Tag Archives: Pat Buchanan

DONALD TRUMP’S WALL AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN…. a debate inspired by Pat Buchanan’s “What Trump’s Wall Says to the World”

Asmodeous Rex • an hour ago
Donald J. Trump intention to build a wall at the southern border is an insult to all of Latin America.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Tim in NY to Asmodeous Rex • 13 minutes ago
Uh huh…
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • 43 minutes ago
I don’t see that the WALL is anything more than a re-inforced border. By your standard, Mr. Asmodeous, isn’t every border an equal insult?

Does your house have walls? is that not an insult to nature, or at least to your local weather and all your neighbors?

Walls don’t work against every kind of invasion or catastrophe (modern bombs and the IRS can penetrate almost everyone’s walls) but walls do serve to establish and declare one’s claim to private space, of reasonable expectation of peace and tranquility within a space that we can call “home”.

I don’t think Trump’s wall is going to change America—but it MIGHT help prevent MORE change than has already happened, and perhaps we can start deporting millions of people BACK on the other side of the wall who should never have crossed the border.

As a Symbol of National Sovereignty and Identity, I accept the need for a wall, although we will need to back up that SYMBOL with substantial action—I’d like to see every Latin American, African, and Asian Naturalized in 1986 by “Amnesty” to illegal alines or who immigrated after that date, lose his or her citizenship….

America is the New Jerusalem of the Europeans, by the Europeans, and for the Europeans….
3 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Asmodeous Rex to Charles Edward Lincoln, III • 36 minutes ago
O.K. Your reply is sensible and polite enough but the USA should be building bridges to Latin America; not promoting distrust and hostility. Are you aware that the USA has spent a lot of money and energy and lives trying to prevent that region from turning to communism?
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • 26 minutes ago
That’s kind of preposterous: we have thousands of bridges of every type (air, land, and sea) to and from everywhere in Latin America. It’s easier and quicker to reach Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan, Cancun or Acapulco from any major airline “hub” in the USA than it is to reach Alaska, which is one of our own states. It also easier and cheaper to take a cruise in the Caribbean than to Hawaii or American Samoa…or again, along the “inland passage” to Alaska… just compare the effort it will take you to get to Curacao compared to the Aleutian Islands…. I’ve done both trips….

As it happens, I turned 18 as a legal resident of Honduras while working on an archaeological research project at Copan sponsored by Harvard and the World Bank. And since then I have lived about a quarter of my life in Latin America since then, in Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, and Venezuela….

And I have been living and or visiting in several Latin American countries during Coups…. or kidnappings (I once watched the helplessly as the German Consul in Guatemala was kidnapped)…. And on top of it all, my grandfather did major business with the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, so yes, I’m quite aware of the U.S. attempts to fight communism all over Latin America….

So what exactly is your point? That because we have more-or-less succeeded in keeping communism from taking root anywhere except for Bolivia and Venezuela, and for a time in Chile—we should let all the rest of them in?

Chileans and Argentinians are pretty much “white people”…. as are MOST Colombians and many upper class Mexicans and Brazilians, for that matter, but other areas are much more racially mixed, and “upper class” immigration into the USA is NOT the source of any problems I’m aware of….
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Asmodeous Rex to Charles Edward Lincoln, III • 17 minutes ago
So then what is your point? What you’re saying is that there is already a lot of trade and commerce with that region. Shouldn’t that continue? Why create new hostilities in a region that wants to further integrate. I do hope sane people will stop all this recent madness.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Charles Edward Lincoln, III to Asmodeous Rex • a minute ago
I guess we’re basically talking past each other about totally different things. You’re talking about Trade I guess, mostly, but I’m talking about the need to preserve America’s cultural and racial integrity by stopping the flood of immigrants. I don’t despise Latin American elites or peasantry IN THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT. I think a lot of valuable lessons can be learned from the study of the Ancient AND Modern Maya—among other things, the value they have placed since the Spanish Conquest on resistance to cultural and racial assimilation.

The Maya of Yucatan and Guatemala are a great noble people. But that doesn’t mean they need to all move to Los Angeles. Out of heir historical physical environment and cultural historical context, I don’t think their nobility will survive any more than their culture. Los Angeles and Phoenix do not need to become Maya Cities—or Quechua cities or Nahuatl Cities for that matter.

Los Angeles has now the largest ZAPOTEC SPEAKING population IN THE WORLD…. larger than any city in the Zapotec Native (Mexican) State of Oaxaca. This is bizarre and perverse. The Zapotec will NEVER become real Americans but they won’t be real Zapotec anymore either. The Nahuatl (Aztec) speaking population of Los Angeles is not far behind. This is insanity. This is a perversion of nature.

And as for Trade, which seems to be your focus, I DO disagree with you if you think that NAFTA has been good for Mexico or that CAFTA is good for Central America.

Many if not MOST of our real racial problems, and especially those of Europe, come from the heritage of a Colonialism which was abandoned, not because the British and French and Dutch (or the Belgians or Germans, for that matter) FAILED at their enterprises of Colonialism, but because of the post-World-War II ideological shift….. towards communistic insanity and the demented doctrine of unearned freedom and meritless equality….

But NAFTA and CAFTA are essentially new Colonialist programs WITHOUT the benefits of Colonial Administration and Education. NAFTA and CAFTA have led to the mutual cultural degradation of North America AND Mexico and Central America…. and I applaud President Trump for his willingness to back away from these catastrophic enterprises (and to avoid new ones like the Trans-Pacific, which would have been the same only MUCH BIGGER and hence much worse).

Isolation leads to diversity…. and diversity leads to greater value in exchange…. So I think that we need to return to a world model where each region develops itself according to local traditions and environmental circumstances, and trade is an exchange of positive values developed in different regions, not moving plastics and electronics from cheap labor areas to expensive consumption areas.

So no, I think that fewer bridges and more barriers will benefit EVERYONE.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Funruffian • 20 hours ago
“To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.’

This wall is more than just Political theater and a way to stymie the bureaucratic onslaught of the Multicultural monster. This is a bold statement White America is making against the world who has intentions of undermining and destroying us. Many other nations have criticized America for years, but at the same token they want to reap the rewards and benefits America has to offer. I know that President Trump finds this attitude obscene.
16 • Reply•Share ›

When is a Pastor Embezzling from a Church? As the Feast of All Saints Approaches—is it time to Open the Barry Taylor Case to real inquiry as to all sides?

http://blogs.christianpost.com/time-for-everything/how-to-spot-a-pastor-or-priest-stealing-church-funds-16556/

I have not written on the Barry Taylor fiasco at All Saints Church in Beverly Hills for several weeks now.  It is not because my opinion has changed but just because… I have too much else going on in my life (LAME, LAME excuse, I know).  

Typically, the Feast of All Saints is the highlight of my own personal Church year.  Like so many modern (and historical) Christo-pagans, I love Halloween and Samhain, All Saints, and Day of the Dead/All Souls Day for their syncretic qualities, in both Europe and Mexico (translated to America), crossing the boundaries between ancient and contemporary religious worship and social customs.  One of my local chauffeurs (or more properly, in Spanish, “choferes”, Alberto Felipe, a hative Zapotec from Oaxaca), needed extra money for his mother to prepare the family altar in East L.A. for the Día de los Difuntos.  But, also I was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills when I had just turned 14, in April 1974, and my parents’ Oxford Movement “home away from home” Church in London was All Saints on Margaret Street in London W1W, City of Westminster, in Fitzrovia, but near the triangulation point of that neighbourhood with Marylebone, and Soho.  So All Saints seems very important in my life.

And so I remain outraged that I found there one block from the intersection of Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica the first Episcopal Priest who ever really and truly moved me and inspired me to think, even to change my thinking, and he has been fired, forced to resign, on the flimsiest of charges, and this all just hits WAY too close to home.

Barry’s new home in Brentwood is a small “liberal” Lutheran Church in Brentwood on Church Street which looks every bit of the marginal suburban Church that it is.                                                 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Village-Church-of-Westwood-Lutheran/116610431697541).  The Village Church is just not one of Walter Christaller’s “Central Place” the way All Saints Beverly Hills, in the heart of Los Angeles really and truly is.                                      (http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/centralplace.htm).    So the presentation of “the Gospel according to Barry Taylor” (a book which I told him he should write on more than one occasion during the past two years), will be marginalized and pushed to the side.  This cannot be coincidence.

As the Feast of All Saints Approaches, the magnitude of the Tragedy and Travesty just keeps getting bigger. 

The question of the mere propriety of the charges against Barry which led to his forced resignation continues to grate at me: is it really “embezzlment” (in the sense of a misappropriation of funds or a breach of trust with the Congregation) for a priest to use funds from his own sermon’s collection plates for any expenses related to his role as a priest?

One June 13 2013 article I found on-line, “How to Spot a Pastor or Priest Stealing Church Funds,” the web-address I cited above at the outset of this note, suggested: 

“Here are four possible signs that money is being embezzled by religious leaders.

  1. The pastor or priest lives an extravagant lifestyle.
  2. The church leader regularly fails to turn in receipts when using the church or ministry credit card.
  3. The church sends you a receipt for donations and the amount listed doesn’t match your own records of what you have given. (Anonymously given cash offerings will not be tracked.)
  4. The church suddenly starts showing large unexplained debts.”

NONE of these factors were alleged to have manifested themselves at All Saints, Beverly Hills.  NO NOT ONE. 

Except that every one of Barry’s friends to whom I have spoken have affirmed that he NEVER USED a Church Credit Card or Charge Account and NEVER PRESENTED RECEIPTS for reimbursement from his expenditures.  And it is undeniably true that the ONLY member of the Clergy at All Saints housed in a somewhat extravagant manner is the Rector, Reverend Stephen Huber himself, complete with servants and a nearly unlimited entertainment budget—as is totally befitting of the neighborhood.  But Barry Taylor did not partake of such luxuries….not perhaps by choice, but because of internal Church Policies.

Churches are now regulated by the IRS under 501(c)(3).  This is the provision by which they maintain their Tax-Exempt Status.  The IRS is one of the major symptoms of alien domination and domestic slavery in the United States (of Untied Constitutional constraints) today.  There are those who believe that Churches who seek IRS protection are voluntarily serving Caesar rather than God—and yes, that was part of Barry’s Second Sermon at Westwood Village Lutheran Church two weeks ago.

A couple of years ago, Glenn Beck, one of whose “Reclaim America” Rallies I attended in Orlando back in the Spring of 2010, had asked Pastors to defy 501(c)(3) and preach on religion for at least one Sunday.(http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/09/27/pulpit-freedom-sunday/) I believe it was Stephen Huber’s First or Second Year as Rector of All Saints, when Barry’s alternative service was consigned to the small All Saints Chapel, before it was given full AS2 Status in the main Church, but Steve made it clear that All Saints WOULD NOT participate in “Pulpit Freedom” Sunday and that it planned on obeying all IRS regulations and that all IRS agents, officers, and tax collectors were welcome at All Saints.  The Gospel Truth and Christian validity of admitting Tax Collectors and (all other) Prostitutes to Church is unquestionable in light of the “WWJD?” formulaic question.  Jesus would invite the Publicans, and possibly even some Republicans (say I, speaking as both a former President of Tulane College Republicans,and one of the few Confessing Harvard graduate school Republicans known ever to have lived, a supporter of both the Buckley brothers and Ronald Reagan, both as California Governor and President of the USA, and of Pat Buchanan, and of Texas Representative Ron Paul both as congressman and presidential candidate, but also as one who has become strangely intolerant of and uninterested in Senator Rand Paul, whose emails have become very “spammy” rather than welcome information in my inbox).

But in spite of the Reverend Huber’s Gospel accuracy that we should tolerate tax collectors and IRS officials in our midst, I thought his message AGAINST Pulpit Freedom was something of a cop out. (and compare also: http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/pulpitfreedom). And I think that Huber’s and the Bishop’s “paper pushing” attack on Barry Taylor was wrong, untrustworthy, and generally, MORALLY unworthy.  

Great men like the Reverend Barry Taylor need to be preaching at “Central Places” to reshape and reform the Episcopal Church, and to guarantee the transformation and survival of the Christian Faith into the current millennium.  Things cannot be forever as they have been.  They must Change.  Barry Taylor Represents Change.  Barry Taylor needs a Centrally Placed Pulpit from which to Preach.  If All Saints and the Episcopal Church cannot accept the indictment of hypocrisy which the dismissal of Barry Taylor has leveled upon them, the members of the Church need to revolt, and to demand a “new birth of freedom” in the Episcopal Church—a new birth of Christian life and authenticity.  

Strange indeed that Barry reminds me more than anyone of the Irish Catholic John Dominic Crossan, with whose work I first became familiar when he visited for a fortnight at Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Palm Beach (also in the Spring of 2010).  But unlike the highly academic Crossan, Taylor takes his message to the people.  And it seems that All Saints has ERASED all of Barry’s Recorded Sermons and DELETED all of his contributions over the years at All Saints, and this is one of the greatest tragedies in the English Church, comparable on a small scale to the monstrous destruction and abolition of the monasteries and the confiscation of their property under King Henry VIII.

Where do we belong?—Meditations on the Feast of Saints Peter & Paul—where DO we belong?

Always hoped that I’d be an Apostle, knew that I could make it if I tried;….. then when we retire we can write the Gospels so they’ll still talk about us when we die….

Jesus Christ Superstar, Andrew Lloyd Weber (Broadway 1971, Movie 1973)

2 Timothy 4:1-8.   As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Saint Peter’s self-chosen mission was as Apostle to the Jews, Saint Paul’s to the Greeks, though they both died in Rome.  Originally they belonged to the same Jewish Community as Joseph & Mary, John-the-Baptist, and Jesus himself.  We might imagine that Peter and Paul belonged, presumably as devout members of the Temple of Jerusalem, but possibly not even close, but they belonged to that race and religion and linguistic and ethnic group, in Roman Occupied Judea, aka Palestine, aka Syria, presumably being very close in age and community to Jesus Christ himself.  

In the service of the Anointed “Son of God”, heir of the Royal House of David, the tree that grew from Jesse’s loins, Peter and Paul became the most famous and visible to history of all Jesus’ Apostles. They belonged as apostlesPaul’s letters and writings were generally deemed to “belong” in the Bible by the Council of Nicea.  But the “Gospel of Peter” was deemed by that same body NOT to belong, although it scholars of early Christianity still discuss it extensively, see e.g.: 

http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-walking-talking-cross-in-the-gospel-of-peter-goodacre-vs-foster/

My “Forward Day-by-Day Booklet” suggests that this is a day when we should all consider, like Peter and Paul, where we belong, whether we are Christians or Jews or Pagans, to begin with, and then what we should do next.  Without our community, what should we do and how?  Should we accept the world as it is or try to change it?  Where do we belong in history?

We are free, endowed by God and/or Natural Selection with Free Will, but that is perhaps the greatest of our burdens.  “Our world recognizes the subversive nature of the Christian faith and subverts us either by ignoring us or by giving us the freedom  to be religious—as long as we keep religion a matter of personal choice.”   (From “Resident Aliens” by Stanley Hauerwas.

Has the South “Run the Good Race?” Is it time for the South (and California and Texas and the Union as a whole) to choose a different Path?   If we cannot “keep the faith”—do we really belong here?

Pat Buchanan has always been one of my favorite political writers.  He now asks whether the South still belongs in the Union, and I think it is a valid question.  Frankly, I believe that the Union does not belong anymore.  As my long-time (but currently “vacationing” personal assistant Peyton Freiman said sagely some years ago, “The United States needs to Secede from itself.  I think this has only become truer with time.  The South should Secede; California and Hawaii and Texas and Alaska should Secede. New England and New York should secede.  The Federal Union should be dissolved.  Obama can have the District of Columbia all to himself and the Supreme Court and Congress.  Illinois and Michigan might want to secede but then let Chicago and Detroit Secede and form an Isolated trio of City States with D.C., Detroit and Chicago exist under Obama.  The states should not recall their congressmen, because they are only worthy to be forgotten, not recalled…. In fact, all the States should simply revoke their Congressmen’s citizenship and order them to remain in D.C. or emigrate to Afghanistan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Yemen, depending on their political preferences.

Does the South Belong in the Union?

Friday – June 28, 2013 at 12:27 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the Second Reconstruction over?

The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.

The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.

Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.

The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.

What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.

You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.

You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.

Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?

By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.

Even the “pre-clearance” provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what “Bull” Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.

Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.

What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally — for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.

The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.

Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals a great deal.

What do critics say they are afraid of?

While conceding that immense progress has been made with the huge turnout of black voters in the South and the re-election of a black president, they say they fear that without the pre-clearance provision this would never have happened. And now that the provision no longer applies to the South, the evil old ways will return.

On several counts this is disheartening.

For what the critics of the court decision are saying is that, no matter the progress made over half a century, they do not trust the South to deal fairly and decently with its black citizens, without a club over its head. They do not believe the South has changed in its heart from the days of segregation.

They think the South is lying in wait for a new opportunity to disfranchise its black voters. And they think black Southerners are unable to defend their own interests — without Northern liberal help.

In this belief there are elements of paranoia, condescension and bigotry.

Many liberals not only do not trust the South, some detest it. And many seem to think it deserves to be treated differently than the more progressive precincts of the nation.

Consider Wednesday’s offering by Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. The South, he writes, is the home of “so-called right-to-work laws” and hostility to the union shop, undergirded by “the virulent racism of the white Southern establishment,” a place where a “right-wing antipathy toward workers’ rights” is pandemic.

The South is the “the heartland of cheap-labor America. … When it wants to slum, business still goes to the South.” Then there are those “reactionary white Republican state governments.”

Were a conservative to use the term “black” as a slur the way Meyerson spits out the word “white,” he would be finished at the Post. Meyerson’s summation:

“If the federal government wants to build a fence that keeps the United States safe from the danger of lower wages and poverty and their attendant ills — and the all-round fruitcakery of the right-wing white South — it should build that fence from Norfolk to Dallas. There is nothing wrong with a fence as long as you put it in the right place.”

Harold looks forward to the day that a surging Latino population forces “epochal political change” on a detestable white South.

South-to-North Immigration vs. Population & Cultural Stability & Continuity (Identity Crisis between Europe, America & their Southern Neighbors)

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

WILL THE WEST WAKE UP?

Pat Buchanan on immigration, riots: ‘Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?’

Published: 5 days ago

After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.

Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message:

“There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe.”

According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.

Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.

“We have institutional racism,” says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for “social change.”

Sweden, racist?

Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population.

Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?

The same day these stories ran, the Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.

Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan’s role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.

Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the USA, Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security’s radar.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.

One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.

The “national origins” feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.

But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.

They wanted to end America’s history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.

Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idee fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.

But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.

What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?

Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind.

Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.

And if we bring into America – afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars – peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?

The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.

Daily Currant, like the Onion, is a Spoof—still, not all jokes about this election are all that funny—and this one hits particularly close to home…..

Election 2012  Pat Buchanan:

‘White America’ Died Last Night

Nov. 07, 2012

Conservative political pundit Pat Buchanan stoked controversy today by claiming that Barack Obama’s reelection has ‘killed White America’.

The paleoconservative nativist is no stranger to racial controversy, having previously been accused of writing books with racist and anti-semitic undertones.

But the former Nixon advisor was more explicit on the G. Gordon Liddy Show this morning. When asked for his reaction to Obama’s victory, Buchanan replied brazenly:

“White America died last night. Obama’s reelection killed it. Our 200 plus year history as a Western nation is over. We’re a Socialist Latin American country now. Venezuela without the oil.”

Stunned by his clear racisim, Liddy tried to walk his guest back from the ledge:

“With what you just said right there…You seem to imply that white people are better than other people. That’s not really what you’re saying is it?”

“Of course that’s what I’m saying,” Buchanan replied “Isn’t it obvious? Anything worth doing on this Earth was done first by white people.”

“Who landed on the moon? White people. Who climbed Mount Everest? White people.  Who invented the transistor? White people. Who invented paper? White people. Who discovered algebra? White people.”

“And don’t give me all this nonsense about Martin Luther King and civil rights and all that. Who do you think freed the slaves? Abraham Lincoln. A white guy!”

Carte Blanche

“But we’re not led by Lincoln anymore, we’re led by an affirmative-action mulatto who can’t physically understand how great America once was.”

“I cried last night G. I cried for hours. It’s over for all of us. The great White nation will never survive another 4 years of Obama’s leadership”

Liddy tried to reason with Buchanan, reminding him that he shares similar positions with the President on Afghanistan, Iraq, and relations with Russia:

“Of course I agree with half of what he does,”  Buchanan answered, “He’s half white! That’s not the half I’m worried about.”

Buchanan served as a speechwriter in the Nixon White House. He was fired as an MSNBC analyst this year following the publication of a book many considered to be racist.