Friday, May 5, 2017

Rocky Marciano, the "Greatest Boxer of All Time" didn't die last year...he died 47 years ago.

Rocky Marciano
    When's the last time you heard the name Marciano mentioned on any sports show?  If you grew up in the 40’s and 50’s, you listened to most of his fights on radio since they weren't carried on the limited TV of the time and Pay Per View didn’t exist.  His fights with Ezzard Charles, a black, were epics.  Rocky didn't know about "Rope a Dope."  His secret trick was to just put his opponent to sleep in the middle of the ring . . .. 49 wins and no losses.

    Since he was white and boxing has been taken over by blacks, he will never be given his due in this PC socially engineered society of the last 60 years or so. Since the Liberal/Progressives control our culture, society, media and sports, Marciano and his record will be buried forever in sports history. He is the only undefeated (49 -0) Heavyweight Champion in the history of boxing. He was also drafted and served in the army.

    Just so you know…A lot of people have this title confused.  The "Greatest Boxer of All Time" didn't die last year...he died 47 years ago.  How did Muhammid Ali get to be considered "The Greatest?"   Ali had 5 losses in 61 fights, FIVE!   Rocky didn't have 5 losses, he had 0. . .. None! !  He didn't have 37 Knock Outs, he had 43 (88%).  He didn't dodge the draft.  He wasn't a race baiter and sure as hell didn't convert to Islam. He was a local kid named Rocky Marciano, aka The Brockton Blockbuster.

    Don't let the mainstream media idolize false prophets. When Rocky was once asked on TV if he could've knocked out Ali in his prime, his response was oh so classic!!  "I'd be conceited if I said I could've, but I'd be a liar if I said I couldn't".
Real Name: Rocco Francis Marchegiano

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Buchanan: -The time to stop is before the War Party has us in a Mideast war ~That time is now!

 
Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?
 
Share Pat's Columns:
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn Share on StumbleUpon
 
Tuesday - April 10, 2017

By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our "America First" president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

Trump "will not stop here," warned U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. "If he needs to do more, he will."

If Trump fails to back up Haley's threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as "Donald Obama."

But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio and orders Syria's air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaida, but with Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency.

Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational:

"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies — babies, little babies — with a chemical gas ... that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. ... And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me ... my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

Two days later, Trump was still emoting: "Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."

Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli and Turkish planes and drones — and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels and Shiite militia.

Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?
 
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments....
 
Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain?

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him — to keep us out of unnecessary wars — may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaida, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.
 
Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
   Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
 
 
Share Pat's Columns:
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn Share on StumbleUpon
 
Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org
   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!
 
 
Get Pats Books...  Signed by Pat Buchanan!
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-shop
 
 
Please Support the Funding of Our Email List and Website:
http://buchanan.org/blog/keep-us-online
 
*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*

We encourage you to forward this email to friends, family and colleagues... For the Cause!

Linda Muller - WebMaster for Patrick J. Buchanan
Buchanan.Org - Est. 1995

*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*
 
PLEASE NOTE: To send mail to Pat Buchanan via the US postal service view instructions here:
http://buchanan.org/blog/note-to-pat/contact
 
Postal Address:
707 West Main Street, Smethport, PA 16749, USA 

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Benjamin Franklin: “The way to wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 24). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.


Mellon, true to form, had focused on allowing businesses to work on their own, which to him meant reducing taxes.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 31). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

He did not see taxation as a moral matter. Taxes were a practical thing: a tax was a price. And one could only charge “what the traffic will bear,” as he put it, drawing on a metaphor from his own railroad freight days. When a government overtaxed, it hurt itself, for it got less revenue. Taxes that were too high, Mellon noted, simply were not paid.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 31). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

In this period, the first half of the 1920s, both Mellon and Hoover published books codifying their philosophies. The austere Mellon gave his an unexpectedly populist title: Taxation: The People’s Business. In it he laid out the theories of his fellow Scot Adam Smith to justify his program of continued tax-cutting.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 33). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

The government is just a business.” The lesson of the book was simple: people responded to tax rates, and lower rates might promote growth in the 1920s and pull in higher revenues for government. The whole idea of overtaxation was to Mellon un-American. “Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life. But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.” When failure attended business, after all, noted Mellon, “the loss is borne by the adventurer.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (pp. 33-34). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

...municipal bonds were bad because they deprived the Treasury of revenue. The better philosophy was to lower rates over all. Mellon also disliked other tax loopholes,

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 34). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Hoover gave his book a title similar to Mellon’s— American Individualism. But the text, like Hoover’s work, was distinct. Hoover rejected the old brand of absolute individualism and disdained laissez-faire economics as “theoretic and emotional.” Private property, he also said, was “not a fetich” for Americans.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 34). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Hoover: America must move toward regulation: “Our mass of regulation of public utilities and our legislation against restraint of trade is the monument to our intent to preserve an equality of opportunity,”


Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 34). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

The supposedly cold Coolidge heartily approved of Mellon’s tax policy, saying that “the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.” Mellon, with Coolidge’s support, reduced the national debt from $ 24 billion to $ 16 billion. He did away with the excess-profits tax— it was wrong to say that profits were excessive anyhow, when they created the work. Negotiating past the progressive George Norris, he put through the Revenue Act of 1926,

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 37). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

more importantly, was the average real wage, solid evidence that a tax cut for the rich was also good for Henry Ford’s worker. The after-inflation earnings of employees grew 16 percent from 1923 to 1929. Revenues continued to flow in just as the treasury secretary had so pointedly predicted. Mellon was managing to balance the budget and to reduce the staff of tax officials at the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 38). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Matters were different when it came to Hoover. Coolidge understood the political success of the beneficent hand, but he did not believe in it. Man himself, he would write toward the end of the 1920s, was after all “but an instrument in the hands of God.” More and more Coolidge was thinking of God— in 1924, his son Calvin got a blister on his toe playing tennis on the South Lawn of the White House, and in those prepenicillin days, the blister brought on an infection that killed him. This tragedy made Coolidge brittle, impatient, and irritable, and one of the people who irritated him was the persistent Hoover, so different from Mellon. Where the president eschewed technology, Hoover was always playing with it. Coolidge also hated Hoover’s tendency to react to news with grand, intrusive plans. Could not Hoover see where some of his rescues had led? At one point later on, the minimalist president Calvin Coolidge concluded quite simply that “that man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 38). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 Beyond grief lay Coolidge’s accurate perception that in the 1920s Mellon’s and his own policies were yielding the good that the men had predicted. Today we estimate that the highest level of unemployment under President Coolidge had been 5 percent in the year he was elected. From there it dropped to 3.2 percent in 1925 and then into the twos and ones. Citizens could afford all the new products. There was nothing bubbly about the potential for productivity gains.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (pp. 38-39). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

with Edison, now just on the brink of retirement. It contained the following exchange: NYT: “Do you think President Coolidge will be renominated and reelected?” Edison: “He ought to be.” Still, evaluating the specific worth of Mellon’s contribution or Coolidge’s reticence remained hard for most. Only a few favored Mellon over Hoover as Coolidge did. To the rest of the country Mellon was a distant figure. To the farmers, he was even the enemy; his gold standard kept grain prices low.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 44). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Coolidge was increasingly perplexed. As Hoover later recorded, the two had discovered that there was no getting around the essential difference in their philosophy: “One of his sayings was, ‘If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you and you have to battle with only one of them.’… The trouble with this philosophy was that when the tenth trouble reached him he was wholly unprepared, and it had by that time acquired such momentum that it spelled disaster.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (pp. 45-46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Coolidge now had a problem. If he didn’t want Hoover to supplant him, he didn’t necessarily want to stay either. “It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly and for the most part sincerely assured of their greatness,” he would write shortly after leaving the presidency.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 Coolidge made a thoughtful argument against long service in the job, noting that “the presidential office is of such a nature that it is difficult to conceive how one man can successfully serve the country for a term of more than eight years.” Too often, the man became the office. He did not want to be such a man.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

That same summer, the summer of 1927, Coolidge issued a short statement: “I do not choose to run for president in 1928.” There was coyness there— what if there were no choice, and candidacy were foisted upon him? But with each month it became clearer that he would indeed leave the presidency after his five and a half years. It was another of Coolidge’s acts of refraining, his last and greatest. And again, it opened a door for Hoover.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.


Coolidge on Hoover: At one point later on, the minimalist president Calvin Coolidge concluded quite simply that “that man has offered me unsolicited advice for six years, all of it bad.” He had a nickname for Hoover: “Wonder Boy.”
The differences between Hoover and Coolidge: The only party as alienated as they were was Calvin Coolidge, who at first bridled at Hoover’s request that a battleship be placed at his disposal so that he might cruise the coast of Latin America in the long interregnum. Take a cruiser, Coolidge said, “it would not cost so much.”
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 81). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 38). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
 
In 1925 Coolidge summed up his philosophy, telling the American Society of Newspaper Editors that “the chief ideal of the American people is idealism.” But he also offered a counterpart to that: “The chief business of the American people is business." It was the latter line that was remembered, and proved too moderate for some. They shortly altered it to the now better-known phrase “the business of America is business.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 20). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Coolidge heartily approved of Mellon’s tax policy, saying that “the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.” Mellon, with Coolidge’s support, reduced the national debt from $ 24 billion to $ 16 billion. He did away with the excess-profits tax— it was wrong to say that profits were excessive anyhow, when they created the work.

Today we estimate that the highest level of unemployment under President Coolidge had been 5 percent in the year he was elected. From there it dropped to 3.2 percent in 1925 and then into the twos and ones. Citizens could afford all the new products. There was nothing bubbly about the potential for productivity gains.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 39). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.


Benjamin Franklin: “The way to wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 24). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This was the era of democracy; the era of the republic was passing. “In fact,” Roosevelt said, “in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic; for we have begun to bring private autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public’s government.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 299). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

For, as Roosevelt put it, “evil things formerly accepted will not be so easily condoned.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 299). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 What the interviewers observed especially was that Muncie’s citizens were unhappy at receiving two opposing lessons from governments. The first might be labeled: “Saving— the Private Man’s Only Safeguard.” The second was “Spending— the Nation’s Hope.” The citizens had trouble squaring those two ideals, and the contradiction made them anxious.

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (p. 332). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

 Was a liberal merely a left progressive? Or was a liberal someone who believed in liberalism in the classic sense, in the primacy of the individual and his freedom? Willkie railed against Roosevelt’s “philosophy of distributed scarcity.” And he argued, speaking of both the United States and Europe, that it was “from weakness that people reach for dictators and concentrated government power… “American liberalism does not consist merely in reforming things. It consists also in making things. The ability to grow, the ability to make things.” Redistribution was a loser’s game: “I am a liberal because I believe that in our industrial age there is no limit to the productive capacity of any man.” Growth, not government action, would lift the United States out of its troubles: “I say that we must substitute for the philosophy of distributed scarcity the philosophy of unlimited productivity. I stand for the restoration of full production and reemployment by private enterprise in America.”

Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man (pp. 374-375). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Is a Trump-Putin Detente Dead? By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is a Trump-Putin Detente Dead?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=bzBeY.ra1Jw.nbl2uBeqVQ
 
Share Pat's Columns:
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=BvMvdhk5G6hN7Sk8pHlIEg http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=xfecAorbCQoZcPU6gBtUlg http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=u5Oo_tAkb.ysdVngIxLLUQ http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=TwNl2sBNHIpcQisFGL0QJQ http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=ezlyLTqtOxzzcVy6TSmKgQ
 
Tuesday - February 21, 2017

Among the reasons Donald Trump is president is that he read the nation and the world better than his rivals.

He saw the surging power of American nationalism at home, and of ethnonationalism in Europe. And he embraced Brexit.

While our bipartisan establishment worships diversity, Trump saw Middle America recoiling from the demographic change brought about by Third World invasions. And he promised to curb them.

While our corporatists burn incense at the shrine of the global economy, Trump went to visit the working-class casualties. And those forgotten Americans in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, responded.

And while Bush II and President Obama plunged us into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Trump saw that his countrymen wanted to be rid of the endless wars, and start putting America first.

He offered a new foreign policy. Mitt Romney notwithstanding, said Trump, Putin's Russia is not "our number one geopolitical foe."

Moreover, that 67-year-old NATO alliance that commits us to go to war to defend two dozen nations, not one of whom contributes the same share of GDP as do we to national defense, is "obsolete."

Many of these folks are freeloaders, said Trump. He hopes to work with Russia against our real enemies, al-Qaida and ISIS.

This was the agenda Americans voted for. But what raises doubt about whether Trump can follow through on his commitments is the size and virulence of the anti-Trump forces in this city.

Consider his plan to pursue a rapprochement with Russia such as Ike, JFK at American University, Nixon and Reagan all pursued in a Cold War with a far more menacing Soviet Empire.

America's elites still praise FDR for partnering with one of the great mass murderers of human history, Stalin, to defeat Hitler. They still applaud Nixon for going to China to achieve a rapprochement with the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, Mao Zedong.

Yet Trump is not to be allowed to achieve a partnership with Putin, whose great crime was a bloodless retrieval of a Crimea that had belonged to Russia since the 18th century.

The anti-Putin paranoia here is astonishing.

That he is a killer, a KGB thug, a murderer, is part of the daily rant of John McCain. At the Munich Security Conference this last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham promised, "2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress." How's that for statesmanship.

But how does a president negotiate a modus vivendi with a rival great power when the leaders of his own party are sabotaging him and his efforts?
 
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments....

As for the mainstream media, they appear bent upon the ruin of Trump, and the stick with which they mean to beat him to death is this narrative:

Trump is the Siberian Candidate, the creature of Putin and the Kremlin. His ties to the Russians are old and deep. It was to help Trump that Russia hacked the DNC and the computer of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, and saw to it WikiLeaks got the emails out to the American people during the campaign. Trump's people secretly collaborated with Russian agents.

Believing Putin robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, Democrats are bent on revenge — on Putin and Trump.

And the epidemic of Russophobia makes it almost impossible to pursue normal relations. Indeed, in reaction to the constant attacks on them as poodles of Putin, the White House seems to be toughening up toward Russia.

Thus we see U.S. troops headed for Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, NATO troops being sent into the Baltic States, and new tough rhetoric from the White House about Russia having to restore Crimea to Ukraine. We read of Russian spy ships off the coast, Russian planes buzzing U.S. warships in the Black Sea, Russians deploying missiles outlawed by the arms control agreement of 1987.

An Ohio-class U.S. sub just test-fired four Trident missiles, which carry thermonuclear warheads, off the Pacific coast.

Any hope of cutting a deal for a truce in east Ukraine, a lifting of sanctions, and bringing Russia back into Europe seems to be fading.

Where Russians saw hope with Trump's election, they are now apparently yielding to disillusionment and despair.

The question arises: If not toward better relations with Russia, where are we going with this bellicosity?

Russia is not going to give up Crimea. Not only would Putin not do it, the Russian people would abandon him if he did.

What then is the end goal of this bristling Beltway hostility to Putin and Russia, and the U.S.-NATO buildup in the Baltic and Black Sea regions? Is a Cold War II with Russia now an accepted and acceptable reality?

Where are the voices among Trump's advisers who will tell him to hold firm against the Russophobic tide and work out a deal with the Russian president?

For a second cold war with Russia, its back up against a wall, may not end quite so happily as the first.
 
Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
   Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
 
 
Share Pat's Columns:
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=BvMvdhk5G6hN7Sk8pHlIEg http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=xfecAorbCQoZcPU6gBtUlg http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=u5Oo_tAkb.ysdVngIxLLUQ http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=TwNl2sBNHIpcQisFGL0QJQ http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=CT00w&m=JaA6pJbol1xN9f&b=ezlyLTqtOxzzcVy6TSmKgQ
 
Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org
   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!
 
 
Get Pats Books...  Signed by Pat Buchanan!
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-shop
 
 
Please Support the Funding of Our Email List and Website:
http://buchanan.org/blog/keep-us-online
 
*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*

We encourage you to forward this email to friends, family and colleagues... For the Cause!

Linda Muller - WebMaster for Patrick J. Buchanan
Buchanan.Org - Est. 1995

*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*
 
PLEASE NOTE: To send mail to Pat Buchanan via the US postal service view instructions here:
http://buchanan.org/blog/note-to-pat/contact
 
Postal Address:
707 West Main Street, Smethport, PA 16749, USA

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Putin .... wants Russia and her rights as a great power respected.

Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354
Tuesday - January 3, 2017

In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern shore.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year's party at the Kremlin.

"A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger," reads Proverbs 15:1. "Great move," tweeted President-elect Trump, "I always knew he was very smart!"

Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being "Putin's puppet," lost.

Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

That question raises several others.

Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

True, but who began this escalation?
 
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments....
George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon's ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.

Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.

Russia, it is said, has supported Syria's Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated in the Aleppo slaughter.

But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?

Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that had been Russia's ally for decades and hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean?

Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?

That's what allies do.

The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria's Christians?

Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.

But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest of the USA?

As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?

Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on their own and are advancing through free elections.

Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship of the EU.

In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society, we prevailed.

But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual "universal nation" whose avatar is Barack Obama.

Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.

The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.

Reagan's outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.
Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?
   Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!
Share Pat's Columns:
http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354 http://www.twitter.com/share?url=http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354 http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354 http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354 http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://buchanan.org/blog/can-trump-putin-avert-cold-war-ii-126354
Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org
   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!
Get Pats Books...  Signed by Pat Buchanan!
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-shop
Please Support the Funding of Our Email List and Website:
http://buchanan.org/blog/keep-us-online
*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*

We encourage you to forward this email to friends, family and colleagues... For the Cause!

Linda Muller - WebMaster for Patrick J. Buchanan
Buchanan.Org - Est. 1995

*|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*****|||||*
PLEASE NOTE: To send mail to Pat Buchanan via the US postal service view instructions here:
http://buchanan.org/blog/note-to-pat/contact
Postal Address:
707 West Main Street, Smethport, PA 16749, USA

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options