Sarah Palin Follows Rush, Tries To Change The Subject to Jobs from Looting

Newt has tried to appear to take a principled stand in the war on Romney and today's Republicans don't seem to want to join him there, which just shows what a throwback Newt is and what co-dependents Republicans have become in their job-servitude.

Republicans are in thrall to the concept of The Job as much as Germany was to The Worker in the 1920s. Sarah Palin's remarks asking for full disclosure of job creation data and of Mitt's tax returns strike me as pure posturing and ass-covering in the face of Mitt's impending coronation. What was it, five colleges she attended to get a four year degree?

While Newt's gotten older the Republican Party has continued to move so far away from its old moral positions that it now considers Newt to be talking the values of the enemy. Rush Limbaugh is a case in point, who constantly derides Newt for using the language of the left, when Rush can't make up his mind from day to day whether the bank bailouts were necessary, superfluous or deceitful. A convert like Augustine of Hippo couldn't possibly have something important to contribute, could he?

The truth is Romney's capitalism is parasitic, not entrepreneurial, because it incessantly demands gains in productivity which go to the owners and investors at the expense of the workers. Please. Save. My. Crummy. Job.

No one aged 50 or more who has lost a position on a mere technicality after twenty or more years of service, and they are legion, is sympathetic to this argument. What work at year 5, 10, 14 or 18 was superior to the work at year 20, but for the fact that salary and benefits at that point represented a juicy cost savings going directly to the almighty bottom line? The young who lose their jobs are too inexperienced and too frequently abused to know any other reality than job-hopping in the world created by the corporate raider. Such lives do not produce traditional, stable families, nor committed, law-abiding communities and reliable tax bases. The business left is now in full-throated holler for simplifying taxes, removing tax deductions, and, the real point, a more mobile worker, one who doesn't own a house and who can be moved here and there at will without having to sell first.

Pat Buchanan, who twenty years ago this month made life very difficult for one President George Herbert Walker Bush in the New Hampshire primary, had a change of heart about what was really happening to American workers as he made the rounds during the campaign. It made him realize that something had begun to change in the relationship between worker and employer which went to the heart of patriotism. Today we see the full expression of businesses' loyalty, and it's not to justice, only to the letter of the law, skilfully crafted by its bought and paid for politician. 

If only we had Republican candidates today who could effectively tap this well of misery in order to alleviate it instead of merely to get elected. Democrats are better at this, which is why their future looks bright, and ours looks dim.

Pat Buchanan Describes David Cameron's Euro Veto as His Finest Hour

Here:

With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now a wonderful opportunity for Britain gradually to loosen itself from the shackles of a statist, over-regulated, anti-democratic, corrupt EU."

The Sun featured Cameron as Winston Churchill, flashing a wartime V-for-Victory sign over the banner headline: "Up Eurs -- Bulldog PM Sticks up for Britain."

The British left, however, almost took to bed.

This, however, was NOT his finest hour just recently, when he said he supported gay marriage because he was a conservative:

"I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.”

Methinks the display of December in defiance of Europe was meant to quiet the firestorm of opposition building since October over normalised buggery at home.

Down With The Establishment!

"The Establishment is in a panic. It has been jolted awake to the realization that the GOP House, if it can summon the courage to use it, is holding a weapon that could enable it to bridle forever the federal monster that consumes 25 percent of gross domestic product."

-- Patrick J. Buchanan, here

'Conservatives' Compromising with the Devil

Not that I make it my business to follow this sort of thing very closely, but, well, there it is in USA Today:

Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, says in a headline on his website that Palin "throws support behind GOProud." He has posted a clip from Palin's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which Palin wonders whether conservatives should reach out to those with opposite views and "allow for healthy debate" on issues. Breitbart is on GOProud's advisory board.

More here, and here.

Sarah Palin knows what side of the bread the butter's on. She isn't going to alienate a big part of her base. Half of the Tea Party is libertarian, which means half of the Tea Party is ok with gay.

As is Roman Catholicism. That's why a Tammy Bruce can fill in for Laura Ingraham, no problemo. That's why Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter can be chums.

That's why repeal of DADT was off the radio radar screens on Bill Bennett's show, Ingraham's, Hannity's, etc.

Good Catholics all.

And that's why Elton John was treated so graciously by Rush Limbaugh at his (fourth) wedding.

The Protestantism that gave us that work ethic thingy that Pat Buchanan remembers made America so great?

It's in the rear view mirror and getting smaller every day. Mainline Protestants like the Episcopalians, the Methodists and the Lutherans have all loosened their sphincters for gay and lesbian preachers in their pulpits. Traditionalists have fled in droves to non-denominational churches, or to lonely isolation.

The left doesn't need to trouble itself with dividing the opposition on the right. Its minions masquerading as conservatives are doing the job all by themselves.  

George Bush: Mushy-Headed Liberal

George W. Bush has been beating his little isolationism, protectionism and nativism drum for years now, but it seems like conservatives such as Laura Ingraham are finally looking at it in the right way. She's even suggesting that if we knew in 2000 what we know today about George and his family (people should be free to marry anyone they love), maybe conservatives wouldn't have supported W back in the day.

I know I didn't. I admit it. I was one of the few, the proud, the (top!) 500,000 Americans who voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. And I've still got the lawn sign to prove it! In 2004 I had to be drawn kicking and screaming to vote for Bush. The alternative was too horrible to contemplate (a man who won't stop for stop signs while behind the wheel of his Jeep is a dangerous man, willing to break any law), as it was also too horrible to contemplate in 2008, as events prove everyday.

Bush's continuing antagonism against, for example, advocates of border security doesn't surprise me, and Laura is right to perceive that his sort of Republican poses a threat to the policy initiatives championed by Tea Partyers and conservatives. Her show this morning is devoting considerable time to Bush's remarks at Southern Methodist University on January 24th.

But Bush was making similar remarks already in November 2010 in Britain as part of his book tour, and Pat Buchanan eviscerated him way back in March 2008 for the very same kind of loose and silly talk:

In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.

Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy's policy.

The truth is George Bush hasn't changed, and has never been a conservative. Ever true to his self-described role as The Decider, he once boasted that he would be the one who decided what is Republican and what isn't:

"That conservative movement stuff is over. I've redefined the Republican party."

Even liberals have recognized Bush as one of their own. So Richard Cohen in The Washington Post in 2007, after cataloguing Bush's liberal intentions in No Child Left Behind, in affirmative action hires in his administration, and even in the Iraq war, he adds:

You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration -- another liberal sentiment -- or his frequent mention of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a "mushy-headed liberal."

Cohen leaves out Bush's greatest liberal achievement: Drugs for Seniors, the single largest expansion of federal government to that time since Lyndon Johnson. He leaves it out because that's what really drives liberals crazy, how George Bush out-liberaled the liberals, and co-opted them for eight years.

That's why they really hated him.

Selling China The Rope They'll Hang Us With

Pat Buchanan still isn't finished ridiculing the 20th century Republican party, trying to get it to remember what it used to be:

The policy the Chinese are pursuing, economic nationalism, was virtually invented by the Republican Party. Protectionism was the declared policy of the GOP from the day its first president took office in 1861 to the day Calvin Coolidge left in 1929.

Free trade was the policy of a Great Britain whose clocks those generations of Americans cleaned, even as the Chinese are cleaning ours.

Read more from "Who Fed the Tiger?" here.

Five Million Jobs Lost, Net, In 2009, Over A Million Green Cards Issued!

The following appeared here:

April 26, 2010

WND.COMMENTARY

Whose country is this?

'Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law'

By Patrick J. Buchanan

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?

Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security.

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States.

Why is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20 million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he?

Because he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced, the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.

Fair enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" – i.e., amnesty – that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.

Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people?

Whose country is this, anyway?

America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.

Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.

This is not an option. It is an obligation.

Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?

State Department Bombed . . . at Spelling

Granted, the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber has a name which is a mouthful to pronounce. Commentators even of the caliber of Patrick J. Buchanan have had trouble getting it into "print" correctly. But shouldn't the State Department get it right, especially when correct spelling is critical to catching a terrorist? CNN has the bad news:

A timeline provided by the State Department officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, showed that an initial check of the suspect based on his father's information failed to disclose he had a multiple-entry U.S. visa. The reason was that AbdulMutallab's name was misspelled.

When you consider that teaching spelling is among the top responsibilities of the government-run school system, it would not be crazy to say that government was hazardous to our health in this instance.

Heaven forbid what government will do when it runs health care.

If Going Rogue Means Going Third Party, Obama's a Shoe-In in 2012

The failure of any other Republican save for Sarah Palin to generate enthusiasm among traditional Republican voters is one of the stupid facts of political life which wise party leadership would know how to exploit. Instead we have Michael Steele.

But Sarah had better not let it go to her head. If "Going Rogue" means she's open to going third party like Ross Perot or George Wallace or Patrick J. Buchanan, she's already finished, and so is the Republican Party, not to mention the cherished hopes of thousands of tea party members everywhere.

Sarah has the ability to unite both partisan and independent elements of the American electorate because her instinctive conservatism is economic, cultural and patriotic all at the same time, much as was Ronald Reagan's. But one important difference between them is that the Gipper spent years and years honing his message and his beliefs. And he could defend them, often eloquently.

Sarah will be successful in part to the extent that she can do the same. Her track record to date is mixed in this regard. She's already proven that she can hold her own with a glib old pol like Joe Biden, but the Katie Couric episode was a disaster. External events, however, can make a difference. And if the last twelve months are any indication, the country will be ready for a plain spoken, straight shooting family woman after four years of lies, damned lies, and (negative) statistics. As long as she's a Republican.

Patrik Jonsson writes "Sarah Palin will headline first-ever Tea Party Convention" at The Christian Science Monitor:

Almost 1-1/2 years since she shook up American politics with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to headline another landmark political event: the first-ever Tea Party Convention next month in Nashville, Tenn.

On its face, the gig would seem a step down for Ms. Palin, one of conservative America’s most popular and polarizing figures (not to mention major thorn in the side of the Obama White House).

But with an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll ranking a generic “Tea Party” as more popular than either Democrats or Republicans, and Palin herself rivaling the charming Mr. Obama in poll popularity, many experts see the Tea Party event as a potential milestone for a mounting, even transformational, force in US politics. ...

[T]he Nashville event is not about chartering a new political party to represent conservative ideals like low taxes and states’ rights, but more about unifying to take on “Obama, Pelosi and Reid this year,” writes Judson Phillips, head of Tea Party Nation, one of many Tea Party groups and the lead sponsor of a convention that will feature conservative firebrands such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota.

Already, tea-colored races are appearing around the country, including the looming matchup between Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (seen as Republican Lite by many conservatives) and Cuban-American conservative Marco Rubio, who has gotten the stamp of approval by Tea Party folks.

To read the rest of the story, go here.