Monday, May 27, 2019

Patrick Buchanan: Has the Day of the Nationalists Come?

Soon, Europeans may be able to gauge how high the tide of populism and nationalism has risen within their countries and on their continent.

For all the returns will be in from three days of elections in the 28 nations represented in the European Parliament.

Expectation: Nationalists and populists will turn in their strongest performance since the EU was established, and their parliamentary group — Europe of Nations and Freedom — could sweep a fourth of the seats in Strasbourg.

Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party is predicted to run first in the British elections, winning two to three times the votes of the ruling Tory Party of Prime Minister Theresa May.

In France, Marine Le Pen's National Rally is running even with the party of President Emmanuel Macron, who pleads for "more Europe."

Matteo Salvini, interior minister and leader of the League, predicts his party will finish first in Italy and first in Europe.

At Salvini's invitation, a dozen nationalist parties gathered in Milan this weekend. A week from now, they could be the third-largest bloc in the European Parliament. If so, their gains will come at the expense of the center-left and center-right parties that have dominated European politics since World War II.

Speaking before tens of thousands in front of Duomo Cathedral in Milan, Salvini threw back in the faces of his enemies the taunt that these new parties are rooted in the old ugly politics of the 1930s.

"In this piazza, there are no extremists. There are no racists. There are no fascists. ... In Italy and in Europe, the difference is between ... those who speak of the future instead of making trials of the past."

Tomorrow versus yesterday, says Salvini.

While the European establishment draws parallels between the populist parties of the present and what happened in the 1930s, it fails to recognize its own indispensable role in generating the mass defections to the populist right that now imperil its political hegemony.

The populist-nationalist parties are energized and united by both what they detest and what the EU has produced.

And what is that?

They resent the inequities of the new economy, where the wages of the working and middle class, the core of the nation, have fallen far behind the managerial class and the corporate and financial elites.

People who work with their hands, tools and machines have seen their wages arrested and jobs disappear, as salaries have surged for those who move numbers on computers.

The disparities have grown too great, as has the distance between national capitals and national heartlands.

Then there is immigration. Native-born Europeans do not welcome the new ethnic groups that have come uninvited in considerable numbers in recent decades, failed to assimilate and created enclaves that replicate the Third World places whence they came.

If one could identify a cry common to populists, it might be: "We want our country back!"

Whatever may be said of populists and nationalists, they are people of the heart. They love their countries. They cherish the cultures in which they grew up. They want to retain their own unique national identities.

What is wrong with that?

Patriotism is central to nationalist and populist movements. Globalism is alien to them. They believe in De Gaulle's Europe of nation-states "from the Atlantic to the Urals," not in the abstract Europe of Jean Monnet, and surely not in the Brussels bureaucracy of today.

The nation, the patria, is the largest entity to which one can give loyalty and love. Who would march into no man's land for the EU?

Europe's nationalists are not all the same. The ruling Polish Law and Justice Party disagrees on Putin's Russia with the ruling Fidesz Party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary.

While the EU Parliament does not possess great power, these elections are not without great meaning.

Consider Farage. Should his Brexit Party run first in Britain, how can the Tory Party not carry through on the 2016 vote to withdraw from the EU, without betraying its most loyal constituency on its most critical issue?

Nationalism in Europe is spreading, even deepening rifts between the premier powers in the NATO alliance.

Germany will not be reaching the promised 2 percent of GDP for defense President Donald Trump has demanded. And Berlin is going ahead with a second natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany from Russia, Nord Stream 2.

Turkey is taking possession of a Russian-built S-400 air defense system this summer, despite a U.S. warning that our sale of 100 F-35s will not go through if the Turks go forward with the Russian system.

Have the nationalists of Europe caught the wave of the future?

Or will the future see the revival of the idea of One Europe, a political and economic union that inspired the dreamers of yesteryear?

From here it looks like Matteo, not Macron.


U.S. Cardinal Burke: To Oppose ‘Large-Scale Muslim Immigration’ is Patriotic

In contrast to the largely open border views of Pope Francis and other liberals at the Vatican, U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke said that resisting large-scale Muslim immigration "is the responsible exercise of one's patriotism," and added that you do not have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that many Muslims immigrate because they are "opportunists." After all, said Cardinal Burke, Islam "by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world."

Cardinal Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis and former chief judge at the Vatican's highest court, made his remarks at the Roman Life Forum, held in Rome, Italy, May 16-17.

At the forum, an audience member submitted the question, "Should a politician who opposes large-scale Muslim immigration be refused a papal blessing?"

Card. Burke replied, "I think the fundamental question here is [whether] someone who resists large-scale Muslim immigration [is] committing an immoral act and therefore should be, let's say, denied Holy Communion or in some way recognized as a public sinner?"

"To resist large-scale Muslim immigration, in my judgment," said the cardinal, "is to be responsible in the sense of making sure that those who are immigrating to the country -- remember that the definition of the Church's teaching is that the individuals are not able to find a way of living in their own country and this is not true of immigrants who come who are opportunists, and in particular in the case of Islam, which by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world --  coming in large numbers to countries."

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what's happened," he said.

"For instance, in Europe, in countries like France and Germany and also here in Italy and it's also happening in the United States," said the cardinal.  "There's a very interesting book written called No-Go Zones and which records places in the United States where, in fact, Muslim immigrants have set up their own legal order -- in other words, they resist the authority, the legitimate authority of the state."

He continued, "And so, to be opposed to wholesale, or large-scale Muslim immigration is, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, the responsible exercise of one's patriotism in the sense that we -- yes, people are true refugees who can't live in their own country we must receive them and help them in every way. But this is not the case when you have simply a large-scale immigration."


Newt Gingrich: HUD Chief Ben Carson protects poor Americans and enforces the law – Why is that a problem?

In a bold move, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is both helping poor Americans and enforcing the law.

Some in Congress may consider enforcing the law and prioritizing help for poor Americans (including people who immigrated to the U.S. legally) over help for people in the country illegally controversial or unacceptable. The solution for their position is for Congress to change the law. Until then, it is pretty hard to complain that a cabinet officer is enforcing the law which Congress wrote.

Helping poor American families is a core mission of the HUD. One lifeline HUD extends to vulnerable families is housing assistance.

Yet, 75 percent of Americans eligible for housing assistance – many of whom are children, seniors, or persons living with a disability – are prevented from receiving the financial aid to which they are legally entitled.

In fact, millions of qualified American families are stuck on waiting lists that have unending queues – the average of which stretch on for years.

In Los Angeles, Calif., the waiting list is more than four years long. In Miami-Dade County, Fla., thousands have been waitlisted since July 2008 – more than a decade. In other localities, such as Orange County, Calif., and Orlando, Fla., Since 2015, public housing authorities have decided to simply close their waiting list and abandon new applications altogether.

Despite these waiting lists for American citizens, there are an estimated 32,000 households occupied by people in the country illegally, who have no right to be getting taxpayer assistance. This is 32,000 households that could be occupied by American citizens who qualify for the assistance but cannot get it.

In effect, thousands of Americans are being discriminated against in favor of people who are here illegally – or are unlawfully receiving taxpayer aid they do not deserve and should not be getting.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson has investigated this injustice and discovered that HUD has long been prohibited from granting federal funds to people in the country illegally. That prohibition – which Congress enacted, and Congress has the power to change – includes a mandate to end assistance whenever a leaseholder knowingly allows a person in the country illegally to reside in HUD-supported housing.

These rules constitute more than a mere functional necessity for law and order; they are a moral necessity for any nation that takes care of its own vulnerable citizens. After all, public assistance is paid for and subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

But these crucial rules are easily skirted by a loophole that lets people in the country illegally who are living with qualified residents declare themselves “ineligible.” This means they do not have their immigration status checked, and they continue to live in taxpayer-funded housing.

If members of Congress do not like how the law is being enforced, then they should change the law. Until that happens, federal agencies, like HUD, should continue to do its own constitutional duty and enforce the laws as written by Congress.

Today, to assist agencies in the enforcement of existing – and binding – law, legal status can be easily verified through a fast, secure, and efficient screening, using the SAVE system of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This screening process is already used by one-third of public housing agencies and needs only to be expanded to end the “illegible” loophole.

To this end, last week, HUD unveiled a proposal that would require all residents living in HUD-supported housing who are under the age of 62 to be screened through the SAVE system. It is a simple, egalitarian amendment that promises to restore proper enforcement and accountability to supplement the spirit of existing law.

As a result, the new measure HUD has championed is a meaningful step toward protecting our nation’s forgotten men and women and promoting the rule of law. There is no legitimate reason – or any excuse – to keep hundreds of thousands of American families waiting in line, when a lifeline could be extended instead.


Ralph Northam: Proof That Liberals Excuse Racism If You’re One of Them

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under a firestorm of scrutiny last February when a photograph surfaced from his college yearbook page depicting two men dressed in racist costumes. One man wore a KKK robe, the other man wore blackface.

Northam immediately apologized, saying, “I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in the photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now.”

Yet less than 24 hours later, Northam retracted his apology and said he was not either man in the photo. So we are to believe that his admission of guilt the day before was just him misremembering being part of an extremely racist photo.

In the months since, private law firm McGuireWoods conducted an investigation into whether Northam was in fact in the photo. It determined there was no conclusive way to confirm or deny whether Northam was one of the two men. The firm interviewed more than 52 people. Now, Northam is sticking to his ridiculous story of misremembering.

So, is this investigation the last word for residents of the Commonwealth? Is it time to move on and let the governor serve out the rest of his term in office with no more talk of blackface photos? 

If Northam were a Republican, we know without question what the answer would be. The mainstream media would not stop until Northam packed his bags and left the governor’s mansion. He would be gone.

It doesn’t take a four-month investigation to see through Northam’s deception. One does not admit to a wrong so deplorable as dressing up in blackface or a KKK outfit, only to realize he misremembered. Such behavior is extremely damaging to any politician, and Northam had no earthly reason to admit any wrongdoing unless he was actually guilty.

Ida B. Wells-Barnette, an African-American investigative journalist who uncovered the injustice of lynchings in the early 20th century, said, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” So it is in this case.

As Bible-believing Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But forgiveness does not mean letting a man keep his public office if he denies the wrongdoing that he clearly committed. The fact that Northam refused to take responsibility for his actions is reason enough to ask for him to leave.

When the photo was taken, Northam was a 25-year-old medical student. Does he really expect us to believe he cannot remember dressing up in a KKK outfit, or blackface? He really can’t remember if he or a buddy stood smiling in a picture with shoe polish all over his face to demean African-Americans?

Does he remember that his nickname was “Coonman”? Were these actions so run-of-the-mill for Northam that behaving in such a manner was not significant enough to remember?

When Northam finally is able to own up to his actions from 30 years ago, he should also own his actions during the 2017 governor’s race. He had the audacity to label his opponent, Ed Gillespie, a racist, with far thinner evidence than being caught in a photo dressed as a clansman. Northam routinely cast Gillespie a racist because of his opposition to sanctuary cities.

Modern-day “woke” liberals weaponize race when it suits their interests, and ignore actual racism when it cuts against their narrative. The same liberals who would call Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleezza Rice, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., sellouts are now mum over blackface and KKK photos.

The left is sending a clear message: Be one of us, and we’ll overlook the worst of your sins.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: