Skip to comments.America: No longer 1 nation, 1 people
Posted on 07/15/2014 10:21:09 PM PDT by quesney
From 1845-1849, the Irish fleeing the famine. From 1890-1920, the Germans. Then the Italians, Poles, Jews and other Eastern Europeans. Then, immigration was suspended in 1924.
From 1925 to 1965, the children and grandchildren of those immigrants were assimilated, Americanized. In strong public schools, they were taught our language, literature and history, and celebrated our holidays and heroes. We endured together through the Depression and sacrificed together in World War II and the Cold War.
By 1960, we had become truly one nation and one people.
We no longer speak the same language, worship the same God, honor the same heroes or share the same holidays. Christmas and Easter have been privatized. Columbus is reviled. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are out of the pantheon. Cesar Chavez is in.
Our politics have become poisonous. Our political parties are at each others throats.
Christianity is in decline. Traditional churches are sundering over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Islam is surging.
Our society seems to be disintegrating. Over 40 percent of all births now are illegitimate. Among Hispanics, the figure is 52 percent. Among African-Americans, 73 percent.
And among children born to single moms, the drug use rate and the dropout rate, the crime rate and the incarceration rate, are many times higher than among children born to married parents.
If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?
.... As for what our founding documents mean, even the Supreme Court does not agree.
More and more, 21st-century America seems to meet rather well Metternichs depiction of Italy [we're just] a geographic expression.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Our New National Anthem:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the kings horses
And all the kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Exactly what Obama has wanted to happen all along.
Our New National Anthem:
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the kings horses
And all the kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Exactly what Obama has wanted to happen all along.
As a whole, Americans collectively no longer deserve God’s Grace.
60 million dead unborn babies alone could attest to that. Never mind the rest of our plunge into immorality.
Once we were a nation that if not deserving of God’s Grace, was at least worthy of it.
Not anymore. Welcome to United Sodom America.
I won’t have anything to do with the ANTI-SEMITE, Pat Buchanan, but the fact of the matter is that the USA is extremely divided.
It won't be much longer before there won't be anything left to save.
What specific statement(s) hostile to Jews has Buchanan made?
I’m not defending him, I’m asking a question.
Filthy Traitor. Bobby Lee should have been hanged from a sour apple tree, right next to Jeff Davis, in partial atonement for all those loyal American Patriots he slaughtered. Treason in defense of Slavery was the worst cause a man ever died for.
Your historical ignorance is astounding.
Pat Buchanan: Anti-Semite
Pat Buchanan was recently fired from MSNBC over his latest book. It is not as if MSNBC suddenly realized that it had an anti-Semite on staff. If they really cared about that, they would have fired him years ago. As Ive written, they only hired him in order to use him as the cardboard cut-out conservative
Last week, Buchanan proved that point in full color. He did an interview on Russia Today the Kremlin-sponsored channel that features radical leftists like Thom Hartmann in which he tackled the issue of Israel and Iran. There are people that want a war, Buchanan said. He continued:
I mean, do not think no one wants a war. You dont have wars unless someone wants it. And quite clearly the Israeli government would like to see the United States smash Irans nuclear program, which they think is creating the additions where Iran could, with one leap forward, get a bomb. The Israeli lobby would like to see a war. They support the Israeli government. Neoconservatives do. Many Republicans do. There are many Americans who genuinely believe that if Iran they believe Iran is moving toward a weapon; and if it is, they would favor military action to prevent it. There are a number of people who want a war.
He went on to suggest that Israels position on this was a greater threat to the United States than Iranian nuclear weapons.
Now, Pat Buchanan has long been an anti-Semite. His repulsive publication, The American Conservative, is an isolationist tract featuring the writings of magazine co-founder and open Jew-hater Taki Theodoracopulos, who calls himself a soi-disant antisemite. He once characterized Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld as a very homely, simian-looking Jew who couldnt punch his way out of a nursery, and remarked that the United States was in danger of becoming Israel-occupied territory, meaning that it would be controlled by those nice guys who attack rock-throwing youth with armour-piercing missiles. Said Theodoracopulos, the way to Uncle Sams heart runs through Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied territory.
Buchanan himself is little better. He has engaged in Holocaust denial, stating that diesel exhaust couldnt have killed 850,000 Jews at Treblinka; hes criticized the U.S. government for its apology for sheltering Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk. William F. Buckley wrote of Buchanan: I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism. As White House Communications Director, Buchanan urged President Reagan to visit the SS cemetery at Bitburg in Germany, providing an excellent photo-op for neo-Nazis everywhere. According to reports from the time, Buchanan had the unmitigated gall to lecture Jewish leaders who protested that they were Americans first and wrote over and over in his notebook one phrase: Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews. He wrote Reagans line that the SS officers were victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps easily one of the most sickening presidential lines in American history. Buchanan wanted the Department of Justices Office of Special Investigations closed down because it was running down 70-year-old camp guards.
... more at the link ...
The south, mountain, and mid-west may seceded.
Once again ignorant people repeat what they were once taught in the public school system that they berate today. There was not one “rebel” killed during the Civil War. They were not trying to overthrow Lincoln’s tyrannical government. They just wanted to leave. But “rebel” was a good word for the press to repeat over and over to get the people on their side. That sure sounds familiar.
Today? A bunch of rebels occupy the white house and are in control of the senate. They are overthrowing the government. Too bad there are no Robert E. Lees and Stonewall Jacksons to stop them.
“Then, immigration was suspended in 1924.”
No, that’s not what happened. The immigration act of 1924 merely sought to lower total immigration rates and limit immigration percentages from given nations to match the demographics of America at that time the act was written. For example, as a set percentage of Americans in 1924 were Irish-American, that preexisting demographic percentage would set the percentage of the annual quota of immigrations allowed from Ireland in the years after the act was passed. The goal was to match future immigration to the same kind and nature of immigrants as we had in 1924, while limiting the overall rate of immigration.
This is an important element to understand clearly; the act’s purpose was not to stop immigration, the purpose was to LIMIT immigration to low-enough levels and of the right demographic mix so that neither the natural-born Americans nor the immigrants were significantly harmed by said immigration. The purpose was not to halt immigration, or to “keep America white”, the purpose was to keep America simply American.
The act was drafted and passed with the understanding that rapidly and radically altering the cultural, ethnic, linguistic or religious character of the nation would be damaging to both native-born Americans as well as immigrants. Perhaps so damaging that the nation might cease to exist.
The act was an incredibly reasonable response to the social ills caused by almost entirely unconstrained immigration. By this I mean the poverty, crime, misery and rising sectarianism that fed into the anarchist movement of the day, and the radical socialist movements, as well as racist organizations among natives as well as immigrants. These social ills conspired to reduce our republican form of government to an uncivil war at the ballot box between competing tribes, or spark into outright warfare in the streets.
Despite the basic humanitarian and inherently just nature of the act, the act and its supporters were derided as racists — paradoxically enough they were called racists by virulently racist Hyphenated-Americans who really sought to subvert the legislative process in order to benefit their minority groups over the nation as a whole. Reading over the congressional records of the debates surrounding this act one is simply taken aback by the absolute hatred and venom spewing from the detractors, and the eminently reasonable and humanitarian concerns of the act’s supporters.
Within a few short years after the passage of the act, after we turned off the fire-hose of immigration, the immigrant slums in New York and elsewhere underwent a miraculous transformation: without a constant influx of poor, uneducated, unassimilated immigrants competing for limited jobs, the immigrants that were here had the opportunity to work, to accumulate wealth, to attend American schools and send their children to the same, to learn our language and our customs, and eventually assimilate. By turning off the flood of immigration, the slums ceased being immigrant slums and started becoming working-class American neighborhoods; something that would never have been possible if we’d kept importing huge quantities of unskilled, uneducated, virtually expendable human beings to scrabble around in the muck knifing each other for the few economic opportunities available.
By taking a trickle of immigrants, not so much of an influx that unskilled labor becomes prohibitively competitive, the immigrants already here in this nation and the small number that arrived after were able to be culturally, linguistically, and politically assimilated into the wider American identity.
That is a VERY important distinction to understand, that immigration is a benefit only so long as it is kept to a trickle and only as much as it matches the wider demographics of America. It’s important to understand those key points whenever you see crony capitalists trying to muck with immigration laws and visa requirements in the hopes that they can import a continuous flow of cheap, disposable laborers. It’s important to understand those things when you see America-hating progressives trying to drum up division and hatred in this country in the hopes of fomenting revolution. It’s important to understand those things when you hear race-baiting minority activists demanding we change our laws to give their race or tribe more votes.
Sloth is defined as watching evil occur and doing nothing.
How lazy is Obama’s opposition?
An excellent post. Thanks
” As White House Communications Director, Buchanan urged President Reagan to visit the SS cemetery at Bitburg in Germany, providing an excellent photo-op for neo-Nazis everywhere” - Ben Shapiro
That might be a good point if it were true. But it isn’t.
In fact the Bitburg visit was set up by Reagan’s media director Michael Deaver.
Deaver visited the cemetery while it was covered in snow and didn’t bother to see if any of the grave markers might prove embarrassing. It was sloppy advance work. Deaver’s role was well known at the time and isn’t hidden, the NY Times even mentions it in his obit:
“But on one occasion, Mr. Deavers advice and advance work failed Reagan. That was a visit to a German military cemetery in Bitburg in 1985, where 49 of Hitlers elite SS troops were buried. Many Jewish leaders were furious, but Reagan would not alter the schedule, so Mr. Deaver added a stop at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.”
But a witch hunter like little Ben Shapiro isn’t really concerned with who did what, his real goal is to label his target a Nazi. Which he does. Didn’t a guy named Goebbels perfect this technique some years ago? The irony is priceless.
If Pat Buchanan was standing behind Israel and said, “I have your back!” ... while Israel had Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS/al Qaida in front ... Israel would prudently spin around and watch Buchanan first! ... LOL ...
The idiotic statement “Treason in defense of Slavery was the worst cause a man ever died for” is a towering example of colossal ignorance given it reveals the poster has not a clue of the actual reasons for the war to begin with.
Only the indoctrinated, the ideological and the clueless are ignorant enough to fail in figuring out that the chronology of the firing on Fort Sumpter and the Emancipation Proclamation negates the ridiculously stupid statement rendered.
President Eisenhower Explains His High Regard for Gen. Robert E. Lee
President Dwight Eisenhower received a letter dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott’s letter reads:
August 1, 1960
Dear Mr. President:
At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.
Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Leon W. Scott
Eisenhower’s response, written on White House letterhead, reads as follows:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
In the early part of the Reagan administration Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor. The Reagan administration publicly condemned Israel for launching this attack.
At the time Crossfire had just been launched on CNN. Tom Braden occupied the liberal seat and Pat Buchanan the conservative. Pat Buchanan unreservedly supported Israel’s bombing of the Osirik reactor when few on the Right did.
Somehow we rarely hear about the times Buchanan defended Israel- I guess we’re to busy being entertained by jokes about him falling out of an Auschwitz guard tower.
It seemed to me that the campaign to turn Buchanan into a Nazi only got started when he decided to run for President and his foreign policy views were isolationist. The possibility of such a foreign policy was anathema to his early attackers and they went after him with a vengeance in which slander was justified.
Gotta love Jews. They only vote 70-80% Democrat.
Yet, it is the Left that imposed abortion and replaced fathers with stipends from the state. It is the Left that drove religion from schools and dumbed down the curriculum.
It is the Left that is a malevolent force and soils every institution it touches.
Very good. The Left has long known how to destroy our republic.
” Filthy Traitor. Bobby Lee should have been hanged from a sour apple tree, right next to Jeff Davis,”
sure buddy , right after we travel back in time and hang Abe Lincoln , Phil Sheridan , Tscumsah Sherman and Nate Banks
in partial atonement for all those loyal American Patriots he slaughtered
Oh , you mean all those propaganda baited European immigrants , conscripted into Union Army service in their 100’s of 1000’s , right off the boats from Europe , into New England ports ? Were it not for these ‘loyal ‘american patriots’ the South would have handily won the war . And what were they given for their Union Army service ? The lands of the red man .....
Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln and in that much they DO have a lot in common ; both are obsessed in forever changing the American dynamic by encouraging and facilitating vast amounts of non-American immigrants , to bolster their own Parties and demographics , at the full and total expense of those that came before and made up the real fabric of America ....
” Too bad there are no Robert E. Lees and Stonewall Jacksons to stop them. “
there are , you just haven’t heard from them . Yet...
Thanks for that link. His Treblinka comments and those claiming SS officers are victims are clearly wrong and offensive. In fact they’re asinine. The rest of that article is short on specifics and long on innuendo.
I should point out that, in my opinion, disagreeing with or criticizing the actions or policies of a country does not mean you hate that country. And please don’t construe this as my stating that I disagree or agree with the actions or policies of Israel, or of any country, or that I agree with or support Buchanon. I am stating that disagreement and criticism does not equate to hate. If Buchanon, or any one else, disagrees with the actions or policies of Israel that doesn’t automatically mean they are anti-semitic. The article you linked to discussed his criticism of Israeli foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran, and Israeli influence in Washington. Disagreeing and being critical does not qualify as anti-semitic.
I’m not going to defend him, I think he can be a crank and an ass, but his idiotic statements are just that: idiotic. Even though offensive and bigoted, I don’t think his remarks necessarily qualify as anti-semitic. Now if he were making calls for violence, calls for segregation, or producing literature inciting violence or claiming such-and-such is “their nature”, etc, then the charge would be accurate.
” How far do you stand from an attack upon your home ? “
Robert E. Lee
One other thing, this is based on information you supplied. If you have further information, great. If others have differing information, great.
I’ve met Mr. Buchanan. For what it is worth, one of the kindest people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. Gentlemanly, generous, funny.
I have trouble squaring my experience - he seems like a deeply peaceful, gentle person - with what he sometimes writes and what others say.
Blumenthal and Baldwin, from Connecticut and Wisconsin are working to remove all restrictions on abortion, but, of course, these diabolical people LOVE children. The past 40 years in America shows us that there is no depth to how far the Godless leaders of this nation will fall. They are following in the footsteps of other dictatorial nations at this point and the left wing lawyers are in the front of this march to hell. The innocents feel the pain of hell first because they cannot protest their fate..The elderly will be next, then the disabled, then those who are politically incorrect. When the conscience of a nation becomes seared to murder, the sky is the limit. We are just about there.
On the contrary, for those pushing succession it was always about slavery at the bottom of everything else. They knew Lincoln's position was to allow no more slave states, and they believed if they didn't suceed free states would have such a numerical advantage in Congress that it would ultimately lead to abolition. Whether that was actually Lincoln's design is debatable. Whether the leaders of the secessionist movement believed it was is not. Just read the speeches of the secessionist leaders.
Did you ever wonder why the Union forces did not do that if it was truly a treasonous rebellion? The answer is they did not want to have a trial. It would have shown how wrong Lincoln was.
Evil character assassinations by long-dead alcoholic pseudo-conservatives should not be allowed to impugn a great fighter for our cause.
There were rules agreed to at the creation to the Union. Who violated them? Do serious men take their rules seriously? Does might make right? Because you believe your cause is more just? Would Obama be right to invade “non-gay” states that resist gay marriage? According to Union logic, yes, because leftist “morality” supersedes everything else.
What rules exactly did the North “violate”? Lincoln wasn’t even sworn in yet when the southern states started to succeed. They made it clear that they would if he won even before the election.
As for the much vaunted southern love of states rights, ever heard of Dred Scott? They had no concern for the rights of free states not to have to participate in a system of slavery they considered immoral when they made them treat escaped slaves as property to be returned. And in doing so they made ending slavery a moral issue for the north.
Yes, I have heard of Dred Scott.
Most of the rest of the world managed to abolish slavery without war. Lincoln was a tyrant.
In order for Lee to be a traitor, he would have had to consider the United States to be his country. Like most people in the older states he considered his state to be his “country”, and the USA to be a collection of countries. Westerners were more likely to view the USA as their country because they moved from one state to another.
So, would not the Southern States, whose economy depended on slavery be justified in leaving a Union they had joined voluntarily with slavery a basic foundation of it, when a certain segment decided to fundamentally change the basic axioms of the agreement?
Answer carefully. Because the Obamunists are equally outraged over "white privilege" "anti-gay" feelings, and a cornucopia of imagined outrages. If you resist are you a rebel traitor?
Buchanan is not an antisemite
By most reasonable accounts, a right of the states. But to "statists" MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Lincoln had might, so the civil war is viewed as a moral wrong.
That's an opinion, not based on anything in the Constitution. And the fact is the North didn't go to war when the South succeeded. Lincoln was content to try to persuade the south to return until they attacked Fort Sumter.
Not in my opinion. When they joined the Union the individual states surrendered certain powers to the Federal government. One of the features of the constitution they agreed to is that it can be changed by the means described. That includes being able to abolish slavery. As for secession, the constitution does make any allowance for that, and common sense says you couldn't run a country where every state has the option to leave anytime they don't like what the current policy is.
Correction: “the constitution does NOT make any allowance for that”
At least these great men had the courage to fight for what they believed. What do today’s “Americans” do: “Oh, I’m going to sue you.” Save your anger for the real traitor - the half-breed occupying the White House.
BTW, Slavery was as much a part of the US Constitution as it was for the Confederacy, just in clearer language.
That was educational. Thanks for posting.