American Thinker Disses “White Nationalism”

American Thinker Disses “White Nationalism”—a.k.a. American Patriotism

By Charles Bloch

The American Thinker [email it] is one of the better mainstream conservative websites out there. Although simply designed and without a major publisher, the website has higher traffic than some corporate-funded sites like Human Events and it is frequently cited on talk radio. It does not flinch in taking on the Southern Poverty Law Center [$PLC to VDARE.com], Hate Crimes Legislation, this summer’s spate of black flash mobs, and Obama’s blatantly anti-white agenda.  

But the American Thinker has just showed it is still hopelessly stuck in the Proposition Nation mythology by publishing an article [Identity politics: The Denial of American Exceptionalism, July 10, 2011] by former District Attorney and GOP congressional Candidate Dean Malik attacking “white nationalists”—specifically the late columnist Sam Francis and Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance and author of Paved With Good Intentions and, most recently, White Identity.

Malik [email him] makes several arguments trying to prove that “white nationalists” are not American patriots. Each one falls flat on its face.

Malik’s mistakes begin with his terminology. He describes the views he proceeds to attribute to Francis and Taylor as “white supremacy, emerging over the past generation re-cast as ‘white nationalism.’”

There’s some dispute over whether Sam Francis was or would have described himself as a “white nationalist”. Scott McConnell in his American Conservative magazine obituary of Francis (not available online) argued not; VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow in his own obituary thought he was, although Brimelow makes a distinction between “white nationalism” and “white supremacy” that has obviously not penetrated Malik’s world-view.

But Jared Taylor explicitly rejects the term “white nationalist”, preferring to call himself a “race realist”. It would be one thing to use the term “white nationalist” as a pejorative, but it is simply incorrect to suggest Taylor has “re-cast” himself as such. (However, for the sake of argument I will use this term, albeit in scare quotes, for this article).

Malik also argues that “white nationalists” are not patriots but global in nature” because American Renaissance prominently features links to similar white identity groups in Europe, Sam Francis quotes with fraternal admiration French Nationalist Jean Raspail, who speaks of the loss of the French ‘Fatherland.’” [VDARE.com note: Link in original—the term “Fatherland(patrie) is that used in the French National Anthem.]

John Quincy Adams famously wrote,

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

The right wing parties of Europe are fighting for the freedom and independence of their own countries from global elites and a Third World invasion. Jared Taylor and Sam Francis were and are “well-wishers” to these countries. But they never called for, say invading Brussels to put the Vlaams Belang in charge. [See The Enemy of the Nation, by Samuel Francis, Chronicles, October 1st, 2004]

However, recognizing the national identity of other nations does not mean you do not care about your own. Thus the American Thinker’s About Us page states: “The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Does this make the American Thinkers globalists and unpatriotic? If not, why can’t Jared Taylor be concerned about European nations’ survival and right to exist?

The crux of Malik’s argument: “white nationalists” are no different than radical black and Hispanic Activists like MeCHA and the Congressional Black Caucus (whom he also bashes). Because they identify by their race, Malik claims, all groups “equally denigrate the American Dream”. The American Dream, Malik argues, is rooted in “American Exceptionalism” that comes from the Constitution and other founding documents.

It is quite true that Taylor and Francis, like La Raza and the NAACP, advocate for their race. However, the similarities end there.

·         “White nationalists” have no problem with other races promoting their own interests, so long as it does not involve oppressing whites. But Black and Hispanic nationalists have repeatedly called for the suppression of whites who promote their own interests, and for that matter even non-racial conservatives such as Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs who happen to oppose their agenda.

·         Because these minority interest groups, with the full support of white liberals (and, apparently, Establishment “conservatives”) have succeeded in the above-mentioned suppression, “white nationalists” cannot even meet at a hotel for a conference. In contrast, groups such as the NAACP and La Raza have hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it paid for by corporations and the government and are kow-towed to by the president of the United States.

·         “White nationalists” wish to advance the interests of their race by restricting immigration and ending government programs such as hate crime legislation and Affirmative Action that specifically discriminate against whites. La Raza and the NAACP wish to advance the interests of their groups through welfare and government programs that discriminate against whites.

In the latter respect, the views of “white nationalists” are fully compatible with the constitutional vision of the Founding Fathers.

Malik explicitly denies this reality. Malik instead claims that the Founding Fathers believed in a universalistic and colorblind American Exceptionalism.

This, he argues, began with the Puritan leader John Winthrop’s much-cited “City upon a hill” trope.

But Winthrop’s city was for whites—and, even more specifically, British Puritans. Winthrop owned Indian slaves and oversaw the introduction of the African slave trade into his colony.

Malik acknowledges that the original draft of the Declaration of Independence includes the phrase “of our common blood.” However, he says this is irrelevant because the “the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion”.

But how does he explain that the Constitution explicitly enshrined slavery? Or that in 1790, three years after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Naturalization Act which limited American citizenship to “free white persons”?

Of course, this historical reality does not mean we must embrace past mistreatment of Indians and blacks. However, we must honestly acknowledge that race consciousness was integral to the founding of our great nation. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote in the Winning of the West:

“American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori,—in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people.”

Malik asks:

[I]f America is simply a blood-and-soil state, what is there to make it exceptional? The answer is: nothing. America is simply a re-constituted, mongrelized, tribe of Europe.”

But that is exactly what Israel Zangwill, the Jewish playwright who coined the phrase—much loved by neoconservatives—“the melting pot”, in the play of the same name, thought America was:

“America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming!” [My emphasis].

That said, neither Zangwill, the founders, nor today’s “white nationalists” believed America was “simply” based on race. In many ways, America is indeed “exceptional”. A virgin continent, inhabited by primitives, which was conquered and colonized by Europeans, will have different manners, customs, and government than a Europe inhabited by the same race for millennia.

However, this does not mean that the fact that America was founded by Europeans is not integral to its identity—or that a non-white America will necessarily be able to maintain the same manners, customs, and government.

America was not built upon racial identity—rather, that racial identity was taken for granted.

When the entire country, from La Raza to the Republicans, refuses to acknowledge this, it becomes more necessary to point out these truths. [Tell American Thinker—be polite!] But it doesn’t make us obsessed with race.

“White nationalism”, if that means the views expressed by Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, is simply good old-fashioned American Patriotism.

Charles Bloch (email him) is a Jewish supporter of Pat Buchanan.

David Broder, Rodney King, And “We Whites”.

David Broder, Rodney King, And “We Whites”.

By A.W. Morgan

When Washington Post columnist David Broder died on Ash Wednesday at the age of 81, the flood of accolades was predictable. Still, it is an accomplishment to elicit a warm statement from the president of the United States when you die.

The New York Times obituary was typical:

“Mr. Broder, whose last column was published on Feb. 6, was often called the dean of the Washington press corps and just as often described as a reporter’s reporter, a shoe-leather guy who always got on one more airplane, knocked on one more door, made one more phone call. He would travel more than 100,000 miles a year to write more than a quarter-million words. In short, he composed first drafts of history for an awful lot of history.

“Mr. Broder’s profile was national: his column was syndicated, and he made more guest appearances on ‘Meet the Press’ than any other journalist. His writing life spanned 11 White House administrations, beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s second term, and his career as an observer of Congress was longer than Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s tenure as a member of it. Indeed, he covered Mr. Kennedy from before his first election in 1962 through his struggle with cancer and death.”

[David Broder, Political Journalist and Pundit, Dies at 81, By Bruce Weber, March 9, 2011. VDARE.com note: Links are added to all quotes.]

Broder didn’t win that Pulitzer because he was a great stylist. Slogging through his column was akin to choking down a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal—healthy, yes; tasty no. And he was a boringly conventional liberal, if a fair and kind one, as Tom Bethell wrote in his short remembrance at The American Spectator.

Nowhere was Broder’s conventional liberalism more apparent than in the memorial column, Now the ‘character question’ has been written in fire, which the Washington Post Writers Group syndicate (contact them) sent out after his death with the following note:

“EDITORS—Of the many hundreds of David Broder’s columns that we could cite in tribute, this one from May 1992 stands out because it shows his fundamental honesty as he confronts his own—and the country’s—failings when its comes to healing the scars of slavery and racism. “

So, of the bazillion or so words that Broder wrote in a half-century of political pontificating, the chosen column, originally published on May 5, 1992 in the wake of the Rodney King riots, was the one in which he supposedly admits his own racism. The modern liberal is thus defined.

Funny thing is, in the column Broder doesn’t seem to “confront” his failings—but instead subtly congratulates himself for overcoming them and then finds them in others, namely everyone else.

That defines modern liberalism too.

Let‘s unpack a few of the highlights. Broder wrote:

“When I watched, as you did, the sickening pictures of the beating of Rodney King and the burning of Los Angeles, my mind went back to the seemingly different world of Marburg 2—the corridor at Johns Hopkins Hospital where I spent some time last month.

“My first roommate—the day and night after surgery—was a young black man, angry, hostile, cursing the nurses who remonstrated with him about his noisy outbursts. I know nothing of his background—he was on Marburg 2 for only one night because of a shortage of beds. But he seemed the epitome of the young men who have grown up in fatherless homes, devoid of hope, totally centered on themselves and the moment, heedless of the consequences of the drugs they use and sell, the guns they are quick to fire—terrorizing their neighbors as they act out the frustrations of their unchanneled, undisciplined lives.

“When I saw the looting and burning in Los Angeles, I saw his face.”

But Broder didn’t wear out any shoe leather to determine that the tapes of the King beating had been edited. Nor, apparently, did he run down King’s rap sheet, which was as long as a half dozen of Broder’s columns.

Yet the riots did, after all, cause $1 billion in damage and 53 people died. And you might remember Reginald Denny, the white man pulled from his truck by black rioters and beaten to a pulp.

Broder claimed that his hospital unit was a microcosm of the experience he had in Army basic training some 40 years earlier. No black or white, no recognition of racial differences. Everyone was equal:

“It was an artificially created society of some two dozen men, black and white, almost all of whom had been thrown together by the common experience of prostate surgery. It was a perfect democracy of equals, all striving for the single goal of recovery. Our role and status outside the hospital were irrelevant; and so, amazingly, was our race. Seniority prevailed. “

Thus did Broder “confront his failing”:

“At no time between Fort Jackson and Marburg 2, I realized, could I recall a situation where I was not acutely conscious of the race of the person I was dealing with, whether it was George Wallace or Harold Washington. One evening in the hospital, I told a new patient, facing surgery in the morning, ‘You must be an actor, a preacher or a teacher; you have one of the most beautiful faces I have ever seen.’ As it turned out, he was a retired school administrator from Westchester County, N.Y., and over the next week, we became friends.

“But I realized with astonishment that it had been 40 years since I had expressed a feeling so spontaneously to a black person—so pervasive and encompassing and overwhelming is the race-consciousness our society. Los Angeles and Simi Valley demonstrated how adept we have become, we whites, in shutting out our recognition of the essential humanity of all peoples, in consigning those of other races to their own worlds and living within our own.”

One wonders what Broder expected of “we whites.” Should we all move to Anacostia, the worst neighborhood in Washington, D.C.? Did Broder?

And how, precisely, is holding down a job, paying taxes, abiding by the law and living peacefully among one’s own kind amount to “shutting out” anyone or denying their “essential humanity”?

No normal human being thinks along these lines. But liberals are anything but normal. They are the real “race-conscious” people.  And that is because, as Walker Percy noted in his novel The Thanatos Syndrome, they deny what is obvious—that whites and blacks are different:

“One of life’s little mysteries: an old-style Southern white and an old-style Southern black are more at ease talking to each other, even though one may be unjust to the other, than Ted Kennedy talking to Jesse Jackson—who are overly cordial, nervous as cats in their cordiality, and glad to be rid of each other.

“In the first case—the old-style white and the old-style black—each knows exactly where he stands with the other. Each can handle the other, the first because he is in control, the second because he uses his wits. They both know this and can even enjoy each other.

“In the second case—Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson—each is walking on eggshells. What to say next in this rarified atmosphere of perfect liberal agreement? What if one should violate the fragile liberal canon, let drop a racist remark, an anti-Irish Catholic slur? What if Jesse Jackson should mention Hymie? The world might end. They are glad to get it over with. What a relief! Whew!

This precisely describes Broder and his ilk. One can imagine how nervous Broder was trying to write the first lines of his column and not come off sounding like, well, George Wallace—or at least the old George Wallace.

Broder wrote of his view from the hospital window at 6 a.m. He saw black people going to work. This, he concluded, after quoting Jesse Jackson, showed that blacks have character even if they are poor.

“These people I’ve been watching from my window prove their character every day, just by getting out of bed and driving through the dark to do the jobs for which this society offers damn little in return. Their character is evident in their daily labors.

“You’ll hear no prattle from them about maintaining ‘a zone of privacy’ for themselves, as you heard from Bill Clinton, and still less will you find them ducking the jobs that need to be done, as George Bush [i.e. George I, then still president] tends to do.

“What has Bush done in this nation in three years as president that shows character? Sign on to a modest deficit-reduction deal and then denounce it? Ease regulations on business? Stigmatize and fight a modest civil rights bill before signing it?”

At least, from Broder’s perspective, Bush did the right thing in prosecuting the Los Angeles cops who clobbered King for “violating his civil rights”—double jeopardy that wasn’t double jeopardy only because of a technicality. They were convicted—unlike all but one of Denny’s assailants, released because of a hung jury. Presumably, Broder approved.

The last paragraph of Broder’s column showed that, whatever his virtues, he was obsessed with atoning for America’s “original sin”:

“There is no more important test of character for an American president than what he does to heal the scars that slavery and racism have left on this society. That is the curse that is killing us, and everything else is secondary. The last president who acted on that conviction was Lyndon Johnson, who left office almost a quarter-century ago, when Los Angeles was last in flames. We cannot wait another 25 years for such a president. We just can’t.”

Almost 20 years has elapsed since Broder penned this nonsense. We now have Obama in the White House. And, far from healing this country’s racial problems, he is exacerbating them.

He says white people are “bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He says the white cop who arrested Henry Louis Gates “acted stupidly.”

His Justice Department dropped the case against the New Black Panther thugs who perpetrated what a civil rights lawyer called the worst case of voter intimidation he had ever witnessed. He apparently agrees with Attorney General Eric Holder, who said calling what happened in Philadelphia voter intimidation “demeans my people.”

But whose people would that be? And what happened to Obama’s post-racial vision?

Did Broder ask himself these questions—or any others about the feral black criminals killing whites with impunity, given his expressed concern about “shutting out our recognition of the essential humanity of all peoples, in consigning those of other races to their own worlds and living within our own”?

We can’t know. But we can surmise one thing. In “confronting” his “failings” in 1992, Broder’s guilt arose not from being white, or his own failure to help “heal the scars that slavery and racism have left on this society” etc. etc. Rather, he felt guilt about recognizing the truth he laid out in the first paragraph of his column: many young black men are dangerous and violent.

He had to conjure something to explain away what his eyes told him.

So he did. The problem in Los Angeles and other cities isn’t black criminals. It’s “we whites.”

A.W. Morgan [Email him] is fully recovered from prolonged contact with the Beltway Right. HHe now lives in America.

Movie Villains And Color Charts

VDARE Blog:

Movie Villains And Color Charts

By James Fulford

I’ve written about color charts and race, and Peter Brimelow has written

When I was in Forbes—I was there for sixteen years—I used regularly to do articles which involved charts and graphics. If we were writing about differences in income distribution and stuff like that, then obviously we’d break it out by race because there are such tremendous systematic differences between Americans on the basis of race.

Well, the Art Department, who were of course mostly lumpen liberals like everyone is in the media world, the kind of people that you find living in Greenwich Village where Forbes offices were located, they would never allow us to have a bar chart with blacks black, Asians yellow, and whites, you know, white! They insisted that blacks had to be green! And Asians had to be blue! And all kinds of other colors.

Of course, this made the graphics incredibly difficult to read, because you have to be constantly looking back and forth from the chart to the color key to figure out what you were looking at. But the Art Department just knew that it was not possible to have a simple bar chart which was intuitively obvious. It wasn’t because they were getting directives from management. It was something they really believed.

Blogger Alex Leo has tracked movie villains from action movies by ethnicity, in  movies from “ten of the best-loved action stars over the past 30 years” and this is what her  chart looks like after she studied the films of

Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis, Steven Seagal, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes, Mel Gibson and James Bond (he may not be real, but he’s definitely an action hero). I looked into each of their films (most of which I have not seen) and deciphered the villains’ ethnicities/races/affiliations. (I hope I did this all correctly but in some of the lesser-known films it was hard to tell so let me know if you find errors!) I discarded categories with only one or two entries: deranged wives (“Presumed Innocent”), clones (“Blade Runner”), the IRA (“The Devil’s Own”) [VDARE.com note: These are all white people, since they’re related to, married to, or clones of Harrison Ford.] and split the rest into ten categories: African-Americans (light green on the graphs below), Nazis/Germans (purple), Russians (light orange), Middle Easterners (red), American military/government/law enforcement (dark blue), the mob/organized crime (brown), South/Central Americans (dark orange), North-East Asians (dark green), non-governmental white guys (light blue), and American companies (yellow)

Give me a break! This is what the chart looks like for the eighties:

With MS Paint, I’ve changed the colors to reflect how many of the villains are white,how many are brown, and how few, actually, are black. (It’s unfair to call Rocky’s opponents villains–they’re boxing matches.)

You can see that almost all the villains are white. The thing about white  villains in government and corporate America is something that Alex Leo attributes to traditional American skepticism about government. I’d say rather that it reflects Hollywood ant-Americanism and anti-“Establishment” bias. Its total fantasy, anyway. White corporate executives and politicians have their villainies,  but that kind of person almost never commits an actual murder. Sam Francis wrote, regarding suspicions that Chandra Levy had been murdered by a Congressman, that

…I do like to think I know something about the American political class of which he seems to be a fairly representative member, and I find it all but impossible to believe that anyone in that class has the strength of character to commit this kind of murder.

These people can pinch their secretary’s bottoms all day and pocket bribes from whatever crook happens to walk through the front doors of their offices, but it takes a certain amount of character or what Machiavelli called “spine,” guts, whatever you want to name it-to kill someone face to face, clean up the evidence, and then dispose of the body so it won’t be found.

In Renaissance Italy political leaders possessed such qualities; ours don’t.

Tea Party Triumphs: The White Giant Is Stirring

Tea Party Triumphs: The White Giant Is Stirring

By Peter Brimelow

It’s hard not to laugh out loud while watching the ruling class’s extraordinarytemper tantrum over the nomination victories of so many Tea Party candidates on Tuesday night, above all that of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Karl Rove, who for some reason is now employed as a political commentator, complained she’s said “nutty” things and can’t be elected—this is the Karl Rove who abandoned the Reagan coalition and navigated the GOP to utter disaster? What more do O’Donnell, and many disgruntled donors around the country, need?

At VDARE.COM, we’ve long been interested in late Reagan aide Lynn Nofziger’s argument that the arrogant refusal of both party Establishments to reduce immigration could well spark a successful Third Party. It now looks like the Tea Partiers, with their very conscious contempt for the GOP leadership, are emerging as a sort of Third Party within the Second Party. (In Colorado, of course, Tom Tancredo has circumvented the local GOP Establishment with anactual Third Party bid).

Generally Tea Partiers say little about immigration and National Question issues, although their activists are reported to be enthusiastic and O’Donnelladvocates employer sanctions for hiring illegals and English as the official language. But it’s obvious to everyone that the movement is overwhelmingly whiteThe Daily Beast’s Will Bunch, noticing this, attributes it to

“sweeping cultural anxiety in predominantly white, middle-class sectors of the nation about social change—the gradual march of America moving toward a non-white majority by the mid-21st century, which was so abruptly punctuated for many by the sudden arrival of a non-white president in 2008.”

The Tea Party’s True Power, September 13, 2010

Bunch seems to think this is a bad thing. Our take: it’s a good, entirely legitimate, thing. Whites—who until the 1965 immigration disaster were called “Americans”—have interests too. They are entitled to defend them and, as immigration policy drives them into a minority, they will have to. Get used to it.

As Jim Antle argued in the London Guardian

“The conventional wisdom is that the Tea Party movement has foisted upon the Republican party a group of ideological nominees who cannot win in November. This narrative is convenient but, for the most part, false…”

Christine O’Donnell: a Tea Party too far, September 15 2010,

I agree, for reasons I outlined after the GOP Establishment blew NY-23 last year: After NY-23: Goldwater, Reagan, And The Mirage Of “Moderation”, Nov 4 2009. That conventional wisdom holds that political opinion in the US is distributed in a Bell Curve, with most people in the “moderate” center. But it’s actually more like a wedge, with the thick end, almost a half, identifying as “conservatives” and the thin end, barely a fifth and mostly minorities of one sort of another, identifying as liberals.

To put it another way, VDARE.COM has long argued that simple arithmetic indicates the GOP should focus, not on outreach to unappeasable minorities, but on what we call The Sailer Strategyinreach” to its white base, still the giant demographic actor in American politics.

With the Tea Party triumphs, it is clear that—blindly, confusedly, painfully,goaded by demographic and cultural insult—the white giant is stirring.

Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House – 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins – 2003)

Republican Establishment Not Fit To Rule

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the Republican Establishment losing it?

Is the party leadership capable of uniting a governing coalition as Richard Nixon did before Watergate and Ronald Reagan resurrected in the 1980s?

Observing the hysteria and nastiness of Karl Rove and the GOP Establishment at the stunning triumph of Tea Party Princess Christine O’Donnell, the answer is no.

This party is not ready to rule.

Consider. In its grand strategy to recapture a Senate that George W. Bush and Rove lost in 2006, the GOP Senate leadership endorsed all its own caucus members for re-election, if they chose to run, then picked out all its favorite candidates for the open and Democratic seats.

Conservatives and Tea Party activists, however, had other ideas. They began to pick their own candidates. And, again and again, the Senate’s chosen were rejected in favor of Tea Party challengers who had the endorsement of Sarah Palin or South Carolina’s Jim DeMint.

Arlen Specter was rejected by the Pennsylvania GOP and left the party. Rand Paul routed Sen. Mitch McConnell’s man in Kentucky. Charlie Crist was challenged by Marco Rubio in Florida. Crist, too, departed. Sen. Bob Bennett was denied renomination in Utah. Sen. Lisa Murkowski lost her primary in Alaska to a little-known fellow named Joe Miller.

But Delaware was the stunner. Rep. Mike Castle, a former two-term governor who had been winning elections for 40 years, was a certain victor in November.

Challenger O’Donnell, however, ended all that.

Yet, though her conservative credentials are far superior to those of Castle, O’Donnell was made the object of a wilding attack by National Review andThe Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, who lashed out at Palin and DeMint for “irresponsibility,” and Rove, who on Sean Hannity’s show went postal as soon as the returns came in.

Now, on paper, O’Donnell is a far tougher sell in Delaware than is Castle. But her defeat is not certain. Not in this volatile year.

And what is the justification for the savagery of the attacks on her, from her own?

What has this woman done? Did she vote for Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kaganfor the Supreme Court like Lindsey Graham? Did she support the Obama stimulus like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins? What did she do to deserve the trashing?

The answer is not distant.

To the Republican Establishment, Tea Party people are field hands. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master’s table.

And what O’Donnell did, with her amazing victory, is to imperil that Establishment’s return to power. That is why these Republicans went ballistic.

O’Donnell’s conservative convictions and Castle’s social liberalism mean nothing to them.

They are about power and all that goes with it.

And that raises a question too long put off.

What is the Republican Establishment going to do, what are theneoconservatives going to do, if returned to power?

Are not these the same people who assisted George W. Bush in stampeding the nation into an unnecessary war that got 4,400 Americans killed to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons he did not have?

Are these not the same people who misled or deceived us about Iraq’s role in 9/11?

Are these Republican scribes and senators not the same folks who went all-out for NAFTA and GATT and the WTO and MFN and PNTR for China, those brilliant trade deals that gave us $5 trillion in trade deficits, wiped out 6 million manufacturing jobs and 50,000 factories in one decade, and put us into permanent debt to China?

Are these not some of the same folks who backed the Bush-McCain amnestyand did nothing for 20 years, as millions of illegals invaded America? Now that all America is on fire, they too want to “build the dang fence.”

Are not the National Review and Weekly Standard scribblers and their neocon comrades of the Main Stream Media not now drumming up another war for Americans to fight, against Iran?

Are these not the same folks who went along with No Child Left Behind and the biggest run-up in social spending since Great Society days?

Beltway Republicans say they have learned their lesson. But the Tea Party folks and conservatives who vaulted O’Donnell to victory are saying: You had your chance. Now, move aside for new leaders.

Why is the Tea Party wrong — and the Establishment right?

The first Tea Party rebellion was the Barry Goldwater movement. When it triumphed at the Cow Palace, Nelson Rockefeller denounced the movement as riddled with radicals, baited the Goldwater people at the convention and refused to endorse the nominee.

A decade later, Vice President Rockefeller got his payback, when conservatives demanded that President Ford drop him off the ticket as the price of renomination. Ford agreed.

In its contemptuous response to O’Donnell’s victory, the GOP Establishment of today looked like nothing so much as the Rockefeller Republican Establishment of yesteryear. Its time is coming, too.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts.

The Bonfire of the Qurans

The Bonfire of the Qurans

By Patrick J. Buchanan

[VDARE.COM note: The Florida pastor who said he’d burn the Korans has either called off, or postponed the bonfire (Pastor’s agreement to call off 9/11 Koran burning beset by confusion, by Warren Richey, Christian Science Monitor, September 9, 2010). But that doesn’t really change anything in either Michelle Malkin’s or Pat Buchanan’s syndicated columns tonight.]

Is there anyone who has not weighed in on the Saturday night, Sept. 11, bonfire of the Qurans at the Rev. Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla.?

Gen. David Petraeus warns the Quran burnings could inflame the Muslim world and imperil U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton declares it disgraceful.” Sarah Palin calls it a “provocation.” President Obama calls it “a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaida. You could have serious violence in … Pakistan and Afghanistan,” and Muslims could be inspired “to blow themselves up.”

The State Department has put U.S. embassies on alert in the near 50 countries where Muslims are a majority. The Vatican calls the bonfire “an outrageous and grave gesture. … No one burns the Quran.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the defender of the ground zero mosque, is consistent. Burning Islam’s most sacred book is “distasteful,” he says, but the “First Amendment protects everybody.”

Everybody frets and wrings their hands. No one acts.

Yet if, as President Obama and his commanding general both say, the torching of hundreds of Qurans could so enrage the Islamic world as to incite terror-bombings against U.S. troops and imperial our war effort, why does not the commander in chief send U.S. marshals to arrest this provocateur and abort his provocation?

For Jones, who sells t-shirts saying “Islam is of the Devil,” may be an Islamophobe, but he is also a serious man, willing to live with the consequences of his deeds, even if he causes U.S. war casualties.

The questions raised by his deliberate provocation are not so much about him, then, as they are about us.

Are we a serious nation? Is Obama up to being a war president?

Constantly, we hear praise of Lincoln, Wilson and FDR as war leaders.

Yet President Lincoln arrested thousands of citizens and locked them up as security risks, while denying them habeas corpus. He shut newspapers and sent troops to block Maryland’s elections, fearing Confederate sympathizers would win and take Maryland out of the Union.

President Wilson shut down antiwar newspapers, prosecuted editors, and put Socialist presidential candidate and war opponent Eugene Debs in prison, leaving him to rot until Warren Harding released him and invited the dangerous man over to the White House for dinner.

California Gov. Earl Warren and FDR collaborated to put 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps for the duration of the war and ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute antiwar conservatives.

During Korea, Harry Truman seized the steel mills when a threatened strike potentially imperiled production of war munitions. Richard Nixon went to court to block publication of the Pentagon papers until the Supreme Court decided publication could go forward.

This is not written to defend those war measures or those wars. It is to say that if a president takes a nation to war, and commits men to their deaths, as Obama did in doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, he should be prepared to do what is within his power to protect those troops.

And if Petraeus says letting Jones set this bonfire could imperil U.S. troops, Obama should act to stop it. And if he is so paralyzed by uncertainty as to whether he can do anything—and, as a result, soldiers die—what would that tell us about their commander in chief?

Would stopping Jones and confiscating the Qurans violate Jones’ First Amendment rights? Perhaps. And perhaps not. But if Eric Holder cannot find a charge against Jones, or an inherent power of a war president to prevent actions imminently damaging to the war effort, Obama should find some Justice Department attorneys who can.

Let the ACLU make the case that interfering with Jones’ bonfire violates his First Amendment rights. Let a U.S. court decide whether Obama has the power to take a decision previous wartime presidents would have taken without hesitation.

And if Obama does not have the power to stop actions like this, imperiling our troops, then we should get out of this war.

This episode reveals the gulf between us and the Islamic world. Despite all our talk of universal values, tens of millions of Muslims, in countries not only hostile but friendly, believe that a sacrilege against their faith, like the burning of the Quran by a single American oddball, justifies the killing of Americans. What kind of compatibility can there be between us?

What do we have in common with people who believe that evangelism by other faiths in their societies merits the death penalty, as do conversions to Christianity, while promiscuity and adultery justify stonings, lashings and beheadings?

And what does it say about our ability to fight and win a “long war” in the Islamic world if our war effort can be crippled by a solitary pastor with 50 families in his church who decides to have a book burning?

Action creates consensus, Mr. President. People follow when a leader leads.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy

“Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy”

By Chuck Baldwin

“Our own government has become our enemy.” So said Pinal County (Arizona) Sheriff Paul Babeu.

“Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“‘What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU.’ Babeu said.”

The Arizona Sheriff was then quoted as saying: “Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help.”

See the report here: Arizona Sheriff: ‘Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy’, By Penny Starr, CNSNEWS, August 2, 2010.

Sheriff Babeu is not the only one who believes that our own federal government has become our enemy. Writing for Investor’s Business Daily, attorney Ernest Christian and economist Gary Robbins co-authored a July 30, 2010, column entitled “Will Washington’s Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?”

Christian and Robbins write,

“People are asking, ‘Is the [federal] government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?’

“Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

“Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.”

But it’s not just an imperial presidency we need to worry about; and it certainly did not originate with Barack Obama–although he has certainly accelerated the pace of this federal aggression. For all intents and purposes, the last four Presidencies have been imperialist in nature. In other words, we have endured at least 22 years of federal imperialism, encompassing both Republican and Democrat Presidential administrations. But it has also been Republican and Democrat congresses (along with a compliant federal judiciary) that have assisted and facilitated this out-of-control federal imperialism. In other words, folks: the entire federal system is now illegitimate and broken!

The federal government has become a monstrous leech that has affixed itself to the underbelly of the American republic and is sucking its lifeblood out with a vengeance. It has increased its surveillance of the American citizenry to the point that–for all intents and purposes–we now live in a Soviet-style, East Bloc society: our phone calls, emails, cellular transmissions, etc., are being feverishly monitored; our financial transactions are scrutinized; this new national (socialist) healthcare system is nothing more than modern-day slavery; our manufacturing jobs have been deliberately outsourced to the point that America’s real unemployment numbers are around 20% (Source: economist Donald McAlvany); the international bankers and their collaborators in DC could be described as the ultimate crime syndicate without much fear of hyperbole; the federal government’s control and manipulation of our public schools has resulted in the fact that the United States now has the most expensive and least productive education system in the industrialized world; and now it is teaming up with the ACLU (not to mention thousands of Mexican gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, rapists, and murderers) to fight the State of Arizona for its attempt to simply enforce the law. Yes, I would say that should classify the federal government as our enemy, all right.

If you doubt DC’s arrogance, I challenge you to watch the following video of Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), who said, “The federal government, yes, can do most anything.” With congressmen such as this, does anyone wonder why the federal government has grown into such a monster?

See the congressman’s remarks here.

Christian and Robbins could be right when they suggest that it might be time for a second American revolution! I might even argue, in many respects, that revolution has already begun. State governors and legislators across the country are increasingly frustrated with DC’s arrogance and bullying, and are pushing back. Jan Brewer and her brave Arizonans are not the only State to start drawing a line in the sand. Millions of freedom-loving citizens in these states have about reached the boiling point. I really don’t think it would take much of a spark to set this country ablaze with the “Spirit of ’76” all over again.

Remember, it was the states that created the federal government–not the other way around. And the states never surrendered their authority or autonomy, not to Washington, D.C., or to any other power. I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary; the states retained their Declaration status, that they were “Free and Independent” AFTER the US Constitution was enacted and the federal government formed in 1787. If the framers intended to make America “one nation,” meaning one national government absent the features of federalism requiring State independence and power to serve as a check and balance against the imperialist tendencies of a central government, why were the states not dissolved when the Constitution was adopted? The states maintained independence for the very reason that Arizona and other states today are resisting federal encroachment, or in the case of illegal immigration, inaction: to arrest federal failure!

Therefore, when Sheriff Babeu said that the federal government “has become our enemy,” he was 100% correct. Now it’s time for the American people as a whole to not only recognize the enemy, but to recognize the solution: enlightened and energized states willing to fight for their independence! And if that means another American revolution, so be it!

P.S. As promised in my last column, we have uploaded a brand new web page entitled “PATRIOT BUSINESSES.” Happily, we have been inundated with business owners requesting to be added to this new directory. We are working hard to have most of these businesses posted on the page by week’s end. To view the PATRIOT BUSINESSES web page, go here.

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.