Pat Buchanan

Yesterday, filmmaker James Jaeger of the Jaeger Research Institute publicized the films SPOiLER: How A Third Party Could Win and Original Intent, which “exposes the historical march of Cultural Marxism.” Guests in the films include far-right notables including Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin, Ted Baehr and Edwin Vieira. Original Intent and SPOiLER also include one notable guest: congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. In fact, Paul’s Campaign for Liberty is listed alongside the Jaeger Research Institute under the film’s “affiliations.”

Even a brief glance at Jaeger Research Institute’s “research” reveals that it is a fringe, conspiratorial organization. In 2003, the group published a column arguing that “Zionist Jews appear to control both parties” and that “the Zionist leadership betrayed the Jews of Europe during the Jewish holocaust.” Another writer for the Jaeger Research Institute wrote, “I find it hard to believe that there is no truth in any of the accusations of child murder leveled against Jews over the centuries.”

And who is James Jaeger?

Jaeger is an outspoken media critic who has claimed that the film industry has “a cultural Marxist agenda and it injects this agenda into about 10% of its annual output” and believes “the studios support the government agenda of endless expansion because they consider themselves in the elite that will dominate the New World Order.” He is also a big Ron Paul fan, but believes that the Council of Foreign Relations is determined to stop Paul’s candidacy: “The forces that are arrayed against the Ron Paul Revolution can be summed up in basically three letters: CFR.”

Last month, Jaeger wrote that the September 11th attacks were an inside job concocted by the CIA and Mossad:

On the bigger picture, what may have happened is this: when the cold war wound down, factions in the military-industrial-complex realized that they needed an excuse to justify an increase in the military budget. The first attack on the World Trade Center in the early 1990s was thus probably orchestrated by the CIA in conjunction with the military and/or Islamic extremists. Since this was deemed a "terrorist attack," they were able to bring the Trade Center Towers under the auspices of the federal government (CIA and/or factions in the military industrial complex). This then gave certain actors years of access to the elevator system in the Twin Towers.

In the film I recommended, a World Trade Center elevator employee discussed the elevator system and the easy access one would have to the central steel core of the building. So this is how they may have gotten in there to slowly wire up the charges on the central column of the Towers and Building 7 over the course of as long as a decade. Once the towers were wired and ready to go, the CIA alone, but more likely in conjunction with elements in the Mossad, instigated or contracted with Osama bin Laden, directly or indirectly, to pull off the attacks. This why bin Laden was not "caught" for so long and why, and when he WAS "caught," he was, of course, killed by the special forces that "caught him." The central planners of 9-11 could not have him exposing what he knew.

Most likely, bin Laden had no idea the towers had been pre-wired for complete demolition. bin Laden's job was simply to commandeer as many jets as possible and "attack" multiple targets so he could look good to this religious constituents. The reason for the multiple targets was to diffuse the New York attack. Had all the attacks been on the two towers, the public's investigative powers would have been focused just on New York. Having the "terrorist" attacks executed over a wide area gave MUCH more credence to the idea that this was a concerted attack from a massive and very threatening force.

In an interview yesterday with Janet Mefferd to promote his book Suicide of a Superpower, Pat Buchanan reminisced about the national unity and common culture that existed…during segregation. Buchanan warned that America will soon look like California, where he claims religious faith is obsolete, gangs roam and the English language is marginalized. Buchanan added that America was “created” by whites and lamented that “we will have a country in 2041 that will consist of entirely of minorities.” He went on to say that while segregation was “wrong,” African Americans and whites shared a “common culture” during the segregation era that is now nonexistent.

Listen:

Buchanan: It’s going to be 2041 when white Americans of European descent will be a minority in the country their ancestors created, and what will that mean? I tried to, the article in The Atlantic celebrated it as I said and I tried to take a look at it and I’m more apprehensive because the things that held us all together, even though we’ve had conflicts, racial conflicts and others, were you know a common faith, a common culture, a common history we all loved, literature and poetry, all these things we learned in schools, all of us in the public and parochial schools. This doesn’t exist anymore, all these things are breaking down and we will have a country in 2041 that will consist of entirely of minorities.

And if you take a look at the state of California, for example, where that already exists, you see a state that is de-Christianized, or perhaps the most de-Christianized of the American states, you find that a situation where there’s a black-brown war among the underclass among these gangs which are proliferating and in the prisons. You find a state that is bankrupt or not exactly bankrupt but whose bond-rating is the worst in the United States, who was issuing script. You have something like 23% of the folks there are illiterate and you have half the people in Los Angeles County speaking a language other than English in their own homes. All of America is going to look like this in 2041 and my question is, what holds us together? How do we survive as one nation and one people if we can’t even understand each other?

I grew up in Washington, D.C. when it was 400,000 black folks and 400,000 white folks and segregation was wrong and that existed there, but we had a common religion, a common culture, we read all the same newspapers, we listened to the same radio, we cheered the same ball teams, we read the same history, we celebrated Christmas, Easter, Columbus Day, all the rest of it. And all these things are going out and the problem is once this common ground where you rise above, if you will, diversity that has always been a problem, if you a rise above that to the common ground upon which we can all agree and stand, that’s where you achieve the unity.

After disrupting yesterday's hearing, anti-choice protesters affiliated with Randall Terry are vowing more action:

Next on the agenda:

"Desecrate Roe" Event Details---

Where: Corner of 1st and C St., near Dirksen Senate Building entrance, Washington D.C.

When: 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, July 14

Who: Norma McCorvey, Randall Terry and other DC area leaders and pro-lifers

Pro-life advocates will gather at the Dirksen building at the corner of 1st and C St., to publicly desecrate the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision. Joining her will be Randall Terry, Missy Smith, and other local pro-life leaders.

Randall Terry states, "Victory over child-killing requires courage and leadership from 'pro-life' Senators from both parties. It is long overdue for so called 'pro-life' Senators to fulfill their campaign promises. They claim they want to overturn Roe; well, now is the time to see if they will defend the babies, or submit like cowards to Obama.

"Republican 'Pro-life' Senators bear special responsibility in this; they shamelessly prostitute Roe vs. Wade and babies lives. Does 'GOP' stand for 'Good Ol' Pimps'? Or will GOP Senators actually fight in this life and death struggle? They need to filibuster Sotomayor."

Will there be more arrests? To be seen...

Not to be outdone, Eugene Delgaudio and Public Advocate plan to be descend on Capitol Hill to create their own scene:

"Public Advocate's Sotomayor's UnReality Tour" arrives in Washington Tuesday to show what a world according to Judge Sonia Sotomayer would look like if she were a Supreme Court judge.

Lifeguards who can't swim. A doctor who flunked med school. A 3rd grade university president. Blind train conductors. Cooks who can't boil water. Lawyers who did not pass the bar exam but who are now judges.

Demonstrators will hold a sign "Sonia Sotomayor, Wrong on the firemen, wrong for America." Another member of Public Advocate will hold a sign with the words "Thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, I flunked med school and am now a doctor."

In related news, Randall Terry continues his broadsides against Republican senators:

"Does the 'GOP' stand for 'Good Ol' Pimps'? Republican Senators like Graham, Brownback, McCain, etc., have seduced the pro-life movement, made her their mistress, and then a prostitute. She gives them her 'favors' in exchange for empty promises.

"They pimp the pro-life cause, raising millions of dollars with promises to 'overturn Roe' and protect the unborn. The party platform - their false vows - calls for the overturn of Roe, and legal protection of unborn babies.

"But alas, we again see that these are seductive lies; and like any good pimp, they tell us that they love us, while they sell us out; they feign pain as we are abused and babies are murdered, while they prepare to get in bed with those who despise us, and slay the innocent.

"Our protests and rallies over the coming weeks will focus on GOP Senators who claim to be pro-life. We will call on them to stop pimping the babies, but rather to fight for them by filibustering Sotomayor."

Richard Viguerie claims that "Sotomayor's opening statement reflects she is already being defensive about the judicial philosophy she shares with President Obama."

Richard Land and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission come out against Sotomayor:

Sonia Sotomayor’s record reveals that she is perfectly willing to lift the blindfold of justice to achieve her desired result. She is a judge with a terribly flawed view of the judicial system at best or a judge who simply doesn’t care what the law says at worst. She has constantly shown her lack of deference to the Constitution. She is the type of justice who instead of applying the law neutrally will redefine the law to conform to her policy preferences.

The bottom line is that Sonia Sotomayor is an unpredictable wildcard. Across the issues her record is either far too thin or hidden behind non-published orders and per curium opinions. Simply put, placing Sonia Sotomayor on the highest court in the land jeopardizes our nation’s commitment to equal treatment under the law.

The Family Research Council posts the Senate Policy Committee talking points in opposing Sotomayor while releasing its own list of questions it wants asked during the hearing:

Abortion and the Supreme Court

* Judge Sotomayor, while you were associated with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, it filed six briefs in five abortion-related cases before the United States Supreme Court. In every case, those briefs asserted that the Court should adopt an uncompromising, pro-abortion position. Do you now wish to express any disagreement with the content of the briefs that were filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund?

The Abortion Industry as Litigants

* Judge Sotomayor, do you believe abortion providers should be required to prove factual assertions they make in court when challenging abortion regulations?

* Judge Sotomayor, should redacted medical records be admissible, if needed by the court, to examine general medical claims about abortion?When should such records not be made available to the court?

* Judge Sotomayor, should prosecutors be permitted to subpoena and examine abortion facility records to determine whether state statutory rape laws have been violated or whether the facility is reporting potential crimes to the appropriate legal authorities?

Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life tells Lifenews that she is looking forward to testifying in opposition to Sotomayor:

“We are honored to have the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the highest court in the land," Yoest told LifeNews.com about her invitation.

"I am looking forward to sharing AUL’s extensive legal research about Judge Sotomayor’s record. In particular, her radical associations and judicial philosophy raises serious concerns in the pro-life community," she said.

Yoest is referring to Sotomayor's tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, a group that has submitted numerous Supreme Court briefs arguing for an unrestricted right to abortion and claiming any pro-life limits are racist.

Although leaders with the group argue Sotomayor had no involvement in writing or approving the briefs, her longtime position as a member of its board of directors points to her support for the pro-abortion position the group took, Yoest maintains.

Yoest told LifeNews.com she plans to focus her testimony on making the connection for the senators and the American public between the positions taken by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund during her tenure on the Board and her judicial interventionist approach to the bench.

“Her PRLDEF record proves that she is an abortion advocate," Yoest says.

"That record includes opposition to parental notification, opposition to informed consent, opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion and support for taxpayer-funded abortions. These positions are far outside the mainstream of American public opinion," she explained.

And finally, Pat Buchanan continues to be ... well, Pat Buchanan:

The chutzpah of this Beltway crowd does not cease to amaze.

They archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described “affirmative action baby” from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin.

...

Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.

...

Even if Sotomayor is confirmed, making the nation aware she is a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an assignment worth pursuing. For America does not believe in preferences. Even in the blue states of California, Washington and Michigan, voters have tossed them out as naked discrimination against white males.

The Right is always saying that candidates can and should bring their faith to the public square, but it seems like the more Barack Obama does it, the more he gets criticized.  

As we’ve noted several times in the past, for months right-wing activists like Rob Schenck have been declaring “Obama's Christianity woefully deficient” and demanding that Obama explain, in detail, the basic tenets of his faith so that the Right can judge just “how profound is the religious commitment that Barack Obama has made.”  Others have echoed that point, saying that Obama is not a “true Christian,”  that “there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement,” and that Obama’s faith “tramples on the historic teachings of Christianity and the Bible.”

These attacks culminated in a nearly unprecedented episode last week when James Dobson dedicated his radio program to disparaging Obama’s understanding of his Christian faith, which was followed up by a three-part video series in which Focus on the Family Vice President Tom Minnery accusing Obama of having everything from a “completely and utterly ridiculous understanding” of the role of religion in public life to holding sacrilegious views.  

And now that attacks on Obama’s faith have been given Dobson’s blessing, it seems as if every right-wing commentator cannot wait to pile on, with Pat Buchanan weighing in with his typically well-reasoned and insightful views: 

Obama, however, is now preaching a kumbaya Christianity where leaders who believe abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn are to set their convictions and cause aside in the name of ecumenical amity.

It is Dobson who, in his intolerance of perceived evil, seems in the tradition of the abolitionists, and Barack who appears more like the milquetoast believers of whom Christ said he would spit them out of his mouth because they were neither hot nor cold and whom Dante consigned to the deepest reaches of hell.

For his part, George Neumayr was no less splenetic:

The willfulness he casually assumes in the traditionally religious defines his own stance, as he cobbles together a sham Christianity from scratch that conveniently dovetails with the platform of the Democratic Party, then calls his vote-searching the reconciliation of "religion and politics."

And, of course, the folks at the Christian Defense Coalition could not let any opportunity pass to weigh in as well:

Senator Obama does not have the moral authority to address these issues while supporting the tragic killing of innocent children and diminishing of women through abortion.

 

"The question must be asked, how can one support faith and values while embracing policies that brutalize children and wound women?  Senator Obama cannot talk with integrity about his faith and social justice anymore than a segregationist or racist can talk about their faith, justice or equality with integrity.

And then there is Rick Scarborough of Vision America :

"Like my friend Jim Dobson, I was appalled by the Senator's remarks," Scarborough disclosed. "This speech showed Obama's real views on politics and religion. And, I can tell you, the presumptive Democratic nominee is no friend of Bible-believing Christians," Scarborough added.

Of course, Scarborough has spent the last week loudly complaining that a variety of evangelical leaders even agreed to meet with Obama earlier this month (probably because he wasn’t invited, though he has been trying to make it seem like he was) saying that doing so only confuses right-wing voters:    

Senator Obama (D-Illinois), the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, recently held meetings with prominent Christians, including Franklin Graham and Bishop T.D. Jakes. But Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, says evangelical leaders send a confusing message when they meet with Obama.

 

"This is a man that has never seen an unborn fetus that he wouldn't abort," chides Scarborough. "While serving in the state legislature in the state of Illinois, [he] served on a committee that literally prevented a bipartisan piece of legislation which would have offered medical services to botched abortions," he points out.

 

Scarborough goes on to criticize Obama's stance on homosexuality. "He's radically pro-gay...even to legislating against sections of the Bible and preventing those of us who embrace those sections of the Bible from preaching biblical truth," he argues. "So I'm troubled by it."