Uncategorized
Publisher Rejects Title of New Buchanan Book
Originally, Pat wanted it to be called “Keep Out The Wetbacks!!!”. Sadly, he was overruled by his publisher, which has named it “Day of Reckoning”
Here’s Drudge’s preview:
“To prevent America becoming “a tangle of squabbling nationalities” Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a “timeout” on all immigration.”
No amnesty. No amnesty…what does he mean by that? I guess he wants to expel these people. That’s perfectly reasonable. They’re illegal, as Lou Dobbs says 47 thousand times per show, so they should be expelled. Now that we’ve settled that, how will that procedure be carried out?
The United States has a population of 300 million or so. Buchanan is urging the removal of as many as 20 million people, or approximately 6.67% of the entire population of the United States.
What if they don’t want to go?
They’ll have to be coerced. Men with guns will have to round them up and get rid of them. Well, that’s happened before, I suppose. Actually, it happens all the time. They really got into that kind of thing in the 40s. Every country seemed to think that was a good idea. The US, Germany, the USSR, et al. Israel was created by permanently displacing 750k people. We love Israel right? Maybe Buchanan really has something here…
OK, alright, this book does have some good stuff. He basically wants a Katyn massacre-type thing for the Neocons, which I think all Americans can agree with at this point. Take them out back and plug ‘em. And he wants to close most of the thousand or so US bases internationally, and call off the new Cold War with the Russkies. Those would all be positive steps (especially the massacre). But I keep wondering what happens to all of those troops he wants to bring home. Are they fired or are they used for something else? Something for which their firearms might be of special use?
That brings me back to his ideas about “illegal” immigrants. What if they don’t want to go?
Buy Scott's Stickers
Highest Rated
- Philip Giraldi: Beware of Israeli False Flag Attacks in Iraq
(2 out of 5) - who’s next? (0 out of 5)
- Vincent Bugliosi at the ‘imperial presidency hearing’ (0 out of 5)
- Randy Pausch, 1960-2008 (0 out of 5)
- A Year at the Wheel (0 out of 5)
- Zionist Christians Target Iran (0 out of 5)
- Pat Buchanan on Antiwar Radio/you-tube (0 out of 5)
- Fox News commentators “white house tools”. (0 out of 5)
- The Show: Philip Giraldi (0 out of 5)
- Kid Falls from bridge and breaks his back, what do the police do ? …. Taser him 19 times of course. (0 out of 5)
Social Bookmarks
Um, why is there so much flying off the handle talk in the US?
Ron Paul has sensible, moderate ideas to address this. Reduce federally mandated welfarism for illegals. End birthright citizenship.
One can make a solid (libertarian) case that off-the-books, untaxed productive employment is a net gain for society - by delivering needed/wanted goods and services to society without diversion of 1/3-1/2 of the money to useless government.
Originally, Pat wanted it to be called “Keep Out The Wetbacks!!!”. ……………………
This part (at least) sounds like a hoax to me….
Uh… Or a joke.
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair.
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
So it will be.
“What if they don’t want to go?”
What if the people who depend on them, also, don’t want them to go?
Immigration is ultimately a local issue. It would probably work out better if the feds handed much of this off to the municipalities and states. It would work best of all if immigration were legalized.
That way, the same thugs who transport humans and dump them in the middle of the desert, the same thugs who also transport guns and drugs along with those people, would be put out of business.
Pat Buchanan… Wrong on this. Thank goodness he doesn’t wear a short little mustache–it would be all too funny if he did.
Don’t want to diss him TOO hard though due to his support for Antiwar.com….
OTOH, he seems to have been very duplicitous with regard to his stance on the Iraq War and the coming war with Iran….
I think President Paul should make him ambassador to Moscow. He’s got the perfect history to thwart our direction toward a new Cold War. And it would keep him away from the poor Mexicans.
>Thank goodness he doesn’t wear a short little mustache–it would be all too funny if he did.
Come on, that’s too easy. Though it does remind me of the Molly Ivins line about Pat’s 1992 Repub Convention speech: “It was a good speech, though I prefer it in the original German.”
I saw an old rerun of In Living Color from 1992 a few weeks back. The old lady’s at a campaign rally and says, “Oh, that Pat Buchanan, I love me some Pat Buchanan. He does that show Crossfire on CNN. You know that show Crossfire? I love watchin me some Pat Buchanan on Crossfire.” And then she turns to the camera, covers her mouth and says. “I just wish he’d get that cross fire off my lawn! But I ain’t one to gossip and so you ain’t heard that from me.”
I dont want to pay their bills. Sorry. Me very bad. You very good.
So abolish socialism or have Homeland Security round them all up?
A current bandaid to the problem would entail securing the border a little better. Ron Paul favors this bandaid if no one wants to apply the cure. So do I.
“Operation Wetback” as per Eisenhower would not work today, and would probably cause more harm than good.
Does our Continent need more people rounded up as criminals for not intrinsically violating my rights?
At a minimum a vetting process would be needed…..There are certain illnesses/diseases which the first world has largely eradicated but is still commonplace in many third world countries….a basic function of government is the protection of its people….if a government is allowing people into the US through an “Open Border” policy who have a “third world disease” (through no fault of their own mind you) they are exposing the American population - especially if it is a disease transferable through casual contact…..
I think, Scott, one of your basic tenets….is that GOVERNMENT, per se…is evil….(a its debateable whether its a necessary evil or not)…what is to prevent some government with a healthcare pandemic from dumping large numbers of infected on US shores…or sending us a bunch of pedofiles because of domestic prison overcrowding (but lets stick with the illness scenario - since I want to be clear that the “aliens/immigrants” have no culpability for their plight)….
A typical LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT might be that they have every right to be here - but you have no obligation to provide healthcare to them…….sounds fair enough - as long as its not a contagious/infectious illness.
I think it boils down to “property rights”…..If I’m standing next to you in line waiting for a bus and I’m sneezing and coughing etc…. (QUESTION) am I violating your property rights? — Lets says its something more dangerous than the flu - and I’m asympomatic - as in my condition (or some condition of illness) is not visible - a dormant phase where I can still spread a specific disease……
You might say why I am I limiting this to foreignors - as a matter of growing up in a first world country we have largely eradicated certain illnesses - I believe they are on the rise again, largely because of the immigrant influx.
I understand that breaking apart the “welfare state” in theory should end the immigration debate - but clearly it may be more economical to treat (or even quarantine) a carrier and I’d think exposing the general public to an infected foreignor is a breach of a legitimate role of government - and could even be considered an abuse of the publics property rights.
SteveC:
Yeah, you know the last thing that a guy needs is a case of leprosy. Or elephantitis. Or typhoid fever. Or whatever.
The main issue is not only contagion…..but casual contagion……if a disease is spread through intimate contact (body fluids, etc) one might make an “implied consent” or “assumed risk” argument……
Also, if you are defrauded by an individual or company - there is an identifiable party to seek recourse against….but if you are infected through casual contact who is there to seek recourse against 1) most migrant workers are not economically viable parties to sue 2) I don’t know how you can confirm that a given illness was given to you by party “A” as opposed to “B” “C” or “D” …..
This is not an anti - immigration position…..It is an anti - open borders position……It seems a healthcare screening would be a minimum condition - an a REASONABLE ONE - upon having another party take up residence in ones country…I’d also like to do due diligence on parties entering the USA but I have no idea what documentation exists (or would be provided by a foreign government who might be only too happy to “export” a serial rapist) to check on this…….
I do think immigrant bashing is disgusting and immigrant scapegoating is a favorite pasttime of those who can’t face they are failures in how they run their lives…….there are no easy answers…..and I think most parties have stealth agendas in their immigration position…..
most migrant workers are not economically viable parties to sue
So borders should only be open to folks who are wealthy enough to be attractive lawsuit targets? This argument falls apart immediately when considering A) how hard it might be to win any lawsuit against anyone for passing on a contagious disease to you. How can you prove that this person gave you the disease? There would never be more than circumstantial evidence - B) There are already plenty of folks inside the US who are full of contagious diseases as we speak, so suggesting that foreigners typically come from cesspools of disease is a bit of an uncomfortably bigoted thought. Would you lock everyone in the US (citizen or not) behind closed doors until they can prove they aren’t diseased?
As for countries exporting serial rapists, well, there are plenty of those around as well. I’d prefer to focus on preventing crime and protecting people, not where the crime is originating from. It doesn’t matter to me if the serial rapist is a native or a foreigner, the important thing is protecting people from him.
1) The US GOV would (presumably) want a sociopath (serial killer, serial rapist) locked up. However, a foreign government would probably be only to happy to export any degenerate they could (in lieu of incarcerating them at the expense of their government).
Castro was supposed to send political dissedents to the US back in 1980 (79?)…..Instead he opened up his prisoners ans just dumped a bunch of “endesirables” - however senor Castro defines the term.
2) To simply make a blanket statement like foreigners have diseases or that US citizens do not is assinine.
Their are diseases that the western world has eradicated…..that the less developed world has NOT.
To state that some (thats SOME, not ALL) of a third world population migrating to the US may have contagious diseases and that certain diseases thought a thing of the past may make a resurgence is a LEGITIMATE issue……Governments (unless your an anarchist - which is fine) to they extent they are legitimate have an OBLIGATION to protect its citizenry……I hardly think a medical examination to check for infectious illnesses is draconian……
I would consider a person’s “health” to be a component of a person’s property - private property. I’ve heard libertarians argue they they are stewards of the environment to the extent that corporate polluters (of air/water) are violating OTHERS private property…..I think much the same could be said of a contagious party……By circulating in public, is he not violating the private property right of others?
By circulating in public, is he not violating the private property right of others?
I don’t know, can you prove it in a court of law?
I’m talking Libertarian (or libertarian) theory of law……of what constitutes a property right (and to that extent what violates a property right)…….whether I can or cannot prove it in a court of law…….if you get some “progressive” jurist, it depends on the melanin content of the enfector/infected…..if you get a “conservative” Unitary Executive jurist, then I guess they have to pick up the hotline and ask the decider……
Just to clarify, do you favor a complete “open border” where there is not even a screening mechanism for purposes of a medical clearance to those entering the US?
Just to clarify, do you favor a complete “open border” where there is not even a screening mechanism for purposes of a medical clearance to those entering the US?
Yes, and an end to passports (which didn’t exist prior to WW1), and any and all other state restrictions on free migration. Anything less than that is, to one degree or another, a war on immigrants, which is no better than any other war, and it’s what Buchanan is actually calling for.
I’m not a Buchananite on immigration….The issue is very complex, but I tend to be fairly loose on immigration….
I do believe it is being handled very dishonestly….I’m by nature a cynic and by profession a businessman…and can state no “side” is being very forthright in either their objectives or motives……….
I can’t see how screening an immigrant for TB constitutes a “War on Immigrants.”
I can see how allowing someone into US borders with walking TB to circulate amongst the population would violate a basic reason for government to exist - to protect its citizens.
I can’t see how screening an immigrant for TB constitutes a “War on Immigrants.”
Well, because that’s what the State does, make war. It is a war-making engine, and it exists for this reason because it stands against basic human freedom.
Somehow, you’re going to have to classify certain people as “immigrants”, herd them into buildings where they will be examined and held until they are “cleared” by the State to enter. None of this is voluntary, and it may become violent.
What if an “immigrant” doesn’t particularly feel like being examined and held like cattle? Does the State ultimately kill them if they resist too forcefully?
That’s a pragmatic argument. Here’s a normative one. Is it right or wrong to detain people against their will? It is wrong, obviously. Any association that’s not completely voluntary is a violent attack by one party against another. This is what the State does, and that’s why it is a war-making machine. Justifying such an attack based on possible ill effects or crimes committed in the future is immoral, from my point of view.
Well just start enforcing the law. Fine employers who hire illegals, stop providing free med and ed and cut the sanctimoniousness please. No cattle trucks required. The left just says ‘Nazi’ or ‘Klan’ and you guys just dive under the table. Weak, weak, weak. There are racists who don’t want Latinos here. And there are guys in NAMBLA who want gay marriage - so what? You just don’t want to argue against an amnesty for fear of being called a cracker or seeming like some old fuddy duddy. But the left will out-moralise you every time on every subject - that’s why they are winning have you noticed? There can’t be one suffering soul anywhere on the planet and if there is, you have to lose your property, your freedom, you have to give in every time. There is NOTHING (inherently) RACIST about wanting the current immigration laws to be enforced. And you can’t seriously argue for amnesty, because you know that you won’t win that one anytime. It’s a corruption of the whole system. It’s a big rust hole.
Or change the laws and take 5 mill a year. Just make sure the ones here now don’t get the prize (easily) - make them sit serious English proficiency tests or seriously hard citizenship/history tests, whatever. If people really want to be American they will do it. And then you have a country again.
Or change the laws and take 5 mill a year. Just make sure the ones here now don’t get the prize (easily) - make them sit serious English proficiency tests or seriously hard citizenship/history tests, whatever. If people really want to be American they will do it. And then you have a country again.
The laws you want can’t be enforced. Law doesn’t stop crime, it punishes crime after the fact. Anti-immigration laws do not stop immigration, they simply make it a crime - which can’t be stopped. It’s exactly like the drug war. Unenforceable laws, non-crimes.
You want a country? go and stand in front of a mirror. That’s your country. Leave everyone else to their own devices.