Archive for the 'Patrick J. Buchanan' Category

Buchanan defends Watson

October 29, 2007

The Recantation of Dr. Watson
By Patrick J. Buchanan

From the time of Tiberius to the 17th century, men gave up their lives rather than renounce a belief in God. Others gave up their lives rather than renounce a disbelief in the Church. Why could Watson not stand up for his disbelief in the ideological myth of the inherent equality of all men, cultures, creeds and civilizations?

When we defend those who tell the truth, we defend ourselves.  If we don’t defend James Watson now, who will we defend later?  If James Watson can’t speak on genes, when can we?
==The following comment was posted at VA

The only way to defend the right not to be PC is to not be PC. Only if we use it can we keep it. First we became afraid to say non-PC things and now we are losing the right to say them. This is further along in Europe.

It now takes real courage to say the truth in many cases. But as we cede each ridge and valley of truth by not saying it, we lose that land. In the end, we have nothing left. At whatever place we choose to make a stand, we will be called bigots, Nazis, and racists.

A related issue is the party Vlaams Belang and its right to be taken seriously. That is also the right of any of us to be taken seriously about anything that matters.


Pat Buchanan KO’s Luis Gutierrez Meet the Press Immigration Debate

June 24, 2007

Pat Buchanan demolished Luis Gutierrez in an immigration debate on Meet the Press:


After that, the usual suspects gather round to ask for corporate speaking fees by defending immigration.

Tim Russert

Host of Meet the Corporate Spokespeople

Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

Wall Street Journal
Chief Washington Correspondent, CNBC

Moderator, PBS’s “Washington Week”

Syndicated Columnist

Tim Russert Speaking fee from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:

But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.

Please, please, is there not a corporation to fly them out on the corporate jet this week for a 50,000 luncheon talk for one hour and then fly them back, after they do shopping. They earned it today. Fly their family members out with them. Better yet, fly them out, give the talk and have them fly back and do another talk on the way back. They really earned it this Sunday on Meet the Corporate Speaking Fees.

Journalist speaking fees here.

Buchanan had the facts on what immigration is doing to Americans. Gutierrez made it clear, it was intentional.

Immigration has killed wage progress.

Men’s median wages are flat since 1973, despite productivity rising. Buchanan himself combined these together in the debate pointing out that wages are flat and productivity is going up. That was a key point to get spoken on TV. This is one of the first times it has been said.

Men’s median wages in the US are flat since 1973. See graph page 18 at census:

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2005

Worker Productivity Graph and info

Productivity never stopped growing, except possibly during some recessions or odd years from 1947 to present.

1947 to 1973 worker productivity up 2.7 percent per year.

1973 to early 1990’s 1.4 percent per year

1995 to 2004 2.9 percent per year increase in worker productivity.

Yet men’s median wages are lower than in 1973, and the other groups, women, blacks, etc. are lower than all men in 1973.

The workers became more productive, but wages stayed at or below the level of men in 1973.

What changed is that the top 1 percent get 20 percent of every 100 dollars we make now but only got 10 dollars per every 100 before the 1965 Immigration Act.

Scroll down (in link below) for graph:

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

The U shaped timeline on the graph shows that the top 1 percent got 20 percent of each 100 dollars created by Americans before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 dollars during restriction from the 1920’s to 1960’s, and now are back up to 20 percent with immigration.

Note that in the 1960’s it was still headed slightly lower at the time of the 1965 Immigration Act. Congress and the wealthy were in a panic. If it went to 1 percent that would mean perfect income equality. It got as low as 9 percent before turning back up. Immigration change is what explains the 2 turning points in the U shaped pattern. No other fact can explain both turning points.

For a more detailed discussion of this see

National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
It’s Official: Immigration Causing Income Inequality

Northwestern University economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon pointed out this U shaped pattern and that it can only be explained by immigration. Rubenstein discusses this in his article linked to above.

The authors of the graph state:

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline

—-Senators Vote their Stock Portfolios

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.

Open Secrets

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

More data here

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:


Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.
The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution.

Since 1973 productivity gains have outpaced median family income by 3 to 1.

from Devaluing Labor By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

Even WaPo knows its true.


Labor force participation rates of men (especially black men) have fallen since 1984:

and even from 1965 (requires excel, but you can get a viewer for free)

Black men have fallen from about 80 percent in 1965 to 66 percent in 2005, and are projected to fall further by 2014 because of continued legal immigration and illegal immigration and amnesty. Black and white men both had labor force participation rates of 80 percent in 1965. Whites are down to 74 percent.

BLS projects that Hispanic, black, white and Asian men will see their labor force participation rates fall from 2004 to 2014.

==Buchanan’s comment on wages and productivity

MR. BUCHANAN: OK, that means 86 percent of construction workers are American citizens or people here legally whom the illegal aliens are competing with, and they say the Americans won’t do their jobs. That’s nonsense.

Secondly, the congressman talks about working folks. In the nonmanagerial, 80 percent of American workers, or something like 93 million, their wages and the Bush boom, so-called, have been arrested. They are not going up. Productivity goes up, but wages aren’t going up.

It defies common sense to say you can bring in 36 to 40 million legal immigrants and 12 to 20 million illegal and not have those huge number of uneducated, unschooled folks, who many of whom don’t speak the language not drive down the wages of working Americans. That is prosperous. The Wall Street Journal—I don’t know what the editorial is—but The Wall Street Journal has been an open borders, pro-NAFTA, transnational newspaper for a long, long time.

REP. GUTIERREZ: The fact is that they do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural…

The response of Gutierrez doesn’t address the point that productivity has gone up and median wages have stayed flat since 1973.

Gutierrez goes on to say:

REP. GUTIERREZ: …This population will need to be replaced.

This replacement is accomplished by taking jobs for lower wages. This is replacement economics.

Patrick Cleburne sums this exchange up nicely at Vdare: “Hispanic Congressman boasts: Illegals undercut American wages.”

Big Immigration, Low Employment
By Steven Camarota
The Center for Immigration Studies | June 25, 2007

Camarota documents that native unemployment or dropping out of the labor force in Georgia has matched immigration since 2000. He has a set of bullet points and a table at the end that document this in detail. This is direct substitution at lower wages and lower working conditions. This is exactly what Gutierrez is selling, as Patrick Cleburne points out. This is exactly what the US Senate is buying.

Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills:

Also David Broder’s speaking fee is only 10 to 20,000 dollars.  David Broder has a folksy grandfather charm, sort of like Lee Hamilton.  This makes him trusted by ordinary folks who think he looks out for them.

David Broder has been a loyal voice for corporate immigration interests.  If you believe his speaking fee needs to go up to reflect that you can register at Washington Post and comment on how he needs to be rewarded.

David Broder homepage at WaPo 


Columnist, Washington Post, speaking fee info here.

Bush Senate Amnesty: Vendetta on Buchanan Perot voters for ’92, ’00 betrayals?

May 17, 2007

In the New York Times, RICHARD L. BERKE as Published: September 30, 1999 wrote about “Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan”. Is Bush’s amnesty and legal immigration program part of this resentment? Did Bush have two vendettas when he became president, get Saddam Hussein for the attempt on his father’s life and get the Buchanan Perot voters for betraying his father in 1992 and causing his election defeat?

Bush Speaks of Perot and Buchanan Acting in ‘Vendetta’

Gov. George W. Bush sternly denounced Ross Perot and Patrick J. Buchanan today, suggesting that ”personal vendettas” may be driving their apparent alliance to have Mr. Buchanan seek the Reform Party nomination. Mr. Bush asserted that both men helped undermine his father’s unsuccessful campaign for re-election to the White House in 1992.

I’ve always thought the 1992 campaign was hard for my dad to get traction in the race because of, first, Patrick J. Buchanan, and then Ross Perot inflicted a series of cuts,” Mr. Bush said in a response to questions at a news conference in a two-day campaign swing in this state. ”If the adage is true — you die a death of a thousand cuts in politics — Ross Perot was a part of the thousand cuts.

Mr. Bush’s display of a festering resentment toward Mr. Perot and Mr. Buchanan was unusual in a campaign in which Mr. Bush has tried to strike an accommodating tone to win over a broad spectrum of voters.

Are Lou Dobbs Democrats taken from the Buchanan Perot voters, and now Bush focuses his resentment on them as well? Buchanan Perot voters voted against Bush Sr in 1992. They voted against Bush Jr. as governor of Texas, and Perot voters consider Perot a real Texican and Bush Jr. to be a Yale man carpetbagger. Pat Buchanan voters voted against Bush Sr. in 1992 and against Bush Jr. in 2000.

Buchanan voters caused the election to go to the Supreme Court. If they had all voted for Bush Jr. as they are supposed to, there would have been no problem in 2000.

Florida page 13:

Republican (Bush) 2,912,790

Democrat (Gore) 2,912,253

Reform (Buchanan) 17,484

Bush won, officially, by 537 votes. Pat Buchanan got 17,484 votes. So if Buchanan had not run, Bush would have won without the recount mess.

1992 Election,_1992

William Jefferson Clinton 43.0%

George H. W. Bush 37.4%

H. Ross Perot 18.9%

So if Perot had not run in 1992, Bush Sr. would have won, Bush Jr. can tell himself. It was the Buchanan Perot voters who betrayed Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bush Jr. in 2000. They are disloyal and Bush Jr. resents them. Or so we might infer. Bush Jr. ignored the warning signs before 9-11. After 9-11, he has done almost nothing to secure the borders or protect the people from immigration.

In 1992 and 2000, Buchanan Perot voters voted against immigration. They realize its harming them in wages and economic prosperity. Bush Jr. wants to fulfill his second vendetta, the first being against Saddam, on these voters by amnesty and legal immigration?

1996 election results wiki

Clinton 49.2

Dole 40.7

Perot 8.4

So Clinton picked up 6 percentage points from 1992 to 1996 from Perot. That is one way to define or measure Democrat votes taken by Perot, this is one way to measure the Lou Dobbs Democrats.


The following article makes the argument that it was the Perot voter who voted the Democrats into control of Congress in 2006.

Perot’s Revenge

“Put simply, 2006 saw the return of the Perot voter: economically populist, socially moderate voters with highly nationalist tendencies. Had the Democrats not courted candidates who fit this mold in a number of high profile races, Republicans would almost certainly control the Senate right now if not the House. Democratic candidates like Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Tester all won by appealing to this specific group of voters who found themselves once again disenchanted with a Republican Party led by a president named Bush.”

“My guess is this group is also anti-free trade and strongly opposed to the president’s immigration plan. Again, Perotism rises 14 years later to defeat another guy named Bush.”

“The new Democratic majority has these voters to thank for its ascendancy. Without their votes in the industrial north, west, and midwest, Republicans would still be in charge.
… This gives Republicans a real shot at winning these voters back if the Boxerites take over the party the way they did after these same Perot types voted Democrat back in 1992 and watched as the party veered to the far left.”

Note, the odd question marks in the original were edited out.

Buchananites, Perot Voters, Nader Greens, Lou Dobbs Democrats. The name changes but the dissatisfaction with the two headed monster stays the same? And its because of bipartisan opposition to the American people on immigration, jihad, etc? The bipartisan jihad on the middle class is finally catching up with the two party duopoly as Nader calls it?


Many Bush Jr. administration appointees were from Bush Sr. administration. But many of these disliked Reagen Republicans and Reagen Democrats starting in or even before 1988.

Departing ship
By Daniel Gallington
May 19, 2007 Washington Times

In a nutshell, many of the “Bush I” people disliked the Reagan people because the Reaganites thought many of the Bush people second-rate.
In addition, many of the Bush I people tried very hard to be Reagan people and were not allowed in, not even during the second Reagan term, or even during the last half of the second Reagan term. Result? These were people with serious chips on their shoulders, especially for the Reagan-era traditional Republicans.

%d bloggers like this: