Research/Study Research/Study

The Bigotry Of Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan wrote in his recent syndicated column that accused Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik may be “evil,” but when it comes to his reported belief that there's a coming “climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world ... Breivik may be right.” Buchanan, who also serves as an MSNBC analyst, has a long history marred by bigotry and hostility toward non-whites.

  • Buchanan: “Breivik May Be Right”

    Buchanan's Long History Of Bigotry

    Buchanan's War Against Immigrants

    Buchanan's Recent History On Minorities, Race-Relations

    Buchanan's Anti-LGBT History

    Buchanan: “Breivik May Be Right”

    Buchanan: “As For A Climactic Conflict Between A Once-Christian West And An Islamic World ... Breivik May Be Right.” From Buchanan's syndicated column about the attacks in Norway:

    Though Breivik is being called insane, that is the wrong word.

    Breivik is evil - a cold-blooded, calculating killer - though a deluded man of some intelligence, who in his 1,500-page manifesto reveals a knowledge of the history, culture and politics of Europe.

    He admits to his “atrocious” but “necessary” crimes, done, he says, to bring attention to his ideas and advance his cause: a Crusader's war between the real Europe and the “cultural Marxists” and Muslims they invited in to alter the ethnic character and swamp the culture of the Old Continent.


    The flood of illegal aliens into the Canary Islands from Africa, into Italy from Libya and Tunisia, and into Greece from Turkey has mainstream parties echoing the right. The Schengen Agreement itself, which guarantees open borders within the European Union to all who enter the EU, is under attack.

    None of this is to deny the presence of violent actors or neo-Nazis on the European right who bear watching. But, awful as this atrocity was, native-born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.

    That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.

    Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.

    With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe's nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come - from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia - have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.

    Norway, too, needs to wake up. From the first call for help, police needed 90 minutes to get out on the island in the Oslo lake to stop the massacre by the coward, who surrendered as soon as the men with guns arrived. Apparently, Breivik wanted to be around to deliver his declaration of European war in person. Yet, if convicted of the 76 murders, Breivik can, at most, get 21 years, the maximum sentence under Norwegian law.

    Norway is a peaceful and progressive country, its leaders say.

    Yet Norway sent troops to Afghanistan and has participated in the bombing of Libya, where civilians have been killed and Moammar Gadhafi has himself lost a son and three grandchildren to NATO bombs.

    As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 7/25/11]

    Buchanan's Long History Of Bigotry

    As An Editorial Writer, Buchanan Reportedly “Disseminat[ed] Smears About Civil Rights Leaders Passed On By J. Edgar Hoover.” From the book Nixonland:

    Summoning Buchanan to New York for a grueling three-hour interview, Nixon asked him, “You're not as conservative as William F. Buckley, are you - or am I wrong?” Buchanan, who was more conservative than Buckley (his specialty as editorial writer for the right-wing St. Louis Globe-Democrat was disseminating smears about civil rights leaders passed on by J. Edgar Hoover), artfully dodged the question: “I have a tremendous admiration for Bill Buckley.” [Rick Perlstein, Nixonland, 2008, p. 84]

    Buchanan Reportedly Warned Nixon Not To “Fritter Away His Present High Support In The Nation For An Ill-Advised Governmental Effort To Forcibly Integrate Races.” Jake Tapper reported of former Nixon aide Buchanan in 1999:

    Even Richard Nixon found the views of his former speech writer, Buchanan, too extreme on the segregation issue. According to a John Ehrlichman memo referenced in Nicholas Lemann's “The Promised Land,” Nixon characterized Buchanan's views as “segregation forever.”

    After Nixon was reelected, Buchanan warned his boss not to “fritter away his present high support in the nation for an ill-advised governmental effort to forcibly integrate races.” [, 9/4/99]

    Buchanan “Condemned Critics Of The Sharpeville Massacre In South Africa, Where 67 Blacks Were Gunned Down By White Police.” Buchanan also made reference to Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko as “the house nigger of the Politburo”:

    Buchanan condemned critics of the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, where 67 blacks were gunned down by white police in 1960, in a memo to Nixon that declared: “The operative concern here is not humanitarian in character at all; it is racist and ideological. Blacks murdering blacks by the scores of thousands in Central Africa is of less concern to the U.S. liberal press, the U.N. and the African states than a few South African whites mistreating a couple of blacks in South Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique or Angola.” The memos show Buchanan's “regular guy” style as he urged that Nixon bring Elvis Presley to the White House because the King could “pop for some loot for us” if he were named to an antidrug commission. He got a laugh from Nixon once by arguing that the president's phrase “liberal asshole” was redundant. Buchanan the jokester once asked a woman staffer: “Can you give me a brief listing of all the good things we have done for the weaker sex?” Race was a familiar refrain, whether it was Buchanan's reference to Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko as “the house nigger of the Politburo” or his touting of school vouchers as “a long-needed break for working people--white--not simply the blacks.” [US News & World Report, 2/9/92]

    Buchanan: “Conservatives Are The Niggers Of The Nixon Administration.” Richard Reeves wrote in his book on the Nixon administration:

    Near the end, Buchanan added angrily: “Conservatives are the niggers of the Nixon administration.” The political right, Buchanan thought, was getting nothing but rhetoric. [Richard Reeves, President Nixon: Alone in the White House, 2001, p. 295]

    Buchanan Urged Nixon Not To Visit Martin Luther King's Widow; Buchanan Thought King Was “One Of The Most Divisive Men In Contemporary History.” From an AP report in December 1986:

    Buchanan's memo, written on April 1, 1969, said Nixon should observe the first anniversary of the civil rights leader's death by doing no more than issuing a statement.

    “There are no long-run gains, and considerable long-run risks in making a public visit to the Widow King,” Buchanan wrote.

    He characterized King as “one of the most divisive men in contemporary history” and:

    “Initially, the visit would get an excellent press but ... it would outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue, and perhaps worse,” the memo said. “It does not seem to be in the interests of national unity for the president to lend his national prestige to the argument that this divisive figure is a modern saint.” There had been considerable discussion in the White House about how Nixon was to observe the assassination anniversary, which was April 4, 1969. A March 31 staff discussion, in which Buchanan took part, had recommended that Nixon stop in Atlanta on a trip from Abilene, Texas, to Key Biscayne, Fla., and have a private meeting with King's widow, Coretta Scott King.

    Neither action was followed. Instead, Nixon sent Robert Finch, then secretary of health, education and welfare, to deliver personal condolences to Mrs. King. [Associated Press, 12/1/86, via Nexis]

    Buchanan: “Women Are Simply Not Endowed By Nature With The Same Measures Of Single-Minded Ambition And The Will To Succeed In The Fiercely Competitive World Of Western Capitalism.” From a November 1983 column by Buchanan:

    Rail as they will against 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism. Exceptional women can and do succeed; and women deserve an equal chance at the starting line. But, for women, there is an honorable and honored exit from the rat race - home, hearth and family. It is an option closed, by social sanction, to the average male. By a ratio of eleven-to-one over men, women exercise this option of voluntary separation from the marketplace, sometimes for years, sometimes for decades. The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is.

    Less equipped psychologically to “stay the course” in the brawling arenas of business, commerce, industry and the professions, women are physically unequipped to compete in the worlds of athletics and arms. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 11/18/83]

    Buchanan Urged The GOP To “Take A Hard Look At [David] Duke's Portfolio Of Winning Issues.” From Buchanan's syndicated column in 1989 about David Duke:

    The way to do battle with David Duke is not to go ballistic because Duke, as a teenager, paraded around in a Nazi costume to protest William Kunstler during Vietnam, or to shout to the heavens that Duke had the same phone number last year as the Ku Klux Klan. Everybody in Metairie knew that. The way to deal with Duke is the way the GOP dealt with the far more formidable challenge of George Wallace. Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.

    Duke did not beat John Treen because he is an ex-wizard; he beat him in spite of it; he beat him because he was tougher on taxes and made an issue of urban crime, the primary source of which is the urban underclass; he beat Treen because he lit into set-asides and “affirmative action” in hiring, scholarships, and promotions, i.e. reverse discrimination against white folks who happen to make up 99 percent of his electorate.

    What Duke did, after he turned in his robes and signed up with the GOP, was run over and seize terrain vacated by the GOP. Duke walked into the political vacuum left when conservative Republicans in the Reagan years were intimidated into shucking off winning social issues so we might be able to pass moral muster with Hooks and King.

    When was the last time a Republican president attacked the injustice and immorality of quotas? When was the last time the GOP denounced social engineers and their endless plans for the forced integration of neighborhoods and schools? Where was the GOP when Yonkers was being kicked around by that federal judge?

    The Republican Party, post-election, is getting wonderful press embracing Jesse Jackson, flirting with Ben Hooks, Andy Young and King. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong at all; so long as the GOP does not pay for its press clipping in the currency of old principles. Right now, though, my sense is the GOP is throwing away a winning hand, and Duke is only the first fellow to pick up the discards. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 2/27/89]

    Buchanan: David Duke “Zeroes In On Issues That Should Be A Wake-Up Call For All Our Big-Government Conservatives.” Buchanan wrote in a 1991 column:

    If his resume is Duke's handicap, what is his appeal? In his 15-point platform, he zeroes in on issues that should be a wake-up call for all our big-government conservatives.

    Duke pledges to vote against any new tax increase. He wants to toss the able-bodied off welfare, stop payments to drug users and freeze benefits to welfare mothers who keep having children. He favors tougher penalties for crime and an end to ``unjust affirmative action,'' i.e., all reverse discrimination, whether quotas or racial set-asides. He calls for freedom of choice for parents in sending children to public schools, and a track system inside schools where the brightest are advanced fastest. He opposes gun control, wants the United States to halt illegal immigration and would slash foreign aid.

    The national press calls these positions ``code words'' for racism, but in the hard times in Louisiana, Duke's message comes across as middle class, meritocratic, populist and nationalist.

    ``This reminds me of 1928 in Germany,'' wailed Lance Hill, head of the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism. ``I might seek political asylum in Mississippi.''

    Well, Lance, try to calm down. The White House has made Bush's position clear. Duke ``is not the Republican nominee,'' said the White House chief of staff, John Sununu. ``He is an individual that has chosen to call himself a Republican. He was not supported by the party. He is not supported by the national party.''

    Nevertheless, both the GOP establishment and conservatives should study how and why white voters, who delivered Louisiana to Reagan and Bush three times, moved in such numbers to Duke -- and devise a strategic plan to win them back.

    What to do? Bush might take a hard look at illegal immigration, tell the U.S. Border Patrol to hire some of those vets being mustered out after Desert Storm, veto the Democrats' ``quota bill,'' and issue an executive order rooting out any and all reverse discrimination in the U.S. government, beginning with the FBI.

    If that sets off every poodle in liberalism's kennels, good. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 10/23/91, via Nexis]

    Buchanan: Hitler “Was Also An Individual Of Great Courage.” The Anti-Defamation League reported that Buchanan wrote the following in a column:

    1977: “Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature...Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” - St. Louis Globe - Democrat, Aug 25, 1977 [, accessed on 7/27/11]

    Buchanan: “Was World War II Worth It? ... Why Destroy Hitler?” In a 2005 column, Buchanan wrote:

    If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

    How, then, can men proclaim Churchill “Man of the Century”?

    True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany - on behalf of Poland.

    When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France - hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires - was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

    Was that worth fighting a world war - with 50 million dead?

    The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling - not British and French. Understandably. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 5/11/05]

    Buchanan Wrote Foreword To Book Compiling Works Of A White Supremacist. The Anti-Defamation League wrote of Buchanan in its report, “Patrick Buchanan: Unrepentant Bigot”:

    Buchanan contributes to works published by and praising extremists. In 2006, he authored the “Foreword” to Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America's Culture War, a compilation of the works of the late Sam Francis, a white supremacist and frequent speaker at white supremacist American Renaissance conferences. Buchanan praised Francis's character and work and explains that Francis's “great gifts” included having “one of the finest minds of his generation” and a “brave heart to pursue and tell the truth.” Following his death in 2005, Buchanan wrote an article dedicated to Francis, whom he called “my brave and generous friend.” Buchanan also referenced the work of Francis several times in State of Emergency, his 2006 anti-immigrant book. Buchanan called Francis “one of the finest minds of his generation.”

    Anti-Semite John Sharpe co-edited and published neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, referred to earlier as a collection of views which includes a Buchanan essay. Sharpe, a former naval officer, attended a 2006 conference organized by American Renaissance, a white supremacist publication, and was placed on administrative leave from the Navy due to his leadership of the Legion of St. Louis and the IHS Press, two anti-Semitic organizations. [ADL, 5/21/09]

    Buchanan Relied On White Supremacists For Research In Work. The ADL wrote of Buchanan in its report, “Patrick Buchanan: Unrepentant Bigot”:

    Buchanan has incorporated the research and writings of extremists into his own articles and books. In State of Emergency, Buchanan, more than once, cites “The Color of Crime,” a 1999 study published by the white supremacist New Century Foundation (NCF), the organization behind American Renaissance. In spite of NCF's history of espousing racist views and hosting conferences that feature white supremacists as speakers, Buchanan has referred to the group as simply 'right-leaning.' Buchanan has also cited some of the findings of the 1999 study in one of his 2007 articles. From the material taken from NCF, Buchanan concluded that “the real repository of racism in to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community.”

    In Death of the West, Buchanan also discussed NCF and cited research in a book authored by its leader, white supremacist Jared Taylor. Buchanan described Taylor as “a controversial figure in the debate on crime and race.” [ADL, 5/21/09]

    Buchanan Defended Bob Jones University's Ban On Interracial Dating In 1989. From Buchanan's October 8, 1989, column lamenting that a Maryland golf club “must either admit women, or pay $315,000 in added annual property taxes”:

    It was a delightful place to be, an all-male enclave of caddies, guests, members, bartenders, attendants. That we were all engaged in some malevolent conspiracy against mothers, wives, sisters and girlfriends never occurred to us, or to them.

    There is something truly mean-spirited in this relentless pursuit of Burning Tree by feminist ideologues. And it has a name: bigotry. Not the innocuous male chauvinism of the Burning Tree members, but the anti-white-male malevolence of their pursuers.

    We have seen the unattractive face of this new intolerance before.

    Bob Jones University in South Carolina is a fundamentalist Christian College whose history goes back decades. No one is required to attend; but, those who do must obey its rules. Its students are black, Asian and white. Bob Jones, however, does not permit interracial dating, because it believes Genesis prohibits miscegenation.

    Inflamed on learning of this heresy, the nation's political establishment started a firestorm of protest until President Reagan promised that Bob Jones would be forever denied the tax exemption every other school in America enjoys. Jefferson once said that error should be tolerated where truth is free to combat it. Any doubt where he would have stood on Burning Tree or Bob Jones?

    Like killer bees, social pests like Comstock-Gay are proliferating; and, one can understand the impulse to get away from it all, to form a private club where one can escape.

    Freedom was once the most celebrated of values in America. Now, it takes a back seat to integration. One day, perhaps liberals will learn the truth of what Malcolm X discovered late in life:

    “I tucked it into my mind that when I returned home I would tell Americans this observation; that where true brotherhood existed among all the colors, where no one felt segregated, where there was no 'superiority' complex, no 'inferiority' complex - then, voluntarily, naturally, people of the same kind felt drawn together by that which they had in common.”

    That is what Burning Tree was all about.

    Faced with almost $1 million in back taxes, and $315,000 in new taxes, if it does not abandon a tradition it has maintained for seven decades, Burning Tree may be forced to sell its golf course, and shut down. Another triumph for the state. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 10/8/89]

    Buchanan's War Against Immigrants

    Buchanan: “America [Is] Committing Suicide” While “Asian, African, And Latin American Children Come To Inherit The Estate.” From Buchanan's book Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart:

    Truly, America faces an existential crisis. Are the racial, political, social, and cultural forces pulling us apart overwhelming the forces holding us together?

    It is the belief of the author and premise of this book that America is indeed coming apart, decomposing, and that the likelihood of her survival as one nation through midcentury is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course. For we are on a path to national suicide.


    How is America committing suicide? Every way a nation can.

    The American majority is not reproducing itself. Its birthrate has been below replacement level for decades. Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2005 to 2006, our minority population rose 2.4 million to exceed 100 million. Hispanics, 1 percent of the U.S. population in 1950, are now 14.4 percent. Since 2000, their numbers have soured 25 percent to 45 million. The U.S. Asian population grew by 24 percent since 2000, as the number of white kids of school age fell 4 percent. Half the children five and younger today are minority children. [Pat Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart, 2007, pp. 7-8]

    Buchanan: Immigration Will Turn U.S. Into “A Polyglot Boarding House For The World, A Tangle Of Squabbling Minorities.” On CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan warned that "[w]e'll become a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He continued: “The problem with the immigration, basically -- let's take Mexico -- is these folks are breaking the law, first. Secondly, they're coming in huge numbers, like no other group before. Third, they're from a contiguous nation. Fourth, 58 percent of Mexicans believe the Southwest belongs to them. Fifth, the Mexican government is pushing them in here, and it's got a political and ideological agenda.” [CNN, The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

    Buchanan Blamed VA Tech Murders On Immigrant “Invasion,” Claimed Immigrants “Are Going Berserk Here.” From Buchanan's May 1, 2007 column:

    Since the massacre of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, the mainstream media have obsessed over the fact the crazed gunmen was able to buy a Glock in the state of Virginia.

    Little attention has been paid to the Richmond legislators who voted to make “Hokie Nation,” a Middle American campus of 26,000 kids, a gun-free zone where only the madman had a semi-automatic.

    Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.

    What was Cho doing here? How did he get in?

    Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people. Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.

    Cho was one of them.


    What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s.


    Since the 1960s, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith, language, tradition, culture, music, myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties?

    Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 5/1/07]

    Buchanan: “Yes, I Do” Have A Problem With States Becoming Majority Hispanic. From CNN's Situation Room:

    JOHN KING: This is a dangerous debate. You get into race, ethnic questions. Let me ask you this, if the border were secured -- if --

    BUCHANAN: We gotta get into race and ethnic questions, John.

    KING: If the border were secured and, through legal immigration, California became majority Hispanic, majority Latino. Texas became majority -- you've got a problem with that? If they came in through legal immigration?

    BUCHANAN: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. If their -- 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 grand march -- 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 there, they booed the American flag, they tore down -- excuse me -- tore down the American flag, booed our national anthem, threw garbage on American -- 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. [former President Theodore Roosevelt] warned against this. [Former President Woodrow] Wilson warned against it. Half the great Americans did. [CNN, The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

    Buchanan On Spanish-Language Anthem: “An Insult”; Americans “Are Awakening To The Character Of These People.” On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that a Spanish-language version of “The Star-Spangled Banner” is “a provocation and an insult” but that, ultimately, it is “a good thing in this sense: The American people are awakening to the character of these people.” [MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 5/1/06]

    Buchanan: “Chicano Chauvinists And Mexican Agents” Want To “Take Back Through Demography And Culture What Their Ancestors Lost Through War.” In his book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, published in August 2006, Buchanan wrote: “Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war.” [Pat Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, 2006, pp. 12]

    Buchanan: “This Is An Invasion, The Greatest Invasion In History.” In State of Emergency, Buchanan wrote of immigration: “This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history.” He also wrote: “We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.” [Pat Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, 2006, pp. 5-6]

    Buchanan: Undocumented Immigration Is “An Invasion Of The United States Of America” And “The Whole World Is Coming.” On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States is “not immigration” but “an invasion of the United States of America” that is “coming not only from Mexico,” but “from the whole world.” He reiterated: “The whole world is coming.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/15/06]

    Buchanan: “You're Going To Have A Giant Kosovo In The Southwest, Which De Facto Is Going To Secede.” On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan said that the influx of immigrants entering the United States will cause the “balkanization of America.” Later the same day, on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that “you're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country.” [MSNBC, Hardball, Scarborough Country, 6/5/06]

    Buchanan: Mexican President's “Ultimate Goal” Is Making Mexico And U.S. “Basically Part Of The North American Union.” On CNN, Buchanan said, “The government of Mexico is pushing its poor and unemployed into the United States to ease social pressure on itself. Secondly, they get $16 billion in remittances back to Mexico. Third, it is awoken to the idea that it can reannex the American southwest, which it used to hold, linguistically, culturally, ethnically and socially, not militarily by pushing all these people in there and creating a gigantic fifth column in America.” Buchanan added: “The ultimate goal of Vicente Fox is the erasure of the border between the United States and Mexico. He has said as much and to make the two basically part of the North American Union in which Mexico will get ... a constant flow of cash from the wealthy USA and La Reconquista is the objective.” [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/5/06, via Nexis]

    Buchanan Compares Immigrations Of “Zulus” Or “Englishmen ... What Group Would Be Easier To Assimilate And Would Cause Less Problems For The People Of Virginia?” From ABC's This Week in 1991:

    SAM DONALDSON: Do you agree with Charles Rangel who says that if the Haitians weren't black, we would take them in, rather than saying, “No, you stay on the high seas until perhaps you die”?

    BUCHANAN: He's probably got a bit of a point there. Let me go back to what George said. Illegal immigration is a problem and ought to be stopped. Now, how about legal immigration, on where folks come from? George, it is a legitimate issue to sit down and debate. I think God made all people good, but if we had to take a million immigrants in, say, Zulus, next year or Englishmen and put them in Virginia, what group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia? There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue, that we are a European country-

    GEORGE WILL: But the English aren't trying-

    BUCHANAN: -English-speaking country-

    GEORGE WILL: -to get in. The Asians and the Hispanics and the Latins are.

    BUCHANAN: All right, here's- you have to sit down- I mean, every immigration policy is going to let somebody in and keep somebody out. It's going to have different criteria. What I am saying is culture, language, background are not illegitimate criteria for us to discuss when we discuss legal immigration. [ABC, This Week, 12/8/91, via Nexis]

    Buchanan: America Will Become “A Third World Country...If We Do Not Build A Sea Wall Against The Waves Of Immigration.” From a June 1990 syndicated column by Buchanan, in which he also complains that the “Negros of the '50s became the blacks of the '60s; now, the 'African-Americans' of the '90s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along”:

    The question we Americans need to address, before it is answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny, if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores.

    We are not immune to the global rise of separatism, nationalism and ethnic militancy. Reflect on the reception accorded Nelson Mandela, the growing support for racists like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Consider the demand for bilingual education by Mexican-Americans, the issue upon which Canada is splitting up. In D.C., blacks openly subscribe to the thesis that Mayor Marion Barry is a victim of “The Plan,” a secret conspiracy whereby the white power structure is out to destroy the black leadership. Bensonhurst and Howard Beach may get the headlines, but black-on-white is the most common form of interracial crime, by factors of 10-1 and 20-1. Where was the national story when white visitors to Georgetown were beaten in wilding assaults by blacks, requiring a mass infusion of police?

    “In multi-ethnic communities, the notion of ethnic rights precedes the notion of human rights,” writes Sunic. Exactly. The Negros of the '50s became the blacks of the '60s; now, the “African-Americans” of the '90s demand racial quotas and set-asides, as the Democrats eagerly assent and a pandering GOP prepares to go along.

    Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the United States?

    “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture's got to go,” was Jesse Jackson's chant at Stanford, giving aid and comfort to leftist academics who are out to replace Western culture with - what?

    Is it not time to take America back? [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 6/28/90]

    Buchanan's Recent History On Minorities, Race-Relations

    Buchanan Complained That With Elena Kagan, The Supreme Court Would Have Too Many “Jews.” From Buchanan's May 2010 column on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court:

    Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

    If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

    Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

    But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

    Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.

    What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?

    And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman.


    If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 5/14/10]

    Buchanan Appeared On “Pro-White” Radio Show Twice. Buchanan appeared on the June 29, 2008, and September 14, 2006, editions of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, a program whose “Statement of Principles” asserts that it “represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White.” Buchanan's June 29 interview was streamed “Live” on the self-described “White Nationalist” and “White Pride” website [Media Matters, 8/19/08]

    Buchanan: Sonia Sotomayor An “Affirmative Action Pick.” From the May 26, 2009, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

    BUCHANAN: I'm saying that she herself says that her gender and her ethnicity will influence her decision, and I think that is a disq-- that would be for me a disqualification for the Supreme Court. She is also an affirmative action pick, Chris [Matthews, host]. Clearly. The president was down to four choices, all four of them women, and he picked the Hispanic. [MSNBC, Hardball, 5/26/09]

    Buchanan: “It Was Here That 600,000 Black People, Brought From Africa In Slave Ships, Grew Into A Community Of 40 Million,” Later Adds, “We Hear The Grievances. Where Is The Gratitude?” In a 2008 column, Buchanan asserted that “no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans,” adding: “We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?”

    Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

    Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

    This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

    First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

    Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

    Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

    Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks - with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

    Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

    We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude? [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 3/21/08]

    Buchanan: “For The First Time In Our Lifetimes Outside The South, White Racial Consciousness Has Visibly Begun To Rise.” From Buchanan's July 2010, syndicated column:

    What was it that caused the rush to judgment by Vilsack, the NAACP and a White House that supported the ouster of Sherrod without talking to her or viewing the full tape?

    Panic. The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.


    For though the black community remains solidly behind Obama and the white majority is shrinking toward minority status by 2042 or 2050, depending on which Census survey one uses, whites in America still outnumber blacks five to one. And if forced constantly to come down on one side or the other of a racial divide, most folks will wind up with their own.

    In past elections, Democrats have raised race - allegations that black churches were being torched in the South, that George W. Bush's opposition to a hate-crimes bill meant he was coldly indifferent to the dragging death of a handicapped black man - to solidify and energize the minority vote. And, today, that vote remains solid behind Obama.

    Where the erosion is taking place is in white America, among working- and middle-class folks who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries but took a chance with Obama in the fall. Now, every time some new incident erupts, these folks are being tarred.

    Opposition to affirmative action is racist. Supporting the tea party gives aid and comfort to racists. Opposing health care puts you in league with folks who used racial slurs on Rep. John Lewis. To raise the issue of the New Black Panther Party is to play the race card.

    One understands the bitterness of tea-party folks who carry signs that read: “What difference does it make what this placard says? You'll call it racist anyway.”

    As the National Journal's Ron Brownstein has been reporting, white America is increasingly alienated and distrustful of all our major economic and political power centers - the banks, big corporations, the government.

    And, for the first time in our lifetimes outside the South, white racial consciousness has visibly begun to rise. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 7/22/10]

    Buchanan: “In A Way, Both Sides Were Right” During The Civil War. From the April 8, 2010, edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

    BUCHANAN: Now, I don't know if they want to go that far. But quite frankly, there's a real feeling out there of people that they do not like this government! It's too big, too oppressive...

    MATTHEWS: Who was right in the Civil War?

    KAREN FINNEY: Wait a sec...

    BUCHANAN: Who was right in the Civil War? I think, in a way, both sides were right. I think Lincoln had a right to save the union. I think they had a right to go free. People -- it was unsettled...


    MATTHEWS: So Robert E. Lee was right...

    FINNEY: Let's not defend the right to slavery.

    MATTHEWS: ... to join the South?

    BUCHANAN: Of course he was!


    FINNEY: Let's not defend the right to slavery.

    MATTHEWS: It was right to fight that war?

    BUCHANAN: Robert E. Lee was right to defend his fellow...


    MATTHEWS: But if he had said, “I'm not going to fight,” maybe there wouldn't have been a Civil War. Maybe if the guys like him had stood up and said, “We're not going to fight this, we're sticking with the union”...

    BUCHANAN: What were they going to -- you -- Chris...


    MATTHEWS: ... if you'd listen to Sam Houston, you wouldn't have had that war.

    BUCHANAN: Virginia had to lie down and let them march over Virginia!

    MATTHEWS: OK. Your turn.

    BUCHANAN: They weren't going to do it!

    MATTHEWS: Karen, I'm sorry. It's Karen's (INAUDIBLE)

    FINNEY: That's OK. Now, I want to go back to your other point because it -- you know, there's something very disturbing happening in this country when you do have leaders, Republican leaders, using certain phrases that are code phrases, not even just about the Civil War, but again, designed to have a very specific impact in inflaming the base and motivating the base, rather than...

    MATTHEWS: But Pat doesn't need code! Pat's arguing...


    MATTHEWS: ... because he thinks the federal union was maybe equally right to the South!

    FINNEY: But wait a second...

    MATTHEWS: Maybe.

    FINNEY: The point I'm making...

    BUCHANAN: I think they both had a moral position. [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/8/10, via Nexis]

    Buchanan Warns Against The Nation Becoming “Multiracial, Multicultural,” Adds, “I Prefer The Kind - I Grew Up In A Different Country.” From an interview with RT America:

    INTERVIEWER: Now, back in 2004, you wrote, “the America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether, a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North.” Do you still feel that way?

    BUCHANAN: Sure, it's becoming that. I think the - Brazil is a multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic nation -

    INTERVIEWER: Is that a bad thing?

    BUCHANAN: Well, I prefer the kind - I grew up in a different country. And I'm saying the country is going to be changed. Now, is it going to be changed for the better? Some people think it is going to be changed for the better. But I think what we're headed for is basically, almost, as you see it developing in society, a war of all against all. Not only ethnically, but politically, and culturally, and socially. Look at the - look at the hostility and the toxicity of American politics today. As, you know, as horrible as it's gotten, it's getting worse, and worse, and worse. [RT America, 6/2/10]

    Buchanan Wonders: “Why Would [Hitler] Want War”? From a September 2009 Pat Buchanan column:

    Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

    Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

    If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?


    But if Hitler was out to conquer the world -- Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia -- why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?

    If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

    Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

    Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

    Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

    Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

    Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Miklos Horthy's Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso's Slovakia.

    Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

    As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

    Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” -- the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 9/1/09]

    Buchanan: “This Has Been A Country Built, Basically, By White Folks.” From the July 16, 2009, edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:

    BUCHANAN: Well, I think I would vote “no” on Sonia Sotomayor, the same way I would've voted “no” on Harriet Miers; and I said so the first day she was nominated. I don't think Judge Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or a major book or something like that on the law.

    And I do believe she's an affirmative action appointment by the president of the United States. He eliminated everyone but four women and then he picked the Hispanic. So I think this is an affirmative action appointment and I would vote “no.”


    MADDOW: Why do you think it is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?

    BUCHANAN: Well, I think white men were 100 percent of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.

    This has been a country built, basically, by white folks in this country who were 90 percent of the entire nation in 1960 when I was growing up, Rachel, and the other 10 percent were African-Americans who had been discriminated against -- that's why. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 7/16/09]

    Buchanan On Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: “Affirmative Action Nobel.” From Buchanan's October 13, 2009 syndicated column, headlined, “The Affirmative Action Nobel”:

    The Affirmative Action Nobel

    All my life, said Voltaire, I have had but one prayer: “O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous. And God granted it.”

    In awarding the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama, the Nobel committee has just made itself look ridiculous.

    Consider. Though they had lead roles in ending a Cold War lasting half a century, between a nuclear-armed Soviet Empire and the West, neither Ronald Reagan nor John Paul II ever got a Nobel Prize.

    In 1987, Reagan negotiated the greatest arms reduction treaty in modern time, the INF agreement removing all Soviet SS-20s and all U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles from Europe.

    Other than hosting the “Beer Summit” between Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police and Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, what has Obama done to compare with what these statesmen did to make ours a more peaceful and better world?

    What has Obama accomplished to compare with what the other sitting presidents to receive the Nobel Prize accomplished?


    As for Obama, he got the award because he is the quintessential anti-Bush. Yet, the Nobel committee did him no service.

    They have brazenly meddled in the internal affairs of the United States. They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes -- Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions -- he did not earn. They have put him under moral pressure to mollify a pacifist left. They have brought him to the point, dangerous in politics, where a man becomes the butt of reflexive jokes, as did Bill Clinton in the Monica affair.

    These Norwegian groupies, acting out of “adolescent adulation,” writes the Financial Times, have exposed themselves as “an annex to the left wing of the U.S. Democratic Party” with a “deeply misguided act” that will “embarrass (Obama's) allies and egg on his detractors.”

    The committee did something else. They ensured that their Nobel Peace Prize will never be taken as seriously again as once it was. [Pat Buchanan, syndicated column, 10/13/09]

    Buchanan: Obama's Higher Education Was “Probably Affirmative Action All The Way.” From the April 26, 2011 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

    MATTHEWS: Because this is an incredible assertion, Pat. It's an incredible assertion to make about the president of the United States that somehow -- let's go through everything Trump said. I'm going to go through it later tonight in my close.

    BUCHANAN: Right.

    MATTHEWS: He is saying nobody knew him in school, that nobody ever comes forward and says they ever knew the guy, like he was some guy that never really went to these schools.

    BUCHANAN: Well, can I talk to that?

    MATTHEWS: There's a funny paper trail. What's that about, Pat?

    BUCHANAN: I'll tell you what --

    MATTHEWS: What's that about?

    BUCHANAN: He went to Occidental College. Then suddenly, he shows up at one of the best schools in the country, Columbia. He vaults from there to Harvard Law School. Suddenly, he's on Harvard Law Review. Suddenly, he's the editor of Harvard Law Review. We've never seen any grades of the guy. These are legitimate questions. What I want to know from you, Chris, is --

    MATTHEWS: Well, they got -- they got the grades at Harvard --

    BUCHANAN: What I want to know from you --

    MATTHEWS: Harvard law let him in --

    BUCHANAN: Well --

    MATTHEWS: -- and he was elected to the Law Review. They have the records.

    BUCHANAN: Look, I know a lot of kids that have got phenomenal LSAT scores that can't get into any Ivy League school, and I think a lot of people do. Chris, this is what I want to ask you. Why is it that the national press corps, when Donald Trump is out there supporting the people's right to know, you guys are all supporting the president's right to conceal?

    MATTHEWS: OK. So, you have questions about whether the president was -- did attend these schools or not. First of all, let's --


    BUCHANAN: Oh, he attended the schools.


    MATTHEWS: How far do you go on the Trump bandwagon?

    Was he in fact in these schools that Trump says nobody knew him in?

    BUCHANAN: I think he went to those schools, and I think the way was very probably greased.

    MATTHEWS: So, why was Trump saying --

    BUCHANAN: And I think he's probably affirmative action all the way.

    MATTHEWS: Greased by whom? Greased by whom?

    BUCHANAN: I think he's affirmative action all the way.

    MATTHEWS: Oh, it's an affirmative action case. But there's no mystery about it. It's just affirmative action, as you see it?

    BUCHANAN: Oh, I think he's at those schools, sure.

    MATTHEWS: But you don't think he had outside help getting into these schools?

    BUCHANAN: Well, look, I think all he's got -- look, Chris, you know how the system works. You apply. He's an African-American kid at a time when everybody's saying let's bring those guys in, give them an advantage, move them ahead.


    MATTHEWS: So it's about race, then? It's about --

    BUCHANAN: It's about whether he benefited from affirmative action. Is that an illegitimate question [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/26/11]

    “Offended” Buchanan Stands Up For “White Males,” Falsely Claiming Only “White Males” Died At Gettysburg, Normandy. Contrary to Buchanan's claim, “nearly 2,000” African-Americans took part in the Normandy invasion, at least some of whom apparently died as a result, and at least one woman and one African-American were reportedly killed in the Gettysburg campaign. [Media Matters, 2/29/08] From the February 28, 2008, edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

    BUCHANAN: Did you see Howard Dean, though?

    CARLSON: Well, let's put it up on the screen, Howard Dean's remarks.


    CARLSON: I have it right here. He was at Georgetown. This is from The Georgetown Voice. “Dean contrasted the two party's presidential candidates. He said that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field, quote, 'looks like America, while the all-white male Republican field looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.' ” I must say, I'm not going to sit by a single more time and listen to someone slag on, quote, “white men.”

    BUCHANAN: You know, I am off --

    CARLSON: Television hosts do that. It makes me want to puke.

    BUCHANAN: I am offended by this. Look, what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy. Why is it, Bill --

    PRESS: Pat, Pat --

    BUCHANAN: -- OK to mock --

    PRESS: Pat, Pat, Pat --

    BUCHANAN: -- backhand white -- no wonder you're losing white males.

    PRESS: What do you have, white guilt? Look, here's -- Howard Dean --

    BUCHANAN: No, I think you guys are self-hating white folks.

    PRESS: No, Howard Dean told the truth. If you look at the Democrats on stage when they were up there, you had a Latino, you had an African-American, you had a woman, you had young, you had old. And then you contrast that with the 10 Republican all-white men over 50.

    BUCHANAN: He didn't say all 10. He said these two look like America.

    PRESS: No, no. No, no, no. No.

    BUCHANAN: In other words, it's not just -- every president has been a white male, Bill, every one.

    PRESS: Pat, Pat, Pat, he said Democratic candidates. And it is true, if you look at the diversity -- if you look at this country, Pat, at the population of this country, they are not all white, older white men.


    PRESS: That's the point he's making. He is absolutely right.

    CARLSON: Let me just say this. I think -- and I'm not just -- you know, people say, “Oh, you're a white man. That's why you're defending white men.” Actually, I'm being sincere. I'm defending this purely on principle. I don't think that you ought to cavalierly attack people based on their race or gender. And consider if that was any other group. “Well, this group is so-and-so or such-and-such.” There would be an uproar. I think when you allow this kind of gar -- I mean, Howard Dean's an -- not very smart, so he gets kind of a pass, but a lot of smart people say this sort of thing.

    PRESS: He is telling the truth. It's the same thing -- when you look at the floor of the Democratic convention and look at the great diversity on the floor, in terms of men and women and people of color, and then you look at the floor of the Republican convention, and it looks like the, you know --

    BUCHANAN: What's wrong with that?

    PRESS: -- the White Person Society meeting with hardly -- not that many women and hardly any minorities at all.

    CARLSON: Well, you're right. I mean, you're certainly speaking right. No, no, but hold on.

    PRESS: One reflects America, and the other doesn't.

    CARLSON: Wait, hold on. Hold on.

    PRESS: That's all. That's all.

    CARLSON: You're right that there -- it is much more diverse, the Democratic convention. I've been to all of them in the past 20 or 15 years. But there's a hostility toward white men --

    BUCHANAN: Exactly.

    CARLSON -- that's not even cloaked and that, by the way, is wrong. It's immoral to attack people because of their skin color. Period.

    PRESS: There is no hostility towards white men.

    CARLSON: Oh, B.S., Bill. Come on.

    PRESS: You guys -- no, you guys are --

    CARLSON: I hear it at work. I hear it here. I hear it in politics.

    BUCHANAN: You're saying because it's a woman and an African-American, only those two -- it is morally superior in some way to the Republicans because their candidates are white males.

    PRESS: No, no. No, no, no, no. May I say it as clearly as I can? If you want to reflect what this country is all about, OK, you don't put 10 old white men on the stage. Period.

    BUCHANAN: Look, they didn't put them on. These are guys who ran for the nomination of their party. I would remind you, every single president has been a white male. Is that something wrong with America?

    PRESS: All right. You know what? That's going to change this year, Pat.

    BUCHANAN: Is that wrong with America?

    PRESS: That's going to change this year. We're going to have a woman or we're going to have an African-American as president. It's going to change this year.

    CARLSON: Let me just bring up one final white man, and that's Roger Clemens. [MSNBC, Tucker, 2/28/08]

    Buchanan's Anti-LGBT History

    UPDATED: For a history of Buchanan's bigotry against LGBTs, GO HERE.