• commentary
  • TUESDAY AUGUST 29 2006 3:00 PM

Pat Buchanan Calls for Bush Impeachment

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Buchanan, Bush, impeach

Pat Buchanan is rapidly becoming the Lyndon LaRouche of the new millennium with the endless, hopeless presidential campaigns, marginalized views and disproportionate media exposure, likely because of the novelty factor inherent to them. Buchanan's latest claim? Bush needs to be impeached, though not because of Iraq or wiretapping, but because of his views on immigration.

BUCHANAN: I think the president is not going to be impeached, but he's guilty of an impeachable offense. The Constitution commands the president of the United States to defend the states from an invasion.

When he himself says six million people have been stopped, we don't know how many have gotten in. Most people think about half that number. You've got an invasion.

He hasn't been enforcing the immigration laws and he hasn't been defending the border against an invasion, John. He ain't going to be impeached, because the Democrats are going along with the program, because both of them are beholden to the same corporate people right down there on K Street who want limitless immigration and who want cheap labor, and who want to be able to go abroad and bring in foreign workers into this United States.

So I think that the president of the United States has been derelict in his duty, unlike Dwight Eisenhower who put together something calledoperation wetback" excuse me, on the border when he had a million immigrants coming in from Mexico. He said we have to stop this, he sent down a general to do it, and they deported those folks. Something has happened to the elites in this country if they can't defend America's border.


I've been reading Article II of the constitution and can't find any section that describes any sort of presidential obligation to "defend the states from an invasion," so I'd say that Buchanan is on shaky legal ground, at best, if he attempts to pursue impeachment. That and with a Republican majority in the Senate it seems unlikely than an impeachment vote would pass.

But it doesn't matter - Buchanan's true colors had already been shown before he made that idiotic remark, and they have nothing to do with presidential obligations.

KING: If the border were secured and through legal immigration California became a majority Hispanic, majority Latino, Texas became a majority, do you have a problem with that if they came in through legal immigration?

BUCHANAN: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Because of the Mexican situation Mexico has a claim on this country, John.

Our Irish ancestors, Italian ancestors, Jewish folks, they didn't say, look, this belongs to us. That (INAUDIBLE), what did you have 500,000 to a million people? They're under Mexican flags. They say, "This is our land."

You had 90,000 people in the coliseum in a soccer game in California, in L.A. What happened? When the Mexican team came out they booed the American flag, they tore down -- excuse me, tore down the American flag, booed our national anthem, threw garbage on the American team.

You've got a tremendously rising militant group among Mexicans in this country which is documented there, and if we don't wake up to it, we're risking the breakup of our country. T.R. warned against this, Wilson warned against it. Half the great Americans do.


So he's even against legal immigration because "they" all somehow feel like "the country belongs to us." Forget the fact that it would be hard to find anyone who actually thinks that way (and Buchanan offers not a single shred of evidence to back up his assertion), but this is the exact same argument that was leveled against Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century, Italians at the beginning of the twentieth, and pretty much every other ethnic group that has decided to emigrate to the US en masse since its formation. And it's always been the same lame cover for simple racism and xenophobia.

The more important question is: "Why do we care what Pat Buchanan thinks?" Is his opinion representative of anyone but himself anymore? He's a miserable failure of a politician who has managed to claw his way into the limelight more often than he deserves. Even if he is against Bush it's for all the wrong (and poorly conceived) reasons. It's still no reason to give him air time when actual adults might have useful things to say.

Hat Tip: AmericaBlog

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

AUG 29, 2006 03:40 PM

Im not sure whether Patty needs a pat on the back or a slap upside his head....

Good boy, call for impeachment.

JUST for immigration? Are you mental?

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

AUG 29, 2006 03:45 PM

Hey, he's a wacko, but he is one of my favorite wackos.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

AUG 29, 2006 03:45 PM

What a pathetic racist douchebag. It's amazing (and saddening) to me that anyone still listens to this fuckwit.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

AUG 29, 2006 03:46 PM

bean said:
What a pathetic racist douchebag. It's amazing (and saddening) to me that anyone still listens to this fuckwit.



Same could be said for Rush limbaugh, or Howard Stern. tongue

Angelkid

Angelkid

Blacksburg, VA
October 2004

AUG 29, 2006 04:06 PM

but Stern is an enertainer, big difference, he's allowed to a certain extent to be a 'fuckwit'

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

AUG 29, 2006 05:46 PM

Remember this is the same douche who called Capital Hill "Zionist-owned territory." He's a hatemonger from way back.

It's good to see someone against immigration finally just tell the truth about why, though.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

AUG 29, 2006 05:50 PM

One of my favorite sources of wise and pithy quotes is H.L. Mencken - a "racist douchebag" by any measure.

One does not have to love all of someone to be entertained by their insanity.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

AUG 29, 2006 06:58 PM

If you've ever thought Pat Buchanon was a freak, get a load of his follower's thoughts. Pat posed the question:

"The Congress remains silent while our President sells out our sovereignty to build a North American Union. What should Americans do??

62% selected "Dump the traitors in Congress"
8% selected "Learn Spanish"
30% selected "Riot in the streets"

I believe those numbers would have been completely different if the additional option of "Tie Pat down at any border crossing and let the immigrants kick him in the balls as they pass by."

A douchebag by any other fragrance is still........

Pat doesn't want anyone to have rights unless they fall into his elitist social class. Pat certainly enjoys all of the benefits of reasonably priced fruits and vegetables in this country yet forgets why they are so cheap.

Tell me again how there is separation of church and state when many of our politicians choose to quote the bible and "what God wants" when making decisions that affect this country. He should be disqualified from any future campaigning based on his stupid religious references.

jaggy

jaggy

Austin, TX
October 2003

AUG 29, 2006 07:21 PM

what? buchanan hasn't pulled a bud dwyer yet?
yeah thats a little harsh. i like the immigrants kickin him in the balls idea.

sucka_juice

sucka_juice

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 29, 2006 07:54 PM

You know what I find hysterical is that the idiot "left" is embracing the idea of the executive branch being able to pick and choose which laws it enforces and then feigning hysteria at presidential signing statements. Are you just fucking drones following each other to whatever honeypot they are told to go to and avoiding the ones they are told not to ?? The doublethink is just astounding.

"It's okay to behave as a dictator so long as the dictates conform to my values."

The executive either executes the laws drawn up in popular bodies, or you have a dictatorship that rules on its own whims. There is no choice. Refusing to secure the borders is not fulfilling the social contract. Period. Electing not to do it is a tangible version of a "signing statement."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Longpastbedtime

Longpastbedtime

Ames, IA
March 2003

AUG 29, 2006 08:11 PM

9mm_squeeze said:
You know what I find hysterical is that the idiot "left" is embracing the idea of the executive branch being able to pick and choose which laws it enforces and then feigning hysteria at presidential signing statements. Are you just fucking drones following each other to whatever honeypot they are told to go to and avoiding the ones they are told not to ?? The doublethink is just astounding.

"It's okay to behave as a dictator so long as the dictates conform to my values."

The executive either executes the laws drawn up in popular bodies, or you have a dictatorship that rules on its own whims. There is no choice. Refusing to secure the borders is not fulfilling the social contract. Period. Electing not to do it is a tangible version of a "signing statement."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


So we're not upholding what laws again? What law or body of laws makes up this completely vacuous interpretation of "social contract" of which you speak? Put up or shut up, and I'm betting on #2.

sucka_juice

sucka_juice

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 29, 2006 08:21 PM

Longpastbedtime said:

9mm_squeeze said:
You know what I find hysterical is that the idiot "left" is embracing the idea of the executive branch being able to pick and choose which laws it enforces and then feigning hysteria at presidential signing statements. Are you just fucking drones following each other to whatever honeypot they are told to go to and avoiding the ones they are told not to ?? The doublethink is just astounding.

"It's okay to behave as a dictator so long as the dictates conform to my values."

The executive either executes the laws drawn up in popular bodies, or you have a dictatorship that rules on its own whims. There is no choice. Refusing to secure the borders is not fulfilling the social contract. Period. Electing not to do it is a tangible version of a "signing statement."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


So we're not upholding what laws again? What law or body of laws makes up this completely vacuous interpretation of "social contract" of which you speak? Put up or shut up, and I'm betting on #2.




Have a look dumbass

ineedtocomeup

ineedtocomeup

Fresno, CA
August 2006

AUG 29, 2006 08:47 PM

Pat, you need to stop smoking crack. You lost your bid for political importance many years ago. We all know that Bush's administration is less than stellar, but just imagine the shape our national security would be in with president Kerry. Give me a fucking break. Pick up a rifle and do someone some good for once.

ARRR!!!

punk

punk

Phoenix, AZ
January 2004

AUG 29, 2006 08:52 PM

Yeah, I bet that's Mexico's plan...slowly introduce their militant citizens into the United States and when the time is right...

¡Viva la revolución!

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

AUG 29, 2006 09:27 PM

punk said:
Yeah, I bet that's Mexico's plan...slowly introduce their militant citizens into the United States and when the time is right...

¡Viva la revolución!



they dont call it "NEW Mexico" for nuthin.

Its just ONE jackboot in the door. tongue

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews