You are here

In the presidential election, I expect to support


hello,I’m the same person,asking your opinion about franco,if I was an american I can vote for Kerry,because he can contributes to overthrowing castro and another dictators,although I am aconservative in morality and culture,I am more liberal-in american sense of term-in economics.

The anonymous poster of 11:35 AM writes,

”[…] if I were an American I’d vote for Kerry because he can contribute to overthrowing Castro […].”

It’s not exactly a surprise that a poster capable of writing a thing like that isn’t American. Where is he from—the planet Neptune? I’m sorry, but my guess would be all Earthlings know Fidel Castro is an idol of people like John Kerry, not someone they want to overthrow. These people adore Castro exactly as they adore/adored Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, La Passionaria, Ernesto “Ché” Guévara, Salvador Allende, Khieu Sampan, Joe Slovo, Prof. Noam Chumpsky, and so on. They worship Castro. Overthrow him? Uhhhhh….. no offense, but ….. gee, I sorta don’t think so, amigo….


your answer demonstrate the problem with american conservatism,you can’t appreciate an innocent joke when you reads it,you overreacts to simple words displaying same hypersensitivity you criticizes-with reason,I thinks-in liberals and last but no least you no refers to ideas,proposals-by example writing it is impossible to be conservative in morality and radical in economics or considerating it as an option,or telling me about your proposals,etc. you jumps to assasination of character,personal attacks, are very offensives you must to learn to tale truth with love,no alienate potentials friends,fred if you are treated in same way by person attacking a post about military cards from dead soldiers with bible verse,why you react so?,take it as an advice No as an attack,because if you stand by virtue and morality you can’t do it with offense and agressions.Because it liberals are dominating forces in your country,you can’t win over hearts and minds with these attitude,remember the example rush limbaugh

o.k. where it says tale it must to reads tell; and I was surprised and amused by your violent diatribe against a simple post,and very confused because you appears to thinks americans are the more brilliant people around the universe,no it was Late Senator Robert Taft? who said only 5% from american citizens knows about existence from a country named “united states”-because you everytimes uses the word america in order to talks about your own country I suppose-and oly 1% from american people can ubicates washington d.c. in a map!,when asked by an european itelectual by opinion from americans about decision by washington to get involved in disputes between berberians merchants,turkish government and europen powers to rights to navigation in the mare nostrum.

Mysterious Stranger, your comment was not constructed such that any rational persion would consider it a joke. Indeed, it is very hard to understand what you mean in both comments.

Are you trying to ask: Can one be counted as morally conservative (which in American political discourse typically includes being opposed to abortion, homosexual marriage, racial preferences, the licentious degenerate popular culture, etc.) and at the same time fiscally “radical”?

I would answer that question maybe - depending on what one means by being fiscally ‘radical.’ For example, Pat Buchanan (a Paleoconservative) is morally conservative to the core, yet he opposes the “free-trade / open-borders / outsourcing” agenda of corporate America. I think that he opposes this agenda from moral grounds, instead of opposing them on socialist or utopian grounds like some on the left. The so-called “neoconservatives” are a mirror image of Buchanan and the Paleoconservatives: Neoconservatives are typically liberal on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc., and are much more in favor of globalist caplitalism with the open borders / outsourcing / free trade agenda.

I apologize to Mysterious Stranger for not realizing he was being sarcastic. That said, my admittedly vigorously-worded response was not intended to be aggressive—not at all. It’s just that, as I think Lawrence Auster pointed out not too long ago at VFR, there are claims made and points of view expressed sometimes in internet forums that are so ridiculous they call for sarcasm in reponse, at least in part. At times, sarcasm is the only alternative to flatly ignoring such comments, lest you yourself look ridiculous by taking seriously what doesn’t deserve to be. Mysterious Stranger should also appreciate (I take him for a Spaniard? Is he?) that some Americans (or United Statesans, if Mys. Str. prefers) see the North American Anglo-Saxon nation, race, ethnicity, and ethno-culture as being under nothing less than imminent mortal threat from Democrat and Republican left-wingism at the moment, so there are among us those who will word their sarcasm on certain issues a bit strongly—no offense intended.

In his next post, could this particular Mysterious Stranger give a pen name, to facilitate accurate replies to his comments by others?

“A man who speaketh by flattering and feigned words to his friend spreadeth abroad a net to his steps.”

Proverbs 29:5 (Wycliffe) ( )


o.k. I’m your brother in christ,forgive me and pray for me please,and No my citizenship is no spaniard(from state of spain),although I imagine you try to says hispanic(u.s.a. citizen from mexican origins).

while michael badarik supported to castro in elian gonzalez’s affaire,ron paul endorse to chavez,raimondo supports to socialists milosevic and arafat,and many another paleoconservatives stand opposite to embargo,john kerry talks about castro:

Here’s Myst. Str.’s post with the English smoothened out a bit (please correct me if I got it wrong):

“Yes, Kerry stands against Castro.

“While Michael Badnarik supported Castro in the Elian Gonzalez affair, Ron Paul endorses Chavez, Raimondo supports the socialists Milosevic and Arafat, and many paleoconservatives oppose the embargo, John Kerry talks about Castro: .”

I can’t tell if this post is sarcastic or not. I just read the article Myst. Str. cites, and it says the diametrical opposite of what Myst. Str. seems to be implying. It says Kerry’s whole record suggests that any oppostion to Castro which he may express during his campaign stops in Florida must be taken with a very big grain of salt, since Kerry’s entire previous career points to anything but opposition to Fidel Castro’s government.

When Myst. Str. intends sarcasm, could he please make that more plain?



Regarding the possiblity of voting for a write-in “non-candidate”: I don’t know what Congressman Ron Paul’s stances are on race-replacement immigration, late-term abortion, or the homosexualist agenda but his stance described in these links deserves high praise indeed:

Here, Thrasymachus weighs in:

“This is one of the most heroic statements from a Congressman that I have seen in a long time […].”

( )

And here is Professor Paul Gottfried:

“Reading Ron Paul’s magnificent dissent from House Resolution 676 and its intended celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shows the kind of reeducation (in the good sense) that we on the non-Left have to undertake to combat the managerial therapeutic regime.”

( )


Here at a glance are Ron Paul’s grades on immigration: .

B for “career” and B-minus for “recent performance” aren’t bad at all. He’s joining my list of potential write-in names for November.


with louis farrakhan for vice-president.

reynaldo eirini a leader from cuban exile is his advisor about latin america, and in which way isolationism from buchanan,support from ron paul to hugo chavez,and paleoconservative opposition to embargo and military invasion can contribute to overthrow castro?,and if you hate socialism why samuel francis and taki gives support to socialist milosevic,saddam,arafat and al assad?.

Vote for Kerry if the election is close (anywhere near 45/55 because polls can be awfully bad) in your state (which it looks to be in my state); and vote for anyone but Bush or Kerry (probably the Constitution Party) if the election is not close. Mathematics proves your voting right is more powerful if used in this way: by voting and by voting for or against someone with a chance at winning. Traditionalists and conservatives need every scrap of a vote they can get. The goal is not the election of Kerry but the removal of a right liberal from control of the most powerful party in the world, the Republican Party. Voting elected Churchill, Hitler, Lyndon Johnson, Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.

We will survive under Kerry; nothing ventured, nothing gained; anything worthwhile usually requires sacrifice. Bush and Kerry have already seriously undermined national security by doing next to nothing to control our borders and by advocating a de facto takeover of the U.S. by Mexico and the elimination of the white American culture. Moreover, I wonder how many Americans have been killed, assaulted, battered, maimed, or raped by illegal aliens since 1965? Since Bush was elected? How many more have been the victims of violent crimes by blacks, the constituency that the right and left liberals never hold accountable? And we are protecting Kosovo’s and North Korea’s borders?

Unless a conservative president takes on the immigration problem, we are guaranteed to see America dissolve. If Bush is re-elected, he will stop for four more years any effort by conservatives to make headway on the immigration problem (the National Question) or take back the Republican Party. His leadership in the Congress allows Republicans to vote against any immigration reform, and the Republicans hold a majority.

If you have given up on voting, maybe you play the lottery; as you know, you can’t win unless you buy a ticket. The believers are the ones that hold the power. Most people are too busy thinking about themselves to oppose your efforts at immigration reform, which is going to take sacrifice on other issues. So let them sit at home carping while you take control. P. Murgos.

Perhaps if people realized the enormous power a conservative President would have over immigration, they would be more hopeful about voting. The President with the stroke of a pen could stop illegal immigration today, and there is nothing the Congress would do to stop him. Considering the large support for immigration reform by Congress and by the American people, Congress could legislate nothing the President could not veto successfully. Bush not only fails to twist the arms of open-border’s Republicans, he twists the arms of immigration reformers to oppose reform. Why do you think so many Congressmen are absent from immigration voting opportunities? They fear the wrath of Bush on the one hand and the majority of the American people on the other. All of which is why few reforms are getting through.

Perhaps Mr. Kalb could use his mathematical knowledge to explain what I mean about the power of voting for or against someone in a close race. I have tried it at another site, but I would rather everyone hear it explained better by a mathematician. No obligation. Just a suggestion.

The point doesn’t involve hard-core mathematics, but I think Mr. Murgos is saying that if you’re in Florida in the year 2000 voting for or against Bush puts you among the few hundred people who are deciding the election for the country as a whole, while if you’re in NY neither your vote nor the vote of people like you (for almost any reasonable definition of “like you”) has any chance of affecting who wins so you’ll probably have more of an effect on the process if you swell the vote of the minor party that reflects your real opinions more closely.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

My point is not readily apparent. Let’s say there are 100,000 voters in a district with two major and several minor candidates. 50,000 turn out to vote. 22,000 vote for Bush and 21,000 vote for Kerry and 7,000 vote for the remaining candidates. Bush therefore wins soundly 44% to 42% and is re-elected. But actually only 500 VOTERS not 1000 (1% not 2% ) separate Bush and Kerry. Thus instead of persuading 1001 of the throwaway voters or of the lesser-of-two-evil Bush voters, all conservatives need is a mere 501 voters from the lesser-of-two-evil Bush voters. So the 501 lesser-of-two-evil voters are more powerful than all of the throwaway voters. Of course the throwaway voters are to be respected for their principled stances, as Machiavelli would agree; “throwaway” is not intended as invective but as descriptive of their role in the only kind of politics that exists, power politics. Machiavelli was accurate; politics is all about power not morals, which are to be admired and encouraged in one’s private life. Unused or unfocused power is useless. Vote for freeing the Republican Party from the control of a right liberal not against Bush or for Kerry.

But if Bush or Kerry is going to win no matter what a few conservative or traditionalists do at the voting booth, then show what you stand for by voting for the minor candidate that best reflects your views. Politicians look at such things closely. P. Murgos.

While explaining his ideas on how to vote in the upcoming election, Mr Murgos wrote: “Machiavelli was accurate; politics is all about power not morals, which are to be admired and encouraged in one’s private life.”

Morality is something to be admired and encouraged in one’s private life? That sounds like a liberal position to me.

For shame, sir! What rank pragmatism! Where are your principles?


We live in the here and now where unpleasant, horrible things must be done to survive. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct result of Machiavelli’s Western idea or, at least, consistent with his idea, which I don’t claim to know in a scholarly way. Should my Daddy and a hundred thousand more American Marine and Army soldiers and a million more Japanese soldiers have been sacrificed out of concern over collateral damage? Surely not. Should Navy Seals not slit the throats of humble, loving Iraqi family men? I am not a scholar although I have a post-graduate degree. I learned Machiavelli while listening twice to The Prince on audiotape narrated by the wonderful actor Fritz Weaver; I was laying and painting shoe moulding in my kitchen. (I could have paid someone, but I enjoy working with my hands.) There are so few classics on audio at my local library, and I have so little time. I want to listen more very much, but work, work, and work.

I don’t recall that a formal proposition of liberalism is morality is to be admired and encouraged in the private life. The evidence about contemporary liberalism is to the contrary. Bill Clinton: He is an icon for liberals although he is devoid of private morals. Martin Luther King was a minister AND philanderer, yet he is a liberal icon. The Kennedys, sexually obsessed Catholic adulterers, are liberal icons. Barbara Streisand, another liberal icon, lives in sin with a man not her husband. Kerry, a man that is trying to be Catholic to his credit, is divorced and remarried, once an excommunicable offense. You get the drift.

Liberals believe in freedom, in which they include immorality: for example, adultery (which includes divorce under Catholic law), fornication, sodomy, and the racial cleansing of white people. You see the liberal believes we can’t be free until there is one race, culture, and religion, although they will deny this vehemently and appeal to Orwellian multiculturalism. Perpetuating certain differences is evil to a liberal, as though they have never heard of the Tower of Babel.

I suspect Mr. Cato is quite young and has not thought through things, but I encourage him to continue challenging, for this is a good way to learn. It is one way I learn. P. Murgos.

My comment re morality being a private affair was a jibe at one of the recurring themes in Mr Kalb’s writing. He never tires of telling us how liberalism, as a result of its overemphasis of freedom, aims to restrict morality to the private sphere.

BTW, I’m old enough to be a Vietnam Veteran Against John Kerry. There is nothing you can tell me about the alleged sins of George W. Bush which will convince me that he’s not better than that lying traitor from Massachusetts.

Clearly, I could be wrong, considering Mr. Kalb’s propositions are well thought through. Maybe my idea, if you will, can be reconciled with the idea that liberals want to RESTRICT morality to the private sphere. I did not have in mind restricting morality to the private sphere (although it could be argued that Machiavelli did). Machiavelli seemed to be warning his Prince against appearing too moral publicly, which would, he contended, imply weakness in the minds of his Princes’s rivals and subjects. Machiavelli seemed to be sincerely attempting to describe the world as it is not as he wanted it to be. Stalin, by contrast, was ruthless solely for his own benefit and a cruel man.

I am proposing that one must try to avoid being idealistic to the extreme and was giving examples to make it clear how moral people sometimes must compromise. It is my understanding Catholics have never been pacifistic, which I took (perhaps mistakenly) Mr. Cato’s statements to be implying. One of my premises is Kerry and Bush are not drastically different in their private morals or their public morals as expressed through their proposed policies. This is probably one place where we disagree. Another place is in priorities. There are probably one or more of Kerry’s policies more abhorrent to Mr. Cato than Kerry’s and Bush’s advocacy of a Mexican invasion is to me. The idea is to use one enemy against another in the hopes of eventually defeating both enemies.

Thanks to Mr. Cato for his service in Vietnam and his opposition to Kerry’s policies. I will give him the last word. P. Murgos.

It was only a joke, and a rather weak one at that.

But I’m serious about Kerry. It isn’t his “policies” I oppose so much as his despicable Winter Soldier testimony and leadership of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In my opinion, the man was a traitor to the uniform he wore, and ought to have been disqualified for public office. That he now has the cheek to claim his four-month service in Vietnam as a credential is stunning.

Mr. Murgos’ note above contains a lot of sound voting advice which I for one am going to heed.

In addition, Mr. Murgos writes:

”[…] I wonder how many Americans have been killed, assaulted, battered, maimed, or raped by illegal aliens since 1965? Since Bush was elected?”

This up today at Steve Sailer’s blog, at , sheds a little bit of light on that (Steve’s entry doesn’t have a permalink, so I’ll “paste” it here):

“[Los Angeles County] Sheriff’s officials estimate about a quarter of the 170,000 inmates who cycle through the jail system each year are illegal immigrants. If all those inmates were properly screened, officials estimate they could recommend the deportation of up to 40,000 of them. ‘Our best estimate is we are only touching 10-12 percent of that population,’ Jeffery said. Recent studies have shown that criminal aliens place a large burden on the local criminal justice system. ‘Criminal illegal aliens are currently costing county taxpayers more than $150 million a year and make up more than 25 percent of our jail population,’ said Tony Bell, spokesman for Supervisor Michael Antonovich.”

Mr. Murgos asks, “And we are protecting Kosovo’s and North Korea’s borders?”

I don’t know, but the Bush administration certainly is protecting Iraq’s—they’re attempting to seal it tighter than a drum. Imagine that—spending hundreds of millions of our hard-earned dollars, confiscated in taxes, to close Iraq’s borders, while forcing—yes, forcing—our own to remain wide open. This administration is beneath contempt.

“Unless a conservative president takes on the immigration problem, we are guaranteed to see America dissolve. If Bush is re-elected, he will stop for four more years any effort by conservatives to make headway on the immigration problem […].”

This is exactly right and is of course a big part of what makes a second Bush administration unacceptable.


To me, what’s most remarkable about this poll so far is voters at a conservative site who normally would be a conservative presidential incumbent’s staunchest supporters bar none, are voting against him 70-30! What’s more, he’s perceived as being so bad that some are actually voting for—not just the Dem candidate—but the Dem candidate who happens also to be the most left-wing man in the U.S. Senate, having a voting record actually to the left of Teddy Kennedy, if that can be imagined—so, sort of a male Hillary Clinton—some conservative potential voters are actually voting for the male equivalent of Hillary just in order to be able to see the last of Bush: anything, just so he leaves! And to top it all off, although noises similar to this are being made not just in a Turnabout poll but out in the real world all over the country—conservatives who should love him all want him out, at almost any price—despite all that, and despite the fact that everyone knows that’s what’s going on, the Bush camp is making no gesture, and clearly intends to make absolutely no gesture, none whatsoever, to seem to veer rightward if only for the run-up to the election! They WON’T DO IT! For them (who are, in fact, a kind of extreme radical leftist), rightists like us are lepers. They’d rather touch a leper than pretend to be nice to us even if it’s to save their own necks! That’s what’s utterly remarkable about this poll taken together with what’s going on out in the country.

Prediction: Kerry wins in a walk by ten points—he’ll take it in a landslide easily; won’t even break a sweat. There aren’t words for how bad, how incompetent, and how low Bush is. Thanks to him we’re going to have the male version of Hillary for the next four, probably eight, years. Good bye, Supreme Court—among other things of precious value too numerous to wave good-bye to…


Speaking of which—i.e., Bush-Rove-type radical left-wingism disguised as “compassionate conservatism”—The Ambler’s got a priceless piece up about Canada’s current version of it, entitled “The Mating Call of the Loser,” at . (Or the first third or so is priceless, the rest still good but more for policy-wonk types.)


Excellent points by Mr. Scrooby, and delightful news about Rush, my hero at one time. Either here or at Mr. Auster’s View From the Right is a link to a news article by a Republican fundraiser for the $2,000 and above givers. He gave up calling because they almost unanimously declined to contribute because of Bush’s amnesty proposal. Moreover, they are going out of their way to write the RNC telling them why (which is exactly what I began preparing a letter for before I saw the article). I was never a $2,000 RNC donor. I am a 0 donor this year.

Polls are often grossly inaccurate, so I am seriously considering voting for Kerry no matter what the polls say. The lousy pollsters did not even come close to predicting the enormous conservative takeover of the Congress in the early 1990’s.

I keep forgetting my signature. P. Murgos. Sorry.