By way of preface, I note that I am in whole-hearted agreement with every policy prescription Pat Buchanan sets forth in his 2006 book *State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America*. I’m on board with the immigration moratorium, putting the kibosh on “amnesty,” and building the border wall (he calls it a “fence”). I couldn’t agree more with ending provisions for “anchor babies,” “chain migration,” and dual citizenship. I believe that removing what he describes as “magnets” of migration is essential.
As a personal aside, after I dubbed these same lures “the honey pot,” I got a gig as a pundit for immigration-patriot Lou Dobbs on CNN, which ran smoothly until one night, a couple of weeks before the 2008 election, I tagged the Obama agenda “socialist” and got a figurative death sentence for apostasy from the network (more on the real thing below).
Additionally, could anything be more essential, more vital, to re-setting—if I might use the freighted term—21st-century America as a European-descended Western nation than Buchanan’s call for “remigration”? I support that, too. Never mind it’s all too late now; these were always the means by which Americans could have swiftly reasserted control of our borders and protected our people and destiny.
Alas, the Powers That Be had other plans for us, which placed these simple measures always out of reach behind a force field of “racism” or “nativism” — force fields that best-selling, widely syndicated, network/cable-fixture Pat Buchanan could always overcome as a rare right-wing media celebrity.
In a funny way, it seems, looking back, Pat Buchanan could really do no “wrong”—whether defending US sovereignty against one-world-government, arguing “fair trade” not “free trade,” or even standing up for the Confederate flag, all of which I happen also to agree with.
Buchanan could also crudely, harshly castigate Israel—and particularly Israel’s conservative party (Likud) leaders and Jews in America—as the main instigators, if not also the causus belli, of “quagmires” and world wars always just on the brink of erupting in the Middle East.
And when I say “could,” I mean without suffering the professional repercussions to be suffered over, say, discussing IQ differences among races or, as noted above, even making the case on CNN in 2008 that Obama was a socialist.
In the post–October 7 world, it is this, I submit, that gives him a certain currency on what you might call the post-Oct 7 (Qatar-influenced) Right.
The fact is, roughing up Israel/American Jews as warmongers/war-causers did become a kind of Buchanan niche. From his columns to cable appearances, a recurring message was that Israel and Jews were continually “beating” the “drum” for war, while, naturally, “they” controlled the levers of power in Washington, D.C.—all familiar tropes of antisemitism, as they usually are labeled, but also of the Islamic mindset expressed in “dhimmitude.”
Never mind that Israel has fought only defensive wars against its surrounding Islamic neighbors, commanded by Allah to destroy the Jewish state through offensive wars of jihad, also directed against the wider, infidel West.
To Buchanan and his contemporary admirers, it is Israel that is usually regarded as the Mideast thorn in the side of peace. (Note well: this is a fulcrum of the Islamization process, a line of propaganda that started to enter Western dogma going back to the Soviet creation of Islamic terrorism in the 1960s.)
As for Buchanan, this attitude goes back at least as far as the Gulf War, which George H.W. Bush led on behalf of Kuwait against Iraq—and which Buchanan’s Star-of-David-shaped lens notwithstanding had nothing to do with Israel.
Having recently perused a good sample of Buchanan’s work, I think I see more clearly what has always at least cushioned his place in the media.
When it comes to matters of terrorism, Israel, and, above all, Islam, “hard-right,” “nativist,” “pro-Stars-and-Bars” Buchanan operated not against the Left but in concord with it.
This becomes relevant amid the current drive to see that Buchanan, now 87 years old, receives a Medal of Freedom from President Trump—an augur, it would seem, of a more important effort: to make Buchanan the godfather of a “Christian nationalist” future in America.
This, however, would not be a conservative American future at all.
Some or all of this may surprise readers, especially those who are mainly familiar with Buchanan’s best-of-Trump or Trump’s best-of-Buchanan immigration agenda.
I think many would be shocked, as I was, to bone up on Buchanan’s years of defending, for example, Islamic blasphemy laws against criticizing Islam or even drawing images of Mohammed.
Perhaps they would also find Buchanan’s tortured rationale for capital punishment for leaving Islam disturbing, too.
—
### Buchanan and the Danish Mohammed Cartoons
Consider Buchanan’s reaction to the epochal clash between the West and Islam over what became known as the Danish Mohammed Cartoons.
This was the free speech battle that picked up after 9/11 where the Salman Rushdie “fatwa” (death sentence) by Iran for his novel *Satanic Verses* left off.
I covered the “Motoon” battle for years, even reporting on it from Denmark.
As a reminder in brief: this struggle between the West and Islam ensued after a tiny Danish newspaper, *Jyllands-Posten*, published a set of cartoons and drawings of Mohammed in 2005 in order to demonstrate that the nation of Denmark had a flourishing free press and was not in any way obligated to follow blasphemy laws of Islam prohibiting the publication of images of Mohammed.
As Western support for Denmark’s free speech failed to materialize or cratered, this turned out to be a pipe dream and a sharia-blow to free speech all across the West.
But first, organized Muslim protests against the Danish cartoons would rock the world with violence—including killings, arson, boycotts of Danish goods, diplomatic crises.
Terror plots would have to be tracked and uncovered for years. One of the Danish artists, Kurt Westergaard, was nearly hatcheted to death by a jihadist in his own home while babysitting his granddaughter on New Year’s Eve.
Where was American journalist Pat Buchanan on this terrible assault on free speech in the West, surely a contributing factor to what he would later call “The Death of the West”?
Buchanan was there, all right—but he was pitching for Islamic blasphemy law.
This is what he wrote in February 2006:
> “In the Islamic faith any depiction of the face of Mohammed is forbidden. The Danish paper knew this. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation, and they succeeded. But when, in the name of press solidarity, *Le Soir* and *Le Monde* in Paris, *El Pais* in Madrid and *Die Welt* in Berlin republished the cartoons on page one, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration of the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.”
Does this sound like hot type from a feisty American columnist fighting for free speech—or a handout on Islamic blasphemy law from Al-Azhar University, CAIR, or Steve Witcoff’s office?
He continued:
> “And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europess? Is this what freedom of the press is about? The ability to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?”
And:
> “Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode?”
If Buchanan is not, as he might say, a “Likudnik,” he is also not a Free-Speechnik.
—
### Buchanan on Salman Rushdie and *The Satanic Verses*
Back in 1989, it turns out, he was passionately defending Islamic sensibilities from a novel, *Satanic Verses*, by Salman Rushdie—a British writer forced into hiding after Iran put a death sentence and bounty on his head for his criticism of Islam, again in a Western country.
What did Buchanan say on the fatwa’ed Rushdie in hiding?
> “The Western literary world, of course, is thundering to Rushdie’s defense.
> NB: Westerners were that much braver in 1989 than in 2005 invoking the First Amendment, artistic freedom, and all that, though what the episode reveals is that the First Amendment has succeeded phony patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel.
> For Sal [sic] has written a defamatory novel, a blasphemous assault on the faith of hundreds of millions.
> Artistic freedom and the First Amendment are modern versions of the medieval cathedral where felons fled for sanctuary.”
Writers as felons? Yup, under Islam, that is.
In a subsequent column, Buchanan’s First Amendment “felons” become “moral barbarians”—an even stranger term, perhaps, for Western writers even as Muslims were calling and actively hunting for one of their heads.
As I recall, a Japanese translator of the *Rushdie* book was murdered, while Rushdie himself, quite recently, was partly blinded and crippled in a blade-jihad attack.
Even several years later, Buchanan was still smarting from Rushdie’s offense against Islam:
> “People of the Muslim faith had every right to feel wounded and insulted” by Rushdie’s novel, he wrote in 1993, bemoaning Rushdie’s visit to the Clinton White House.
—
### Buchanan’s Apologia for Islamic Apostasy Punishment
We might say it gets worse, as I now turn to Buchanan’s peculiar apologia for the Islamic death penalty for leaving Islam.
Commenting on the case of Abdul Rahman, one of a handful of Christians in US-occupied Afghanistan, whom Islamic authorities condemned to death after Rahman was found to possess a Bible, Buchanan wrote in 2006:
> “Two thousand years ago, Christians in Jerusalem, from Christ himself to St. Stephen, were declared apostates to Judaism and suffered the same fate that Rahman faced.”
Christ was what? Crucified for being an apostate to Judaism? Is Buchanan doing “hummus eaters” next? Sigh.
Noting that Catholics in England burned Protestants at the stake, and vice versa, he continues:
> “None of this is to endorse killing in the name of God, but to suggest that killing in the name of God, and, in our time, the state, the race, the ideology—be it Nazism, communism, Maoism, or even democracy—has been the way of mankind.”
None of this is to endorse killing in the name of God, but…
Do my eyes deceive me, or is Buchanan saying death for “apostasy” is only human?
Devout Muslims believe that apostates to Islam—the greatest gift they have—shoul
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2025/11/06/forwarded-this-email-subscribe-here-for-more-why-pat-buchanan-became-the-grand-old-man-of-the-christian-nationalism-op-against-america-avoiding-election-news-ostrich-like-i-decided-to-puzzle-out/
