By Patrick J. Buchanan
With reports circulating of its imminent demise, The New York Times announced in January that it had found a white knight.Sort of. For the knight in question, who already owns 6 percent of the sinking Times and was investing $250 million in notes carrying 14 percent interest, was Carlos Slim. Reputedly the richest man in the world, taking the title from Bill Gates in 2007, Carlos is not so highly regarded in his own country.
In Mexico, according to Forbes, "the media and the masses long have held a sneaking suspicion that there is something shady about Slim. He is described as a rapacious monopolist who built his empire on cozy ties to Mexican presidents ... ."
For this column, however, the issue is not how Carlos bought up the Mexican telephone monopoly, but whether this Big Enchilada has bought up Andrew Rosenthal's editorial page.
For, two weeks after Carlos' bailout cash arrived, Rosenthal's page launched a hysterical attack on the patriots' movement that seeks to halt the invasion of the United States from Mexico.
Targets: my sister Bay; our American Cause foundation and its executive director, Marcus Epstein; Peter Brimelow, the author of a seminal work on U.S. immigration, Alien Nation; Jim Pinkerton of Fox News, a White House aide to Bush I; Fox's Bill O'Reilly; and this writer.
In the Times' editorial, The Nativists Are Restless, Brimelow is said to run an "extremist Website" (VDARE.com) where he and I post "musings about racial dilution and the perils facing white people." Pinkerton was behind the "racist Willie Horton ads." Epstein holds "white-supremacist" views. And we all are into "racialist extremism" and "Latino-bashing," which calls to mind "the days of the Know-Nothings and the Klan."
Racism "is all around us," wails the Times. And the nation has a "perpetual need for vigilance," even in this new "age of Obama."
What occasioned this wilding attack? A news conference at the National Press Club, where the Times reporter failed to show, and release of a dry report by Epstein [PDF]that contends that GOP defeats in 2008 had nothing to do with the strong stand most Republicans took for border security.
The Times calls the report "nonsense." But the case is open and shut. Of 26 House Republicans who lost, Epstein found only one who was a strong border-control candidate defeated by a pro-amnesty Democrat. In every other GOP defeat, either the Democrat was tough on amnesty and border security or the Republican was wimpish.
That John McCain, who led the effort to put illegal aliens on a path to citizenship, got less than a third of the Hispanic vote shows that being pro-amnesty does not necessarily win the Hispanic vote. And the 70 percent of New Yorkers who rejected Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegals, forcing Hillary Clinton to abandon her own governor, should tell even the obtuse Times which way the wind is blowing.
But rather than argue with us, the Times chose to slime us as racists and white supremacists. This is of a piece with the Times' sliming of the Californian electorate that voted against state recognition of homosexual marriage. To the Times, that 52-48 vote meant "right-wing forces, led by the Mormon Church," had "enshrined bigotry in the state's Constitution."
Both diatribes reveal much about the fall of a great newspaper and the degeneration of a political philosophy that was once hegemonic in America. Liberalism has hardened into an ideology, a rabid religion that anathematizes any and all heretics.
To the Times' editorial writers, dissent from orthodoxy on illegal aliens or gay rights can only be explained by bigotry, hatred, racism or xenophobia in the hearts of the dissidents. To oppose the Times' agenda on social or moral issues is ascribed to mental illness or moral sickness.
Yet, as these negative views on homosexual marriage and illegal immigration remain mainstream views, the Times comes off, as it did in Sunday's sophomoric editorial, as loathing Middle America.
In its own mind, the Times is battling heroically the forces of hatred. Can it not, by rereading its own words, see the hatred in its own heart?
As Christ Himself said, Andrew, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Let it be said. There is nothing wrong about Americans fighting to preserve the culture and country they grew up in. That is what patriotic conservatism is all about. And if the Times can understand and support the right of native tribes like the Navajo and Apache to preserve their unique character and culture, why this viral hatred of those of us who wish to preserve the Western and Christian character of America?
Why does the Times want to see our America destroyed? From what poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?
"There are only two men in America who can fill Yankee Stadium on three weeks' notice," a friend instructed me years ago.
"Billy Graham and Louis Farrakhan."
Indeed, a decade ago, Black Muslim Minister Farrakhan's "Million Man March" brought a throng of hundreds of thousands to the Capitol.
But, last Saturday, Glenn Beck packed the Mall with a crowd that could have filled Yankee Stadium to overflowing five times over. As it stretched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument, the estimates of its size ran to half a million.
This was twice the size of the crowd that heard Martin Luther King Jr. 47 years ago and matched the antiwar demonstrations of 1969.
Wisely, Beck dropped partisanship to convert his gathering into a God, country and Constitution rally, with speakers honoring the courage and sacrifice of America's military. Said Sarah Palin, a rally star, "Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet, and you can't take that away from me."
Al Sharpton, who organized a counter-rally that turned out a few hundred folks at Dunbar High, was his usual gracious self. Speaking of the half a million Americans on the Mall, the Rev. Al volunteered, "They want to disgrace this day."
President Obama, seeing that crowd on the Mall as large as the one that came to celebrate his inaugural, must understand what it portends. His moment may have passed.
For that enthusiastic and energetic assembly is the spear point of an army of millions headed for the polls to throw out the party he leads.
Nevertheless, as Obama raised hopes only to be perceived as having fallen short, so, too, Beck's believers and the tea party folks are raising hopes and expectations.
But can they succeed?
"We must not fundamentally transform America, as some would want," said Palin, in one of the direct challenges to Obama. "We must restore America."
But can we restore America, or is the old America gone forever?
Consider the issue that unites all on the Mall on Saturday -- the need for the U.S. government to cut spending, to balance its budget and not to shove an immense burden of debt on our children.
Like last year, we are running a deficit of $1.4 trillion, almost 10 percent of the entire economy. With housing starts and housing sales plunging, jobless claims rising, the stock market sinking and economic growth slowing to a crawl, we will face a new deficit equally large in the fiscal year beginning in October.
Where are the victorious tea party Republicans going to cut?
According to USA Today, 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, and perhaps an equal number on Medicare and Social Security. Which of these three will tea party Republicans cut, when Republicans are already denying Democratic charges that they plan to raise the retirement age for Social Security?
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has a 600-page plan to reform Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the tax code, the work of a conscientious conservative. But only one in 16 House Republicans has signed on as co-sponsor.
Are Republicans going to go after other entitlements -- veterans benefits, earned income tax credits, food stamps -- which now go to 41 million Americans, or unemployment benefits that run for 99 weeks?
With the racial achievement gap on test scores returning, will the GOP abolish No Child Left Behind or slash federal aid to education?
The big remaining items in the budget are interest on the debt, which must be paid, and war and defense. But Republicans are more likely to be supportive of Obama's rebuilding a military ravaged by war, and staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, than are Democrats.
Obama's budget commission will surely come in with tax increases on personal incomes, perhaps also for Social Security and Medicare. But the GOP cannot sign on to these and go home again.
Indeed, how can Republicans cooperate with a president who has spent the campaign blaming them for the Great Recession and telling voters the GOP intends to drag us back to the dark past of Bush II?
And why would a "Party of No" that picks up 40 or 50 House seats by its Alamo defiance become a Kumbaya, "Yes-we-can!" party and work in happy harness with Barack Obama?
Can we really "restore America" as she once was?
According to The New York Times, Orange County, Calif. -- birthplace of Richard Nixon, Goldwater Country, bastion of the John Birch Society, land of the "little old ladies in tennis shoes" -- is today a place where less than half the population is Anglo and almost half speak a language other than English in the home.
Where Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter three to one in Orange County, Obama ran a near dead heat with McCain. And as Orange County goes, so goes California and so goes America.
Republicans and tea partiers are going to have a glorious fall.
But is this one of the last hurrahs?
Order the Booklet & CD's from the our 2009 conference, 
Bay's latest column in Human Events
Immigration Update
"Will $600 million border bill help Obama sway GOP on immigration reform," The Christian Science Monitor
Size: XL, printed