You are here

In the presidential election, I expect to support


When you describe yourself as “fairly Calvinist”, are you from a background such as Southern Baptist or traditionalist Anglican, both of which have Calvinist roots, or something else? (And you are from the U.S. and living there, right?)

Just curious - I, too, find it interesting to see what sorts of people, and from where, share a traditionalist Christian outlook, regardless of nationality or which particular Christian tradition/affiliation to which they belong.

PCA Presbyterian, actually. Most of my family ws from PCUSA (before it became such) and left in disgust before the merger. There are a few Catholics and Lutherans in the Clan as well. My wide was raised in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, who are likely stricter Calvinists than the PCA. (Still a few churches left in the South.)

Congratulations Andrè. Your vocabulary is enormous and your word order is good. But remember to use periods instead of commas to end sentences. Capitalize the first word after a period. Use shorter and simpler sentences without a lot of punctuation such as commas and dashes. Don’t feel bad. Many native English-speakers write long complicated sentences with a lot of commas. Comma usage is difficult for the best native writers. This is why I suggest using short sentences to a nonnative.

I suspect you are not proofreading your comments but are just writing and then pushing the post button. Except for rare writers such as Shakespeare, almost every educated person must proofread their writing at least once. And they almost always find a mistake.

Put two spaces between a period and the beginning of the next sentence. This is often needed after a period because the computer program that this Website uses to format your writing can fail to recognize the single space in your word processing program. Paul Henrì.

… between orthodox Anglicans of Third World origin and apostate Anglicans in the First World, nevertheless, I’m disturbed by this development; those “Nigerians in the United States” should not be encouraged by anyone in Anglican leadership, in the US or Akinola, to think of themselves primarily as such, but as Americans (why shouldn’t they try to blend in with other black Americans, for example), and instead of allowing a select group the chance to opt out from the wider apostate church - on an *ethnic* basis; rather, agitate on behalf of all conservative, Bible-believing Episcopalians, either to be able to secede from the apostate church, and form or join more traditionalist Anglican communions, or to rally the slumbering masses of apathetic Episcopalians against the injustices of their leadership, and work for their overthrow and the subsequent installation of orthodox leadership.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not at all opposed to people identifying with their ethnic heritage or racial heritage; in fact I believe in such myself - I simply contend that the division between orthodoxy and heresy is far more important than that between different ethnicities / races - but, that said, I hate the oh-so politically correct double standard which will consider allowing non-white Christians who have a problem with their non-Christian, satanic leadership, to leave, while whites must stay put, or only leave as individuals, not en masse. It’s like the gun registration issue here in Canada, which has seen some aboriginal people lobby against the gun registry separately from the fight of white, rural conservatives against the same, arguing that they should be exempt from it as a group, because they need weapons to hunt, if they wish to live according to their traditional lifestyle. (Never mind that their truly most traditional way of hunting involved archery, not guns…) That ticks me off to no end - all of us opposed to the gun registry should stand against it together, and not allow the government to divide us by ethnicity and the like. But, for many aboriginal Canadians and, based on this story, presumably many Nigerian-Americans, it would seem that racial and ethnic group politics trump any considerations of fighting for true justice for all people, not just their own. Which is precisely why white Christians need to, while holding on to their various Christian traditions’ doctrinal distinctives, nevertheless learn to, on political matters, see past them, and see our common interests as white Christians, as members of one civilization, Western civilization; and stand up for ourselves, and our rights, as a group.

(To his credit, I realize that Akinola did say that he “wanted to wanted to offer a home to any Episcopal parish that no longer feels it can abide by a US church hierarchy that conservatives see as abandoning a fundamental Christian teaching condemning homosexuality” - which is commendable and charitable of him, but, that isn’t his primary goal, which is “to provide a spiritual home to Nigerians in the United States who are leaving the church over the issue.” Besides, isn’t it bloody absurd that an American Anglican who wants to hold to orthodoxy must join a Nigerian body?)

Will S. writes (today, 6:28pm):

“Besides, isn’t it bloody absurd that an American Anglican who wants to hold to orthodoxy must join a Nigerian body?”

This is exactly what’s happening and yes, it’s not only bloody absurd—and, by the way, would have been literally inconceivable as recently as, what, fifteen years ago?—but revelatory of something truly unexpected, something wrong and potentially frightening deep within the inner workings, within the bowels, of society, as lava spewing out of a crack in the ground hints at something frightening in the inner workings of the earth. That this could happen—first-world whites left no alternative to worshipping at third-world black-African churches—is very hard to comprehend even for those used to grappling with some of the weirder mysteries of liberalism. I’ll just add that what Will S. says in the quote above is exactly what I would do, were I Anglican: I’d join one of the Nigerian congregations if any were near enough, rather than worship God in full compliance with the homosexualist agenda.

May God bless and keep these Godly Nigerian folk!

“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.


I, too, would do the same as Mr. Scrooby said he would, were I Anglican/Episcopalian - like I said, I do consider the division between orthodoxy and heresy far more important than ethnic/racial distinctions. As it is, I’m a non-Dutch member of a Dutch church, and I feel quite welcome and “at home” there, for the most part… The Faith is certainly what matters most. I’m just shaking my head that this is what it’s come to, for our Anglican brethren…

Myst. Str. writes (today, 8:18pm),

“speechs writer from buchanan is gay justin raimondo […]” (— “Buchanan’s speech writer is the gay, Justin Raimondo […]”)

This isn’t important but, for the record, I’ve heard Buchanan writes all his own speeches and always did. (I could have heard wrong.)

Also: I personally don’t condemn homosexuals for being homosexual any more than I condemn anyone for other sorts of vices which they don’t flaunt. A person’s private vices generally speaking are no one’s business (with obvious exceptions such as for example an alcoholic who, let’s say, drives a school bus for a living). What I oppose is the left’s effort to “mainstream” or “normalize” homosexuality. Homosexuality, a sexual perversion, cannot ever be mainstreamed or normalized or accepted by society in any way as normal or right. Period. It makes no differenceno difference whatsoever—that the politicized American Psychiatric Association or any other group may spout nonsense to the contrary. That’s all just pure left-wing politics and any psychiatrist who’s got his head screwed on frontwards—and there are lots of them, trust me—will tell you exactly that.

As for Raimondo’s sexual perversion, that’s none of my business unless he flaunts it or pushes for its normalization or something, none of which I’ve seen him do. Were he to start, I’d start condemning him—but for that, not for being a homosexual. As things stand, I know strictly nothing about his alleged homosexuality and care even less if that’s possible.

“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.


Click on the individual titles listed in red here to see each endorsement. (Thanks to for the link.)

“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.


The problem is far deeper than these two abominable candidates. If it were possible to have Kerry as president with a furious and resistant Republican congress, it would be worth it just to get rid of the excreable Jorge Bush.

It sounds good in theory….but the truth is darker. Thanks to the large number of quislings and turncoats among the Republicans: Specter, Collins, Chaffee, McCain, Snowe, and Hatch - just to name a few - a Kerry administration would give us accelerated leftism even over Bush. We could very well end upin a totalitarian regime like those in the EU.

The problem is the Republican Party. As we’ve seen this week with the platform committee’s rubber-stamping of Caudillo Bush’s agenda, the liberals control the party and are working diligently to ensure that conservatives are locked out altogether.

Living in a state where Kerry is polling at 52% (Illinois), I have the luxury of voting for Peroutka - Bush doesn’t have a prayer of carrying this state. I’m not so sure I’d feel the same if I lived in the battleground state across the river (Missouri).

Bush will destroy our country. All he said during the debate was the same thing over and over till some stupid person like you believed it. We are spread out too far in the war on terror. I know a guy in Afghanistan, and he said once the war on Iraq started, they were running out of fuel, ammo, and they didn’t have many aircraft to support them. When we started the war on Iraq, there were about 5,000 insurgents(or known supporters of terrorists), now we are speculating that there are 50,000 insurgents.
In North Korea we do need to start bilateral talks with them again. We have stopped talking to them altogether. China will still support us because they don’t want to get nuked by them. China is doing bilateral talks with North Korea as well.
Also on the statement by Kerry about Islam is a religion of peace, well it is a religion of peace. It’s just that some of their supporters take the words of the Koran to the extreme. And now they have declared a jihad against the western powers due to the fact that they think we are going to take over the Middle East altogether.

Dear brother scrooby:homosexuality is no a vice only for private pratice,this is a sin,no any sodomite will be in kingdom of heavens,while secular political ideas are attacked in hard terms in this website,violations from bible commandments are considerated only simple vices?. An old article in constitution party website(offlink,but in google cachè)appears info. about raimondo and speeches from buchanan,and your opinion about druggie taki.

You seem to have some problem with comprehension. My post was hardly in praise of Bush. I agree - all he could do was repeat the same stupid phrase again and again. He was very ineffective in refuting Kerry - who is nothing but a leftist. But as I said, that’s been Bush’s problem all along. He can’t effectively oppose the leftist agenda because he himself believes in many of its ideals.

It was Bush who made the remark about Islam being a “religion of peace”, not Kerry. While it is true that there are Muslims who are fighting the jihadists - the Kurds, for example - and that the Islamists have murdered other Muslims - the fact remains that Al Qaeda, the Islamic brotherhood, and other jihadist groups enjoy very broad support in the Islamic world. Why were there millions dancing in the streets from Algeria to Indonesia on Sept. 11, 2001, if Islam is such a peaceful religion?

The jihad would be going on whether we were in the middle east or not. Its goal is nothing less than world conquest. You make a good point about the lack of supplies in Afghanistan. Most traditionalists have misgivings about the Iraq adventure - the only point that makes some sense being the idea that it was a strategy to bring the jihadis onto the battlefield against our military, thus deflecting their energies aginst soft targets here in the US - especially important in light of Bush’s insane open borders policies.

Like you, M.S., I have little if any respect for either Raimondo or Taki. I’m bothered by the fact that Buchanan insists on maintaining contacts with them. The only reason I can come up with is that Pat Buchanan, sadly, has fallen into an anti-Semitic mindset that he simply seems unable to escape. Lawrence Auster took him to task for it in the spring of this year (see this article.)

I agree with Larry Auster here: Like Captain Ahab, Buchanan has become obsessed - with Jews in his case. This has led to some very strange positions (almost to the point of supporting the Islamofascists) and alliances (with folks like Raimondo and Taki, who are anything but tradtionalist Christians). Mr. Buchanan owes an apology to some decent conservatives like Don Feder, Rabbi Lapin, and Dennis Prager, among others, who he has alienated.

I know, I was supporting your arguement and added a few things along with it.
Can’t wait for the vice presidential debate tonight. Edwards is going to smack Cheney. I mean, Edwards got a fricken degree in how to argue. It is going to rain destruction on Cheney

“Anti-semitic mindset”? “Obsessed with Jews” “Supporting the Islamofascists”??? What have you been smoking, Carolus? Of course, Buchanan is none of these things. They’re simply lies that the nutty neocons trot out now and again when they find Pat getting too uppity.

MS, Buchanan has made several statements over the past few years in support of the Palestinians, who are certainly Islamofascists. Since when is the murderous thug Yassir Arafat a legitimate leader - or the PA a legitimate government? They are jihadis who would be just as delighted to slaughter Christians in the US as Jews in Israel. In fact, the Palestinians (like most of the Islamic world) were dancing in the street and passing out candy in the aftermath of 9/11.

Putting aside for the moment whether the invasion of Iraq was actually in the national security interest of the US - why on earth would any conservative care about the UN, an utterly illegitimate body? Nevertheless, Buchanan has thrown up that very agrument - one that be more appropriate from John Kerry.

Buchanan attacked Israel for pounding the jihadis after a series of horrific terror attacks in Passover 2003. The Israelis had every right to respond. Buchanan’s position here is indefensible - and he’s never apologized. What possible reason would he have to condemn Israeli retaliation to the attacks? These were acts of war, after all - not judiciary proceedings.

Buchanan is a brilliant writer, and I supported him through the Demjanuk smear and many other attacks form leftists, Jewish and Gentile alike. I think that, sadly, he is so incredibly furious at leftist Jews and the mostly Jewish neocons that he’s resorted to painting with a broad brush - he’s become obsessed. As Auster pointed out, there’s an Ahab-like aspect to the whole affair.

Are the neocons crazy with their dreams of empire? Certainly. That’s a perfectly legitimate criticism. Have leftists, including leftist Jews, been rabidly persuing an anti-Christian, genocidal agenda? Absolutely. Trouble is, PJB’s obsession has alienated the traditionalist elements within the Jewish community both here and in Israel alike - even to the point where a solid conservative like Don Feder, hardly a neocon - is put off. There are certainly traditionalists among the Jews as well - why shuld they be chased away?

Thanks for clarifying.

Nothing you’ve said, however, indicates that Buchanan is “anti-Semitic” in the least. Like many on the traditional Right, he is critical of the Neocons, the Israel Firsters, and Israel herself; but unlike many on the Right, he makes his critique public, for which he is attacked unfairly and unjustly by the Left and the many pseudo-conservatives on the Respectable Right. The vehemence with which he is denounced is a good barometer of his effectiveness.

Incidentally, like Pat’s Neocon critics, you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks. For example, your repeated misuse of the term “obsession,” implying that he suffers from some clinical condition. It’s a curious way to characterize mere policy disagreements.

At any rate, I suspect that what really riles Pat’s enemies, again on both the Left and the Right, is that his criticisms are hitting home. I mean, the fact that the nutty Neocons are aiming the biggest gun in their arsenal—the “anti-Semitic” charge—at Buchanan and he keeps going, oblivious to their petty accusations, must really piss them off.

buchanan is an antisemite,he gives support to hezbollah and syrian tyranny,but carolus you are right in your attack to saddistic paedophile yasser arafat(,but remember these two facts israel is a democracy under attack no only by savages muslims,but catholic and orthodoxs arabs -with total support from their bishops and patriarchs- commit terrorists attacks too,and israel persecutes to evangelical palestinians and to jews acepting to jesus christ as personal lord and saviour( christians everytimes confuses legitimate political objectives with spiritual purposes from kingdom of God,it is called sociological monophysism by many theologians.

orthodox complicity in muslim terrorism,gay activities from arafat,

I have read a few reports of Arab Orthodox, Marionite Catholic, and Arab Lutheran clergymen voicing support for the thug Arafat. I wondered if this was something akin to the chief rabbi of Damascus’ proforma denunciations of Israel or “Zionism” - statements issued because of the very real possibility that the priests may well end up with their own heads, along with those of their entire congregation, in an Islamist’s refrigerator somewhere if they fail to make them. It’s a requirement of living under dhimmitude.

I’ve not read any report of Christians going in as suicide bombers or armed terrorists. There have been some nominally “Christian” (actually atheist) Marxists, like the founder of the PFLP George Haddad, in the past. The Islamist jihadis seem to control the entire campaign against Israel now.

Carolus wrote: “I have read a few reports of Arab Orthodox, Marionite Catholic, and Arab Lutheran clergymen voicing support for the thug Arafat.” A perfectly understandable position, given how shabbily Orthodox Christians are treated by the Israelis.

please my brother,take in consideration your argument sounds very similar to declarations from raimondo,chomsky,jennings,demetrio boersner,zapatero,chirac,etc. blaming to real or supposed influence from secular ideologies-socialism,fascism,even capitalism!-by crimes and atrocities comitted by terrorists in middle east,and about orthodox-catholics terrorists,a terrorist suicidal bomber was trained in a lutheran church school in beit sahour,christopher benedict imprisioned leader from al aqsa brigades is a practitioner orthodox,a catholic bishop,known by his conservatives views was taken in fraganti trafficking guns and ammunitions to terrorists,he get asylum in vatican,george habash is an orthodox in full communion,he can discuss with you about theology because he is considerated to be very religious,there are many official documents made by bishops and patriarchs in his support,even written during short time from peace under rabin,jonathan kuttab ambasssador from plo in london is an anglican layman theologian,but in another aspect you can`t gives support to repressive measures from israeli government against evangelicals -arabs and jews-,evangelism no support to any political side in world conflict is a commandment from our Lord.Aditional note:Orthodox church teaches israel was substituted by church as people from God,no any orthodox believer support to israel,andturkey-an allied from israel-made a horrible genocide from orthodoxs-armenians,chaldeans,assyrians,arameans,etc.- visit,assyrians4christ,

Dear MS,

Your post is somewhat confusing. On the one hand, you list Orthodox and Catholics who have apparently involved themselves in terrorist activities against Israel. A justification for such actions cannot be found anywhere in Orthodox or Catholic teaching, doctrine or tradtion. Thus any individual who willingly joins such madness, and any bishop or authority who agrees to it, is clearly in sin - and deserves excommunication.

The point of my earlier post was that living in a state of dhimmitude under an Islamic regime is basically living under duress - a state of ongoing persecution. Therefore one must factor this situation when reviewing any statements issued from clergy regarding Zionism and Israel. That’s why I offered the example of the Chief Rabbi of Damascus - who always dutifully condemns Israel.

Similarly, are leftists who call themselves Christians really Christains at all? How could any Orthodox Christian support the jihadis after the monstrous evil of Beslan? Israel and Christendom (what’s left of it) are in the same boat. The Jihadis will be just as pleased to saw the head off a Christian as a Jew. It makes no difference to them. The Beslan monsters did not shout “Free Chechnya” as they mowed down fleeing children, they shouted “Allahu Akhbar” - just as they do in Israel.

On the other hand, you bring up the issue that Evangelical Protestants - both in Israel proper and in the area controlled by Arafat - are getting abused by both sides. As far as I can tell, this is a fairly accurate description. While Israel is far from perfect, and certainly has a less than ideal record in the treatment of the Christian minority living there, it’s still a far better place for Christians to live than under the grim dhimmitude of the numerous Islamic despotisms in the region. How on earth would you get the idea that my argument was based on the likes of Chomsky and Raimondo?

about my reference to chomsky and raimondo,you downplay responsability from catholics and orthodoxs using SAME argument-I don`t said these are your SOURCE,a very differnet concept- these people uses when asked about islamic responsability,to blame secular ideologies-communism,capitalism,utilitarianism,fascism,etc.-in order to hidden their extreme ignorance about qu^ranic theology (read and about passages from qu`ran zunna,hadithum supporting terrorism),in similar ways theological documents,official declarations,papers,etc. in orthodox church support terrorism against jews,and by the way in greece,romania,bulgaria,russia,belarus,ukraine,armenia,estonia,setuma,moldavia,predievo,serbia,vojvodina,montenegro,serbska-orthodox region in bosnia-,orthodox eastern poland,orthodox south from finland,orthodox towns in samland,nagorno karabakh-orthodox section-,ethiopia,eritrea,copts towns in egypt orthodox church persecutes to evangelicals sometimes using very hard measures;my reference to israeli persecution is jews israelis even devouted zionists soldiers!,when they are converted to jesus christ are persecuted too visit,no only by evil secularist regime from liberal national party-meaning from term likud did you know it?- but by religious groups based on and inspired by talmud and hallakha teachings,something even zionists christians as jacob prasch and group denounces, if you are evangelical you must to believe only regenerated people believing in jesus christ as personal saviour and Lord are christians please visit for knowing about real teachings from orthodox churches,and just PRAY for their souls,and PREACH gospel to all them,-including mexicans immigrants causing problems in america- ,commandment from our Lord is GREAT COMISSION,no endorse or support countries,political movements,secular thinkers,there are no any difference between traditionalist alain de benoist,neoconservative irving kristol,and postmarxist jacques derrida in the eyes from God,them are hellbound with any hope from redemption except if somebody tell them our Lord them and send His son to dies for them.And about beslan,this atrocity happened in daguestan,under arrogant anti-evangelical putin,if you want to discuss about it o.k. but it is unrelated directly to palestine,o.k. there are a global jihad(, but conditions there are very differents,russia is no a democracy as israel or usa,and russian government gives support to serbian and palestinian terrorists,venezuelan and cuban tyrannies,etc. and some jews by example viktor bout ( in russia supports to jihadis in chechnya,as a balance to orthodox panslavic groups linked to putin,and about dhimmis and dhimmitude(,,,,,,,,I know about it,discrimination based upon religion in work,education,health services,mass media,political elections,society at large,etc, as it was in catholic latin america,a situation ending in 1990 in some countries,but present in other countries nowadays.

and damascus rabbi who refused to leave israel with jews taken by sally feld carr and with jews taken to argentina by carlos saùl menem,is no only attacking israel by reasoned fears to terrorists from syria _supported by buchanan and by christopher robertson,an officer fom department of state,graduate students from syrian university receives fellowships from american gov^t thanks to him(according to transamerica 2000 broadcast in syrian t.v.),but by theologial reasons he is a member from a sect,believing in only messiah can establish kingdom of israel.

Like you, I regard charges of anti-semitism from the peanut gallery of neocons just as I do the accusations by Abe Foxman against Mel Gibson: a smear that doesn’t even pass the “snort test” (to borrow a phrase from Michelle Malkin).

When the charge comes from Larry Auster (a Christian of Jewish background, and a tradtionalist conservative), or Don Feder (a solidly conservative orthodox Jew), it’s something that needs to be taken a lot more seriously. In the last few years, Buchanan certainly appears to this reader to have twisted himself into supporting Arafat, the UN, EU Kool-Aid swillers like Schroeder and Chirac - all enemies of Christianity, conservatism, and America. What could lead him to such crazy positions? How else can we explain Buchanan’s atack of Israel’s perfectly legitimate response to the terror attacks during Passover of last year? I happen to think Auster’s explanation (linked in my earlier post) is the most plausible.

As I stated before, this is really tragic because Buchanan’s basic thesis in “Death of the West”, for example, is a brilliant one. Sadly, it will simply be ignored and marginalized by many within conservatism who desperately need to read its message because the anti-Semitic charge has legs, in this case. It also has the unfortunate effect of lending credibility to the likes of Max Boot and Abe Foxman - a pair who by all rights should have no credibility within conservatism.

God forbid luminaries like Don Feder and Lawrence Auster (who???) get their panties in a twist over Pat Buchanan. I mean, come on guys!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the crux of your complaint appears mainly to be that Pat, like many conservatives, is critical of Israel. If so, my previous argument stands. What you’re doing, perhaps unwittingly, is transforming a perfectly reasonable geo-political stance into some kind of pathological condition or mental illness.

In our time the standard political labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” have lost almost all meaning. That many on the Right, like Pat, find themselves agreeing with Leftists over the war in Iraq is certainly not surprising. The rules are changing. Battlelines are gradually being redrawn.

If all of this simply boils down to a dispute between Feder and the Neocons on one side, and Pat Buchanan on the other—well, I’ll take Pat’s side, no doubt about it. I’ll support such a man: a Catholic, a proud American of European descent, and an all round gentleman of the sort the West *used* to produce in large quantities. In other words, I’m loyal to my own. Surely Feder & Co. can understand that?

The charge of “anti-Semitism” is, frankly, boring. Pat’s critics need to hum a new tune.