Skip to comments.Buchanan Asks, "What Do We Offer the World?"
Posted on 05/19/2004 2:54:18 AM PDT by Theodore R.
click here to read article
"A little dab'll doya'!"
or is that brillcream?
Oh, hold it...you're talking about what's on his hair?
two shots vitalis... and two cups of sweet and sour.... yummy! (don't try this at home kids)
Attaboy Luis, keep the faith, we'll find 'em.
We'll know one way or another beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Something that the rest of the world had failed to do prior to the invasion.
Something that the rest of the world had failed to do prior to the invasion.
Luis, do you have any inkling of how tragically sad your comment is in light of the debacle that this adventure has turned out to be?
Yes, indeed it has been tragic for Saddam, the U.N., the french and those who otherwise also hate President Bush.
Ah, another myopic quarter heard from.
For heaven's sake read and BEGIN your enlightenment.
DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
DID YOU KNOW? As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
DID YOU KNOW? There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
DID YOU KNOW? James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
DID YOU KNOW? Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
DID YOU KNOW? Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
YOU KNOW? Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
DID YOU KNOW? Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over many.
DID YOU KNOW? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
And you throw terms around like "lunatic". Shame.
Myopic? Are you speaking to yourself again? Don't worry, a lot of buchanan's bunker buddies do that these days.
You do recall, nothing you just cited holds the force of law in this country, don't you? The Constitution, however, DOES, your fantasies notwithstanding.
Pat does not, has not, would not endorse our enemies.
It may be that his writing may be a little above your head.
You're welcome to come back when you're a little more intellectually mature.
Was that the sound of a mind slamming shut?
Wrong direction there Kimi-Sabe. If pat wanted his words put to a more appropriate use he would start printing his books on two-ply...it makes it a lot easier.
I think most of us who took the time to learn anything more about our great nation than just its fine Constitution put great stock in its traditions.
With your statement above, you sound for all the world like the redneck fundamentalists on here that won't "egcep anythin" that ain't in the good book.
Hope I didn't hit a nerve there.
It's only a debacle to those shilling for the left.
You know, you have yet to post anything of any substance whatsoever, why haven't you?
Because you lack the ability to do so?
Buchanan should not compare the Christian culture war to the Islamic one. Muslim women really are oppressed. Christians don't treat women that way.
"Why not stand with Islam...are they wrong?" - from the article.
I guess you read in the things you want, like you do with the Constitution.
Which of those traditions has the force of law? On the same level as the Bill Of Rights?
"With your statement above, you sound for all the world like the redneck fundamentalists on here that won't "egcep anythin" that ain't in the good book."
ROFLMAO! That's as far from me as Pat is from relevance.
The FACT remains, as much as you ignore it, that even in 1789, with the country nearly 100% Christian, the Founders STILL did not write the Constitution to provide for a "Christian Nation", and in fact procribed that very thing in that document. If even THEN, they didn't think it a good idea (a wise choice, as several thousand years of the abuses of Liberty by theocracies showed), how in the WORLD can you relate it to today?
I read some of the comments from the patsies and I just can't help getting a mental image of some toothless old men somewhere in South America remembering the good ol' days of the Third Reich...fanatics to the end.
I don't see him making any "point" whatsoever. All I see is Pat venting.
Upon consideration, I think I know what really bothers Pat. The current war against Wahabiwackjobism is going to have the side effect of making theocratic politics unacceptable in polite society, just as the war against Naziism has the side effect of making genteel anti-Semitism unacceptable in polite society. Pat is aware of this on some level, and just as unhappy about the former as he was about the latter.
If you go back through this thread--or go back through almost any thread based upon a Pat Buchanan article--you will find that almost all the responses attempting to create a "Jewish" issue, or a "Nazi" issue, originate with those who are opposing Buchanan's views. Practically none of that silly hate spewing material originates with those supporting Pat's position. On the other hand some of those spewing the hatred against Pat, show signs of almost pathological hatred or paranoia.
I am sure that some of these Buchanan haters are sincere. They have been sold a "bill of goods," and are simply responding like Pavolovian subjects. I suspect, however, that some are deliberately trying to stir up the very thing they claim to be fighting--provocateurs, seeking anything but amicable relations between different religious groups, etc..
Some of us who have spent our lives fighting for traditional American values are getting very sick of this ugliness for the sake of ugliness. Enough is really more than enough.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The very last thing any Conservative, Buchanan included, should advocate is a Communist of Nazi style monolithic world culture. The point he is making is that we should not be backing the wackos whom he quotes, advocating the Feminist agenda for the near east; that they represent the very thing which Christian, Jewish and non-affiliated American Conservatives have been fighting in our own culture war--i.e., that American Feminism is a common enemy.
Rational people do not insist upon 100% agreement, before they are able to recognize common grounds with other people. The alliance that Pat suggests--and it is really rhetorical tongue in cheek for his real point which is that the Perle approach is in my parlance, not Pat's kindlier phrases, pure crack-pot--is on an ad hoc basis; that is for the purpose of defeating the Feminist assault on reason and family values, and not for any internationalist agenda, whatsoever.
Indeed, it is the essence of the traditional American foreign policy, that we only form alliances on an ad hoc basis; that we retain--permanently--a freedom from entangling alliances.
Well, duh. Naturally, the Patsies aren't the ones who introduce Pat's endorsement of Holocaust-denier pseudoscience, just as Clintonistas aren't the ones who introduce the parsing of the reflexive verb.
The Constitution set up the Federal Government--the Government of a Federation of Sovereign States--several of which still had Established State Churches at the time. Just as on other issues, the Constitution did not intrude on the really quite distinct State political, social and religious cultures, it certainly did not here. There was no intention to establish a Theocracy in Washington, and on that you are entirely correct.
There was not, however, any hostility to such a concept in the States, and that is why the First Amendment specifically forbids the Federal Government from passing any law that has any effect on the State religious institutions. Read it, with an understanding of English, not the ACLU distortion.
But the real point is this. The Founding Fathers did not believe that you legislate morality. They had tried that in the early days of New England, but even in Liberal New England, they had pretty well advanced beyond that idea. They legislated against things which might corrupt people's morals but that is a concept for dealing with perceived danger, not trying to legislate character. George Washington spoke for most, when he said that our whole system, our societies themselves, were based upon private morals. Morals are not a group thing. The benefit of religious teaching reaches--or fails to reach--individuals. Everything about American society, political, social, economic, spiritual, was based upon personal responsibility, personal accountability.
Pointing out that the Founding Fathers did not seek to create a Theocracy, says nothing at all about their personal value systems.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Just wanted to put that up so we know what we're talking about.
I read it, as I'm sure you do, that the United States government, and by extension the states since the 14th Amendment, cannot establish a "state" religion, nor can they prohibit the people to practice religion as they see fit. No ACLU involved.
"Pointing out that the Founding Fathers did not seek to create a Theocracy, says nothing at all about their personal value systems."
We agree. I made no comment about their personal values; which are, to say the least, to determine now, as it is near impossible to know what is in a man's heart. We do have what they DID, though, and that is above.
Quite a bit of gibberish, which intones pretty much as an inside joke among the anti-Buchanan element. That gibberish conveniently communicates nothing to those of us who have not accepted your premises. Could you please explain, if you can, what any of that mixed collection of English and newspeak has to do with the actual subject? What does it say as to whether or not Pat is on the mark in attacking the efforts by several named advocates for our sticking our noses in other people's cultures? How does any of it justify our meddling, in order to impose a Feminist agenda, that most Conservatives reject in our own culture, on other peoples?
And if you care to translate that gibberish into English that tells us just what you are accusing Pat Buchanan of, we just might get you some answers as to whether you have made any point against Pat on some other subject, whether germane to this particular thread or not.
Academic "buzz words," if that was what you intended, might work with intimidated sophomorish coeds. They don't cut much ice in this Forum.
My point was that that clause does not say what you and others have read into it. It does not say that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It goes well beyond that. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That obviously would include an attempt to establish a religion. It also, however, clearly includes a prohibition on interfering with existing establishments of religion.
The Founding Fathers expected the States to openly promote religious values. Jefferson, the author of the Act that disestablished the State Church in Virginia, premised his Act on the Will of the Creator, in giving man Free Will. Read the Act. He also sought to promote religion at the University of Virginia, which he considered a prouder accomplishment than being President.
For how the ACLU has distorted Constitutional Law in this area, see Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.
You got me laughing over the idea of those referred to as "neocons," in this thread, ruling the earth. The last 87 years produced two conspiratorial groups that gave that idea a good try, to be sure: The Communists and the Nazis. The former were both more intelligent and more patient than the neocons. The latter were equally impatient, but also far more intelligent than the neocons. Both the Communists and the Nazis failed because they did not really understand the profound complexity of the human experience--did not realize quite what they were biting off. They understood themselves and their strategies, but were totally unable to gauge the responses of peoples operating outside their ken.
The neocons would not have a good clue as to what I am even discussing. David Frum, the sophomorish Canadian expatriate by way of Yale, epitomizes what those fellow have to offer. Pat Buchanan absolutely annihilated Frum's intellectual pretensions in an earlier essay.
I am not attacking your response--not in the least. It is just that it struck me as really funny--the idea of the likes of Frum, Kristol or Fred Barnes, etc., trying to succeed where Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin & Hitler, failed. One cannot suggest that would be going from the sublime to the ridiculous, because the named failures were incredibly cruel tyrants. But you will get the idea. I really am not sure that Frum, Krisol or Barnes have enough between the ears to do so.
Thanks for the chuckle! I was starting to get angry over the mindless anti-Buchanan "trash talk," and you snapped me back into a sense of proportion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
What utter nonsense! They treated their entire populations like slaves, if you want to define slavery as being unable to make personal decisions for yourself, that are in conflict with the plans of the collective. But Communism embraced radical feminism long before American Liberals did. The Communists started out in Russia with free love, no fault divorce, etc.. The women on road crews were not there as a deprivation--at least not under their theory--but as an abolition of sex roles--what Feminists advocate.
Also, you may be too young to remember. But one of the Nazis put on trial for war crimes because of her brutal treatment of concentration camp inmates under her command was the woman, Ilsa Koch. General Clay commuted her death sentence because she managed to get herself knocked-up while in our custody. I don't know if they ever determined whom the father was.
But all of this is beside the point. We did not fight the Communists and the Nazis to meddle in the relations between the sexes in their lands. We fought the Communists and Nazis because we were under attack and they threatened everything we hold dear--not there, but here.
Your government has in its possession another document made in Germany by Hitler's government. It is a detailed plan, which, for obvious reasons, the Nazis did not wish and do not wish to publicize just yet, but which they are ready to impose-a little later-on a dominated world-if Hitler wins. It is a plan to abolish all existing religions-Protestant, Catholic, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish alike. The property of all churches will be seized by the Reich and its puppets. The cross and all other symbols of religion are to be forbidden. The clergy are to be forever silenced under penalty of the concentration camps, where even now so many fearless men are being tortured because they have placed God above Hitler.
In the place of the churches of our civilization, there is to be set up an International Nazi Church-a church which will be served by orators sent out by the Nazi Government. In the place of the Bible, the words of Mein Kampf will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols-the swastika and the naked sword.
A God of Blood and Iron will take the place of the God of Love and Mercy. - SOURCE
We are under attack by the naked sword of Islam too. Liberating women from slavery is not the reason we fight the islamic menace, it's just happy by-product.
Pointing out the difference in the way Muslims and Christians treat their women can only help our side. The natural instinct of the left is to side with the enemies of the US. They won't do this if they realize that all Americans have a common enemy in radical Islam. We must combat the idea emanating from the left that the Christian Right is the equivalent of the Taliban.
1. They do not respect borders, governments or the ethnic integrity of peoples, even of their own faith.
2. They do not respect other peoples cultural differences.
3. They do not have the means to manufacture the armaments to equip armies, but must buy or steal materials produced by others.
You quote Roosevelt as to the Nazi onslaught against traditional religion, and suggest that as an argument for your own proposed onslaught against Islam? Why would you want to broaden the war to include the legitimate Islamic Governments--the original target of Bin Laden?
It sounds like you have an agenda not unlike that of which Roosevelt accused the Nazis. Why? You do not compromise your Christianity by limiting your war to the actual enemy--those actually attacking us. You do not help that war effort, by antagonizing a larger and larger segment of the population of the earth.
It is, of course, ridiculous to compare Bin Laden as an adversary to Hitler or Stalin. Those men had the means to produce--not buy or steal--to produce, and invent very advanced systems to be produced on a large scale. They had the capacity to do to us what neither Bin Laden nor those cheering him on, could ever hope to do. Do you understand the technological gap between us and this foe? Yes, they made an effective use of three of four hi-jacked planes. It was certainly a wake up call. But we are basically at war with an anarchist force. This is not Armageddonen, which was limited, I believe to peoples in the Near East and Asia Minor, anyway; and it certainly is not World War III.
William Flax [The War On Terror]
The only nation whose borders I am charged with protecting is my own. Any nation which threatens the US might as well kiss its borders goodbye.
"ethnic integrity of peoples"? This is another thing I am not concerned with. If certain "peoples" want to retain their "ethnic integrity," that's up to them.
They do not respect other peoples cultural differences.
I do not subscribe to the doctrine of multiculturalism, diversity and cultural relativism. I champion my own culture, and I insist that my own religion is the only true one.
Why would you want to broaden the war to include the legitimate Islamic Governments
I do not want to overthrow every Islamic nation on Earth, but I do not consider the Socialist government of Syria nor the Islamofascist government of Iran to be legitimate. They are our enemies and should be destroyed.
Your pretense of failing to understand the obvious fact that a person's flaws and prejudices are more likely to be raised by his critics than by his allies is not convincing. Try arguing honestly, or at least try a better grade of obfuscation.
Yes, and for the same reason we will fight, and prevail over, Wahabiism.
The consequences to the national security of the United States (which is what I, and the various other people you attack, are concerned with) whether he produces them himself, obtains them from others, or conjures up a genie to create them out of nothing. This is relevant only insofar as it affects the stategies to be used to choke off his potential supply.
If anything, making the point that al-Qaeda is dependent upon external support is to echo the original argument for the Second Gulf War. Having described al-Qaeda as only an arm of a greater enemy, you leave yourself with only the recourse of questioning the inferred fact situation behind the decision (i.e. was Iraq, in fact, a current or likely future source of such support?.
Those that compare the alleged purism of Islamic morality are woefully misinformed. Islam gives divine license to pretty much every sin in the book - pedophilia, rape, murder, sodomy, theft & deceit.. etc. So writers who claim that On such issues, conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats. are way off the mark.
There is a serious sickness in the American culture that was must address as Christians. We are teetering on the precipice of a post-Christian, amoral society similiar to decadent Western Europe, indeed it could be argued we have already fallen off that precipice.
Your rationalizations, turned around, are the same as Bin Laden's group use against us. It is interesting that Vattel, the great 18th Century authority on the Law of Nations, pointed out that the rationalization for the Spanish conquests and cultural repressions of established nations in Latin America, was basically the same as that which Islam used to justify its conquests across Asia. You may be Osama's soul brother, and just not realize it.
I did not describe al-Qaeda as only an arm of a greater enemy. Nor do I want those of you who seem to be seeking a religious war, to convert the real enemy into only an arm of a greater enemy. The present policy, which threatens the stability of the Near East--such as it is--by half-baked proposals, is helping that real enemy recruit.
If you are really concerned with our National Security, and not just out to wage war on Islam, you are proceeding in the worst possible way to secure it. The arrogance the Government is displaying is offending much of the earth--not just the Islamic part.
Secondly, I have not criticized the Bush decision to invade Iraq. My essay on the present fallacies, Iraq, makes it clear that I believe that the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on that.
I am hardly the one obfuscating. When you hurl ridiculous unfounded accusations at Buchanan, but ignore his actual points under discussion, you are obviously engaging in obfuscation. I will admit not a very good grade of obfuscation, but obfuscation, nonetheless.
In order not to facilitate your obfuscation, I will remind you that the actual subject was the ridiculous proposals by certain phoney Conservatives to try to use the United States to foist the Feminist Agenda on the Near East. And Pat made the point in respect thereto, that considering the moral havoc that Agenda has already worked in the United States, we do not have very good credentials to be telling anyone else how to live.
Three Cheers for Pat. There is no question, to any impartial observer, surfing by, who had the better argument, Pat or those smearing him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.