You are here

In the presidential election, I expect to support


Supreme Court appointments by Bush will reflect his liberalism, so don’t even in your wildest dreams imagine Bush will push through a conservative. Bush is not conservative unless conservatism is defined as ensuring Mexico will reconquer the U.S. Bush will be a President embattled with an obstinate Congress, spurred by us traditionalists. He will make little or no progress on his dream of a Mexican America, but he could set us traditionalists back another four years.

One of my hopes is that a Muslim terrorist will be traced back across the Mexican border and almost kill a Bush or other prominent relative; of course, I hope the terrorist misses. The sad fact is, I don’t think even such an event would change the irrational view of the Bushies. Their view is prefer a race other than Mexican and you are an evil racist and don’t deserve a place in the Republican Party. Mexicans, in Bush’s view, are equal to your parents. Fine, if you are Mexican; but I ain’t. So I will fight El Presidente’s view. Of course we cannot overlook Bush’s reliance on the Hispanic vote, which has helped him in no way.

(I’m not a subscriber to the American Conservative, and I haven’t read his new book either, so I’m curious…)

The article you cited only discusses Bush and Kerry; on what basis do you claim Badnarik and Peroutka are no different on these issues? I haven’t heard anything about either of them on the matter, one way or another. (I’m curious, so please provide links if you have any.)

I didn’t make my point right: Peroutka for example would be worlds better than Bush, so why not endorse Peroutka, let’s say? What I meant was maybe Buchanan is reluctant to endorse an alternative to Bush who might take enough votes away to swing the election to Kerry.

I happen to think, from my observations here in Vermont (where anti-Bush sentiment is high among Republicans) and putting two and two together in regard to the rest of the country, that Kerry’s going to win anyway. And I’d venture to guess that Buchanan’s refusal to endorse an alternative means he either thinks the same thing or thinks Bush is at best running neck-and-neck with Kerry and doesn’t want to do anything that might help latter win.


speechs writer from buchanan is gay justin raimondo,drugs user and gay john “taki” teodoracopoulous finances him,lenora fulani endorsed him in past elections,why you support him?,howard philipp and jackie petru considers him more dangerous than clinton or kerry.

I’m so tired of reading this theory, everywhere I go on the Net I read the same crockpot idea—“anyone but Bush” and so forth. Utter nonsense. Are the same people promoting this going to have an “anyone but Kerry” campaign four years from now? Kerry, their alternative, will deliver four years of the same policies. Does the “anyone but Bush” crowd really want to have an “anyone but Kerry” campaign on the Internet in four years? They’ll have to to be consistent.

I for one will be voting for whoever is best ideologically on the ballot.

so it’s hard for me to sum up. The article Mysterious Stranger mentioned doesn’t seem all that informative to me.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I agree. Bush is in over his head. Last night was a breathtakingly amateurish, incompetent performance by the leader of the world’s only superpower.

Bush’s performance last night was consistent with his response to the left throughout his first term - completely ineffective. He is simply unable to articulate a defense against both Islamism and against leftist traitors in our midst (like Kerry).

Auster is correct. Bush is a true believer in liberalism. He ardently holds the multiculturalist ideal as gospel truth. Thus, even when Kerry made remarks that any bona-fide conservative would refute for their fundamental violation of our nation’s sovereignty - he is utterly unable to do so for the simple reason that he and Kerry are really globalists who share the same worldview.

Bush’s going to war against the jihadis was an enormous “unprincipled exception” (see VFR for an explanation of this term) to his underlying liberalism. Keep in mind, it wasn’t the abominable treasonous leftist John Kerry who made the statement: “Islam….is a religion of peace.” It was the utterly clueless George Bush. What a sorry stae we are in.

My best guess is that you saw a cached page. Drupal has an internal caching mechanism that reduces server load by serving up the same version of a page over and over again until something-or-other happens (I’m not enough of a techie to know what that thing is). Most browsers also cache recently-requested pages.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I’ve just about made up my mind: I’ll be voting for the Constitution Party. I’d already been veering strongly in that direction when I saw Sam Francis’ unequivocal endorsement (“If I had written their party platform myself, it couldn’t be better”) at , which more or less clinched it for me. Just now I was at the web-site of The American Conservative Magazine ( ) looking something up when I happened to spot a revolving ad for the party (Am Con Mag home-page’s upper right-hand corner) which went something like this:

“Effective January 21st, 2005:

“Illegal Immigrants: DEPORTED!

“Roe v. Wade: IGNORED!

“Homosexual “Marriage”: VOIDED!


“Department of Education: ABOLISHED!

“2nd Amendment: SHALL! - NOT! - BE! - INFRINGED!

“Can all this really be done?

” * God * Family * Republic *—President PEROUTKA, Vice President BALDWIN

I mean, they’re spoon-feeding us our heart’s desire and we’re gonna say no?

It’s Peroutka for me, guys.


I agree with Will S. LaRouche is really a nutcase with no serious following. I still remember one of his half-hour paid political ads from the 1992 campaign: LaRouche spent a whole half-hour on primetime network TV talking about the importance of changing the international standard of musical pitch from A=440 to A=435, complete with examples of classical works played to both standards. Oddly enough, he made a fairly convincing case for A=435. Trouble is, many major orchestras tune to A=442 or even higher to achieve a brighter sound in the west, while Eastern European and Russian orchestras often go lower - to A=435 or thereabouts for a warmer, less glassy sound. A=440 isn’t an absolute to begin with.

The idea of someone spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to run a half-hour infomercial for the virtues of A=435, and the fact that he supported this pitch standard made him a vetter candidate for president than Bush I, Perot or Clinton is really quite beyond my comprehension. This was before his jail term for credit card fraud, by the way. Tin-foil hattery at its best - though not quite as spectacular as the Libertarian Smurf who ran for Senate in Montana!

The entry’s here over at, Steve’s fantastic web-site and blog.

Muhlenberg, trust this: if Bush weren’t such an incompetent, obnoxious, clueless, closed-minded, bullying, extreme radical leftist Tranzi race-replacing Mexicanizing always-putting-Mexico-first Wall-Street-toadying enemy of the people of the United States I’d be among his staunchest supporters.


“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.


Replying to Will S., 3:57am: If you scroll down quite a bit you’ll come to a comment I posted (9/25, 8:12pm) entitled “Pat Buchanan is endorsing Bush, whether he admits it or not.” (On my computer it appears for now on the third page out of six of readers’ comments.) In that comment I put the reasoning Pat gave in italics. It boils down to an endorsement of the lesser of two evils, Pat writing that: 1) George Bush isn’t all bad but has some important redeeming qualities, 2) the Republican Party is the conservatives’ proper “home,” as Barry Goldwater said over four decades ago when similarly repulsed by the party’s left wing at that time, its Nelson Rockefeller wing, and—as Goldwater either said or implied—if we dislike the faction in control we must bide our time until we can influence things in our direction while continuing to cast our votes for it as the lesser of two evils, and 3) a Kerry presidency would have nothing, absolutely nothing, to offer conservatives.

As I’ve commented elsewhere in this thread (and also several months ago at the Poe Forum, where my criticisms of Bush got me banned), the lesser of two evils argument presupposes a candidate who is at least minimally palatable and no longer applies where both are flatly intolerable. Clinton gave a speech in which he waxed ecstatic about the spectacular success of what has been, in effect, the U.S. government’s post-1965 project of replacing, against the people’s will as that will has been expressed time and again in polls and in other ways, the white race of this country with non-whites. (Make no mistake: it’s a deliberate governmental project, not something unstoppable that’s happening all by itself which we need simply to adjust to, like the tides, volcanoes or earthquakes. It’s being done one-hundred percent on purpose.) When Clinton said he was looking forward enthusiastically to mid-century when whites in this country would at long last be a minority, the large audience of foaming-at-the-mouth radical leftist white-Euro-Christian haters broke out into wild cheering. White race-replacement in this country just can’t come fast enough in these people’s eyes. A person who could make such a speech and one who could cheer it are my political mortal enemies. As regards this deliberate federal policy of white-race-replacement for the United States, George Bush stands foursquare shoulder-to-shoulder with Clinton and with those wildly cheering leftists in that audience, considering someone who questions the policy morally unclean; a moral leper; beyond the pale of decency; evil. I’m supposed to cast my sacred vote for this guy? Get real, please, Pat. Maybe Buchanan’s Catholicism makes him less opposed than I am to this country’s deliberate, planned, coldly-calculated, easily stoppable transformation by D.C. into a majority Mexican-Catholic nation. (I’m also Catholic, by the way. I guess I must love some things more than Buchanan does and don’t want to lose them.)


“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.


reads articles by jackie petru and timothy aho,two michaels are simple frauds as james bo gritz and david duke.

I agree voting for anyone but Bush is not a sound plan. Voting for whose ideologically best is not a substantially better plan; it voting for the lesser of two evils. Both plans are little more than surrender. If America in World War II had decided to not ally with the Soviet Union because it was not the ideologically best ally, the Nazis might have won the war or have made peace with the Soviets so that we would have been facing two enormously dangerous nations after the war. The Democratic and Republican Parties are two enormously powerful and dangerous parties.

A sound plan is using allies that can actually help to defeat one powerful enemy at a time. I and the rest of the Buchanan voters in 2000 made a strategic mistake by voting for Pat instead of Gore once it became clear Pat had little chance of winning or helping to defeat Bush, to rid the Republican Party of a right liberal little different from Gore or Kerry. If just half of us, and maybe less, had voted for Gore, Bush would have lost, and we could have spent the last four years rebuilding a conservative Republican Party. Paul Henri.

I`m waiting for your answer to my post,answering you about israel,beslan,orthodox church,etc. and I have read your reaction to marxists is to shoot them,why your reaction is no to evangelize them?.


I didn’t know about LaRouche’s classical music obsessions, but I’d heard of his paranoid belief the British Empire is trying to re-assert itself, i.e. come back from the grave, I guess… A harmless flake…

Fred …with over 50% of the electorate (thank God everyone doesn’t vote, it would be even worse) voting for a Senator to the left of Kennedy or for Nader, Bush is the best which can be expected.

That is the ugly reality.

So I’ll take the tax cuts, I’ll take the tripling the amount a small business can write off the first year, I’ll take the child care tax credit being increased to $1,000, I’ll take Charles Schumer not being appointed as the next Supreme Court justice and I’ll put up with the Bush/Kennedy education bill and the rest of it.

I’ll take what I can get and demand more.

That is how the communist and socialist parties dragged the Democratic party to where it is today.

I recently found out that Peroutka is not currently on my state ballot, nor about 20 others. So that’s something you might want to check into. I might be throwing my support behind the Libertarian on election day. The Libertarian I believe is the next best thing.

First of all, the atrocity took place in North Ossetia, not Dagestan. The majority of the victims were Christians, both Orthodox and Protestants, along with a few Muslims. It was the work of Chechens, Dagestanis, and some assorted terrorists from elsewhere in the Islamic world. It was carried out in the name of Islam, and was both justified and criticized in the Islamic world.

Secondly, I strongly disagree with your repeated assertions that Catholic and Orthodox churches (other than a few renegades who are in rebellion against church doctrines, some of whom are in fact people who have essentially renounced any faith by joining atheistic organizations) support terror against Israel. Since I am neither Catholic or Orthodox, I will leave it to the several posters here who profess those faiths to explain it to you. I can only guess that you are a Darbyist Protestant who characterizes any Christian who disagrees with this particular interpretation of scripture (Catholics and Orthodox along with many Protestants) - an interpretation which was unknown until the late 19th century - as non-Christian. Some of the more strict tradtionalist Christians regard Darbyism as a heresy, though I’m not willing to go that far.

I have personally known too many Catholics and Orthodox whose love of Christ is lived out daily to regard them as unbelievers. I think you are in error here. I realize that you hail from a place where things may be very different from the way they are here. In the US, it is the older, mainline Protestant churches who have fallen away from faith, though the problem is present in Catholicism as well (Othodoxy’s presence is minimal here). The United Church of Christ, for example, denies the virgin birth, denies all miracles, denies the resurrection itself - total apostasy. Yet it is labeled an “Evangelical Protestant” church. In the state where I live, there is a candidate for US Senate, Barack Obama, who is an “Evangelical Protestant” (a member of the above-mentioned UCC) who is so utterly depraved that he supports the murder of infants who somehow survive an attempted abortion. Opposing him is a Roman Catholic, Alan Keyes, whose stands are more consistent with all tradtional Christian teachings. Labels don’t mean very much here. Perhaps they mean more where you live. Sadly, Christ’s body on earth (the church) is a divided one - even among the true believers. Christians do have an obligation to excercise their right of citizenship for the good - despite the fact that we live in a secular nation.

Your earlier post also correctly pointed out that there were connections between Russia and various thug regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Russia is still reeling from the 75-year reign of terror of the Marxists, followed by a decade of utter corruption and looting by the oligarchs. Putin is difficult to read. Sometimes, he seems to be a Russian patriot, at other times an oligarch. Both Israel and the United States have connections with thug regimes as well, namely China (both) and Saudi Arabia (US), to name but two.

Democracy is not an absolute guarantee of good government. The Nazis were freely elected. The abominable leftist Zapatero was recently elected in Spain, where he has basically commenced a campaign to abolish Christianity there. Israel is a socialist democracy, whose record is certainly less than ideal in its treatment of the Christians living there - though it is far superior to that of Islamic countries, where dhimmitude prevails. There are plenty of valid reasons for supporting Israel’s right to exist without resorting to a near-denial of Chist’s claims about himself. (I refer here to the most extreme form of Darbyist interpretation.)

Yes, I do believe in evangelizing the people of every nation - even the Muslims and invading Mexicans. That would go for Marxists as well. (You took my half-facetious remark far too seriously.) Truth be told, there are plenty of Americans who don’t believe in Christ either. There are also some who have rejected all proclamations of the Gospel, hence the scripture admonishes us not to “cast pearls before swine” and “to shake the dust from our feet” as a testimony to those who have rejected the message. You are correct that political solutions are ultimately like everything else on this earth - fultile apart from the creator and giver of life. On that point, I certainly agree. This is a forum devoted to traditionalism, not theology. though.

PS: It would be most helpful if your would use a name, as there appear to be several “Mysterious Strangers” floating about!

although beslan is a part from north osetia-a land and a people divided in an artificial way by Stalin-,this is reclaimed by daguestan,north ossetians are orthodoxs but south ossetians -in georgia- are muslims,and I am no a Darbyist,I am an evangelical,and I regret in great way alan keyes-he was a baptist,no he was?,although his old churchhome is liberal-,has been converted to catholicism,and I have read barak obada is a black muslim(,no a christian,his name is arabic-a common fact in black muslim people nowithstanding reality from blacks in muslims countries,(,and united church of christ is no an evangelical church,-they are members from world council of churches-the term evangelical-evangelische in dutch and german,as diferent from evangelikaler-means diferent things in protestant -calvinistic and lutherans- denominations from european origins,ucc comes from liberal branch from disappeared presbyterian and reformed church evangelical synod,whilt traditionalist branch from this group are presbyterian church in usa( group from late james montgomery boyce and francis schaeffer senior,this old church was formed by scottish congregationalists and germans reformed,never had any relation with evangelicals-believers in salvation only by grace and by faith in jesus christ-.My name is andrè

Hi Andrè (or is it André?), just a small clarification - the Presbyterian Church (USA) {or PC(USA)} is a liberal denomination, like the UCC as you mentioned; but the Presbyterian Church in America {or PCA} is a conservative denomination, and the one to which you were referring, with which Boice and Schaeffer were affiliated. (I’ve worshipped a number of times at various PCA churches, but would never do so at any PC(USA) churches.)

Out of curiosity, where are you from - are you from Beslan or Ossetia or one of the places you mentioned, or is your name French, and you’re from a francophone country or region? Are you Reformed or Lutheran, or a member of an evangelical denomination (in the North American understanding of the term “evangelical”)? (For my part, I’m Reformed, and not evangelical, i.e. in the modern sense of the word; I’m certainly evangelical in the true sense of the term, in the sense of believing the “Evangel”, the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I’m Canadian.)

Don’t forget the OPC, which also could be described as traditional or conservative. They exist in the U.S.; I’m not sure about elsewhere.

Yes, the OPC have a small presence - 3 congregations I believe - in Canada, in southwestern Ontario; I’ve never been able to visit any of them, I’d certainly like to, some day. There are several PCA churches in Canada, though not a whole lot by any means… The OPC seems more solidly traditionalist than the PCA, in terms of worship style and emphasis on the Reformed tradition, but both are light-years removed from the liberalism of the PC(USA), or here in Canada, its equivalent, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, also hopelessly liberal.

I did know everything about orthodox church(john gresham machem),bible presbyterian church(carl mc intyre and francis schaeffer in their first years),america presbyterian church(churchhome from theologian Elièzer Gonzàlez,evangelist Mark Vitrioux,etc.)et al, my reference to presbyterian church in usa is because they had a small work in another countries,where they identifies themselves-or are indentified by another people- in speeches,conferences,books,etc. as the prebyterian church existing and working in usa,considers in many countries “america” is a word used only for a continent,usa is name used for the country,and because PCUSA is liberal-a cult, a sect and only a social club- when presbyterians in another lands talks and writes they says presbyterian church in usa,in similar ways anglicans in africa says anglican church in usa only to anglican conservative missions society founded by nigerians missionaries, no to pagan cult named episcopalian protestant church

Just wanted to be helpful.

BTW, Andre, you didn’t answer my questions, about what country you’re posting from, and what your church tradition/affiliation is, broadly speaking (Reformed, or Lutheran, or evangelical, etc.). You are quite knowledgable about the Reformed faith, so am I correct in assuming you are Reformed?

dear brother in christ will s.,your informations,corrections,etc. are acepted,I had in similar way many informations to share with you,but my english is poor,I read and understand very well,but had problems expressing my feelings and my knowledge from english language is limited to literary and scientific-technical(I study business administration,but reads everything about sciences),and theological terms,but philosophy is a personal concern for me,and I do`nt know daily talk terminology,by example suburbanite jargon,ebonics,teenspeak,rural slang,etc..In reference to Reformed theology,I know many things about it-historical and sociological issues and theology-,but I am a Baptist very oriented to distinctives principles from my group,I believe in modified version from calvinism,expressed by example in philadelphia confession of faith,and lived by charles spurgeon et al.

Ah, so you’re a “Reformed Baptist” or “Sovereign Grace Baptist”, as we say in English - of those two terms, some people prefer the first one, others prefer the second (and others would say “Calvinistic Baptist”). (BTW, your English is quite good, I have little difficulty in understanding you.) I have a friend in my region who, if I’m not mistaken, adheres to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which I understand is really not much different from the Presbyterians’ Westminster Confession, apart from the issue of baptism. (But hey, we all agree on the doctrines of grace, eh?)

Andre, your English is really quite good, and you are very well informed on a great number of issues. As far as I am concerned, you posts are very welcome here. They’ve certainly presented new insights and perspectives as far as I’m concerned.

Theologically, we are probably not very far apart - as I am fairly Calvinist in outlook as well. Like, Will S., I am very interested to know which country you are from, since it is always extremely interesting to see the perspective of a person who is actually located in a given place as opposed to the often distorted view we are fed by the American media, who view everything through a lens of leftism. My apologies if my remarks appear to be to brusque and harsh.

PS: Thanks for letting us know your name! There are lots of “Mysterious Strangers” hanging about.