I'm glad Uncle Pat's felt comfortable speaking his mind lately. It's liberating for him, and helps us remember who and what he is.

As of March, 1939, Fidel Castro was 13 years old. Did he go on a killing spree at his confirmation or something?

This is sickening.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, his arguement makes sense from an amateur game theorist's perspective. What makes the article, and his other writings on the period, so reprehensible is his blithe disregard of the holocaust. Notice how he tosses off the line "...the trains began to roll to the camps". He has earned his reputation as an apologist to Hitler and perpetrators of genocide. The camps were in the east for a reason.

Does PB use a research assistant? I've been trying to figure out how he could know enough history to pose the questions he does without knowing the answers that demolish his thesis.

Or he just a lying, prejudiced sack of ****?

I guess that's the simplest theory.

So evidently Uncle Pat never read the secret codicils to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact where Hitler and Stalin divided up Poland.

The clown is scum. Stupid scum, but scum nonetheless

clearly, the Poles asked for it, putting their army on the border near Poznan and all that!

"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?"

Um... his gigantic Army and Air Force?

His completely unsustainable, except by conquest of land and oil, gigantic Army and Air Force and Navy?

His testing out said Air Force
in the Spanish Civil War?

Also note his throwaway line:
"Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel."

Completely unrelated to anything. Perhaps inserted to bolster his view that the US were the savages and the Germans were the civilized ones. Sieg Heil, Pat.

Every time Pat Buchanan and the rest of his fellow pundits apologize or try to rationalize Hitler, they're just laying another paving stone on the road to fascism. Of course this has been the conservative goal since McCarthy with all the various "Wars on" and "law and order".

This is the culture war that Pat and other social conservatives have been trying to bring about since the '50's. I'll give them credit for persistence, if not intelligence.

Well! Talk about bad taste!

"Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
-- Pat Buchanan, expressing his revisionist views, challenging the fact that diesel exhaust was used to gas thousands of Jews at Treblinka, and discussing "group fantasies of martyrdom" in The New Republic, October 22, 1990

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/buchanan.htm

I'm amazed, given his connections to the Nixon administration, Pat Buchanan admits that Pinochet killed a lot of people.

Don't let Hannity hear about this!

When a woman like her uses public airwaves, with access to millions of wonderful citizens of America, and calls some of the most despicable, unspeakable hate mongers of history brilliant, then something is lacking with her intelligence.

This is a constant reminder of how careful we need to be when we talk about hate, because hatred is always present. We need to make sure we are careful and that hatred doesn't rear it's ugly head.

'I'd like for her to think about some older Holocaust survivor having that comment beamed into their home while they are enjoying the freedom that this beautiful country provides and having to listen to her disgusting comments." Rabbi Chaim Cunin

Would this apply to Pat??

.
Mike Godwin is a Nazi.

Just kidding.

But Pat Buchanan certainly is a great apologist for the "National Socialist German Worker's Party," as was.

Ironically, it's the 70th anniversary of the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact between Hitler's deliberately misbranded "National Socialists" and Stalin's own brand of "socialism."

The pact forever split real socialists from communists by dividing up Eastern Europe and paving the way for WWII. The Poles are not celebrating the anniversary this week. The Russians are blaming whoever. The Germans are still trying to apologize.

Meanwhile, the Right keeps drifting further Nazi-ward in America with every utterance by people like Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck and their tea-bagging fan-atics. I'll bet they've both read "Mein Kampf," where Hitler gave fair warning of the coming conflagration. They both seem to have picked up a few tips: Conflating socialism with Fascism among them. And, of course, the "Big Lie."

It's not a bad thing to cry "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if the theater is actually on fire. If these guys are not Nazi's, it's not for lack of trying.
.

In 1924 Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. (I believe that readers in Germany are legally disallowed to click on that link, which is to an English translation.) In Volume Two, Chapter XIV, we read:

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states...

and so on. It is clear that Hitler planned war against Russia as early as 1924.

Don't try to tell me that Pat Buchanan has never read Mein Kampf!

Hilter was insane, but did he really plan to conquer the whole planet? Or just a bunch of neighboring countries?

Not trying to minimize this, but anyone who was motivated by the fear that Hilter could literally take over the world was in thier own wacky place.

Remember Molly Ivins describing Pat's rousing speech at the 1988 (or was it '92?) Republican Convention:

"The speech was so much better in the original German."

Agave, you're right. And the Romans only conquered all the world they could find at the time.

Hitler never planned on holding the Challenger Deep,
or central Antarctica. So to think he planned to conquer
THE WORLD is outrageous.

Now all of Europe and western Asia, that's a mere bagatelle.

Buchanan's interpretations sounds to me like it's heavily borrowed from that of AJP Taylor, who caused a big stir in 1961 with The Origins of the Second World War which argued, basically, that Hitler was a careening opportunist and had no plan for general war -- it was all just a big accident with blame shared all around.

The book made a huge splash but has not held up well for the most part. It'd be pretty funny if Taylor was Buchanan's major inspiration because Taylor was a flaming socialist.

anyone who was motivated by the fear that Hilter could literally take over the world was in thier own wacky place.

You may recall that he had a couple of allies, each of which had rather ambitious conquering plans of its own in other parts of the world. The Americas seem not to have been on anyone's immediate hit list but aside from that it wasn't an outrageous fear.

Pat's just disappointed he never got to fulfill his true destiny as Gauleiter of New York.

Not trying to minimize this, but anyone who was motivated by the fear that Hilter could literally take over the world was in thier own wacky place.

As contrasted with those who think that he wouldn't have tried. Because Hitler showed such restraint at all times.

Seriously, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or was it just a case of the million-monkeys-typing, and you put your name to it?

By 1939 Hitler had killed thousands but Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths. The Holocaust began in earnest in 1942. Far right British journalists and historians have questioned whether Poland was worth (as they see it) the empire.
This guy makes the case well. http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/churchill-full.html
I am not an historian and I haven't looked into it deeply. But I think questioning the decision to go to war is a legitimate question and not akin to Holocaust denial.

The Americas seem not to have been on anyone's immediate hit list

Or North or South America, Africa, Australia, China....

The point I didn't fully make is that Buchanan's argument is that war was waged against Hilter because it was believed he "was out to conquer the world".

Buchanan says he wasn't so waging war against him was wrong.

I'm calling BS because I don't think that was really the motive, defending "all of Europe and western Asia" was and that was right.

The Americas seem not to have been on anyone's immediate hit list but aside from that it wasn't an outrageous fear.

Which is of course the point. Hitler wasn't in the process of taking over the world - only Bond villains try things like that. We didn't fight the Nazis to stop them conquering our nation, we fought them because they were expansionist fascists. The Nazis weren't an existential threat to the US, they were an existential threat to the possibility of human freedom in Europe.

And that's why Pat Buchanan apologizes for Hitler - because he doesn't think our involvement in WWII was necessary, since Hitler didn't threaten the US. And also because Pat Buchanan is the closest thing this country has to a democratic Nazi - Blood and Soil and all that.

I'm calling BS because I don't think that was really the motive, defending "all of Europe and western Asia" was and that was right.

Yes, in 1941, the Americas were probably not on Hitler's To-Do list for the next 2-3 years. And no doubt, after taking over European powers such as Russia/USSR, he would have been satisfied. But FDR, that old bocialist, was a-skeered and quakin' in his shoes, and so reacted out of unjustifiable panic. If he had just waited ...

The Nazis weren't an existential threat to the US, they were an existential threat to the possibility of human freedom in Europe.

Not an immediate threat. But conquerors have a funny habit of trying to keep expanding their empire. Except for Hitler, no doubt.

Nein my American friends, I am absolutely not going to be threatening your lands or people! As they say in Czechoslovakia, "You Kan Always Trust, A Man With Facial Bush!". Oh, those American boats I ordered sunk before you entered the war you ask? Perfectly legal via international laws on munitions running! And I always obey international law, especially those dealing with munitions! No, there's nothing to worry about at all with regards to good old Adolphy boy!

Now excuse me I've got a krystal... sorry, I mean a koffee nacht to arrange... wait a moment! Is that international jewry I can see on your Wall Street there? And what's this? Negroes in your fields? Fuck that treaty shit, you nation of miscegenation of untermenschen! Hitler SMASH!

""The Americas seem not to have been on anyone's immediate hit list""

"Or North or South America, Africa, Australia, China...."

Um, no... From Wikipedia:
- Japanese forces also achieved naval victories in the South China Sea, Java Sea and Indian Ocean and bombed the Allied naval base at Darwin, Australia.

- In North Africa, the Germans launched an offensive in January, 1942.

- The second Japanese invasion attempted to destroy China's main fighting force.

so I take it that Pat Buchanan would have been happy to hand over all of Europe to Hitler's Germany, so long as he didn't go much further than that?

Poor Pat, deprived forever of the opportunity to point to the success of Nazi-ruled Europe as a model for our society. Deprived forever of the opportunity to see a Jew-free, gypsy-free, gay-free, socialist-free Europe.

"But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler . . . was out to conquer the world?"

I guess ol' Pat missed that chapter in Mein Kampf about Lebensraum and the destiny of the Aryan race.

Which is kind of odd since his own writings suggest he's read the rest of the book quite closely.

Maria -
How dare you make those outlandish claims! Damn you and your advanced research skills!

If I remember my history, we went to war against Germany because we had been attacked by their ally, Japan. Many in this country at that time were sympathetic with Hitler's anti-sematism (we even refused asylum to a shipload of Jewish refugees, with full knowledge of what their fate would be). Pat Buchanan and his ilk only exemplify the fact that those sentiments have not been erradicated, in this country. The fact that they have forums all over the media, these days, is truly disturbing....

@Padraig:

I thought that the root of Pat's beef with US involvement in WW2 was that it led to a permanent enlargement of the role of the federal government in American society (beyond that accomplished by the New Deal), as well as the discrediting and death of the isolationist movement in American politics.

It could well be that Pat is also a Nazi/fascist sympathizer, though I have not read enough of his writings to vouch for that and I'm reluctant to engage in that sort of name-calling without solid proof...

@judyinnm:

If I remember my history, we went to war against Germany because we had been attacked by their ally, Japan.

We went to war with Germany because Germany declared war on the US the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

If Germany had not done so (highly doubtful they would have declined to do so since they were allied with Japan), I wonder if the US would have declared war on Germany. Certainly the Europeans wanted us to do so, but I could imagine the isolationist movement trying to contain the war to killing Japanese (a much easier sell in America) rather than expanding it to killing Nazis which had not committed aggression against the US.

I guess ol' Pat missed that chapter in Mein Kampf about Lebensraum and the destiny of the Aryan race.

No, silly, "Lebensraum" means "Living Room", and everyone knows that Hilter was branching out from house painting, and trying to move into Interior Design. And Mein Kampf loosely translates to "My Camp", and it was clearly a forerunner of the minimalist approach to furnishing - cots, tents, the whole shebang.

Pat Buchanan knew this, having read it so many times.

Hitler's allies had moved into Africa (Italy) and mainland Asia (Japan) before he attacked Poland. World domination as a goal looks like a good bet to me.

And how interesting to see Pat sticking up for Pinochet!

Just a side issue, but if Nazis are, as we hear so often these days, a bunch of liberals, why do they have to rely on the likes of Pat Buchanan to defend them?

I wonder if the US would have declared war on Germany. Certainly the Europeans wanted us to do so

As did FDR. Remember that victory in Europe was the first priority, even though the Japanese attacked us & were probably a greater immediate threat than the Germans.

We would have had to go to war w/ Germany eventually anyway, if the North Atlantic situation had continued & more American warships had been attacked or sunk.

"Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel"

Ummmmm, atom bomb victims, as of March 1939, were "none".

Pat doesn't seem to have too solid a grasp of writing about relative time frames, at the very least.

He also doesn't seem to consider that using nukes to stop the Soviets were part of the NATO agreements and, given that US troops were all over Germany, France and England, where the Soviet armor would have kicked US booty at the time, not so unreasonable as all that.

Building pocket battleships and German armor was just Hitler's way of preventing others from attacking Germany and his attack on Poland was just like George Bush locking up (suspected, maybe) terrorists without trial, or lobbing missiles at cars because a bad guy might be in it. Preemtive strikes are all the rage!

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

"But those mean British and Poles MADE me fight them, and then I just HAD to put millions of Jews in camps and enslave them and gas them and execute them and burn their bodies...(face begins to quiver)... OK, so I had already built those camps, but they were going to be much nicer until they all started PICKING on me (getting all blubbery like Glenn Beck)..I didn't WANT to commit genocide! I didn't WANT to try an conquer and subjugate Europe! Why would I want to do THAT? You think I'm CRAZY? You think I'm STUPID?

Or North or South America, Africa, Australia, China....

O.M.F.G. You did not just say that, did you? Because if you did, you have taken the lead as by far the stupidest person I've seen online, and I've read some of the "writings" of Orly Taitz.

Because if you did, you have taken the lead as by far the stupidest person I've seen online, and I've read some of the "writings" of Orly Taitz.

Then, as BTO would say: "You ain't been around"

To Mr. Buchanan's credit, if the GOP had been in charge back then, it's highly unlikely the US would have entered the war in Europe.

Revisionism for a reason.

What’s wrong A. Serwer? Even with 90% of our anal messaging, biased media in his arsenal, your uneducated, deluded ideologue hero Obama, is finally getting recognized for who he is? Is the demented and absurd logic of this piece, based on your need to attack others, in order to relieve the daily stress you harbor from simply being a loser? It is actually amazing how people like you can continuous launch personal attacks on the people who adhere to reality and recognize the facts. Since, your leftist policy platforms, have never worked and have always failed- everywhere and at any time they have been employed( without exception); don't you ever consider getting a hobby or doing something positive to improve yourself, rather than disparaging others and caressing yourself in private, while you dream of Barack? Get a life loser.

On a good note, how does it feel knowing that our deceptive “Commander and Chief” is losing on all fronts? Unfortunately, I love our Country and unlike you, would never put my personal distain towards someone over the interests of my Country. Obama is the weakness, most naïve, unqualified and dangerously uneducated on the real world presidents we have ever had. He is so driven to change our Country to a socialized, government controlled State that nothing matters. His paramount desire is to completely re-make our Country, to something unrecognizable; where he and his fellow, smart, left-wing, ideologue buddies can instruct us how to live and relieve us from the hassle involved with thinking.

Given that everything Orwellian Obama promulgates and supports lacks intellectual heft, I feel sorry for pitiful empty losers like you. I can imagine how stressful it is to spend all of your time attacking people; this explains why so many irrational left wing radicals, become Conservative when they rich adulthood. Every wonder why the opposite transformation never occurs?

If you had read Sinclair's "It Can't Happen Here," Butler's "War is a Racket," Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," or even Philip Roths recent revisionist history you would know that the Buchanans' ilk were a significant political force in America-and that Hitler thought he didn't need to conquer the US and regretted attacking Britain because he saw a significant number of kindred spirits, people of the same political persuasion and beliefs, who would ally with the Axis powers to defeat Russian Communism. Hitler's inspiration was not German directly, rather the writings of Henry Ford and others in our industrial elite, who then, like today, thought that they had no accountability for their extremist political beliefs and no qualms about using their wealth and power to execute their will.
See also, "Industry and Ideology" and IBM and the Holocaust.

I think Buchanan's point is that the only reason Hitler fought people is that they for some reason wanted to resist his annexation or conquering of their homelands or remove the threat thereof. Had they just capitulated peacefully to Nazi rule there would have been no WWII. Ergo, he's justifying Chamberlain's "let's talk" approach to Hitler.

Which is odd since the conservatives love to trump up Chamberlain and appeasement and capitulation et al whenever Obama suggests we have open dialogue with despots...it is increasingly difficult to wrap your brain around conservative political thought these days...

"Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel"

In 1939? Plutonium wasn't even discovered until February 1941.

Makes one wonder how long it will be before Patty starts scribbling for Lew Rockwell or some other tinfoil hat outfit

Y’all are being too hard on Pat. I’m told he had a troubled childhood, that his father died in a Nazi concentration camp in WW II. See, it was raining and Pat’s father slipped, fell out of the guard tower and broke his neck. Pity.

Speaking of historical revisionists Cris, funny you should say “Since, your leftist policy platforms, have never worked and have always failed- everywhere and at any time they have been employed (without exception)” in a thread about Hitler and World War II. Reminds me of another revisionist rant. You know; the one the lizard-brains were pushing during the run-up to the 2008 election. Something about Democrats being incompetent. How incompetent are they? Well, I’m glad you asked. They are so incompetent, that if Democrats had been running this country during WW II, we’d all be speaking German now. Haw, haw! That’s a knee-slapper! That’s right up there with the “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” rant.

And “anal messaging,” Cris? What’s with the Right’s fixation on the anal? Like, the Right is always complaining about how they’re taking it up the *ss from the Obama Administration. Maybe they mean anal massaging.

Never stand between Pat and a chance to make excuses for Nazis.

Hitler was seeking continental resources (lebensraum, eastern Europe, Ukraine; grain, coal, coke, oil, metals) to be put into German control in order to make it a superpower on par with the growing economic power of the United States. See Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction: the Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" (2007).

Hitler may not have planned on "conquering" the world, but he certainly tried to build a world with three superpowers: Germany, USA and UK empire. He was willing to slaughter 50 million Europeans to make it happen too.

Pat Buchanan would be ridiculous if so many people didn't listen to him.

David Irving made the same case in Hitler's War, but took it a step further. Irving contended that Hitler never intended for the holocaust to occur, and challenged readers to find one document bearing Hitler's signature that ordered the murder of Jews. Irving also made a big deal out of Hitler's admiration for the British, as if that was relevant to anything.

Pat is a tool.

If Hitler wasn't keen on war with the US, why was Germany in the process of designing a transatlantic bomber, and why was the German Navy in the process of building super battleships and even carriers?

Hitler's eagerness for war is demonstrated by his willingness to launch the conflct 4 years earlier than his war planners stated German readiness would be achieved.

As for Danzig, as Shirer said Danzig was just an excuse. The decision to dismember Poland had been made years before

Winston Churchill once famously commented (or is widely reported to have; I'm too lazy to look it up) that "if Hitler had marched on Hell, I'd praise the Devil in the House of Commons". Or something like that.

Well, with old Pat--it seems that Hitler is only the third nastiest world leader involved in the European Theater. Buchanan's number one bogeyman, is of course, Stalin--which isn't entirely unreasonable; given that Uncle Joe was a monster in the same class as Hitler. But number two, it seems, is FDR.

While Pat's right hand has a Strangelove-like tendency to do a sieg heil spontaneously, he's real quarrel, it seems, is with Roosevelt--and not for any foreign policy conduct (though Buchanan often calls FDR a war criminal for various Allied bombing campaigns, including Hiroshima), but simply because Pat so despises the New Deal and any flavor of popular leftist politic in the US.

And thus--to paraphrase Churchill--you get the embarassing spectacle of Buchanan occasionally coming to Hitler's defense. In Buchanan's worldview, it seems, the Final Solution is less of an evil than the New Deal. Not because the extermination of European Jewry and numerous other ethnic and political minorities wasn't bad--but because left-wing politics, even in a context such as the US during the Depression--is so much worse.

Or course, it was Truman and not FDR that ordered the nuking of Japan--brain fart on my part--but that still doesn't prevent Buchanan from calling Roosevelt all sorts of nasty things.

from dsmith: "By 1939 Hitler had killed thousands but Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths. The Holocaust began in earnest in 1942."

First of all, Pat compares Hitler to Pinochet and Castro( . . .Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet ‘s, or Fidel Castro’s) and not Stalin. Hitler may have had fewer victims than Stalin, but, as your comment points out, Pat's statement is ridiculous.
Secondly, the holocaust started long prior to 1942; 1942 was just the start in the shift of how victims were killed.

Finally--Jimo: "Never stand between Pat and a chance to make excuses for Nazis."
Marvelous dude. I think we ought to get Pat a t-shirt that says that.

I really don't understand the frothing at the mouth hatred liberals have for Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan opposed the gulf war when half the Democrats in congress signed off on it. Pat Buchanan has never argued that Hitler was a great guy and the US should have handed Europe over to him. His thesis concerns the diplomatic back and forth in 1939 concerning Czechoslovakia and Poland. He supports his argument with facts and lays out a plausible argument that, had the allies (Britain and France) been consistent and more reasoned, they could have avoided the war starting in 1939. He does not suggest Hitler was peace loving or even that Hitler wouldn't have started the war later. For the record, once the war started, it was for Hitler essentially a never-ending war of conquest and then a never ending retreat. War often starts out as one thing and becomes something else. Pat Buchanan is many things. He is not an apologist for Hitler, sad that Nazi Germany didn't prevail in WWII or in any way hates America or its contribution in that sod, horrible war.

What any of this has to do with Pat Buchanan's views about Justice Sotomayer is beyond me.

Also, further for the record, to the people living under their yoke, there was no difference between fascism and communism. In terms of moral clarity, there was no difference between Hitler and Communism. Liberals love to hit conservatives over the head for allegedly sympathizing with fascism but are reluctant to question their own sympathies for communist regimes or insurgencies. Ignorant, sanctimonious hypocrisy is not monopolized in this country by either the right or the left.

I really don't understand the frothing at the mouth hatred liberals have for Pat Buchanan.

Well, it's not really "frothing at the mouth hatred", it's more like revulsion for the positions he takes. That he's a mean, dishonest, anti-Semitic, isolationist, hypocritical hack might also have something to do with it. But I could be wrong.

Pat Buchanan opposed the gulf war when half the Democrats in congress signed off on it.

So?

He supports his argument with facts ...

Actually, he mostly supports his arguments with suppositions, and tries to pass them off as facts. Not that there's any difference between the two - well, not to right-wingers, that is.

... had the allies (Britain and France) been consistent and more reasoned, they could have avoided the war starting in 1939.

Actually, had they been more reasoned, Chamberlain wouldn't have done what he did. But he apparently figured any peace was better than any war, so we got him waving a paper and XX millions dead by 1945.

Pat Buchanan is many things. He is not an apologist for Hitler, ...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In terms of moral clarity, there was no difference between Hitler and Communism.

Substitute "Stalin" for "Communism", and you have a chance at being correct. Otherwise, you don't. Stalinism - which is what was going on in the USSR until 1954 - is not Communism, and vice versa.

Liberals love to hit conservatives over the head for allegedly sympathizing with fascism but are reluctant to question their own sympathies for communist regimes or insurgencies.

Conservatives love to scream when liberals allegedly use profanity, but are reluctant to question their own sympathies for baby-killers and mass murderers.

See how easy it is to play that game? Of course, my statement is a lot closer to reality than yours.

Ignorant, sanctimonious hypocrisy is not monopolized in this country by either the right or the left.

You're actually right about this. Of course, we won't mention the false-equivalence games conservatives play. "Stop whining about Ann Coulter wanting to blow up the NY Times! Michael Moore was disrespectful to Bush, so you guys are just as bad!!!1!"

Almost forgot ...

What any of this has to do with Pat Buchanan's views about Justice Sotomayer is beyond me.

Well, perhaps if you read Adam's entire post ...

One of Adam's points was that Buchanan gave Hitler more of the benefit of the doubt than he gave Justice Sotomayor. I would guess that she was brought into the post because it was a fairly recent event.

Every time somebody takes Pat's arguments seriously, God kills a baby kitten.
Pat's a hate-filled, tiny-brained, small-f fascist buffoon whose only redeeming feature is that he puts out The American Conservative.
Don't dignify his vomitous rants with discussion - that's like holding a seminar on the profound philosophical thoughts of Glenn Beck. A simple "Buchanan's grasp of history is as feeble as his moral sense" is all that's really required.

Every time somebody takes Pat's arguments seriously, God kills a baby kitten.

That reminds me of something, what could it be? Oh, maybe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natlamp73.jpg

Why I will always have some love for Jay Leno:

When Buchanan was making his run for the Republican presidential nomination, Leno remarked that Pat had picked up an important endorsement.

"Adolph Hitler said he was the son I never had."