Pat Buchanan Declares: Third World Conquest Of America

[jochhejaam]

BUCHANAN DECLARES: THIRD WORLD CONQUEST OF AMERICA

**Exclusive**

“As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended.”

So begins a new work of warning from Pat Buchanan.

And this time Buchanan goes all the way.

STATE OF EMERGENCY: THIRD WORLD INVASION AND CONQUEST OF AMERICAstreets this week and it's designed to jolt readers with stats and analysis of illegal immigration gone dangerously wild.

Buchanan warns: “The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West."

One in every twelve people breaking into America has a criminal record.

By 2050, there will be 100 million Hispanics concentrated in the U.S. Southwest.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all Mexicans, Central Americans and Caribbean people have already moved to the United States.

Every month, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends more illegal aliens breaking into our country, 150,000, than the number of troops we have in Iraq.

[The book was ranked #571 on AMAZON's sales chart Sunday evening.]

Buchanan slams the president: “Concerned about his legacy, George W. Bush may yet live to see his name entered into the history of his country as the president who lost the American Southwest that James K. Polk won for the United States."

In EMERGENCY, Pat Buchanan charges the Mexican regime with an Aztlan Plot, a conscious campaign to use America as a dumping ground for its poor and unemployed, both to relieve social pressure and effect a cultural re-annexation of the American Southwest. La Reconquista, the reconquest of the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican-American War, Buchanan charges, is underway.

The Republican Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is in the grip of a cult called “Economism.” It is all about money now. The GOP worships at the “Church of GDP”

• Both parties are paralyzed by guilt over American past racial sins.

• Powerful Mexican and U.S. elites seek to erase America’s borders and merge the United States and Mexico into a “North American Union.”

In his controversial final chapter, “Last Chance,” Buchanan lays out a national plan to deal with the State of Emergency, before it makes an end of America:

• An Eisenhower-type deportation program, beginning with all illegal aliens convicted of felonies and every gang member not a U.S. citizen.

• A ten-year moratorium on all legal immigration, at the level JFK favored in 1958 -- 150,000 to 250,000 a year.

• A $10-billion, 2000-mile double-line security fence between the United States and Mexico, built with no apologies to Mexico City.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpjb.htm

[smeagol]

Buchanan warns: “The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West."
Huh?

Death of the West with "Western" illegal alliens entering the US?

Are Mexican and people from Central America from the East?

Is Buchanan this stupid?

[boutons_]

Buchannan rousing the rabble.

[Extra Stout]

Buchanan slams the president: “Concerned about his legacy, George W. Bush may yet live to see his name entered into the history of his country as the president who lost the American Southwest that James K. Polk won for the United States."

In EMERGENCY, Pat Buchanan charges the Mexican regime with an Aztlan Plot, a conscious campaign to use America as a dumping ground for its poor and unemployed, both to relieve social pressure and effect a cultural re-annexation of the American Southwest. La Reconquista, the reconquest of the lands lost by Mexico in the Mexican-American War, Buchanan charges, is underway.

The Republican Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is in the grip of a cult called “Economism.” It is all about money now. The GOP worships at the “Church of GDP”


OMG, Pat Buchanan has become a leftist liberal America-hater!!!

[Crookshanks]

While I sometimes think Buchanan goes a little too far, I believe his basic premise is spot on! Both parties are now so concerned with political correctness and the fear of offending anyone and everyone, that we have sacrified the very things that made America great.

I believe the illegal immigration problem could cause a severe backlash in the country - we are seeing the beginnings of it already.

Hundreds Protest N.J. Immigration Rules
Aug 20 11:12 PM US/Eastern

By DAVE PORTER
Associated Press Writer


RIVERSIDE, N.J.

Hundreds of protesters and counter-protesters assembled in this small Philadelphia suburb Sunday in response to the community's new attempt to crack down on illegal immigration.

About 200 protesters argued against a township ordinance adopted last month that bans the hiring and housing of people who cannot verify they are legal residents. A larger group massed across the street to support the new law.

People on both sides of the street waved American flags, but traded hostile remarks.

"This can only lead to more separation, more hostility, more hatred, more anger," Marlene Lao-Collins, associate director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, told protesters. "As we have seen, this ordinance has already created hostility toward all immigrants, whether they are illegal or not."

Several cars drove past waving Confederate flags and shouting, "Go home!" while one person held up a sign that read, "We Are Home."

The ordinance punishes landlords and employers who house or hire illegal immigrants. Local officials estimate that as many as 3,500 illegal immigrants, many from Brazil, live in the town.

The ordinance is similar to one passed in July in Hazleton, Pa., and comes as other towns across the nation are considering such measures.

Both the Riverside and Hazleton ordinances have been challenged in federal court.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

While I sometimes think Buchanan goes a little too far, I believe his basic premise is spot on!
Ofcourse you do http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

[Ocotillo]

I read that particular story prior to your posting it. It is interesting on many levels. The town passed an ordinance which on it's face is reasonable as well as redundant. Yet it brought out protests and counter protests. The actions that took place during the protests are very telling as well.

Immigrants and one would I think be safe to assume, some illegal immigrants came out to protest against the law. Anti-immigration people showed up in force as well and showed a side of the arugument that I believe most folks on the "conservative" side of the immigration argument would just as soon keep hidden behind the scenes. The anti-immigration protestors took exception to not only illegal immigrants but legitimate immigrants and likely American of a different ethnic background. The flying of the Confederate flag was ironic as well as many immigrants were criticized by the right for flying the Mexican flag at the May marches

What this says to me is the legitimate issue is being led by unreasonable people. Reasonable people want to see border security improved and immigration to this country follow basic standards. The alternative is massive numbers of people coming to this country that end up taxing our social welfare systems, i.e. medical care, food stamps, police services and a number of other services that need to be increased and paid for because of the sheer numbers game of more people coming into the system.

Unfortunately, the bigots are taking the lead on this issue because most Americans want to do "something", they see an opening and bring to fore there xenophobia. We have lost ground in the progress that has been made in reducing racism. Perhaps the same amount of racism is there but, the current political environment has given certain amount of credibility to racism to come out from cover and to be more open.

Once again some people are looking at the sledge hammer approach as a solution to a problem that is more complex then simply building a wall and rounding up people and deporting them.

Why do they come? Plain and simple, for jobs, economic reasons.

There is a reluctance on the part of our system to truly prosecute the people who hire illegal aliens. While there are many corporations, particularly agriculture and construction that benefit from illegal aliens, it is even more pervasive than that. How many "regular" people employ a cleaning lady or lawn care person that is probably illegal and pay them in cash? Are we as a nation ready to punish the guy next door because we know or suspect he is using some lady from Honduras to clean his house?

Illegal immigration is a complex issue and we do not need the black and white solutions that would come from those on the extreme end of the political spectrum. It requires a mult-faceted solution to make any sort of progress.

Border Security is important because of the increase of middle east terrorism and the increased likelihood of the border being crossed by these sorts in additions to the thousands of economic migrants.

Holding American individuals and institutions responsible for giving employment to illegals.

Finally, if there is a way to help develop the third world economies of the Latin American nations in particular. I know not all illegals come from Latin America but the vast majority do and we share the hemisphere and are all Americans. This is the most difficult thing to do because these countries are autonomous and we must guard against simply throwing money away to corrupt goverments that would sqaunder the money for personal enrichment rather than helping their nations peoples.

[Crookshanks]

That was an excellent post. I agree with you that extremists on both sides of the issue are the ones that are being heard. Unfortunately, when americans see people of hispanic descent - they don't know if they are legal or illegal and they are all being painted with the same brush.

It's the same with middle eastern men - not all of them are terrorists, but people are quick to lump them all in the same category.

Maybe if the legal immigrants and the law-abiding muslims would stand up and be more vocal about those of their race who are breaking the law, then more people would understand the difference!

[Ocotillo]

Maybe if the legal immigrants and the law-abiding muslims would stand up and be more vocal about those of their race who are breaking the law, then more people would understand the difference!

I can't disagree with that but maybe our press should seek these people out?
Most Muslims and legal immigrants could shout their views from the hilltops but in a country as large as ours, their voices will go largely unheard unless it is on TV, radio or newspapers because most of us do not come in contact with these people in our daily lives.

[cheguevara]

good. USA finally will have good looking women

[gtownspur]

That's cool of Extra Stout to try to pass me off as the type that labels someone a leftist liberal america hater. Yet he can't provide an example of when i use those phrases.

But that's just a part of his inferiority complex in which he feels the need for approval and respect from others on this board so bad that he has to point his finger at somebody else and say "Look at him, Atleast i'm not a wingnut like him!".

You're a sad insecure web diva and i pity you.

[gtownspur]

That was an excellent post. I agree with you that extremists on both sides of the issue are the ones that are being heard. Unfortunately, when americans see people of hispanic descent - they don't know if they are legal or illegal and they are all being painted with the same brush.

It's the same with middle eastern men - not all of them are terrorists, but people are quick to lump them all in the same category.

Maybe if the legal immigrants and the law-abiding muslims would stand up and be more vocal about those of their race who are breaking the law, then more people would understand the difference!

In defense to latinos and muslims, some of those are too busy working and making a hard living that standing up and devoting time to protest is just a waste of time since as individuals, their not really responsible fot the actions of a others.

[DarkReign]

In defense to latinos and muslims, some of those are too busy working and making a hard living that standing up and devoting time to protest is just a waste of time since as individuals, their not really responsible fot the actions of a others.

Totally true. They dont have to do anything, they won their personal merit by earning it.

[gtownspur]

I'm not picking on Crookshanks, i think she's cool myself, but if you're a conservative you lay your ideology on individualism. If it's not rigth for blacks to have to defend their own people from acts of murder, like the OJ simpson Trial, then it's also not right to demand individual muslims to speak out as a whole against those that commit terror, because the individual is seperate from the collective. And liberalism generally is about the collective good and bad of people.

[John Doe]

Finally, a thread with many objective points of view but no personal attacks!

[Crookshanks]

gtown - I agree with you. I guess what I meant was that the representatives of these groups should be more vocal. Instead, the clerics here in the US have, for the most part, remained silent. If they had publicly condemned the acts of terrorism, then more people would take notice.

Regarding the hispanics - how many legal immigrants participated in the protests in May? And then you have groups like LaRaza who openly oppose any immigration reforms.

I'm just saying - don't complain too much if you're not willing to get involved to make a difference! Just like voting - don't complain about the government if you didn't vote!

[Extra Stout]

But that's just a part of his intolerance-of-stupidity complex in which he feels irritated by the lack of independent sentient thought from others on this board so bad that he has to point his finger at somebody else and say "Look at him, Atleast i'm not a drooling idiot like him!".
Fixed it.

[gtownspur]

Wow, so you can alter people's qoutes, i envy you,.....moron!

[gtownspur]

Fixed it.

This guy is full of shit. I guess his implications are "if you support Bush for whatever reason, you have no independent thought process.".

For labeling people as being dumb ignorant and quick to make hasty generalizations, you are king at that yourself.

[Extra Stout]

That was an excellent post. I agree with you that extremists on both sides of the issue are the ones that are being heard. Unfortunately, when americans see people of hispanic descent - they don't know if they are legal or illegal and they are all being painted with the same brush.

It's the same with middle eastern men - not all of them are terrorists, but people are quick to lump them all in the same category.

Maybe if the legal immigrants and the law-abiding muslims would stand up and be more vocal about those of their race who are breaking the law, then more people would understand the difference!
I know a great many Latinos who are deeply resentful of illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants who went to great pains to jump through all the hoops, and citizens who jumped through the same hoops to bring their families here, are deeply indignant toward those who do not show the same respect for the law, and are even more indignant about the utter lack of enforcement.

They can be as "vocal" as all get all, but if the media doesn't report it, you won't hear about it.

[Extra Stout]

This guy is full of shit. I guess his implications are "if you support Bush for whatever reason, you have no independent thought process.".
Go read one of whottt's posts and see what a pro-Bush poster with a brain reads like.

My problem with you is that you are an embarrassment, not that you are pro-Bush.

[gtownspur]

Go read one of whottt's posts and see what a pro-Bush poster with a brain reads like.

My problem with you is that you are an embarrassment, not that you are pro-Bush.


Embarrassment to what? The RNC? I represent myself and don't give a rat's ass about what a overtly self concsience prick like you percieves about the conservative movement.

I'm not here to impress you, and if you feel threaten by me for some stupid reason go take it out on your goat.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Is there anyone in this political forum who does not refer to him as gculo?

[Nbadan]

Let me see, piss of the pro-business people, like rich land-developers, and say good-bye to their millions in contributions by cutting off their supply of cheap, hard-working labor, or placate a small constituency that will vote for a Democrat again when hell freezes over - hummm..I wonder which way the WH will go on this one?

[boutons_]

"I wonder which way the WH will go on this one?"

Sounds like they are going after the anti-immigration vote

===================

In Porous Border, GOP Sees An Opening

Candidates Take Hard Line To Rally Conservative Base

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 21, 2006; A01

ORO VALLEY, Ariz. -- When 11-term Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) announced his retirement, he bestowed his endorsement on soft-spoken state Rep. Steve Huffman. Only someone in his own moderate mold, Kolbe declared, could prevail in a demographically diverse district stretching from the affluent foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains above Tucson to the rugged border of Mexico.

But when the long-simmering issue of illegal immigration boiled over this year, Huffman lost his favored status in the Sept. 12 Republican primary in the 8th Congressional District and was gasping to keep up with anti-immigration firebrands in his party -- and even with some in the other.

"Stop the invasion," conservative Democrat Bill Johnson bellowed at a candidates' forum last week, as the sun set through the picture window of the Church of the Nazarene here.

"Not only can we secure the border -- we must secure the border," trumpeted former state representative Randy Graf, widely considered the new front-runner for the Republican nomination.

There seems to be little doubt that a hard line against illegal immigration is the safer position in a GOP primary. But many Republicans believe, in a year when many national trends are not blowing their way, that it is also the safer position in a general election.

It is a counterintuitive strategy: The way to win a swing district is not with a campaign aimed at swing voters. Instead, the goal is to motivate conservatives with anti-illegal-immigration appeals, hoping they overcome their disenchantment with GOP policies in Washington.

Of course, Republicans also hope to snare independents and even some wayward Democrats with the immigration issue. But they plan to do it with hot words -- not with the cool centrism that is more typical in districts where both parties have run competitively.

In a way, this strategy borrows from President Bush's rally-the-base approach to winning reelection in 2004, even though it is based on spurning Bush's stance on the immigration issue. Like Kolbe, the Bush administration wants tough border security measures combined with new, legal avenues toward work and citizenship for the country's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Many conservatives fear this would be a de facto amnesty for undocumented workers.

It may be little surprise that immigration is a flash point in this district, which is 18 percent Hispanic. But the issue echoes in House campaigns around the country, and the tenor of the debate on the Republican side has grown increasingly unified and increasingly punitive.

In Upstate New York, Republican state Sen. Raymond A. Meier has made a border crackdown and opposition to "amnesty" for illegal immigrants centerpieces of his race to hold the seat of retiring Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert for his party. House Republicans held an immigration field hearing this month in Dubuque, Iowa, where Rep. Jim Nussle is retiring from his highly competitive seat, to let Republican candidate Mike Whalen highlight his proposal for a tough employment-verification system for immigrant workers.

Last week, House Republican field hearings in San Diego explored the societal and governmental costs of illegal immigrants' use of health-care facilities and welfare. Another in Houston looked at "the criminal consequences of illegal immigration." One near here, in Sierra Vista, examined the nation's strained technical capacity to monitor "the efforts of terrorists and drug cartels" trying to "infiltrate American soil."

At a field hearing Tuesday in Gainesville, Ga., Rep. Charles Whitlow Norwood Jr. (R-Ga.) brushed off complaints by those who wanted a more balanced witness list. "What I wanted was witnesses who agree with me, not disagree with me," he told reporters.

Some believe rigidity is what voters are seeking. Randy Pullen, a Republican National Committeeman from Arizona, pointed to national polls of Republican voters that indicate illegal immigration is a close second behind fighting terrorism on the list of GOP priorities. In that sense, opposition to a porous border may be to November 2006 what opposition to gay marriage was to November 2004.

"If we turn out our base, we win," Pullen said. "In states like Arizona, [illegal immigration] is the issue. There is no other. But nationally, when that much of your base feels so extremely strong about an issue, you need to take notice."

Mike Hellon, a former Arizona GOP chairman running in the primary here, said, "Not since the Watergate year of 1974 have I seen an issue so dominant in an election."


Intense Issue in Intense Race

The race to succeed Kolbe promises to be one of the most tightly contested, expensive House races this cycle; the prize is one of only a handful of open seats in swing districts. Bush carried this district in 2004. But so did Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. Independent congressional analysts have labeled the seat one of the Democrats' best pickup chances.

But a race that was expected to pit moderate against moderate on issues such as Iraq and Medicare now seems likely to have a much sharper edge. Like Kolbe, Huffman, a former aide to the retiring congressman, embraces "comprehensive" immigration changes, including a robust guest-worker program for some illegal immigrants and future immigrants.

But other Republicans say Kolbe and Huffman miscalculated the district's mood. Graf, who took 43 percent of the primary vote in an anti-illegal-immigration challenge to Kolbe two years ago, jumped into the race to oppose a guest-worker program and excoriate any candidate offering a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

Hellon started with conciliatory rhetoric, then embraced a harder line on immigration. Frank Antenori, a former Green Beret and Iraq combat veteran, entered the fray, saying he had sat on a mountaintop with night-vision goggles and helped apprehend illegal immigrants.

Democrats said they savor the prospects of a primary victory for one of the immigration firebrands, who they think are too conservative for the district. Huffman agrees, making Graf's "extremism" the centerpiece of his campaign. "An extreme candidate cannot win the general election," he said.

But other Republicans here say moderation is no virtue on this issue. Hellon said Kolbe's endorsement probably cost Huffman some Republican support. With conservative voters so demoralized, said Hellon, if Huffman won the nomination they would rather sit out the vote in November with their eyes on 2008.

"A vote for Steve Huffman is a vote for the politics of Jim Kolbe. There may have been a time when those politics were valid -- not anymore," said local conservative radio host Charles Heller.

"There is a frustration among the base, and that's why we're going to be successful in this primary," Graf said. "Conservative Republicans in this district have not had a reason to go to the polls to vote for a congressman for quite some time because this congressman has not represented them."

Some voters do not see it that way. On a street in Warren, near what is left of a once-bustling copper mine, Annette Walton was talking to the few customers trickling in for lunch at her no-name diner when she turned to politics.

"Most of those immigrants coming across are working jobs that most people here don't want anyway," she said. "Most of them are good people trying to get a better life. It's a smokescreen, is what it is."

But even some Democrats worry that immigration hard-liners may be accurately gauging the temper of the times -- and that the GOP has found an antidote to its woes.

In the liberal enclave of Bisbee, a picturesque 19th-century mining town spilling down the walls of Tombstone Canyon, the talk among Democratic partisans congregating in artist studios and cafes was of the Bisbee police officer who was pulled off the beat, put into his National Guard uniform and stationed a few miles away at the Naco border post.

"So stupid," said Susan Rohrbach over tea at a Bisbee coffee shop.

But, she added, the anger of the few diehard Democrats in the district may be nothing compared with the rage being stoked among the Republicans by the anti-immigration push.

"I'm afraid that is the right strategy, at least in this state," she said.

At a Graf rally last Monday at Trail Dust Town, a Tucson tourist stop, the talk wasn't over whether to build a wall on the border with Mexico, but what kind.

"Jewish-style," counseled Lee Ewing, 70, referring to the Israeli barrier being erected around the West Bank. "Double-layered, with a berm in between and razor wire."

Ewing railed against Bush's immigration policies, saying he failed to deploy enough resources on the border, and against the war in Iraq, where "2,600 Americans have died . . . for nothing." But given the choice to vote for a Republican vowing to clamp down on illegal immigration and a Democrat promising a new course in Iraq, he said he would not hesitate to vote Republican.

At the Bakers Dozen donut shop in Sierra Vista, Sally Hawk of Huachuca City held her tongue as her husband, Jim, fretted over a Republican Party in control of the House, Senate and White House but "doing nothing." Then, when talk turned to the illegal immigrants flowing over the border, she chimed in hesitantly: "I think they ought to shoot them. I don't have anything against Mexicans. I just want them here legally."
Democrats Have Broader Plan

Most of the Democratic candidates are confident that their broader assault on Republican policies will prevail in November. Former Tucson anchorwoman Patty Weiss, who is locked in a contest for the District 8 nomination with former state senator Gabrielle Giffords, said candidate coffees and house parties regularly pass without a word about immigration as she talks up universal health care, education and environmental quality.

Giffords said the GOP thrust can be parried with a tough Democratic response that blames Republican inaction for the crisis that illegal immigrants have visited upon resource-strapped schools, health-care systems and law enforcement agencies.

"We're mad here in Arizona," she said. "The Republicans can try to say they're going to come in on a white horse on the immigration issue and save the day, but they have been in power for six years, and they have done nothing."

David Green, a retired journalist and independent voter, milled uncomfortably last week on the fringes of the Graf rally, still very much undecided about his vote in November. Don't be fooled, he said, by the 100 or so Graf supporters so confident a Republican would win the seat. Illegal immigration is just one of the discontents of the district, he added, and it could well work against the Republicans.

"The feeling is, 'I'm fed up with illegal immigration. I'm fed up with Iraq. I'm fed up with gas prices. I'm fed up with nothing being done about the minimum wage,' " Green said, as black thunderheads rolled down the mountainside and chased the rally into Trail Dust Town's faux Old West opera house. "The general attitude is, 'Whoever's in, I want him out.' "

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Winehole23]

good. USA finally will have good looking womenI'm amused and entertained by 2006 threads today.

Who knew Pat Buchanan-style nativism would be so mainstream in 2019?

[boutons_deux]

Buchanan, just another Catholic extreme-right-wing asshole

[Will Hunting]

I'm amused and entertained by 2006 threads today.

Who knew Pat Buchanan-style nativism would be so mainstream in 2019?
These threads you’re bumping remind me of how truly vile and awful that Crookshanks poster was. I hope she died in a fire.

[Spurminator]

Maybe if the legal immigrants and the law-abiding muslims would stand up and be more vocal about those of their race who are breaking the law, then more people would understand the difference!

Ah, this classic take. Wonder how vocal this bitch has been about all of the white male mass murderers over the past 5 years?

[Will Hunting]

Ah, this classic take. Wonder how vocal this bitch has been about all of the white male mass murderers over the past 5 years?
I've heard variations of it before and I don't really understand it. What exactly does "more vocal" mean? I've seen plenty of non-extremist Muslims condemn terrorism/extremism, are they not doing it loud enough? Should they get on the rooftop of a building with a megaphone and condemn it the next time there's a terrorism attack?

[Spurminator]

I can't imagine why Fox/OANN/Breitbart consumers don't think American Muslims are anti-terror.