Pat: I agree with everything you say about Barack and the positive contrast Sarah offers, but by attracting “value voters” she becomes the “enabler” for a McCain administration hell bent on spending America’s blood and fortune on senseless wars in foreign lands, destroying in that course the “common” man’s livelyhood and America’s good will in the world. What will cost us more in the long run: the continuation and expansion of a war that has cost us so far more than 3 trillion (including follow up cost), or a few measly billion dollars the Obama’s will send to the “brothers” in the “hood” and a few more to feather their own and their friends nests?

What Werner Hoermann said plus:

Equally as bad as the vicious, hypocritical liberal attacks on Palin is the absolute, total refusal of conservatives to at least consider that by endorsing her candidacy they are endorsing one of the fundamental tenets of feminism, an ideology which may have done more harm to our civilization than Naziism and Communism combined.  That tenet is the assertion that a woman’s family, no matter how serious its problems (And who can claim that Palin’s family problems, though common, are not?)must not be allowed to get in the way of her professional ambitions.  In other words, career first, children second.  Don’t conservatives see how this weakens their (former?) position that men and women are fundamentally different, have different roles in the family, and also in society?

It’s true that as a purely political act, McCain’s selection of Palin is a smart move, and perhaps a brilliant stroke.  It may win him the election.

But, by not only enthusiastically endorsing Palin (to put it mildly) but also praising her as a role model, conservatives have abandoned yet another of their principles for the sake of helping the Republicans (many of whom despise conservatism) cling to power for four more years.

“Barack and Michelle are affirmative action”

disgusting.  a number of paleos have made fools of themselves over this vp selection but none to this extent. 

worst column ever

I don’t agree with everything Pat Buchanan says.  In this article, i agree with very little that he writes.

Sarah Palin belongs to a mainstream christian church?!??!?

Even in the U.S. of Wacky-churches hers could hardly be called mainstream!

Buchanan is doing (and will continue doing right up to the “election") his imitation of Powell, the dutiful soldier, going beofre the U.N. to lend some kind of credibility to a pack of lies.

Don’t get me wrong - Obama and Biden are no better (or worse) than McCain and Palin - they all serve the same master and it is NOT the american people.

If Palin is “one of us”, then why is she working for McCain, who is “one of them”...?

McCain is trying to distract Middle America---the white working class---from the fact that he supporsts
globalization/outsourcing, the failed Republican tax cut economics, unrestrained immigration and the “war against terrorism” (which is a war to defend globalization). McCain doesn’t give a dang about the
working class...and invites Joe Lieberman to the Republican Convention while excluding Ron Paul?

Sadly, the McCain/Palin vs Obama/Biden fails the “lesser evil” test....

Republicans are even worse then the Democrats when it comes to disingenously playing off the culture war
for political gain, and we can’t trust McCain, even if he has Palin on his ticket.

end of McCain?

Apparently Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney will be joining the Ron Paul press conf tomorrow in DC along with Barr and Baldwin.  “unprecedented announcement”

Damnit Pat! When will you come to your senses? This pick continues to assert the anti-intellectual snobbery of the Republican party. And Pat, it appears that you have embraced this mentallity with this post.

If I could petition to remove this article from Takimag.com, on the sheer lack of respect for the strong work other columnists have put into thier articles that are posted here, consider this just that.

Btw...did he just compare Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan? This is so sad to watch. So depressingly sad to see this happen.

lester,

Barack and Michelle are affirmative action.  They are also anti-white and anti-capitalist.  So as much disdain as I have for McCain and the Republicans, the Democrats want to see people like me extinct.  Unfortunately in their ardor they forgot to breed, which is why Palin evokes such a visceral response.

One of us?  Mainstream church?  Palin is an apostate.  Palin even repudiated her Christian baptism to join the cult she is now in, turning her back in Jesus Christ and His Church in favor of her guru and the Endtime Jewish State, which is to conquer the Middle East and exterminate the true and original Christians there.  I assume (somebody enlighten me) from her husband’s ethnicity that he is himself apostate from the Orthodox Church, which Catholics regard as a sister Church, or that his very recent ancestors were.  These are not our people, and are no more our allies in the culture wars than the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hindu RSS, or the Buddhist Fascists of Japan.  We must pray that Palin returns to the Christian faith, for our own sake as well as for hers.

First, there is only one true Church - the Catholic Church.

Mr. Semin. If you believe that, then why do you read CFN, a schismatic rag not worthy of a Norwegian Blue’s Cage?

It is owned-published by a suspended a divinis Priest (Fr Gruener) and it is edited by the supersessionist, John Vennari, who signed the dufus document, “We resist you to your face,” along with other schizzies like Mike Matt and Christopher Ferrara,

Fr. Cekada, rightly, raked them over the coals for their stupidities and schism - although his sedevacantism is whacked)

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70

senor dug- you’re out of your mind

Joe Populist,

“If Palin is “one of us”, then why is she working for McCain, who is “one of them”...?”

An excellent point. We can only hope that Palin is making a tactical move to advance her career. Let us assume for a moment that she is really one of us. What would be the best way for her to achieve the power of the presidency? Or to be even more direct, what is the ONLY way that she could become the leader of the free world? Ron Paul’s inability to win over Fox News, the hardcore members of the Republican base and all of its “esteemed” beltway/New York pundits ultimately proved disastrous to his campaign. Circumventing these forces is becoming easier in an era of Youtube, websites, and small town radio talk shows, but winning the highest political office in the land will not be possible in the foreseeable future without mainstream Republican support. It may therefore be prudent of paleconservatives to recognize the following two principles:

(1)We live in a country where liberals and neocons dominate.
(2) To become president, a true conservative will have to signal Left before turning Right.

Maybe Palin recognizes this. Maybe Palin will play nice for four years under McCain, win herself the Republican nomination, win herself the presidency, and then show us her true colors. Maybe not. But she may surprise us all.

Mr. Purcell.. Apostate? I doubt she understood enough of Catholic Doctrine to repudiate it.  Prolly true for her husband too…

At least we ought give them the benefit of the doubt until we know more.

As I understand it, the 12 year old Sarah was taken out of the Church by her parents.

BTW, another liberal Norwegian Blue Cage-Liner (Like Catholic Family News)The National Catholic Reporter has been accusing her of apostasy.

At this link, a Canonist writes how absurd that charge is…

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2008/09/sarah-palin-as.php

lester,

I can’t think of a good reason to vote for a white “community organizer,” much less a half-white one married to a woman for whom $300K a year to stand around and be a black female is still insufficient to evoke gratitude for the opportunities she’s been handed.

The best column you have ever written Pat. Lester and all you others are drinking the koolaide.

I am not Spartacus:
Matt and Ferrara are NOT schismatics.  The tone and editorial slant of the Remnant is NOT that of CFNews.
Drink a cup of coffee, calm down, and do some recent reading.

Pat rooting for a heretic who could not rear her children in a Christian way.  Woe that we should come to this ...

Very perplexing as to why a columnist who normally does his homework so thoroughly should trot out this complete bunkum. Has an impostor taken Mr Buchanan’s place?

Thus my repeated assertion that Pat Buchanan is doing a Powell!

Tobias. Matt and Ferrara refuse to obey the living Pope. They will obey SOME of the decisions taken my dead Popes but both publicly repudiate The Pope, The Council, and the normative Mass and in signing the we-resist-you-to-the-face screed they illustrate how they, like the sspxers, are liberal Protestants in Fiddlebacks.

The Remnant posted a long interview with the excommunicated priest, de Mallerais, claiming Ratzinger published a book filled with heresies.

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Drink a cup of coffee, calm down, and do some recent reading.

I don’t drink coffee, I am calm, and I’d be happy to read The Remnant, CFN, or any other Norwegian Blue Crap-Catcher if they repudiated their liberal protestantism.

Mr. Buchanan frequently claims that the so called “cultural conservatives” are “his people” and returns this loyalty with an unabashed support of Governor Palin. Unfortunately, the GOP vice presidential nominee was .....once again...ad hominem..... chosen as a Bait and Switch to gather in the Cultural Conservatives so that the decidedly non cultural conservative, neo-conservatives can have their way with her...or more particularly, her office. Mr. Buchanan is normally sensitive to these kinds of blatant tactics and one wonders why he has let his guard down again. He is not alone though, she is charming all manner of normally sober people who generally arm themselves against the more obvious employment of identity politics.

The candidates on both sides claim to be crusading under the banner of “Change”. What is most interesting about McCain’s claim is that he is quite similar to President Bush in the most important and far-reaching way: his impulsiveness. Both men value their gut over their brain. Both are willful and impulsive and both are rather fatalistic about the effects of their rash decisions and prone to defiant stubbornness when called into question. In the current President’s case, the Vice President’s office has been put on steroids and commands a large and effective bureaucracy that is put to use bucking up the President, stove-piping propaganda and in general, pursuing the neo-conservative surreal-politik barely behind the scenes. If McCain is elected, Governor Palin will assume this high functioning apparatus and we can already see Mr. Lieberman’s role in insuring that the neo-conservative power base will continue to capitalize on a rash and willful Chief Executive through the office of the Vice President.

Personally, I believe this election to be one of simply choosing your executioner so I have no hopes for either candidate but it should be sobering for everyone who values American Liberty to see that a continuance of the past 8 years may be seamless. More “gut instinct” wed to neo-conservative shenanigans. A debt of $53 Trillion can be doubled to $106 Trillion as long as the printing presses don’t crap out or the debtors tire of being lectured by their broke associate. Candidates in this media age are elected on a popularity contest and then when they enter office, the grinding apparatus of Empire insures that the personality elected is reduced to dust.

The lapsed Republic is a curious blend of 17th century European (Christian) humanism and 18th century radical (Secular) Enlightenment thinking. The Framers lived this crucible and understood it well and so they crafted a creaky and messy system to insure that neither would ultimately prevail but both would inform. It’s taken over 200 years to do it but it is an inescapable fact that the mechanistic and reductionist thinking of the Enlightenment...it’s bad side with none of it’s good..... has won the day and this realization is made more bitter by the fact that this transformation is so debased, anti-intellectual and aridly statist. Descarte has run his tank over Mr. Burke and the Homunculus is thumbs up all the way.

Snap out of it Pat, without a reduced and chastened Federal Government, your cultural conservatives are toast. In fact, they’re always the first to go.

You are Spartacus,
Not everything published in the Remnant represents the editorial stance of the Remnant
editors—it’s called an *interview,* not an editorial.  Read the CURRENT articles written by Ferrara and Matt.  You will see that they are not
schismatics.  There has been a thaw since Pope Benedict was elected and Summorum Pontificum
was published.  The editorial stance of The Remnant is quite different from Catholic Family
News.  But you probably won’t take up and read, since you already “know” that they’re
liberal protestants.  Matt attends Mass at what was (pre 7-7-07) an Indult parish.  Ferrara
sends his kids to an FSSP boarding school.  Those last two points don’t *prove* that they’re
not schismatics, but such actions are not the *hallmarks* of schismatic traditionalists.

“Normative Mass”—you made this term up.  It is not a term used by the Church.  There are
ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite.

I didn’t interpret this column as an endorsement of McCain/Palin, only as an indictment of the Left. The Left is attacking Palin for who she is and what she’s done. But the best reason to criticize her is that she apparently wants John McCain’s finger on the button. That’s the scary thing about Palin.

If she is one of us then he definitely isn’t.  Here is McCain’s record on abortion.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=74117

His ratin on gun control is 27%.  Meaning he scores poorly on gun rights.

“Normative Mass”—you made this term up.</I>

Tobias. Do you want one…

While condemning the Tridentine Mass and those who desire its use, they condone personal changes made in the normative Mass under the guise of legitimate experience of liturgy.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/priest_s_first_mass.asp

Or one hundred examples?

SM: Back when you were just a parishioner, was there an emphasis on music?

Kolinski: Certainly. Great music has been here from the beginning when Fr. Phillips came here in 1988. He never set out with a grand plan. He was just doing what the Church was asking of us. When he was assigned here, the parish was almost dead. He had a great love of music. He is a musician himself. So he used chant and polyphony, and celebrated the Mass beautifully and reverently, with beautiful vestments – all the things that are part of our heritage. There was a choir that he had been working with. He invited them in to sing. Gradually people began to hear about the parish. Little by little the parish began to grow, and great things began to happen.

There were a total of 70 people attending two Masses when he came. Today, we have more than 1,000 families. After John Paul II issued Ecclesia Dei in 1988, Cardinal Bernadin approached Fr. Phillips and ask if he would like to be the parish with the Indult in Chicago that celebrated Mass according to the old Missal. Father was pleased to accept. From that point on, we had the Tridentine Mass but also the normative Mass. Many people who had been attending Masses of St. Pius X came here to reconcile themselves back to the Church.

http://www.musicasacra.com/kolinski/

One thing is for certain.  Either in 2012 or 2016 there will be a woman president and her name won’t be Hillery.

I guess Pat Buchanan can be penciled in as a McCain voter this year.  Buchanan misses the point about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and why it reflects poorly on Sarah.  As a mother, Sarah Palin’s most vital role is as the nurturer of her family.  Being a politician is of no importance in comparison.  While Sarah was busy with her duties as governor of Alaska, Bristol was busy in activities damaging to her future and her soul.  On top of that, in a world drenched in permissiveness and moral squalor, the strident acceptance of Bristol Palin’s unmarried, teenaged pregnancy by the alleged party of family values, the Republican Party, shows that the Republican Party accedes to social dysfunction.  The American Left rightfully laughs at the Republican Party as phony and a fraud.
We are all liberals now.

Palin is also of the opinion that White men should fight and die to defend Israel, to protect the Ethnic Genetic Interests (the interest a person and a people has in the continuity of his/it’s genes) of the Jewish people.

Will she stand up for the Ethnic Genetic Interests of White Americans?

Of course she won’t, she is McAmnesty’s running mate.  McAmnesty tolerates no dissent.

But our guy (Republican) has to beat their guy (Democrat), right?

If McAmnesty is elected he will almost certainly push through an amnesty and Republicans will go along with it.  If, however, Obama is elected and tries it the Republicans may oppose amnesty in an effort to define themselves against it.

Are you sure we should vote for McCain just because Palin is a likable gal, Buchanan?

Thou who claimest not to be Spartacus,

Fine.  That priest used it in that article.  But the term is not the current usage.  Both
the 1969 and 1962 Missals are “normative” today.  The term is no longer a good way to identify the
Pauline Novus Ordo Missae.  So please don’t use the term. 

Why did you take Mr. Semin to task merely for *reading* CFNews?  The link he provided merely
showed the crazy nonsense they (apparently) do at Palin’s church.  You have apparently read
Fr. Cekada’s work (more Norwegian Blue cage-liner, right?).  You found some gold and left the dross.  Why did you jump on Mr. Semin?  I’m not saying you can’t come up with a defense, but so far you haven’t provided it. 

There is only one Church.  Pat is trying to say that some crazy “pentecostalist” sect of heretics
is “mainstream” in some meaningful sense.  He is wrong.  Mr. Semin said so, and provided a link.  Then
you attack the messenger and leave the message.  Then you drag in Matt and Ferrara, who both love
Pope Benedict XVI, the living Pope, and have said so numerous times, and have indicated that they do not
now, if they did before, indulge in the sort of ceaseless nay-saying that (I say) typifies CFNews. 

Over at WDTPRS, you learned about the Acton Institute and nobly corrected your stance on that issue. 
Please read up on this, too.

As for the rest,

I don’t think that it’s fair to call Palin an “apostate.” I thought that term was technically reserved
for those who repudiated the name of Christian.  I don’t think she’s done that yet.  If her parents were
so unreliable as Catholic parents as to leave the Church, I don’t know if she knew enough (and even at 12 a well-trained Catholic child *would* know better) of the true Faith to be fully culpable.  Plus, there’s the fact that Protestants often don’t know/care what the “official” (and always changing) “teachings” of their sect are.  They
believe in private judgment.  So who says she ascribes to all, some, or any of the “official” teachings
at that sect?  She could have non-doctrinal, non-liturgical reasons for attending that sect.

a brilliant piece. As for lester, they are affirmative action, and your weak responses only accentuate this point.
Question, who would you rather be in a fox hole with, Obama or Palin? I would say Palin, and not for the obvious reason.

I’m sorry but I am offended when one claims to be a Christian and pro-life and yet claims it is God’s will to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistan children. To be a genuine follower of Christ you must respect all life, not just the ones you choose. I hate to get into religous debates because they are a tool to cause more anger and hatred, but this kind of stuff just irks me.

“who both love
Pope Benedict XVI, the living Pope, and have said so numerous times”

And I don’t mean that they say so hypocritically.  The burden of proof is on *you.*

“I’m sorry but I am offended when one claims to be a Christian and pro-life and yet claims it is God’s will to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistan children. “

Who ever said that they supported “murdering” any innocent Iraqi or Afghani children?  Their
claim is that there were legitimate moral grounds on which to wage war against the Baathist
regime of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan.  Their current claim is that
there are legitimate moral grounds to provide military support to the legitimate standing
governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Either those claims are right, and any innocent life
lost is the regrettable and *unintended* result of accidents and uncontrollable circumstances
(which, yes, happen in even the most just wars), or else those claims are wrong and even the
deaths of the soldiers in the field was murderous.  Or do you have a third way? 

No one supports the “murder” of Iraqi and Afghani children.  No one I know of supports the wars because
they want innocent civilians to die.  No one I know of views these deaths as anything other than
unintended and unavoidable side-effects of (what they judge to be) justifiable military operations
against aggressive enemies of the United States.  Please prove otherwise.

Then you drag in Matt and Ferrara, who both love Pope Benedict XVI..

Tobias. When they retract their signatures from the publicly promoted we-resist-you-to-the-face schismatic statement, let me know.

Tobias, the war was completely avoidable, if not totally unecessary and negligently conducted. You say it is regrettable but I question your sincerity of using such a word. You clearly do not regret going to war.

As often, I am pleased to stand corrected.  Palin’s apostasy is evidently invalid (needs to be in writing — who woulda thunk it?) and most probably involves no subjective guilt.  Come to think of it, she must have signed something sometine espousing her new religion.  Whatever the fine print of canon law, she is not one of us until she repents.  Her sect is one of the Gentile Zionist Taliban who claim to be Bible believers, but refuse any meaningful obedience to the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to John, and think mainstream Christians worthy of death because we don’t, and she lusts after global thermonuclear war for the sake of Israel.  The fact that she is sound on some moral issues does not make less a danger to the security of the Republic and the peace of the world.  Don’t vote for her.  Pray for her.

In 2004 the nation got fooled again into voting for the lesser of two evils, and what did we get? I’m not religious, but we got the devil, with two disciples waiting in the wings!  I’m a Republican, but there’s no way that I’m going to reward the Republicans with a third term. I’m surprised with Pat, whom I really like, would side with Palin and McPain, in furthering the destruction of not only the Republican party, but these United States as well.

“I can’t think of a good reason to vote for a white “community organizer,” much less a half-white one married to a woman for whom $300K a year to stand around and be a black female is still insufficient to evoke gratitude for the opportunities she’s been handed. “

what does any of this have to do with the election? we aren’t picking a best friend here. the color of their skin and their social networking or whatever has nothing to do with the ISSUES. 

remember those things?  pat used to talk about them.  he doesn’t mention any of them here but believe me he has in the past.

ronald reagan was from hollywood.  bill clinton was from the heart land of the heartland arkansas.  was clinton better than reagan?

just what are you basing your vote on? 

her personality and 5 kids are not going to get us out of iraq or get rid of the patriot act. 

she’s given one speech.  one.  and all rationality has gone out the window and paleos from here to lewrockwell are blubbering about elitism and flyover states.

In 2004 the nation got fooled again into voting for the lesser of two evils, and what did we get?

Unless Jesus, Mary (or me) are running, all candidates are evil in that they are all sinners.

I just think Conservative Christians are more realistic than are Paleos. The Stupid Party candidates or the Evil Party candidates will win.

Paleos think EVERYBODY is corruptible (’cept for Paul) and that, if elected, will be co-opted and serve our enemies.

Well, why wouldn’t that happen with Paul were he to be elected?

And weren’t our leaders once paleos? And didn’t they fail us and become corrupt?

Paleos can only be happy supporting those who can never win and disappoint them.

Only losers are acceptable to paleos because political incomptence is construed as an innocence-belt keeping paleos free from the results of sleeping with that skank Israel and getting knocked-up with zionism or, worse, contracting political populism or becoming infected with republican political aids.

Tobias
I do not consider people of Iraq and Afghanistan agressive enemies nor do I consider the invasion of these countries with our war machinery justifiable. And yes it is morally wrong, imho. Personally I am tired of all the unintended consequences and excuses both here in the US and abroad, for killing people. I don’t buy the muslim boogey man myth, sorry. That is why I don’t get into religous arguments. By the way have you thought about why there are so many soliders committing suicide? Guess some of those men thought the illegal war in those countries was morally wrong too. People have different opinions on what is morally right and wrong. However, if you make a claim to be a follower of Christ then morally the invasion and killing is wrong. But again, that is my opinion, I just stated that the double standards of Palin and her supporters irritates me.

Well, I’m not surprised with Pat; he has a long record of election-capitulating to the GOP which treated him badly
him so badly as an independent. I am surprised to see war crimes such as those of the past week killing
100 or so innocents in Afghanistan treated in cavalier fashion. It takes also a naeive innocent not to
realize the type of bombing utilized in lieu of man-to-man combat ALWAYS results in susbstantial
“collatoral damage.”

I thought this column by Pat was supposed to be about Sarah Palin being slimed by the left in the culture wars.  Instead it’s turned into some sort of traditional Catholic cage match.

Uh, guys, aren’t you forgetting something?  Irrespective of whether Sarah Palin is an apostate from the Catholic Church (she is not, she was THREE YEARS OLD when her parents left it), the Constitution, remember that quaint document?  says no religious test shall ever be imposed as a qualification for seeking public office.

Marty, you are absolutely correct.  Many of the responses to Pat’s column are idiotic and insulting to Christians everywhere who do not take their marching orders from Rome.  Palin is being smeared for all the usual liberal reasons.  That is the point.  Many of you need to SEE THE POINT!

John Mccain said that if his 14 year old daughter got pregnant by fornication it’d be her choice whether to abort the child or keep it. This man is a charlatan, fraud, and manipulator with no soul.

she’s given one speech.  one.  and all rationality has gone out the window...

Lester. That one speech has totally knocked the putative political messiah into kooksville where he is wildly swinging his rhetorical num chucks.

Here is a depiction of the self-confident obama flipping-out and wildly swinging after Sarah’s speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtIoGQxqQs

A lot of folks posting on this blog, and criticizing Sarah Palin for apostasy, are Ron Paul supporters, I’d assume. Yes, at 12, she may even have been confirmed. She ought to have known better.  But what had she really learned of the Faith in the modern disoriented Church?  Maybe she never had the Faith to begin with.  Obviously her parents were weak enough to apostatize, so they could not have taught her well. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is an extremely intelligent adult, who, by now, has befriended many traditional Catholics who know their religion well. Has he not even been curious enough to look into the Church. Has no one asked him to become a Catholic? And I know of so many who are praying for his conversion. I think he may be more accountable for not becoming Catholic than a 12 year old for leaving a Church that she may have never really known.  I am not excusing her.  I am appalled at her pro-Zionist position.  I hear she even has the Israeli flag waving in her office. I support Dr. Paul because of his positions on the issues, and I pray, too, for his conversion.  There are so few real Catholics in high office, and the only true Catholic that ever ran for president was Buchanan, also attacked by some bloggers here . I don’t know anymore, too much railing speech; no one is perfect, everyone misses the boat somewhere it seems, including me.

What do Catholics expect from McCain? He is not a Catholic. I would rather that he had picked Gov. Jindal of Louisiana. He is a Catholic convert from Hinduism, entering the Church as a teen. But he is only 37.  He is, I think, 100% pro life.  And, I am sure,as a serious Catholic, he would be a balance for McCain’s militant extremism on foreign policy. Good thing Jindal wasn’t an ex Moslem, or he’d be a marked man.

From what I can tell, the charge of apostacy is unsupported, not due to the technicality of a writing, but because she has not foresaken Christ.  Misconstruing him is heresy or schism, not apostacy.

But Mary, what has the Constitution’s ban or a “religious test” for public office to do with individual voter’s right to consider, wisely or otherwise, the religion of a candidate?  The forbidden test is a government test.  It has no bearing on indivduals (except to protect them from such government tests).  Any suggestion that voters are not free to consider whatever factors they like—religion, astrological sign, hair color, you name it—runs into real Constitutional issues, starting with the First Amendment.

Apologies to Marty for calling him “Mary” instead of Marty.  (And, while I’m at it, “him” should be “Him”: not for Marty, but for the other fellow I mentioned.)

I am spartacus- this isn’t american idol, it’s the presidential election.  she had a bunch of canned lines about obama that she read off a teleprompter well enough.  no specific ideas, no indication she even HAS any ideas about iraq, the economy or any other issues.  we aren’t looking for a new right wing pundit

we all like her.  we are not hiring a new best friend we are hiring a president.  a job she has no idea how to do.

My, my it has come to this… Paleoconservatism is no longer about the insidious destruction of the Constitution, republicanism (small r, please), empire building, global-policing the world, the MIC, plutocracy, crony capitalism, honest money or even the current economic depression.  No, its all about internecine doctrinal disputes within Catholicism.

Heavens to Robert A Taft, does anyone get it...the RepubliCrats will use the systemic controls they’ve established in that brothel on the Potomoc to continue our hastened slide into de facto dicatorship no matter whether the good woman Palin is an apostate or not.  She is chic, the flavor of the day and...irrelevent. 

There are three major issues that will determine the future of our country:
Foreign policy, the horribly misnomered “Patriot Act” and economic policy.

On these issues there is less than a dimes worth of difference between the two tickets.

If “paleos” are content to fight the culture wars and religious doctrinal differences, they will be even further marginalized than they already are.

Here is the brutal truth: neither ticket will do any more or less harm to what paleoconservatism is supposed to stand for.  The presidential election for now is smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses.

Paleo time would be much better spent supporting and electing members of congress, governors, mayors and state legislators of similar political philosophy.  Nothing will change from the top dowm, only from the bottom up.

I always come around reluctantly to agreeing with Pat the few times I disagree, he’s a better man, a greater man than I is part of the reason for that inevitably, and I do prefer (without predjudice) my superiors.

Thus I am one of us, not one of ‘them’.  Also in my own defense or rather as explanation - I automatically DUMPED on poor, lovely, brave Sarah since I AM a Paleo - and the lovely, brave lady, she’s with McCain, and, spurned Pat.  Also I did/do it as part of the razzing or hazing or ongoing vetting process to make sure she’s a tough enough bird for the job and can take it.  But Pat’s as always rather LARGE and it’s a case in point:

“They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.” –Pat

It’s true.  People are afraid of what they don’t comprehend (or ‘believe’ they do) when today in Fact it is themselves they should fear.  For no one e.g. the New York Times crowd and the establishment these days has smaller hands, or apparently minds anymore than ‘them’, not even the rain.

It’s why us paleos (although we wish it were otherwise) even view the oncoming rain as an improvement.

Perhaps Sarah will be there for us somehow as well.  Thanks Sarah for being you.  It’s more than you’ve said about Pat.

Another good article by Pat that for some reason is seen in the worst light and caricaturized by Taki readers.

Pat makes an excellent point. That the media is going visciously after Palin for the only reason that she is not an establishment elitist, but a real American and a real human being, who has a great but not perfect family, and who likes doing things other than constant self-promotion. It’s these Americans that the liberals (and McCain) want to “educate” or destroy (’your auto jobs are gone and will never come back’). Palin is one of us regular fellows, not a corrupt ivy league lawyer who’s spent her life floating around Washington to see who can land her a comfy federal job or some “commentator” job.

Now, in so far as she is a neo-con, Israeli-firster, Israeli-flag-in-her-office, dispensationalist lets-make-the-apolcalypse-happen-now, she’s not one of us, obviously. But that was not the point of the article. The article is about the media and it’s HATRED for light skinned folks from the fly-over states who aren’t metrosexual atheist vegan virulently mysandrogynous anti-family socialists.

“Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.”

Hehe. Great line. It would probably be even funnier if I knew who the hell Alinsky was. ( No, ain’t going to Wiki the dude.)

Oh, yea. I better ask, in the interest of fair game (no pun intended): Ya’ think Sarah the Great Moose Hunter would be less Robin Hood if she actually was ever part of the ‘hood?

Curious minds need to know.

J.D.—you infer from my statements that I support the war in Iraq.  Where did I say that?  I said
that no one, to my knowledge, supports the killing of children in warfare.  IF this were a
just war, THEN there still would be civilian deaths. 

AND the war in Afghanistan was just.  The Taliban gave aid and comfort to Al-Queda.

The Assemblies of God constitute “a mainstream Christian church”? This is a very surprising description from such a faithful Roman Catholic as Mr. Buchanan.

Thank you very much for writing here, Mr. Kelly.  I admire your writings and your posts at the
http://www.catholicism.org site, and thank you for a rather lengthy email you sent me this spring (I meant to
thank you when I had a chance to write a substantive response, but lost track of time).  If it
does not draw you away from more important duties (or get you too muddy from the mudslinging on this
site), please come back in the future!

No need to apologize for calling me “Mary” because I am a “her” not a “him”.  I guess it’s hard to tell from the nongender specific nickname, much like being named Terry or Chris or Carol/Carroll or Francis/Frances.  Marty can of course be short for Martin, Martina, or Martha. 

Sure you can consider a person’s religion in whether to vote for him or her.  I wouldn’t make that the defining factor though.  I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and wish he was Catholic.  However, better him than some person who does share my faith but whom I feel would be bad in the position they are running for.

There’s a Catholic group on the internet somewhere praying for Mrs. Palin to return to the faith.  Why not, it worked with Clarence Thomas?  I have added this to my prayer intentions and also will pray for Ron Paul.  Of course, as a Catholic, I wish everyone would find the Faith but I don’t see anything wrong with “targeting” people. 

I also think (and I am one of the most guilty) that if we spent half the time praying for the people we criticize rather than running off our mouths, it would be a better world!

You are all crazy people; check your calendars, what year you living in, 1213. Western Civilization stop existing during French revolution.
Tomorrow you all will be Arabs and no one will stop this, Islamic fascism will make sure this stupid society will vanish. “When you stare into an abyss for a long time, the abyss also stares into you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

Tobias, given your logic, it was just and right of Al-Queda to attack the U.S. because we give aid and comfort to Israel. In this day and age, we know that all war ends up killing children and civilians, so supporting any war means supporting killing children. Like our own misguided soldiers! I’m impressed buy your knowledge of modern heresies and Church minutia. But not that much. Buchanan sells out again. Pax, PhilthyRex

After reading Buchanan’s latest article a strange sense of deja vu swept over me.

I will make a bet right now that Buchanan will end up strongly supporting McCain in the upcoming election.

All you have to do to justify this prediction is to take a look at what happened in 2004. After two years of harshly criticizing Bushy’s decision to attack Iraq and the domination of his cabinet by the AIPAC lobby, Buchanan suddenly made a complete reversal and ended up endorsing Bushy for president. After this endorsement and all the way up to the election itself, his criticism of Bushy and the Repubs became ever more muted.

Buchanan after all is an entertainer on TV who specifically paid to play the role of a Republican when the time of an election comes near. He most definitely isn’t paid to play the role of an antiwar Democrat or independent (and certainly not that of a libertarian.) Buchanan turned complete tail on his professed values in 2004 simply because he must have been told he would no longer be allowed to appear on TV if he wasn’t considered a Republican actor in a role that demanded he keep closely to the script written by the handlers of the Republican standard bearer. 

Now the same situation arises again. Buchanan will end up supporting McCain because he will have to in order to fulfill his very lucrative role as “house Republican.”

After all, business is business.

Tobias, please read Karen Kwiatkowski’s article “Let Them Eat Cake” at LewRockwell.com a view on our “just” actions in Afghanistan. Pax, PhilthyRex

Why, part two:  They all want to buy her, what she stands for, and use her to further manipulate the public.  Hillary launched the first overture; what better to seduce a potential threat as early on as possible?  McCain picked her up for several reasons that would serve him, including bringing what she represents into the international spotlight, where the spin meisters can attempt their makeovers, and the soul spinners dizzy her into the common madness of modern politicians.

Clark Stooksbury makes the point that Pat himself graduated from Georgetown and Columbia University:

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/09/09/us-them/

Am I the only one to suspect that Pat Buchanan is doing what he must to stay in the Republican party, with his tongue firmly in his cheek?

At the very least he must have mixed feelings about a ticket whose head would have preferred Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

PhilthyRex,

“Tobias, given your logic, it was just and right of Al-Queda to attack the U.S. because we give aid and comfort to Israel. In this day and age, we know that all war ends up killing children and civilians, so supporting any war means supporting killing children. Like our own misguided soldiers! I’m impressed buy your knowledge of modern heresies and Church minutia. But not that much. Buchanan sells out again. “

No, that would not be the case “given my logic.” Al-Queda is not a state and does not have a right to
declare or wage war.  Also, the Twin Towers is a civilian target.  And hijacking an airplane and turning
it into a missile and killing everyone on board in a suicide bombing is also immoral (in case you haven’t noticed, our soldiers don’t do that).  Then there’s the fact that their war is unjust—they are fighting for an unjust cause (jihad, the imposition of Islam).  IF they were a legitimate state AND the United States had done them wrong AND their cause was just, THEN the Pentagon would have been a legitimate target.  So, no, “using my own
logic,” I am not justifying the attack on the United States.  An “unnice” try.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the principle of double effect.  During the Second World War, the Americans
and Brits intentionally bombed civilian centers and residential areas.  They were guilty of murder.  To
my knowledge, Americans today *DO NOT* aim to hit civilians.  They aim to hit military targets and
terrorist locations.  To my knowledge, all of the civilians who have been killed by bombing have been
killed by accident.  When does the number of accidents become excessive?  I don’t know.  Do you think
that when armies in the Middle Ages ravaged farms for food or besieged cities, there were no arrows that
missed their marks, and there were no “excess deaths” on account of malnutrition and plague?  The
principle is the same.  I don’t know how we can improve the tactics to reduce to amount of damage done
to civilians.  I don’t know when the damage done to civilians becomes excessive.  I do know that we
Americans would *really* LOVE it if Al-Queda and the militias in Iraq would in fact come out into the
field, away from the cities and fight fair.  If THEY fought fair, i.e. away from civilians, out in the
open field, soldier to soldier, we would kill all of them in about a week and that would be the end of
this.  Even if we take away morality, from a strictly military standpoint it is clear who benefits from
fighting in civilian centers—the guys we’re fighting, not us.

So I don’t think that the pro-war, pro-life people are inconsistent because they somehow “support” the
“murder of children.” Abortion is direct and intentional, and the damage done to civilians in Iraq and
Afghanistan is not intended by the commanders.  Often the damage cited ("excess deaths") is not direct.
If you want to criticize the pro-war, pro-life folks, it seems that you should be hammering the point
about whether these wars were just.  But that wouldn’t be so much a criticism of “inconsistent pro-life
stance” ("it’s okay to murder Iraqi children"), as that their Catholic anti-abortion position is not in synch with their non-Catholic (you would be claiming) ideas about a just war. 

Thanks for not being very impressed with my knowledge of Church minutia.  That is an acknowledgement
that you really did not need to share.

I must admit to my shame that until now I took Pat Buchanan to be a man of principles.  I see now that he is a sellout.  He feels so left out of the power-brokering mainstream, that he is selling his clout to Palin, hoping that one day she will remember it and reward him duly.  He misses the corridors of power so much, he is willing to endorse what almost noone else will.  Shame on you for betraying your principles, Sellout Pat, and shame on me for believing that you had any in the first place.

What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain?

Since her speech, Obama has repeatedly gone after her personally. And now he drops the pig with lipstick line and will have to spend several days trying to run from that stupidity.

He is a silly socialist thin-skinned wimp. A white girl from Hicksville is ass-kicking the Black man from the hood and he has absolutely no defense, or humo, or imagination.

What a dope. A Presidential Candidate seduced into attacking the VEEP choice of the opposing party. Yeah,Obama, we trust you against Islam.

Obama IS dumber than Bush…

http://blog.vdare.com/?s=obama+&#x2B;+sats

Sorry. I posted the wrong link. Here is the one about Barack dumber than Bush

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/05/was-barack-obama-an-affirmative-action-case-in-law-school-libertarian-vp-candidate-will-bet-a-million-dollars-he-was/

Thanks Tobias, for more of your nitpicky bloviating. You really should get a job with the military to keep creating loopholes for your/their moral stance. “Enemy Combatants”, even “Al-Queda” are just lawyerly constructions to create fear and implement destruction considered legal and hence moral by worshippers of the military/state. By invading and bombing Afghanistan we did not go to war with the so called Al-Queda. We attacked a country, because it’s impossible to wage war on an amorphous band of malcontents. Who says they don’t have the right to declare war? You? You don’t think their cause is just, neither do I. But who cares?  Methinks your scruples are much more strident when it comes to other people’s aggression. Until all war, that only states get to declare (in your opinion), is considered immoral, your high horse (and many soldiers), will have no legs. I think my stance is closer to what the Pope has offered on these topics, so I’ll sleep ok with my opinions. But so do many murderers. And maybe you as well. Pax, PhilthyRex

“AND the war in Afghanistan was just.  The Taliban gave aid and comfort to Al-Queda.”
The UScentgov was giving aid and comfort to the Taliban up to June ‘01, and would’ve still been doing it on 9/11, but the Taliban refused a demand by DC to allow Afghan pipeline construction on US terms.  Powell admitted years ago that UScentgov had plans on the table to strike Taliban over said refusal.  Taliban demanded US centgov give proof of OBL involvement with 9/11 masssacre, as per international law and simple common sense decency, but DC refused and gave Afghanis genocide instead.  The White Paper promised by Powell showing proof of OBL/Taliban involvement was never issued.  Video tape of OBL admitting 9/11 guilt questionable. 
“To my knowledge, Americans today *DO NOT* aim to hit civilians.  They aim to hit military targets and
terrorist locations.  To my knowledge, all of the civilians who have been killed by bombing have been
killed by accident”

To paraphrase Michael Corleone, “Now who’s being naive, Tobias?” One million or more murdered and maimed with another 4 million displaced is not by accident.  There is more proof of civilian targeting by US forces than the German public had available during WWII of the Shoah and the others massacred by the German State.

“Abortion is direct and intentional, and the damage done to civilians in Iraq and
Afghanistan is not intended by the commanders.  Often the damage cited ("excess deaths") is not direct.
Cold comfort to the victims and their survivors, I’m sure. When force protection is the name of the game, all civilians are fair targets.  Since it is an unjust, illegal war the resistence is just as innocent as the civilians.

T, you are an enabler of the Empire.  When you open your heart to the victims of US aggression as you have to other innocents, you will feel better and be better.  Christian Mystic

“Well, why wouldn’t that happen with Paul were he to be elected?”

Not Spartacus, because Paul just had a press conference telling people to vote third party. Pat seems to be drinking the Palin Kool-Aid. Pat needs to endorse Baldwin.

Obama himself had the best insight into Palin on Letterman last nite...to pharaphrase him, Palin is the lipstick on the pig! Indeed.