American Patriot Pat Buchanan Discusses 'Our Judicial Dictatorship' (He's Right!)

[Steve_McGarrett]

Buchanan is the most prominent defender of accused Nazis in America. The most famous case is that of John Demanjuk, who was accused of being an infamous death camp guard named Ivan the Terrible. Buchanan proclaimed his innocence for years, against ample criticism, and felt vindicated when an Israeli court declared there was not enough evidence to convict Demanjuk of being Ivan.
Buchanan continues to declare that Demanjuk has been proved "innocent". Actually, a key piece of evidence (from German documents) that exonerated him as Ivan showed Demanjuk to be a willing guard at Sobibor, another extermination camp where 250,000 died. Even the National Review, while generally defending Demanjuk and Buchanan's support for him, concedes that "Demanjuk was probably guilty of being a lesser accomplice in the Nazi machinery of genocide. That is a fair summary of the Israeli court's findings."
More to the point, Demanjuk is only one of several accused Nazis Buchanan has defended in one way or another. These include Karl Linnas (Buchanan personally appealed to Ed Meese, then Attorney General, to block his deportation to the Soviet Union); Klaus Barbie (Buchanan did not oppose his trial, but argued the US should not have apologized to France for sheltering Barbie after WWII); Arthur Rudolph, a rocket scientist involved in slave labor and severe punishments at a German rocket factory (Buchanan argued his confession was a "lie" while acknowledging he was a "nominal member of the Nazi party and of the SA until 1934"); and Frank Walus (of all the accused, the one most likely innocent.)
One of the most striking examples is Kurt Waldheim, the disgraced former UN leader. Buchanan repeatedly attacked him during his tenure, but once his Nazi past came out, Pat complained that "the ostracism of President Waldheim [has] an aspect of moral bullying and the singular stench of selective indignation." He also rationalized that "like others in Hitler's army, Lt. Waldheim looked the other way."
In each of these cases, Buchanan found a factual reason to defend the accused, an appeal to justice. But put together, it is striking how often he rushes to the defense of accused Nazis. He has also attacked the US Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation (which pursues war criminals) more generally:
"You've got a great atrocity that occurred 35, 45 years ago.... Why... put millions of dollars [into] investigating that?"

We fought the wrong enemy in WW2. Patton was right. Just think today what it would be like in Europe if Hitler would have defeated the Soviets with our help.

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post war world? Here are a few examples:

1 - No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign - to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, "living space")

2 - No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 - No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism - this was part of Stalin's spoils of war)

4 - No Red China and Mao's subsequent killing of 40 - 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao's Communists which ultimately led to Mao's victory over Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 - No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 - No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot's slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 - No dividing Korea into North Korea & South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist... another of Stalin's spoils of war)

8 - No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950's?)

9 - No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world's most fervent anti-Communist)

10 - Liberalism & multiculturalism wouldn't dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism... at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 - No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering "tools" which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 - No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn't be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation's liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B'nai B'rith)

13 - No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn't run Hollywood)

14 - No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of "Freedom of Speech")

15 - There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called "separation of church and state," something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 - No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 - No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 - Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

 

[Moonglow]

Strange how rights for conservatives are only about their right to impose their religious beliefs on others. Religious fundamentalism does not guide nor create the law in this nation and hopefully never will.

know what really causes homosexuality.... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is homosexuality a choice a mental illness or something simply inherent US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is homosexuality a choice a mental illness or something simply inherent US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Christians Aren t Required By Law Now To Go To Hell Forever In Arizona US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Thank a Liberal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Why liberals shun the term using progressives instead... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Christy bans gay conversion therapy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It is a Steve McFerret OP...

 

[Moonglow]

Buchanan is the most prominent defender of accused Nazis in America. The most famous case is that of John Demanjuk, who was accused of being an infamous death camp guard named Ivan the Terrible. Buchanan proclaimed his innocence for years, against ample criticism, and felt vindicated when an Israeli court declared there was not enough evidence to convict Demanjuk of being Ivan.
Buchanan continues to declare that Demanjuk has been proved "innocent". Actually, a key piece of evidence (from German documents) that exonerated him as Ivan showed Demanjuk to be a willing guard at Sobibor, another extermination camp where 250,000 died. Even the National Review, while generally defending Demanjuk and Buchanan's support for him, concedes that "Demanjuk was probably guilty of being a lesser accomplice in the Nazi machinery of genocide. That is a fair summary of the Israeli court's findings."
More to the point, Demanjuk is only one of several accused Nazis Buchanan has defended in one way or another. These include Karl Linnas (Buchanan personally appealed to Ed Meese, then Attorney General, to block his deportation to the Soviet Union); Klaus Barbie (Buchanan did not oppose his trial, but argued the US should not have apologized to France for sheltering Barbie after WWII); Arthur Rudolph, a rocket scientist involved in slave labor and severe punishments at a German rocket factory (Buchanan argued his confession was a "lie" while acknowledging he was a "nominal member of the Nazi party and of the SA until 1934"); and Frank Walus (of all the accused, the one most likely innocent.)
One of the most striking examples is Kurt Waldheim, the disgraced former UN leader. Buchanan repeatedly attacked him during his tenure, but once his Nazi past came out, Pat complained that "the ostracism of President Waldheim [has] an aspect of moral bullying and the singular stench of selective indignation." He also rationalized that "like others in Hitler's army, Lt. Waldheim looked the other way."
In each of these cases, Buchanan found a factual reason to defend the accused, an appeal to justice. But put together, it is striking how often he rushes to the defense of accused Nazis. He has also attacked the US Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation (which pursues war criminals) more generally:
"You've got a great atrocity that occurred 35, 45 years ago.... Why... put millions of dollars [into] investigating that?"

We fought the wrong enemy in WW2. Patton was right. Just think today what it would be like in Europe if Hitler would have defeated the Soviets with our help.

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post war world? Here are a few examples:

1 - No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign - to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, "living space")

2 - No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 - No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism - this was part of Stalin's spoils of war)

4 - No Red China and Mao's subsequent killing of 40 - 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao's Communists which ultimately led to Mao's victory over Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 - No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 - No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot's slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 - No dividing Korea into North Korea & South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist... another of Stalin's spoils of war)

8 - No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950's?)

9 - No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world's most fervent anti-Communist)

10 - Liberalism & multiculturalism wouldn't dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism... at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 - No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering "tools" which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 - No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn't be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation's liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B'nai B'rith)

13 - No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn't run Hollywood)

14 - No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of "Freedom of Speech")

15 - There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called "separation of church and state," something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 - No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 - No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 - Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

Do you goose step also???

 

[Toro]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

What is unpatriotic about him?

He's a racist.

Racists aren't patriots.

 

[mdk]

Good grief, not only is the OP hostile to gays, he's an anti-Semite to boot. Yikes!

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Pat Buchanan is just upset the court didn't rule the way he wished. He'll get over it.

The will of the majority means squat when the their will violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their councilors, that enacted very absurd and restrictive gun laws in DC. Those laws were very much a violation of the Constitution. Just like all these gay marriage bans.

It's about states rights and 'We The People'. LIBERAL activist judges are overturning the decisions voted for by the majority of 'We The People' on issues that do not adhere to American moral traditions that has sustained this nation since its founding.

I could care less what "we the people" want if that want is in violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives can cry all they wish about State's Right but those people don't have the right to craft discriminatory and unconstitutional laws under guise of state's right.

States rights give 'We The People' power to form a more perfect union. That is what has made this nation great until now. I will let Captain Kirk explain why 'We The People' is so important to the welfare of this nation.

Pay good attention to Kirks preamble.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KL...6e0u0EgQ/RK=0/RS=ecNyIkOQl3Ahjx9Js7T3IOsWEBs-

 

[mdk]

Pat Buchanan is just upset the court didn't rule the way he wished. He'll get over it.

The will of the majority means squat when the their will violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their councilors, that enacted very absurd and restrictive gun laws in DC. Those laws were very much a violation of the Constitution. Just like all these gay marriage bans.

It's about states rights and 'We The People'. LIBERAL activist judges are overturning the decisions voted for by the majority of 'We The People' on issues that do not adhere to American moral traditions that has sustained this nation since its founding.

I could care less what "we the people" want if that want is in violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives can cry all they wish about State's Right but those people don't have the right to craft discriminatory and unconstitutional laws under guise of state's right.

States rights give 'We The People' power to form a more perfect union. That is what has made this nation great until now. I will let Captain Kirk explain why 'We The People' is so important to the welfare of this nation.

Pay good attention to Kirks preamble.
captain kirk we the people - AT T Yahoo Search Results

We the people are an important part of the nation, no doubt. That doesn't mean every law we craft is just and infallible. You are using state's rights as an excuse to justify discrimination. That argument didn't fly the last time you social conservatives used it and it doesn't fly now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And judicial supremacy is NOT in the constitution. In fact the very first words of the constitution are "all legislative powers herein granted are vested in a congress of the united states." Courts have no authority to write laws yet they do it all the time. They also rewrite the constitution at will even though the constitution says only congress and the states can do that.

So the Court should not have the right to overturn a state or local law on the grounds it violates the 2nd Amendment?

 

[kaz]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

They are still butt hurt of Roe vs Wade also...

Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, no one should get over that judicial legislation and violation of the 10th amendment.

I'm pro-choice, but judicial activism is a direct threat to my liberty. It's sad you don't believe in the rule of law but want rule of self appointed dictators. As long as they agree with you...

 

[Moonglow]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

They are still butt hurt of Roe vs Wade also...

Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, no one should get over that judicial legislation and violation of the 10th amendment.

I'm pro-choice, but judicial activism is a direct threat to my liberty. It's sad you don't believe in the rule of law but want rule of self appointed dictators. As long as they agree with you...

I don't have any need for Roe vs Wade since I have no intention of ever aborting anything I produce..
But if, you ask someone to settle and issue then deny that body the ability to carry weight with the decisions, why ever have the issue reviewed by that body?

 

[Mustang]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

What is unpatriotic about him?

He's a racist.

Racists aren't patriots.

Whites treated native Americans a LOT better than many people think. Here's an example of white gratitude and manners:

When the white settlers faced the Indians, the elected white leader spoke to the Indians and said the following: I'd like to thank you for watching over our land until we could get here to claim it in the name of Jesus.

See?

 

[g5000]

I am going to take us back about 50 years and substitute interracial marriage for gay marriage in the bigot's rant to illustrate the absurdity of his argument:

Do the states have the right to outlaw interracial marriage?

Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded interracial sex acts as crimes.

Moreover, the laws prohibiting interracial marriage had all been enacted democratically, by statewide referenda, like the Racial Integrity Act in Virginia, or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

But today rogue judges and justices, appointed for life, answerable to no one, instruct a once-democratic republic on what laws we may and may not enact.

We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of black men to marry white women and of black women to marry white men.

How, in little more than half a century, did the American people fall under the rule of a judicial dictatorship where judges and justices twist phrases in the Constitution to impose their alien ideology on this once-free people?

It's amazing how identical the homophobic rhetoric is to the racist rhetoric of just 50 years ago.

 

[kaz]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

They are still butt hurt of Roe vs Wade also...

Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, no one should get over that judicial legislation and violation of the 10th amendment.

I'm pro-choice, but judicial activism is a direct threat to my liberty. It's sad you don't believe in the rule of law but want rule of self appointed dictators. As long as they agree with you...

I don't have any need for Roe vs Wade since I have no intention of ever aborting anything I produce..
But if, you ask someone to settle and issue then deny that body the ability to carry weight with the decisions, why ever have the issue reviewed by that body?

The Supreme Court should not be dong judicial review, they suck at it. Constitutionality should be owned by the State legislatures. That would be a check and balance. The Federal government checking itself is as stupid an idea as it sounds.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

He's the opposite of a patriot.

Just like you.

They are still butt hurt of Roe vs Wade also...

Roe v. Wade was a Constitutional abomination, no one should get over that judicial legislation and violation of the 10th amendment.

I'm pro-choice, but judicial activism is a direct threat to my liberty. It's sad you don't believe in the rule of law but want rule of self appointed dictators. As long as they agree with you...

I don't have any need for Roe vs Wade since I have no intention of ever aborting anything I produce..
But if, you ask someone to settle and issue then deny that body the ability to carry weight with the decisions, why ever have the issue reviewed by that body?

The Supreme Court should not be dong judicial review, they suck at it. Constitutionality should be owned by the State legislatures. That would be a check and balance. The Federal government checking itself is as stupid an idea as it sounds.

I agree. The gay small minority is wanting to impose their vile lifestyle onto the masses and overthrow the will of the people who have exercised their right to vote down gay marriage. The people have spoken.

 

[g5000]

I agree. The gay small minority is wanting to impose their vile lifestyle onto the masses and overthrow the will of the people who have exercised their right to vote down gay marriage. The people have spoken.

I agree. The interracial small minority is wanting to impose their vile lifestyle onto the masses and overthrow the will of the people who have exercised their right to vote down interracial marriage. The people have spoken.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I agree. The gay small minority is wanting to impose their vile lifestyle onto the masses and overthrow the will of the people who have exercised their right to vote down gay marriage. The people have spoken.

I agree. The interracial small minority is wanting to impose their vile lifestyle onto the masses and overthrow the will of the people who have exercised their right to vote down interracial marriage. The people have spoken.

Glad you agree!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And judicial supremacy is NOT in the constitution. In fact the very first words of the constitution are "all legislative powers herein granted are vested in a congress of the united states." Courts have no authority to write laws yet they do it all the time. They also rewrite the constitution at will even though the constitution says only congress and the states can do that.

In the spirit of a faster moving republic, there were certain measures installed to speed up the process...thus administrative law was introduced...

Administrative law is not allowed by the constitution. You want it - then amend the constitution to allow it. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

I could care less what "we the people" want if that want is in violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives can cry all they wish about State's Right but those people don't have the right to craft discriminatory and unconstitutional laws under guise of state's right.

Discriminatory laws? You mean like affirmative action - the govt mandated persecution of whites and favoritism to blacks. That came from the feds not the states. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And judicial supremacy is NOT in the constitution. In fact the very first words of the constitution are "all legislative powers herein granted are vested in a congress of the united states." Courts have no authority to write laws yet they do it all the time. They also rewrite the constitution at will even though the constitution says only congress and the states can do that.

So the Court should not have the right to overturn a state or local law on the grounds it violates the 2nd Amendment?

Of course not. You want the law changed, go to your legislators. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The Supreme Court should not be dong judicial review, they suck at it. Constitutionality should be owned by the State legislatures. That would be a check and balance. The Federal government checking itself is as stupid an idea as it sounds.

Yes indeed. The constitution never says who has authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. And thus, by the tenth amendment, the power rests with the states. States need to say that but they never do.

Lincoln destroyed states rights 150 years ago but he was killed before he got the constitution changed. The constitution is still very much pro states rights and we should all thank mister booth for that.