You are here

In the presidential election, I expect to support


he is an antisemite! a man pretending to be a christian no get money from a druggie,no choose a gay as an assistant,no writes articles suporting to christophobics syrian government and hezbollah,and no support to militant proabortionist lenora fulani.

Did you read Auster’s Frontpage article at all, MS? Can you refute any of the points made there? Buchanan has gone far beyond being critical of Israel - a socialistic nation which has plenty of room for improvement to be sure. He essentially supports its destruction - even to the point of making commmon cause with Islamic jihadis who clearly wish to destroy the US as well. How is that a “perfectly reasonable geo-political stance”?

He clearly states that there are legitimate arguments against the war and even gives an example of an area where the neocons should be called to account. The neocons have been ridiculously hypocritical in their simultaneous support of war against Islamic states and mass immigration of Muslims into the West. Did Buchanan actually hammer them on this? No. Instead, he adopts a mirror image of the neocon madness: end immigration to the west but allow a Palestinian “right of return” into Israel. Mass immigration of incompatibles is destructive for both. This is hardly surprising, though. Israel is part of the West - part of the very thing Buchanan theoretically wants to defend.

Since the Israeli birthrate is low - like the rest of the Judeo-Christian west, the Muslims will likely achieve majority status within Israel itself in another 50 years or so. The bitter irony of Buchanan is that the Israelis themselves would greatly benefit from reading the “Death of the West” and taking appropriate remedies. The book should be required reading in Israeli schools in addtion to all other Western schools.

The neocons have been ridiculously hypocritical in their simultaneous support of war against Islamic states and mass immigration of Muslims into the West.

How is this hypocritical? It seems that the neo”cons” are simply pursuing a very democratic agenda, which includes war against non-democratic states and, at the same time, an open (and unwise) immigration policy. The two seem perfectly consistent with each other, as they are both part of the modern democratic order.

From what I posted, you’re right - there’s no hypocrisy. It’s what I forgot to mention from the Auster article that illustrates neocon hypocrisy. Necons are all in favor of mass Muslim immigration to the US and to Europe, but when the leftist historian Tony Judt proposed the same remedy for Israel, they denounced the idea. As Buchanan said, they went ballistic.

In other words, folks like David Frum have no problem inviting Muslims into this country and replacing the populations of the US and Europe, but have a big problem with doing the same to Israel. Buchanan’s error is that instead of consistently stating that Muslims should not be allowed into any of the above-mentioned countries, he took the mirror image of the neocon position: Allow Muslims to take over Israel but keep them out of Europe and America.

You’re absolutely right about Neocon hypocrisy. But, I detect this hypocrisy even in those on the pro-Israel American Right who eschew the label “Neocon”. In the end Israel is largely irrelevant to US interests, and the fact that we’re even having this discussion shows how off-course the American conservative movement really is. Focus, people, focus.

You conclude that because Buchanan criticizes Israel, he “essentially supports its destruction.” Such an inference is wildly absurd on its face. But, it’s one increasingly made by the Israel Firsters, who are becoming more hysterical as antiwar conservatives like Buchanan grow bolder. Yes, I think the key to much of the hatred of Buchanan is that he puts American interests over those of Israel. Or, that he dares even to distinguish between the two in the first place (after all, Israel is not the 51st state. Right?). It^s important to take in consideration the only resolution affecting europen interests was^nt approved,practices from unfair commerce are very common in corrupted euro corporations.

Mysterious Stranger writes (today, 6:36pm),

“Homosexuality isn’t just a private vice but a sin. No sodomite will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. While secular political ideas are vigorously attacked at this website, violations of Bible commandments are considered only simple vices? Info about Raimondo and Buchanan’s speeches appears in an old article at the Constitution Party website (offlink, but cached on Google). Your opinion of the drug user Taki?”

Considering private sins of others none of my business doesn’t mean I can’t condemn them in principle. If they’re private I shouldn’t know about them in the first place. If for some reason I do, they’re not necessarily going to keep me from liking someone personally (apart from obvious exceptions) or make me condemn his job performance. We can approve of someone’s job performance without him necessarily being someone we’d invite over for a beer, and the inverse is true. We will not be the ones weighing his sins or ours in the balance at the Last Judgment. Though disapproval of vice and sin doesn’t entail sticking one’s nose into private lives, in some circumstances of course private vices and sins are fair game for scrutiny: when they involve crimes (wife-beating, child-molesting); when they involve character traits or perversions that unsuit someone for certain jobs or responsibilities (habitual drinking certainly unsuits someone to pilot a passenger plane or drive a school bus; open homosexuality in a man unsuits him to be a scoutmaster who takes young boys far into the woods for days, let’s say, though it’s obviously irrelevant for most occupations and seems to enhance suitability for certain ones); etc. Clinton’s private life with younger women was fair game because the organized lesbians who very strongly influence the Dem Party had themselves for two decades loudly demanded, and succeeded in obtaining, public scrutiny and punishment of mutually-consenting liaisons between, as they put it, “older powerful men and younger powerless women,” and had humiliated and ruined lots of Republican men and military men on that basis with, of course, Bill & Hillary’s and the whole Dem Party’s full approval. That whole outlook was virtually part of their party platform. So, when Bill not only did it, but did it far worse than anybody whom the Dem machine had already humiliated and ruined for it, it simply was not possible to do other than publicly scutinize him for it (and of course it was the sweetest poetic justice). The Dems brought that entirely on themselves. On the other hand I see no justification for public scrutiny of Martin Luther King’s private love-life. I know nothing about Taki’s drug use other than the story he himself described in one column about being caught with cocaine at an airport, and lightly sentenced or fined or something. While I disapprove of illicit drug use in general I don’t see where it renders Taki unfit to be a conservative pundit and editor. I see no basis apart from that on which his private life is of critical interest. On the other hand I do think President Bush’s history of alcoholism is relevant: I agree with at least one pundit’s speculation that Bush’s need to concentrate on “not reaching for the bottle” when the pressure builds may well be interfering with his ability to concentrate on actually solving problems correctly.

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.


no kurds fight and kill assyrians-orthodoxs(,assyrians christians)chaldeans(,kurdish patriotic union and kurdish democratic party are muslims groups led by terrorists,they fight against arabic muslims,pagan and satanic islam teaches hatred and war against kafir.

in sin,and in persecution against our brothers and sisters in christ in middle east:

Note from moderator: I’ve deleted the remainder of an extremely long comment that’s only tangentially related to the poll. If Mysterious Stranger wants to put this material forward he should link to it from a much shorter comment or register and post it as an entry in the forum.

Does this guy have a day job? MM

please erase former post and edit this.

Tell her{bethlehem}, that the lord shall watch over her, and may she never be afraid because she helped this world.

o.k. mr. kalb erase former post and includes this.

Would it change your mind if it was scientifically determined (by those experts you so dislike) that homosexuality was a genetic condition like diabetes?

Also i forgot to delete the stupid person thing (2nd sentence), this is from me argueing with a friend of mine on AIM.

Replying to Myst. Str. (today, 3:27pm): The problem isn’t the existence of homosexuals but their attempt to “mainstream” their perversion. The forcible mainstreaming of homosexuality is unacceptable, regardless of homosexuality’s cause. The best homosexuals can hope for is toleration (the toleration they’ve always been shown, incidentally), never acceptance: homosexuality must lurk, and that can never change.

Thus, regardless of what causes homosexuality there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage,” nor can there ever be any such thing. Period. End of story. Regardless of what causes homosexuality there is no justification for punishing people who denounce it as the perversion it is, whether in the lay world or from the pulpit. Regardless of what causes homosexuality there is no justification for forcing the Boy Scouts to accept scout masters for young boys who are openly homosexual men. Regardless of what causes homosexuality there is no justification for forcing printers to print wedding invitations for homosexual “weddings” against their sense of morality. Regardless of what causes homosexuality there is no justification for teaching in the public schools from the tenderest age that it is normal, even in some ways desirable and preferable, a perfectly fine option in life. It’s not, and it’s an abomination to teach that it is. Homosexuality is a biological defect at best and at worst a willful, disgusting sexual perversion, not something normal to be mainstreamed by force and power-usurping leftist judicial fiat.

I don’t “judge” individuals who practice homosexuality in private. We all have our crosses to bear in this life, me included and I for one am far too busy dealing with my own private defects to spend time sticking my nose into those of others. What will never be accepted, however, by those with a moral sense whether they be hetero or homo, is the attempt to mainstream homosexuality. We all have our weaknesses, vices, sins, defects and, some of us, our sexual perversions. Regardless of their cause—willful or innate—a sense of shame, decency, and respect normally motivates us to strive to correct them and, where we fail, to at least keep them to ourselves. My God, we don’t go around trumpeting them, or trying to push them on society!

I don’t stick my nose into homosexuals’ private lives. Let them not stick their private lives in front of my nose, or attempt to pervert society, and we’ll get along fine.

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.


In a new piece up tonight at Paul Craig Roberts, long a very vociferous and harsh critic of Bush’s open borders policy and of the invasion of Iraq, forecasts a Bush win in November:

“Democrats should face it: they are incompetent and Bush will be reelected.”

What sounds strange later in the piece is the way this staunch conservative seems to call upon Kerry to get his act together and do whatever it takes to beat Bush:

“With less than two months to go before the election, John Kerry is yet to address a single important issue. […] What has become of the bravery that John Kerry demonstrated in Vietnam? If Kerry fails in his duty to force a debate on real issues, Americans will reelect an administration that will squander our treasure and the blood of our sons in the Middle East.” (The Roberts column is entitled, “John Kerry, Do Your Duty” …!!)

We live in very strange times indeed when the GOP fields a candidate whom one of the nation’s most prominent and respected conservatives wishes would be defeated by the most left-wing individual in the U.S. Senate, a man further to the left even than Ted Kennedy. We are seeing, yes, “the world turned upside down.”

I certainly oppose Bush but could never support an extreme radical leftist like Kerry, even if only as a tactic to help ensure getting rid of the former. Little things known as principles would get in the way…

It does need to be said what an appallingly lousy candidate Kerry is. As recently as about three weeks ago I wouldn’t have dreamed he’d be this lackluster and, frankly, this incompetent. Kerry definitely is much worse a candidate than Howard Dean would have been. He’s so dull that, charisma-wise, he makes someone like Michael Dukakis look like Bill Clinton. As a result the pathetic, incompetent, and contemptible Bush, who I’d thought hadn’t a prayer, might actually pull it off.


Gee I dunno but lately he seems to be … singing a different tune, at any rate …

“Patrick Buchanan recently called for the impeachment of George Bush […]”

Hey some people are slow learners—it could happen to anybody! … Cut the guy some slack for crying out loud! …

(Meantime if anyone wants to buy framed copies of of the above quote drop me an e-mail … Embellished with gold leaf too—you’re sure to wants extras for gifts … I think I’m gonna be able to retire on what I’m gonna make on this …)

Long live free Flanders!


I haven’t narrowed down my list yet, so I voted “Other.” Two of the poll choices are on my list: Nader and Peroutka. I have other alternatives in mind, including writing in Tom Tancredo’s or someone else’s name—such as Jim Kalb, Lawrence Auster, Peter Brimelow, Joe Guzzardi, or Steve Sailer, for example…  : - ) Under no circumstances—no circumstances whatsoever—could I cast a vote for President Bush, positively one of the worst presidents it is in my power to even imagine. He’s worse than Bill Clinton was—if anyone could ever have imagined that in their wildest dreams.


I will vote for either Mr.Peroutka or Mr. Cobb or Mr. Nader in order that the Constitution Party, the Green Party, or the Reform Party will attain/retain Major Party Status in my state of Minnesota.

I will not vote for the cousins of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, nominated by the Democrat or Republican Parties.

Just exactly who are the cousins of Napoleon I? I would like to know. How are they like Napoleon? What exact policies of theirs are like Napoleon’s? If you provide any specifics I will show you how you are completely wrong. Napoleon had very little in common with the post-1960’s social democracy.

Dear Senor Franco,

Napoleon—Half 12th cousin 4 times removed—Sen. Kerry
Napoleon—Half 12th cousin 6 times removed—President Bush