Wednesday, January 16, 2019

January 16, 2019


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Rep. STEVE KING, the Intellectual Gulag, and the Return of the Witch-finders


Friends,

By now most of us have heard a bit about Representative Steve King (R-Iowa), his supposedly “racist” comments about white nationalism in an interview printed in The New York Times, and his almost-unanimous condemnation by the US House of Representatives  (including being stripped of all his committee assignments in Congress by House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy).

In a sense, Representative King’s problems were self-induced.

His lack of sound judgment was twofold. His original mistake was to agree to an interview by the Times. Who in his right mind, as a right wing conservative, would ever put himself in such a position, knowing that the Times notoriously “edits” and “massages” the news according to an extreme Leftist agenda—and that anything a self-proclaimed conservative might say would undergo such treatment? But King did. And then he compounded that error of judgment by responding to questions from the reporter in an inarticulate manner that left himself open for what then happened.

Phrases that King used were highlighted and taken out of context by the Times:  “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked the paper. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?” [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-steve-king-removedfrom-committee-assignments-amid-white-supremacist-controversy]  That snippet was enough to unleash a torrent of opprobrium, and most particularly from fellow Republicans and establishment Beltway conservatives, despite the fact that within hours King explained his quoted and garbled comments on the House floor and in an issued statement from his office.

Here is Representative King’s statement and clarification from Monday, January 14:

One of my quotes in a New York Times story has been completely mischaracterized. Here’s the context I believe accurately reflects my statement.
In a 56 minute interview, we discussed the changing use of language in political discourse. We discussed the worn out label “racist” and my observation that other slanderous labels have been increasingly assigned to Conservatives by the Left, who injected into our current political dialog such terms as Nazi, Fascist, "White Nationalist, White Supremacist — Western Civilization, how did THAT language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”…just to watch Western Civilization become a derogatory term in political discourse today. Clearly, I was only referencing Western Civilization classes. No one ever sat in a class listening to the merits of white nationalism and white supremacy.

When I used the word “THAT” it was in reference ONLY to Western Civilization and NOT to any previously stated evil ideology ALL of which I have denounced.

My record as a vocal advocate for Western Civilization is nearly as full as my record in defense of Freedom of Speech.
It didn’t matter; for the Left-leaning gatekeepers of the dominant and zealous conservative orthodoxy—“Conservatism Inc.”—for Jonah Goldberg and David French in National Review, and Ben Shapiro (who urged Congress to censure him)—King had committed the ultimate crime: he had espoused “racism.” By acknowledging even inarticulately, even as reported out of context by the notoriously Leftist New York Times that “whites” (=Europeans) had largely created Western civilization, King had crossed a fault-line, had uttered the unutterable. And for that reaction, truth had nothing to do with it.

There is a superbly-dramatized scene in the fine BBC historical series about the English Civil War, “By the Sword Divided,” [2004] which depicts the visit of two witch-finders to a village in the British Midlands. There they vigorously search for witches--single women who are denounced for practicing the magic arts and violating the frenzied and extreme Puritan orthodoxy being imposed during the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. All it takes is an idle comment, an ill-timed or ill-phrased sentence—and then the howling mob, inflamed and encouraged by the witch-finders, demands punishment—and blood.

Sadly, such instances have not been unique in history. Indeed, prescient observers over the centuries have understood and warned of the perverted power of persuasion and generated mob psychology. In more recent history, while the circumstances and the issues have changed considerably—we now don’t usually search for single women engaged in necromancy—the significance of the agitated and brainwashed mob led by modern-day equivalents of those witch-finders continues with increased fury.

In more recent times, most especially in the unlamented twentieth century and into our own time, it has been thought crimes which have become the new witchcraft. Thus, deviancy from “the party line” in the old Soviet Union landed the unfortunate accused a stay in the Gulag, if not execution.

Steve King’s sin was that in an unwary moment, talking with declared enemies of Western civilization and culture, he failed to understand the trap laid for him, for it was a trap, and, very likely, planned in advance. He committed a thought crime, and he had to pay the price.

And the howling hyenas of Neoconservatism—the motor-mouth Ben Shapiro, the fatuous Jonah Goldberg—and the cowardly herd of Congressional Republicans including the newly-minted senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, so fearful that some pundit somewhere on some news channel would call them “racists,” reacted like the mobs depicted in “By the Sword Divided”: Burn him at the stake! Purge him from Congress! We cannot tolerate any smidgen of perceived Racism or “white supremacy”!

Or, maybe like the Gadarene swine, themselves possessed of a form of diabolical infestation?

Of course, does anyone—can anyone—remember any time when Ben Shapiro or Jonah Goldberg ever demanded a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, say, a Maxine Waters, be censured for propagating “black nationalism”? What about the recent exhortation by newly-elected Congressman Rashida Tlaib about the president: “We’re gonna impeach the motherf-----!” [ https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/rashida-tlaib-trump-impeachment-comments/index.html ]  Where are the same self-righteous condemnations, the same demands for censure, from these self-appointed conservative intelligentsia and “opinion makers”?

We live in a society, a political culture, where the phrase coined by the French politician, Rene Renoult (1919), “pas d’ennemis a gauche”—“[There are] no enemies to the Left”—has become the watchword of the establishment conservative movement and the professional Inside-the-DC-Beltway” conservative punditocracy. When the increasingly farther Left says “Jump!” those conservative publicists and their politician friends on Capitol Hill respond: “How high?”

Our culture, our understanding of history, our educational and academic establishment, our entertainment industry, our politics, and, indeed, our very language have been so corrupted that comments and views that would have been considered commonplace and unobjectionable fifty years ago, even ten years ago, are now considered vicious and intolerable exercises in “hate speech” that must be censured and suppressed.

In America in 2019 we have our own version of the Gulag: it employs the distortion of facts and statements, the destruction of reputations, a public and frenzied opprobrium that effectively silences any dissident, and it does it far more effectively and cleverly than the rather unwieldy methods of the former KGB.

The witch-finders of 2019 are at again, and with an unrelenting passion and vengeance for their task. Behold their newest victim—Steve King of Iowa.

I pass on two essays that focus on this episode, the first by James Kirkpatrick, and the second by Dr. Paul Gottfried, both excellent reads:

Steve King Furor Shows Dems Are The Real Racial Nationalists—And Conservatism Inc. Is A Threat To America
James Kirkpatrick  January 13, 2019, 09:28 PM
And then they came for Steve King. The immigration patriot Iowa congressman fell for a Main Stream Media setup in The New York Times. [Before Trump, Steve King Set the Agenda for the Wall and Anti-Immigrant Politicsby Trip Gabriel, January 10, 2019]  The clickbait headlines screamed Steve King had asked why “white nationalist, white supremacist, Western Civilization” had “become offensive.” Of course, he hadn’t—King is notoriously inarticulate, the quote was obviously garbled and, significantly, no audio or transcript has been released. But Conservatism Inc. obediently joined in anyway.
The truth: Congressman King was once again defending his non-racial view of American identity. And indeed he has subsequently denounced “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” as an “evil ideology.”
(VDARE.com thinks King is being wimpish about the term “white nationalism.” Thus Editor Peter Brimelow said in our FAQ statement that we publish
…a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as "white nationalist," in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews.
Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group "white nationalism" will inexorably increase. [Emphasis added].
Still, we note that Jared Taylor has subsequently abandoned the term “white nationalism” as hopelessly smeared, and now calls himself a “white advocate.”)
In King’s New York Times interview, King was quite clearly just asking why Republicans constantly find themselves being called “white nationalists” and “white supremacists” and why “Western Civilization” and “white” have become insults. (Note that the NYT article says: ”Mr. King attracted the attention of hate-watch groups like the Anti-Defamation League as he spoke increasingly about preserving ‘Western culture’ or ‘Western civilization.’ The groups consider those buzzwords that signal support to white nationalists”—i.e. no expression of even cultural pride can be tolerated).
But, needless to say, the House GOP is already signaling surrender and will take some kind of “action” against King based on this hit piece. [House GOP Leader: ‘Action Will Be Taken’ On Steve King Over White Supremacist Remarkby Hayley Miller, The Huffington Post, January 13, 2019] Other Republicans are also piling on. Thus, the MSM’s spinning King’s words as a defense of “white nationalism,” even when it was anything but, is simply accepted by Republicans, who immediately begin caving to Journofa demands. [GOP lawmaker: Steve King’s ‘embrace of racism’ has no place in Congressby Justin Wise, The Hill, January 10, 2019]
This includes Republicans who owe their careers to their color. Thus underqualified black hack Tim Scott was appointed Senator in South Carolina in a silly attempt to somehow show Republicans were not racist. Yet Tim Scott regularly appears in the MSM to preen about how evil and racist his party is.
In July, he stopped the nomination of judge Ryan Bounds to the 9th Court of Appeals because Bounds had written against race-based groups in college. In November, he again opposed at the last minute a Trump judicial appointee, Thomas Farr of North Carolina, based on spurious claims of racism based upon evidence Scott himself had previously discounted. [Tim Scott baffles conservatives with about-races on judgesby Quin Hillyer, Washington Examiner, November 30, 2018]
Now, Tim Scott is condemning Steve King in an article in The Washington Post, implicitly linking him to acts of violence and “havoc that white nationalists and white supremacists have strewn across our nation for hundreds of years”. [Tim Scott: Why are Republicans accused of racism? Because we’re silent on things like thisBy Tim Scott, Washington Post, January 11, 2019]
This “havoc” presumably includes the American Revolution, significantly led by slave holders. (See below.)
Similarly, minicon and ultral-defender of Israel Ben Shapiro is calling for Congress to “censure” Steve King and then for him to be primaried, instantly accepting the MSM’s attack against a Congressman who has been utterly stalwart in defense of Israel. [Ben Shapiro Calls for Congress to Censure Steve King Over White Nationalist Comments, Ha’aretz, January 10, 2019]
Of course, Ben Shapiro was eager to defend Sarah Jeong when the newest member of The New York Times Editorial Board had her history of explicitly anti-white statements revealed. Indeed, he framed his defense of Jeong as a stand against “social media mobs” victimizing people like James Gunn, a far-Left movie director who had made “jokes” about the sexual exploitation of children. David French of National Review defended Jeong as well, saying it was “good” The New York Times was “standing by its hire”. [Yes, Anti-White Racism Existsby David French, National Review, August 2, 2018]
Both French and Shapiro conceded that what Jeong said was [Leftist] “racist,” but suggested it would be wrong to do anything about it. Conservatism Inc. doesn’t want its constituents trying to retake the levers of cultural and media power from the Left. [Tucker Carlson and the Question of White Victimhoodby Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 11, 2019]
Therefore, it’s not surprising that David French’s magazine National Review is eager to shiv Steve King and stand athwart history crying “We surrender!” Dump Steve King” is a new editorial from the magazine, in which editors plead that “one of the glories of American history is how we finally shed our shameful racist past”. [January 11, 2019]
This is a startling statement from a “conservative” magazine. Having now granted that American history is “shameful” and “racist,” what exactly is it that conservatives are supposed to conserve? Why not tear down not only Confederate statues, but the Founding Fathers and the American flag itself?
Given this stance, one expects to read articles about “the conservative case for renaming Washington after Martin Luther King” any day now.
National Review argues that Steve King must be purged lest he “tar” fellow conservatives. Again, the implication is that, if this or that person is purged, the accusations of racism will stop. Yet King’s whole point, however awkwardly expressed, is that charges of “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” are proliferating and apply to more and more things. Simply surrendering to this doesn’t accomplish anything.
The appalling Jonah Goldberg [Email him] also condemning King in National Review, declares that “Western Civilization is not synonymous with whiteness”. [Steve King’s bigotry is the antithesis of American ideals, National Review, January 11, 2019].
Yet King himself didn’t say it was. Nevertheless, based on an out-of-context quote from a hostile newspaper, Goldberg and other self-proclaimed conservative “leaders” are eager to sacrifice a champion of the pro-life, limited government principles that they supposedly believe in.
The obvious conclusion: they don’t really care about these principles—or they at least believe those principles are less important than keeping the good opinion of explicitly anti-white journalists and Democrats who openly declare their intention to destroy the country.
The most remarkable claim by Goldberg: “We are supposed to judge people on their individual merits, not keep score based on their ancestry.” Yet just about every educational, media, government, and corporate institution does indeed judge based on “ancestry,” giving people platformsprivileges, and money based on their non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual qualities. (Steve Sailer humorously calls them “intersectional diversity Pok√©mon points.)
If Goldberg really believes in “individual merits,” then one would expect a push to dismantle the Diversity Industry, starting with Affirmative Action policies. Instead, all we get from Conservatism Inc. are condemnations of conservatives who dare oppose the anti-white racial caste system.
In contrast, consider the open embrace of racial tribalism in the Democrats and among journalists, something conservatives meekly accept. Professional Hispanic Ana Navarro recently expressed her contempt for Americans by actually filing her nails during a television segment when a guest mentioned Americans killed by illegal aliens. Ana Navarro is certainly a “fake conservative”—despite her supposed status as a “Republican strategist,” she can barely contain her hatred for GOP voters.
Yet Ana Navarro isn’t essentially a Leftist. [Meet Ana Navarro, Hispanic Nationalistby Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, May 29, 2018] Nor is new Affirmative Action Congressbimbo Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose family history, early political career, and social media postings all revolve around profitable exploitation of Hispanic heritage [The Affirmative Action Congressby Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 9, 2019] Nor is Julian Castro. Nor is Jorge Ramos.
All of them are essentially nationalists—even imperialists, given their designs on American territory. It’s just that their sense of nationalism has nothing to do with the United States, with the American people, or with this country’s history, traditions, and culture.
Like Luis Gutierrez, these figures are “traitors” only in a technical sense— because there’s no indication they’ve ever really considered themselves Americans.
They are racial nationalists for their own people. And they will obviously ignore any hapless Conservativism Inc plea to stop practicing “identity politics.” Why should they? In all the cases above, their very political careers would not exist were it not for their status as tribal chieftains.
Indeed, the modern Democratic Party shows Steve King is wrong, though not in the way the Beltway Right thinks. Steve King’s vision appears to be that of an America governed by the rule of law, a country that is part of a larger Western Civilization not defined by race but by culture. But most non-whites want no part of this.
Steve King’s vision is also too much for “conservatives” who view America as a marketplace rather than a country. As shown by their furiously hostile reaction to Tucker Carlson’s passionate call for nationalist populism, Conservatism Inc thinks America as a shopping mall, with no identity, history, or purpose aside to serve some intangible god called “the economy” to which whites must sacrifice their culture, children, and future.
But for the Journofa/Democrat coalition, reducing America to a cultureless wasteland isn’t good enough. In their eyes, the culture must be explicitly anti-white.
And to defeat the specter of nationalist populism, Conservatism Inc. will go along with this agenda, tremulously submitting to every smear campaign by journalists and social networking companies. They—the Shapiros, the Goldbergs, the David Frenchs, the cowardly GOP solons in Congress—won’t even give Steve King the benefit of the doubt they give Sarah Jeong, James Gunn, and others who actually said hateful things.
It must be said plainly: Steve King did nothing wrong. If anything, he wasn’t forthright enough.
Some may think the shameful Conservatism Inc. surrender shows the Beltway Right has learned nothing from the Trump campaign. But this presupposes Conservatism Inc. wants to win. The truth: the Beltway Right is already preparing for a post-Trump future and wants to purge National Conservatives from its ranks. They were always going to come for Steve King given the first opportunity.
Either America replaces Conservatism Inc.—or it will replace America.
AMERICAN THINKER
January 15, 2019

Striking at a King

In a disastrous interview with the New York Times last week, Iowa congressman Steve King put his foot in his mouth (and not for the first time) by asking this imprudent question: "White nationalists, white supremacists, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?  Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"  Put charitably (and I have no reason to attribute malice as opposed to stunning verbal ineptitude to the speaker), Congressman King wished to tell us that at one time, our teachers spoke with respect about the merits of our shared civilization.  No one back then when he and I were in school attacked our civilization because it was created mostly by white men.
Establishment conservative journalists have gone after King as a vicious bigot, who has no place in their conservative movement.  They also tried to set matters right by underlining the supposed fact that, in the words of John Podhoretz, "Western civilization isn't a white thing."  But then the counter-model being proposed doesn't really seem to work.  Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post, informs us that whites could not have singlehandedly given us our civilization because "ancient Jerusalem is the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity and its residents were certainly of a darker hue."  Further, Alexander Hamilton, who came from Nevis in the West Indies, "might either be of a Jewish or black stock."
One looks at these statements with wonder.  Ancient Semites who lived in Jerusalem were Caucasians, but not Indo-Europeans (which I think is the term Podhoretz might have chosen if he understood the distinction).  Caucasians have long resided in Europe, including Basques and the original Hungarians and Finns.  But, like Semites, many Caucasians are not members of the Indo-European subgroup that settled in Europe around 4,000 years ago.  What evidence can Podhoretz come up with that Alexander Hamilton was black?  (Even the musical Hamilton doesn't claim that, since the celebrated American statesman is played there by a white actor.)
Also doubtful is that Hamilton had Jewish blood.  His natural father, James Hamilton, was a landowner of Scottish noble ancestry.  The rumor about Hamilton's highly unlikely Jewish antecedents originated from the fact that his mother was then married to a Danish trader, John Michael Lavien, whose name has sometimes been mistakenly identified with the Jewish "Levine."  Among other obstacles facing him, Hamilton had to rise above the shame of having a loose woman as a mother.  But let's give Podhoretz credit for correctly telling us that St. Augustine had Berber ancestors.  Although Augustine's father's family was of Roman origin, his mother, the future St. Monica, was indeed a North African Berber.
None of this disproves that Western civilization was mostly the work of "white people," broadly understood, providing we allow for exceptions (like the Russian poet Pushkin, who was of Ethiopian descent, and Alexander Dumas, who was part black).  
Podhoretz, however, writes like a polymath next to his friend Jonah Goldberg, who is even more upset by King's bringing up the race question.  According to Goldberg, we have no moral right to associate the West with people called "white" because "at the beginning of the twentieth century" all sorts of ethnic groups in the U.S. were not viewed as whites: e.g. Jews, Southern Italians, Czechs, Poles, Greeks, and Hungarians.  Goldberg is trying to forbid us to use a term on the grounds that someone's neighbors once tried to insult that person by saying counterfactually that he wasn't white.  He also mentions that a Congressional Immigration Commission in 1911 drew from a dictionary on ethnic groups derogatory references to Czechs and other Europeans.  What Goldberg doesn't prove is that these references prevented the recognition of these European immigrants as white.
The Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1790 opened settlement in the newly formed United States to all European nationalities.  This doesn't mean that all those groups that took advantage of the act enjoyed the same social treatment. But from a legal standpoint, all of them were considered white "at the beginning of the twentieth century."  They also not incidentally were found on professional sports teams at a time when blacks were barred from them.  Moreover, while it is possible to recognize the appeal of Western cultural achievements outside the West, that doesn't mean these achievements were not primarily produced by certain groups rather than other ones.  Christianity is a universal religion, but it also came out of an ancient Semitic world.  Plato, Aristotle, and Aeschylus have been read throughout most of the world, but were also identifiably Hellenic.  Why is it verboten to note such facts?
Perhaps the most controversial screed written by an authorized conservative against Steve King came from Ben Shapiro.  After replicating most of his friends' tirades, Shapiro called on Congress to censure the offending Iowa lawmaker.  The Hill takes note of this as some kind of critical event.  Shapiro, it would appear, is eager to join the black caucus and others on the left who are already on the warpath against King. Shapiro wants us to know that he's a “moderate” conservative, who is just trying to police the right, that is, exclude from his movement those whom he deems undesirable.  To the applause of his devotees, he has already excoriated Trump and Pat Buchanan for not fitting his fastidious definition of a proper conservative.

We might ask Shapiro whether he intends to call for a congressional censure of Maxine Waters for inciting violence against GOP lawmakers. What about censuring members of the black caucus who slobber over Louis Farrakhan, who has regularly ranted against whites and especially Jews?  And that young congresswoman from southwest Detroit who used obscenities in calling for Trump's removal?  Perhaps Shapiro might censure her as well.  Mind you, I'm not keen on having Congress censure any of its members.  I'm just suggesting that some socially acceptable conservatives adopt more of a sense of proportion before they pile on colleagues on the right whom the left is already piling up on.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

January 12, 2019


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey


FOUR GREAT COLUMNS by Pat Buchanan: the Border Crisis, the Middle East, Democrat Prospects in 2020, and Reasons for Us to Hope

Friends,

Today I send on to you four very recent columns by Patrick J. Buchanan, and dispense with much of my customary (and often long-winded) commentary. As usual, Pat’s short epistolary columns hit the mark with an economy of words: he is able to draw vivid pictures and by so doing, grasp deeply and cleanly the points he is making, and make them understandable to his readers.

First, there is Pat’s concise but convincing take on whether President Trump, facing a veritable cultural, humanitarian and eventually ethnic crisis on the southern border, should declare a national emergency. And he focuses it in broader terms of America First and what it would mean to American citizens and for the future of our country. Then, he deals, again concisely but fully, with the near complete failure of American interventionist, hegemonic foreign policy in Syria and other faraway locations—“How the War Party Lost the Middle East.” 

In the third column Buchanan examines the prospects for the Democrats and the Left in 2020: are there grounds for us to hope, despite what appears to be the increasing demographic transformation of the country and the hyper-frenetic and massive attacks on the president—and his followers, that is, on us.

The final essay is Pat’s Christmas column, in a way, his meditation on Hope—a Hope that continues throughout the encroaching darkness of our time—a Hope that came to us in a manger some 2,000 years—a Hope that, when things look the very worst, instills in us courage and determination to fight the good fight and do our duty, whatever that may be and wherever that may carry us.

Memo to Trump: Declare an Emergency
By Patrick J. Buchanan Friday - January 11, 2019

In the long run, history will validate Donald Trump's stand on a border wall to defend the sovereignty and security of the United States. Why? Because mass migration from the global South, not climate change, is the real existential crisis of the West.

The American people know this, and even the elites sense it.

Think not? Well, check out the leading liberal newspapers Thursday.

The Washington Post and The New York Times each had two front-page stories about the president's battle with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on funding the border wall.
Inside the first section, the Post had more stories, including one describing walls in history from China's Great Wall to the Berlin Wall to the Israeli West Bank wall to the wall separating Hungary from Serbia.

Inside the Times was a story on a new anti-immigration party, Vox, surging in Andalusia in Spain, and a story about African migrants being welcomed in Malta after being denied entry into Europe.  Another Times story related how the new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has pulled out of a U.N. pact on migration, declaring, "Brazil has a sovereign right to decide whether or not it accepts immigrants."

Half the columns on the op-ed pages of the papers dealt with Trump, immigration and the wall. And there was nothing significant in either on the Democrats' hot new issue, a Green New Deal.

Consider. In 1992, this writer's presidential campaign had to fight to have inserted in the GOP platform a call for "structures" on the border. Now, the whole Western world is worried about its borders as issues of immigration and identity convulse almost every country.

Looking ahead, does anyone think Americans in 2030 are going to be more concerned about the border between North Korea and South Korea, or Turkey and Syria, or Kuwait and Iraq, or Russia and Ukraine, than about the 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico?  Does anyone think Pelosi's position that a wall is immoral will not be regarded as absurd?

America's southern border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist. And Americans will not go gentle into that good night.

Whatever one may think of the face-off Tuesday with "Chuck and Nancy," Trump's portrait of an unsustainable border crisis is dead on: "In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings."

The Democrats routine retort, that native-born Americans have a higher crime rate, will not suffice as new atrocities, like those Trump related, are reported and repeated before November 2020.

What should Trump do now? Act. He cannot lose this battle with Pelosi without demoralizing his people and imperiling his presidency.

Since FDR, we have had presidential government. And when U.S. presidents have been decisive activists, history has rewarded their actions. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. On taking office, FDR declared a bank holiday. When Britain was barely hanging on in World War II, he swapped 50 destroyers for British bases. He ordered U.S. ships to chase down German submarines and lied about it. Truman fired General MacArthur.
Reagan fired the striking air controllers and ordered the military to occupy Grenada to stop Marxist thugs who had taken over in a coup from taking 500 U.S. medical students hostage. Critics raged: Reagan had no right to invade. But the American people rewarded Reagan with a 49-state landslide.

Trump should declare a national emergency, shift funds out of the Pentagon, build his wall, open the government and charge Democrats with finding excuses not to secure our border because they have a demographic and ideological interest in changing the face of the nation.

For the larger the share of the U.S. population that requires welfare, the greater the need for more social workers, and the more voters there will be to vote to further grow the liberal welfare state.

The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan's America — the more dependably Democratic it will become. The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.

The only way to greater "diversity," the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.

The decisive issues on which Trump was elected were not the old Republican litany of tax cuts, conservative judges and increased defense spending.  They were securing the borders, extricating America from foolish wars, eliminating trade deficits with NAFTA nations, the EU and China, making allies pay their fair share of the common defense, resurrecting our manufacturing base, and getting along with Russia.

"America First!" is still a winning hand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How the War Party Lost the Middle East
By Patrick J. Buchanan  Tuesday - January 1, 2019

"Assad must go, Obama says."  So read the headline in The Washington Post, Aug. 18, 2011.

The story quoted President Barack Obama directly:

"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. ... the time has come for President Assad to step aside."

France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's David Cameron signed on to the Obama ultimatum: Assad must go! Seven years and 500,000 dead Syrians later, it is Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron who are gone. Assad still rules in Damascus, and the 2,000 Americans in Syria are coming home. Soon, says President Donald Trump.

But we cannot "leave now," insists Sen. Lindsey Graham, or "the Kurds are going to get slaughtered."

Question: Who plunged us into a Syrian civil war, and so managed our intervention that were we to go home after seven years our enemies will be victorious and our allies will "get slaughtered"?

Seventeen years ago, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban for granting sanctuary to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.  U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is today negotiating for peace talks with that same Taliban. Yet, according to former CIA director Mike Morell, writing in The Washington Post today, the "remnants of al-Qaeda work closely" with today's Taliban.

It would appear that 17 years of fighting in Afghanistan has left us with these alternatives: Stay there, and fight a forever war to keep the Taliban out of Kabul, or withdraw and let the Taliban overrun the place.

Who got us into this debacle?
 
After Trump flew into Iraq over Christmas but failed to meet with its president, the Iraqi Parliament, calling this a "U.S. disregard for other nations' sovereignty" and a national insult, began debating whether to expel the 5,000 U.S. troops still in their country.

George W. Bush launched Operation Iraq Freedom to strip Saddam Hussein of WMD he did not have and to convert Iraq into a democracy and Western bastion in the Arab and Islamic world.

Fifteen years later, Iraqis are debating our expulsion. Muqtada al-Sadr, the cleric with American blood on his hands from the fighting of a decade ago, is leading the charge to have us booted out. He heads the party with the largest number of members in the parliament.

Consider Yemen. For three years, the U.S. has supported with planes, precision-guided munitions, air-to-air refueling and targeting information, a Saudi war on Houthi rebels that degenerated into one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 21st century. Belatedly, Congress is moving to cut off U.S. support for this war. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, its architect, has been condemned by Congress for complicity in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate in Istanbul. And the U.S. is seeking a truce in the fighting.

Who got us into this war? And what have years of killing Yemenis, in which we have been collaborators, done to make Americans safer?

Consider Libya. In 2011, the U.S. attacked the forces of dictator Moammar Gadhafi and helped to effect his ouster, which led to his murder. Told of news reports of Gadhafi's death, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joked, "We came, we saw, he died."

The Libyan conflict has since produced tens of thousands of dead. The output of Libya's crucial oil industry has collapsed to a fraction of what it was. In 2016, Obama said that not preparing for a post-Gadhafi Libya was probably the "worst mistake" of his presidency.

The price of all these interventions for the United States?

Some 7,000 dead, 40,000 wounded and trillions of dollars.

For the Arab and Muslim world, the cost has been far greater. Hundreds of thousands of dead in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, civilian and soldier alike, pogroms against Christians, massacres, and millions uprooted and driven from their homes.

How has all this invading, bombing and killing made the Middle East a better place or Americans more secure? One May 2018 poll of young people in the Middle East and North Africa found that more of them felt that Russia was a closer partner than was the United States of America.

The fruits of American intervention?

We are told ISIS is not dead but alive in the hearts of tens of thousands of Muslims, that if we leave Syria and Afghanistan, our enemies will take over and our friends will be massacred, and that if we stop helping Saudis and Emiratis kill Houthis in Yemen, Iran will notch a victory.

In his decision to leave Syria and withdraw half of the 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, Trump enraged our foreign policy elites, though millions of Americans cannot get out of there soon enough. In Monday's editorial celebrating major figures of foreign policy in the past half-century, The New York Times wrote, "As these leaders pass from the scene, it will be left to a new generation to find a way forward from the wreckage Mr. Trump has already created."

Correction: Make that "the wreckage Mr. Trump inherited."

 ----------------------------------------------------------
2020: Year of the Democrats? Maybe Not
By Patrick J. Buchanan   Friday - December 28, 2018

If Democrats are optimistic as 2019 begins, it is understandable. Their victory on Nov. 6, adding 40 seats and taking control of the House of Representatives, was impressive. And with the party's total vote far exceeding the GOP total, in places it became a rout.

In the six New England states, Republicans no longer hold a single House seat. Susan Collins of Maine is the last GOP senator. In California, Democrats took the governorship, every state office, 45 of 53 House seats and both houses of the legislature by more than 2-to-1. In the Goldwater-Nixon-Reagan Golden State bastion of Orange County, no GOP congressman survived.

Does this rejection of the GOP in 2018 portend the defeat of Donald Trump in 2020, assuming he is still in office then?

Not necessarily.

For consider. Nancy Pelosi may want to close out her career as speaker with solid achievements, but she could face a rebellion in her party, which is looking to confront and not compromise with Trump. The national debt may be surging, but Capitol Hill progressives will be demanding "Medicare-for-all" and free college tuition. Trump-haters will be issuing reams of subpoenas and clamoring for impeachment. Other Democrats, seeing the indulgent attention their colleagues are getting from the media, will join in. Chairman Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee may have to accommodate the sans-culottes.

Is this what America voted for?

By the Ides of March, a dozen Democrats may have declared for president. But looking over the field, no prospective candidate seems terribly formidable, and the strongest, unlike Barack Obama in 2008, are too old to set the base afire.
According to a USA Today poll, 59 percent of Democrats say they would be "excited" about "someone entirely new" leading the party in 2020. Only 11 percent say they would prefer a familiar face.

Yet, who did these same Democrats view most favorably? Joe Biden, a 76-year-old white male first elected to the Senate when Richard Nixon was president. Biden polls better than any of his rivals, with 53 percent of all Democrats saying they would be "excited" about his candidacy, and only 24 percent saying he ought not run a third time for president.

The candidate who comes closest to Biden in exciting the base is 77-year-old Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. Bernie's problem? Almost as many Democrats believe he should not run again as would be excited about having him as nominee.

As for Elizabeth Warren, the USA Poll must be depressing news. Twenty-nine percent of Democrats would be excited about her candidacy, but 33 percent believe the 69-year-old Massachusetts Senator should not run.

Beto O'Rourke, the three-term Congressman from Texas who put a scare into Sen. Ted Cruz in November is less well-known than Bernie or Biden. But those excited about an O'Rourke run outnumber those who think he should not run.

Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both African-American, are less well-known but have more Democrats excited about their running than are opposed to it. However, as Harris is from California and Booker from New Jersey, both blue states that Democrats are almost certain to carry in 2020, and both are from a minority that already votes 90 percent Democratic, even their appeal as vice presidential nominees would not seem to equal that of O'Rourke or Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who won re-election while his state was going Republican.

Yet, Brown, too, at 66, is eligible for Medicare. A Biden-Brown ticket would present problems for the GOP. But could a Democratic Party that ceaselessly celebrates its racial and ethnic diversity and appeal to women and millennials get away with nominating a ticket of two white males on Social Security?

Other problems are becoming acute within the Democrats' coalition of blacks, gays, Asians, Hispanics, women and LGBT, fraying the seams of the party.

After Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan praised the Women's March co-president Tamika Mallory, and declared Jews to be the enemy in a speech last February, the Women's March movement has splintered.

Asian-Americans who vote Democratic nationally are growing bitter over diversity policies in the Ivy League and elite schools that admit black and Hispanic students over Asian students with far higher test scores.

The BDS movement (boycott, divest, sanctions), targeted against Israel, is angering Jewish Democrats while gaining support on campuses.

Elizabeth Warren opposes BDS, but also opposes efforts to punish those who champion BDS. "I think the boycott of Israel is wrong," said Warren at a town hall meeting, but added that "outlawing protected free speech activity violates our basic constitutional rights."

In identity politics, loyalty to race, ethnic group and gender often trump the claims of party. The diversity Democrats celebrate is one day going to pull their party apart, as the social, cultural and racial revolutions of the 1960s pulled apart the party of FDR and LBJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christmas 2018: Not the Worst of Times
By Patrick J. Buchanan   Tuesday - December 25, 2018

"Deck the halls with boughs of holly," goes the old Christmas carol. "'Tis the season to be jolly." Yet if there were a couplet less befitting the mood of this capital city, I am unaware of it.

"The wheels are coming off," was a common commentary on the Trump presidency on Sunday's talk shows. And the ostensible causes of what is looking like a panic in the political establishment? The December crash of the stock and bond markets, the worst since the Great Recession. The shutdown of a fourth of the U.S. government over the Trump border wall. The president's decision to pull 2,200 troops out of Syria. Resignation, in protest of Donald Trump's treatment of U.S. allies, by Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

But there has to be more to it than this. For America has endured, in the lifetime of its older generations, far worse Christmases than this.


By Christmas 1941, America had just suffered the worst attack in her history. At Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 7, some 2,400 soldiers, sailors and Marines had died, six battleships were destroyed or crippled, and scores of warplanes were smashed on their runways.
By Christmas 1941, the Japanese had landed in the Philippines where, in six months, they would inflict on the United States the worst military defeat in its history with the loss of 23,000 troops killed or captured, most of them on Bataan Peninsula and the island fortress of Corregidor.

Franklin Roosevelt had temporarily abandoned the Philippines as indefensible, as they were on the far side of the Pacific, and had adopted a "Europe First" strategy, believing Nazi Germany to be the greater threat.

For, by Christmas 1941, Hitler controlled all of Europe from the Pyrenees and the Atlantic to the suburbs of Leningrad and Moscow, and from northern Norway above the Arctic Circle to the Western Sahara. Beyond Hitler's empire lay Stalin's. Beyond that lay Japan's Empire of the Sun, which occupied Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, the coast of China and much of Southeast Asia.

By Christmas 1941, a Japanese attack on the Malay Peninsula was underway that would lead to the surrender of Singapore in February, the greatest strategic defeat ever suffered by the British empire.

Nine years later, at Christmas 1950, thousands of American troops were being evacuated from Hungnam, the North Korean port city to which they had retreated before hordes of Chinese troops. Veterans of Mao's revolution had been sent to drive Gen. Douglas MacArthur's forces away from the Yalu River on China's border, and back across the 38th parallel into South Korea. The Korean War would end in bloody stalemate, after Harry Truman, facing defeat, declined to run again and left office with only a fourth of the nation behind him, and his nemesis Sen. Joe McCarthy victorious and exultant in 1952, along with President Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Does our situation at Christmas 2018 remotely compare in gravity with those times? Does whether Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies prevail in Syria remotely compare in seriousness with whether Hitler or his former ally and successor in tyranny, Stalin, would prevail?

An unacknowledged cause of establishment frustration and rage at Trump's pullout from Syria and Afghanistan is the growing realization that the post-Cold War new world order it has sought and still seeks to create is likely never to be. Indeed, it is now visibly slipping away. The American people refuse to subscribe to its global agenda.

They will not pay the price in blood, treasure and distraction from our own troubles here at home. Trump's victory was America's way of saying, "Goodbye to all that!" And it is this dawning recognition that helps explain the establishment's exasperation.

While cable news and social media are on fire over the shutdown and the pullout from Syria, the Silent Majority, one imagines, is more focused on an earlier event, 2,000 years ago, that has made a far greater impact upon mankind, and that yet inspires hope that, in the end, all can be well. That event was perhaps best described in the last Advent gospel of Luke:

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

And a Merry Christmas to all.
--------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 2019 MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey Rep. STEVE KING, the Intellectual Gulag, and the Return of the Witch-finders Frie...