’s not pretty to watch an old Nouveau Deal hack doddering down the road to ethical gibberish, but his reputation calls for it.

    Economics In One Lesson, 1946, Henry Hazlitt — This book has never been surpassed for its efficacy at putting economic principles before the average person for easy understanding of actual facts. H.L. Mencken noted Hazlitt as “one of the few economists in all of history who could really write,” and it’s true. He also knows his subject inside-out.

    The Seduction Of Hillary Rodham, 1996, David Brock — Hillary Rodham Clinton is the single most dangerously misunderstood character in American politics today. Do you understand? It’s like living in a box with a monster, without seeing it. For instance: how many people do you know who understand her Christian background? Do you understand it? Do not read another single word about Those Horrible People until you read this, first.

    Acid Dreams — The Complete Social History Of LSD: The CIA, The Sixties, And Beyond, 1985, Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain — Everything you know about acid is wrong, and I’ve got proof.

    This Bread Is Mine, 1960, Robert LeFevre — A sentimental favorite: this book was autographed and given to my father by LeFevre, and that was the dawn of libertarian culture in my family. 1969.

    Leviathan, 1651, Thomas Hobbes — Here’s a hint: you know that word, “neocon”, that’s making the rounds lately? It’s a pathetic joke, 350 years late.

    The Origins Of Totalitarianism, 1951, Hannah Arendt — “The philosophical origins of the totalitarian mind.” A landmark study.

    The Birth Of The Clinic — An Archaeology of Medical Perception, 1963, Michele Foucault — Every thinking person should have at least one ghastly French lunatic on their shelves. I have several, but this one is the most delightfully plumed of those in the 20th century.

    The Wealth Of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith — This is the beginning of “the dismal science” (economics).

    The Worldly Philosophers, (sixth edition) 1986, Robert L. Heilbroner — This charts the course of where the dismal science has ended up.

    The Theory of Money And Credit, (English edition) 1953, Ludwig von Mises — Murray Rothbard called this book “The culmination and fulfillment of the Austrian School of economics”. I don’t quite agree, but it is that important. Very technical. Put your thinking caps on.

    Human Action, 1949, Ludwig von Mises — This is the “culmination and fulfillment of the Austrian School of economics”. It is the philosophical counterweight to Marx’s “Das Kapital”. And, for almost all of you out there, I’m the first person who ever told you that. You bloody well didn’t hear it in high school or college, you poor mistreated bastards.

    Socialism, 1922, Ludwig von Mises — A stake to drive through the heart of the rampant delusion that should have been buried in the Enlightenment, but keeps rising to walk the earth, undead, right down to the present day.

    Frederic Bastiat — A Man Alone, 1971, George Charles Roche III — Biography of the single most lucid Frenchman (I know: a miracle), ever.

    The Holocaust — A History Of The Jews Of Europe During The Second World War, 1985, Martin Gilbert — One-stop-shopping for all the tragedy and horror.

    The Anti-Federalist — Writings By The Opponents Of The Constitution, 1981, edited by Herbert J. Storing — If you have Hamilton, Adams, and Jay, then you’re lopsided if you don’t have this, too.

    When Thunder Rolled, 2003, Ed Rasimus — Sub-titled “An F-105 Pilot Over North Vietnam”, this book illustrates the trip from idealism to the nitty-gritty, in one man’s experience of the air war through one hundred rides Up North. Very well done.

    Conflicts Of Law And Morality, 1987, Kent Greenawalt — Incompetence rising to its natural level in a field riven with incompetence, while addressing a subject of enormous import with professional (academic) impunity. This one goes in the Horror section.

    Anarchy, State, And Utopia, 1974, Robert Nozick — If anything remotely libertarian has had any influence among the Eloi in the past thirty years, this is probably it. Some of them will know the title, anyway. It’s worth quite a bit more than that.

    A Theory Of Justice, 1971, John Rawls — Well… that’s what it is: “a theory of justice”… which is rather like calling Janet Reno “a woman”: it just doesn’t work, although you wouldn’t know that from the influence this thing has enjoyed, at large.

    Language Truth & Logic, (second edition) 1946, A. J. Ayer — The first comprehensive statement of Logical Positivism, an utter disaster in philosophy.

    Looking Backward: 2000-1887, 1887, Edward Bellamy — Oh, for the days when commies were mainly dreamers with pens, instead of legislators in action. This edition (Houghton Mifflin — 1926) includes the bonus of an Introduction by Heywood Broun, one of untold numbers of waterheads who lost their minds in all the “romance” of the early 20th century — right about the time when the practice was starving people by the hundreds of thousands in Russia. Very stylishly comic, this novel.

    The Politics, 350 BC, Aristotle — This is the first systematic analysis of social organization in Western history. That’s remarkable enough by itself, but it only gets better on realizing how pertinent it remains after all that time.

    The Basic Writings Of Bertrand Russell, 1961, edited by Egner and Denonn, preface by Russell — Eighty-one essays and excerpts from Russell, which was all it took to convince me that he is one of the most revered twits in modern history.

    The Killing Of History — How Literary Critics And Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past, 1996, Keith Windschuttle — A whole monstrous swath of academic fraud laid open, if you have the nerve to look.

    In Retrospect — The Tragedy And Lessons Of Vietnam, 1995, Robert S. McNamara — The story of a man of enormous potential, who destroyed himself while doing his worst to scar this country forever.

    Man Versus The State, 1892, Herbert Spencer — Yet another seminal libertarian of whom you probably never heard, unless a professor was cursing him to everlasting hell or yawning in your face.

    Zemke’s Wolf Pack, 1988, Roger A. Freeman — The story of the fabled 56th Fighter Group, led by Col. Hubert “Hub” Zemke, through combat in Europe, World War II.

    Parting The Waters — America In The King Years, 1954-1963, 1988, Taylor Branch — A fine history of the best part of the Civil Rights Movement.

    Pillar Of Fire — America In The King Years, 1963-1965, 1998, Taylor Branch — A fine history of the worst part of the Civil Rights Movement.

    Economic Freedom, 1991, F.A. Hayek — A marvelous anthology, including the single most lucid analysis of the phenomenon of inflation that I ever saw, a not-to-be-missed argument for privately-issued commodity-based currencies, and bits of Hayek’s correspondence with John Maynard Keynes, with a lot more, besides. This is Hayek at the peak of his game.

    Individuals And Their Rights, 1989, Tibor Machan — An intensely focused presentation of the case for rights from metaphysics up through politics. Comprehensive, compact, and hard-hitting.

    The Gonzo Letters, Volume II — Fear And Loathing In America, 2000, Hunter S. Thompson — Thompson’s correspondance, outlandish and audacious as you’d expect, but also probably more thoughtful than you might expect. This is Thompson laying the meat of the bat on the ball: the years when he had serious things to say and the voice with which to say them. Beginning in 1968, this collection surpasses Volume I with its maturity of the man’s journalism.

    Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail ’72, 1973, Hunter S. Thompson — If you look around the ‘net, you’ll see various morons attributing the publication of this book to 1972. They’re fucking morons, which means: none of them are bright enough to get past stuff like the outrageous allegation of Thompson’s doing LSD with John Chancellor. “Like, wow, man, that’s so groovy…” (>boot< "Just shut the fuck up, moron.") This book is the first fully-penetrating look at the state of American politics in the second half of the 20th century, and arguably the first book on politics in all of American history in which the brutality of the prose matched its subject, blow-for-blow.

    Present At The Creation — My Years In The State Department, 1969, Dean Acheson — A very dubious character presses a cunning intellect through the mid-century crucible and into your hand for a low, low price. Despicable, but illuminating.

    The Best And The Brightest, 1972, David Halberstam — A history of incompetence fulfilling its destiny.

    The Vampire Economy — Doing Business Under Fascism, 1939, Guenter Reiman — Your average American these days is very likely to agree with the proposition that Nazi Germany represented some sort of "capitalism". That's because your average American these days is a walking, talking rutabaga, with no remotely discernable grasp of the simplest facts more than about thirty days aft of his own ass. Here is a book — researched on the scene, at the moment — which could probably not shake loose the ethical deformities taken root in a rutabaga's so-called "mind", but, at least, it would bore them to pieces with the actual data.

    The Counsels, Civil And Moral, 1597, Francis Bacon — Very good Enlightenment remarks on attributes of human character.

    The Influence Of Sea Power Upon History, 1892, Alfred Thayer Mahan — This book was a rage 112 years ago. It swept the whole world with awe at its author's synthesis of ancient political truths with Industrial Age technical outlook. And it was a turning point away from the warning ("foreign entanglements") in George Washington's Farewell Address, toward an American imperialism. Teddy Roosevelt thought it was just boss.

    The Rage And The Pride, 2002, Oriana Fallaci — Hell holds no fury like that of an Italian firebrand shaking the dust of the World Trade Center out of her hair. Look out.

    Blood, Class, And Nostalgia — Anglo-American Ironies, 1990, Christopher Hitchens — A very curiously neglected book attending a very curiously neglected subject: the cross-imperial relationship between Britain and America, holding hands through history. Exemplary Hitchens.

    The Roosevelt Myth, 1948, John T. Flynn — Sobriety. In the face of generations of drunkeness.

    America's Search For Economic Stability — Monetary And Fiscal Policy Since 1913, 1992, Kenneth Weiher — A very good, sharply technical, history of facts and consequences.

    The Metaphysical Club: A Story Of Ideas In America, 2001, Louis Menand — The story of four crabbed and crippled people — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey — who grew up to advance their various scars and scabs through American culture in the form of everlasting disgrace: Pragmatism.

    Economics And The Public Welfare: A Financial And Economic History of The United States, 1914-1946., 1949, Benjamin M. Anderson — Another great compendium of facts and implications.

    The Keynesian Episode — A Reassessment, 1979, Wm. H. Hutt — A fine economic analysis of the subject, which does not neglect its political implications.

    Only Yesterday — An Informal History Of The 1920's, 1931, Frederick Lewis Allen — An immensely engaging look at America just beginning to outgrow itself.

    The Age Of Reason, 1793, Thomas Paine — Ninety-five years after publication, the florid dingbat Theodore Roosevelt was referring to Paine as "that filthy little atheist" on account of this book. A person like Roosevelt could have been predicted to choke on it, inept as he was to deal with the questions about religion that Paine raised, and which are still compelling.

    What Is To Be Done?, 1902, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin — A professional revolutionary's incitements.

    The Art Of War, c. 350 BC, Sun Tzu (translation by Samuel B. Griffith) — The oldest formal treatise on war in existence, the essential principles of which have remained pertinent throughout history.

    Selected Works (three volumes), 1897-1923, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin — Again: "Know your enemy."

    Das Kapital, 1867, Karl Marx --Still: the predominant rationale for the worst evil in the modern world.


  222. iam7545
    222 | October 21, 2009 6:24 pm

    Buchanan is an anti semetic whack job. He is a fookin loon. Why would anyone listen to what the POS has to say?

    His last book is all the proof anyone should need to dismiss him and run like he is a skunk.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David