I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh | The Federalist

Image result for trump rally

As a voter who recognizes the unfortunate realities of our politics, I believe supporting Trump has become the responsible choice.

Source: I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

For decades, now, the Democratic Party has been moving further and further to the Left, embracing more and more draconian and authoritarian approaches to political correctness, subverting the Constitution to serve its ideological agenda (not that it has a monopoly on that), and branding anyone and everyone who questions it as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and downright deplorable… even while proclaiming loudly how tolerant, liberal, compassionate, and committed to diversity and multiculturalism they (the Democrats) are.

Maybe so, as long as that diversity and multiculturalism was sexual and racial. But if it was intellectual or philosophical – particularly if, quelle horreur, it included conservative or traditional views on politics, society, philosophy, morality, or religion – the story was quite different. Still, until recently, they were fairly adept at concealing most of this behind a brocade curtain of liberalism and “love trumps hate.”

[The kind of “love” that hounds opponents and their families out of restaurants, screams profanities, vandalizes buildings and cars, and hits people with everything from eggs to bicycle locks, as it turns out, but I digress…]

That brocade curtain sagged and gapped a bit during the 2016 election, when Hillary Clinton depicted her opponents as a “basket of deplorables” (it had begun to flap open a little in 2008, when Barack Obama described his as “clinging bitterly” to God and guns). But it was ripped open and the ugly and dangerous machinery behind it exposed for all with the eyes to see during the Kavanaugh hearings. Continue reading “I Was A Never Trumper Until Democrats Went Gonzo On Kavanaugh | The Federalist”

Advertisements

Brett Kavanaugh sworn in as Supreme Court justice, cementing conservative control

Chief Justice John Roberts, right, administers the Constitutional Oath to Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court Building.
Chief Justice John Roberts, right, administers the Constitutional Oath to Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court Building. AP | https://nypost.com/2018/10/06/brett-kavanaugh-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-justice/

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice in a private ceremony Saturday just hours after the Senate voted (50-48) to confirm him.

Source: Brett Kavanaugh sworn in: Senate votes to send him to Supreme Court

We have a new Justice on the Supreme Court! After a grueling and viciously partisan nomination battle, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been sworn in as the newest Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: the only court mandated in the Constitution (which provided for others to be created by Congress). On this day, Saturday, October 6, 2018,

“Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice in a private ceremony Saturday just hours after the Senate voted to confirm him, solidifying conservative control of the highest court in the land for years to come and ending a bitter battle over his nomination.”

As an opinion piece by Scott Jennings in USA Today added,

“The confirmation delivered a major win to President Donald Trump, who defended his embattled nominee when sexual assault accusations were leveled against him. Kavanaugh has denied the accusations.

“Kavanaugh’s confirmation was not just a chance for Republicans to shift the court to the right for what could be decades. It was also a test of how public officials responded to the raw emotions unleashed by the #MeToo movement amid accusations from Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teens. He said the incident never happened.  

“That controversy will likely be scrutinized even further with the Nov. 6 midterm elections a month away, giving Democrats have a chance to take control of one or more chambers of Congress.”

Needless to say, this will provide considerable motivation for the Democratic base to get out to the polls for the 2018 midterm elections, just a month away on November 6th – but the conduct of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and elsewhere in Congress, as well as their supporters on the streets, will also galvanize the conservative base. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this plays out in November!

The New York Post adds,

“Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as 114th Supreme Court justice Saturday, hours after the Senate voted 50-48 to confirm him. The quick swearing-in enables Kavanaugh to begin work immediately in advance of arguments at the court Tuesday.

“The court says Kavanaugh took the oath required by the Constitution and another for judges that is part of federal law in the same room where the justices meet for their private conferences. The 53-year-old justice’s wife, children and parents were in attendance.

“Chief Justice John Roberts administered the constitutional oath and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy administered the judicial one. Kavanaugh is replacing Kennedy on the bench and once served as his law clerk.”

I, personally, am convinced that – despite determined and actually despicable attempts by Democrats (who are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the hard Left) to derail the nomination – the system worked as it should and the decision reached (albeit by a very small margin) in the Senate was the correct one.

Is now-Justice Kavanaugh perfect? Of course not! No human is. But was there any legitimate, verifiable reason to preclude him from being appointed to the Supreme Court? No, there was not.

Again, despite Leftist arguments to the contrary, it is not being an apologist for sexual misconduct to insist that allegations of such conduct against an individual be substantiated, and that did not occur; furthermore, the very FBI investigation that the Democrats insisted on cleared Justice Kavanaugh of any misdoing (it also appears to have turned up evidence that the assault on then-Judge Kavanaugh was even more concerted and organized than originally thought).

And was Judge Kavanaugh qualified for the appointment? Eminently. The Democratic attempts to smear him and delay any appointments to the Supreme Court until after the elections (which they think and hope will gain them control of at least one House of Congress – as I say, we shall see about that!) were more than just wrong-headed; they were vile. And as for Christine Blasey Ford, her memories were disjointed and often contradictory; it seems clear to me that if she is not flat-out lying about what happened, she is mistaken as to the identity of her attacker.

As Roger L. Simon of PJ Media put it,

“Nothing was as expected. A real rape had taken place but it wasn’t the one everyone was talking about.  It was simultaneously a rape of Judge Kavanaugh, his family, and the American people themselves.  The collateral damage was Dr. Ford, her friends, and her family. And the perpetrator was the Democratic Party, principally their Judiciary Committee members, their ranking member, and the minority leader.”

He is speaking metaphorically, of course; but the outcry over Kavanaugh was a travesty of justice; it was a gross abuse of Constitutional procedures (the Senate’s duty to give “advice and consent” for Presidential nominations); and if it had been allowed to succeed, it would have set a horrific precedent: one in which unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations would have become the new standard of “proof,” and anyone, anywhere, any time, could have their honor and integrity impugned, their personal and professional reputation besmirched, their family traumatized, and their life potentially ruined simply because someone chose to make such an allegation.

In light of this, what is really depressing about the vote is that only one – one! – Democratic Senator, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), crossed the line and voted for Kavanaugh. Every other Democrat in the Senate was either too ideologically blinded, or too frightened, to understand or appreciate how close we came to a very frightening outcome.

It was only this year – in fact, just before the primaries – that I finally did what I probably should have done years ago, and switched my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Thank God I did. I would have hated to have been associated in any way, shape, or form, with the circus we’ve seen the last few weeks. A member of one of my Facebook groups posted a comment by Aaron D. Wolf, contributor to the conservative Chronicles Magazine, who wrote,

“The worst mistake Republicans could make right now is to try to make friends with the Democrats or the media again. This is how conservatives always lose when they win — snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Forget restoring bi-partisan dignity to the Senate. Harris, Booker, Feinstein, et al. are revolutionaries. The media are revolutionaries who hate traditional morality and culture, foment chaos, disturb the peace, and want to replace the traditional American majority — white and black… Pass state laws that would garner ACLU suits that would challenge Roe in ways amenable to the jurisprudence of the SCOTUS majority. Also, build the wall. Give voters something worth voting for.”

I agree. I have always been a moderate, a conciliator, one who seeks to bring people together. But there is a time for conciliation, and there is a time for standing one’s ground; for standing for principle. This is that time. Just a few days ago, I had written in my personal journal, and then posted in another Facebook group, the following:

I think it is time – and well past time – that we stop calling today’s Leftists “liberals,” and call them what they are: radical extremists, neo-Marxist revolutionaries, who are utterly determined to pull down, not only what THEY see as “white male privilege” (it’s amazing how many women and people of color I interact with every day, who do NOT see it that way, at all), but everything they see as linked to it – up to and including American culture, society, system of government, jurisprudence, and everything else about it.

Christianity not least! And of course, this is just part of a larger assault on the West as a whole, and its history, heritage, and culture. We are in a war, even if it’s not a shooting one… yet. I pray it doesn’t come to that! But it may, if the lunacy of the Left continues to build. At least (to change metaphors slightly) the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh has put another finger in the dike. I pray it may hold!

Viktor Orbán: “Say Goodbye to the Entire Elite of ’68”

Source: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 29th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp

Above is the complete video, with English subtitles, of Orbán’s speech in Transylvania, in which he highlighted his accomplishments and outlined a vision of a renewed Central Europe pursuing its own geopolitical interests, but also being a region based on national sovereignty, Christian values, and resistance to contemporary Left-wing “liberalism,” as well as the rejection of non-European immigration and the values of the “’68 generation.” The link is to the complete text of this speech, which is a bit long to follow along comfortably with the subtitles – at least it is, for me.

There is much in this speech that is worth “reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting,” but one item that leapt out at me were the five tenets he proposed for not Hungary alone, but Central Europe, in the years and decades ahead. They are these:

“I have formulated five tenets for the project of building up Central Europe. The first is that every European country has the right to defend its Christian culture, and the right to reject the ideology of multiculturalism.

“Our second tenet is that every country has the right to defend the traditional family model, and is entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father.

“The third Central European tenet is that every Central European country has the right to defend the nationally strategic economic sectors and markets which are of crucial importance to it.

“The fourth tenet is that every country has the right to defend its borders, and it has the right to reject immigration.

“And the fifth tenet is that every European country has the right to insist on the principle of one nation, one vote on the most important issues, and that this right must not be denied in the European Union.

“In other words, we Central Europeans claim that there is life beyond globalism, which is not the only path.”

With obvious adjustments based on region and political alignment (particularly for those of us who are – thankfully! – not part of the EU), it seems to me that these five tenets make a good deal of sense for all who value national sovereignty, identify, self-expression, history, heritage, and tradition over globalist suppression of these elements.

And then there is this, in which he has placed his finger squarely upon the crisis facing Europe itself:

I can tell you that if we take a look at Europe, we can see that it was once a great civilization. Europe was once a power center that shaped the world. This was so because it dared to think, it dared to act, it was brave, and it embarked upon great endeavors.

“If we look at one civilization or another from a spiritual perspective – and there is a branch of literature devoted to this – we can conclude that civilizations are comprised of four things. Civilizations are entities of a spiritual nature. They are formed from the spirit of religion, the spirit of creative arts, the spirit of research, and the spirit of business enterprise. These are the spirits that can form a civilization.

“If we look at our Europe now in terms of the spirit of religion, we see that it has rejected its Christian foundations. In terms of the spirit of creative arts, we see that there is censorship, and political correctness is forced upon us. In terms of the spirit of research, we can say that the US has overtaken our Europe, and soon China will also have done so. And as regards the spirit of business in Europe, we can say that instead of the spirit of business, today Brussels and economic regulations are ruled by the spirit of bureaucracy.”

He continues,

The gravity of the situation – the gravity of the situation of European civilization – has been revealed by the migrant crisis. Let me take a complex thought and simplify it: We must face up to the fact that Europe’s leaders are inadequate, and that they’ve been unable to defend Europe against immigration. The European elite has failed, and the European Commission is the symbol of that failure…

“Now we should ask ourselves why the European elite – which is today exclusively a liberal elite – has failed.

The answer to this question – or at least this is where I look for the answer – is that first of all it has rejected its roots, and instead of a Europe resting on Christian foundations, it is building a Europe of the ‘open society.’ In Christian Europe, there was honor in work, man had dignity, men and women were equal, the family was the basis of the nation, the nation was the basis of Europe, and states guaranteed security.

“In today’s open-society Europe, there are no borders; European people can be readily replaced with immigrants; the family has been transformed into an optional, fluid form of cohabitation; the nation, national identity, and national pride are seen as negative and obsolete notions; and the state no longer guarantees security in Europe. In fact, in liberal Europe, being European means nothing at all: It has no direction, and it is simply form devoid of content.”

This could, of course, be said about the West in general, at this point in our history! But the situation is even more poignant and critical in Europe itself, which is the homeland of its own indigenous people – Europeans – as well as acutely vulnerable (due to its location) to masses of migrants pouring in from elsewhere… and particularly from regions with alien cultures and ethnicities.

The potential result, if left unchecked, is the complete annihilation of Europe itself: a threat which should be of concern not only to anyone of European heritage, anywhere in the world, but of anyone, anywhere, who has any concern for legitimate multiculturalism, true global diversity, and cultural survival – not the ersatz version of “multiculturalism” spewed by the globalist Left.

Orbán continues,

If you think back over the past one hundred years or so of European democracy, you can detect a pattern in which matters in Europe have effectively been decided by competition between two camps: on one side, communities based on the continuing foundations of Christian tradition – let us call them Christian democratic parties; and, on the other side, the organizations of communities which question and reject tradition – let us call them Left-wing liberal parties…

Christian democratic politics means that the ways of life springing from Christian culture must be protected. Our duty [from a political perspective] is not to defend the articles of faith, but the forms of being that have grown from them.

“These include human dignity, the family, and the nation – because Christianity does not seek to attain universality through the abolition of nations, but through the preservation of nations. Other forms which must be protected and strengthened include our faith communities. This – and not the protection of religious articles of faith – is the duty of Christian democracy…

Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues.

“Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”

“Illiberal” is a word-concept that rings with some dissonance on the contemporary ear, especially here in the U.S., where there is still a memory of classical or traditional liberalism, with its connotations of broad-mindedness, generosity, and tolerance. The sad truth, however, is that what passes for political “liberalism” in today’s world has strayed very far from those concepts. Par exemple:

For our Founders, liberty involved freedom from excessive government interference; for today’s liberals, government enforcement of their preferred social norms is not only permissible, but expected, even demanded. For liberals of the past, freedom of speech and expression was a fundamental, core value; for the so-called “liberal” Left of today, freedom of speech may be, and they would argue in some cases should be, suppressed to prevent what they view as “offensive” speech. Such are the vagaries of linguistic development, in the sociopolitical sphere!

In such a context, to classify what Orbán calls “Christian democracy” as “illiberal” is not only comprehensible, but logical: liberalism having betrayed its own foundations, it must now be reigned in for the good of society, and for the future of humankind. As a first step in that direction, he cites the upcoming European Parliament elections, scheduled for next May:

Let us brace ourselves, let us launch ourselves into this intellectual debate, and so let us steel ourselves for the European Parliament elections. We are on the threshold of a great moment, and we’ll see whether or not it comes to fulfillment. The opportunity is here. Next May we can wave goodbye not only to liberal democracy and the liberal non-democratic system that has been built on its foundations, but also to the entire elite of ’68.

If the elite of ’68 leaves the field, there is only one question to be answered: who will arrive to replace them? And the modest answer we must give to this is that we are on our way. Calmly, and with restraint and composure, we must say that the generation of the ’90s is arriving to replace the generation of ’68. In European politics, it is the turn of the anti-Communist generation, which has Christian convictions and commitment to the nation.

Thirty years ago, we thought that Europe was our future. Today we believe that we are Europe’s future.

For someone such as myself, who is deeply concerned about the direction of the West, it is impossible not to read these words and be encouraged. Not that Orbán is perfect; there is One and only One perfect man, One and only One Saviour: Jesus Christ our Lord. As one commentator points out, many of us are

“always looking for a hero – Putin, Trump, Orbán, or whoever – and as we know this sometimes leads people to ignore their flaws and hero-worship them, all of whom in the end are, after all, nothing more than politicians, even if they do things that are in some ways beneficial for us.

“And there are certainly valid criticisms one can make of Orbán, especially for a Hungarian. But I still think that the positives far outweigh the negatives. There can be no question that Orbán has done great work on behalf of all in the West by standing up to Brussels over immigration.”

Indeed. I wish him, Hungary, and the Visegrád Four (as well as their allies in Austria and Italy) all the best, as they struggle to protect the sovereignty, self-identify, culture, history, and heritage of Europe – Christian Europe – against a rising tide of alien immigration from without, and atheistic nihilism from within.

Read the speech (or listen to it and read the subtitles). There is much more than I have recounted here, and though a lot of it is specific to Hungary and/or Central Europe, there is much that’s worth reading by the rest of us!

How to Think About Vladimir Putin | Imprimis

https://images.haarets.co.il/image/upload/w_2127,h_1234,x_73,y_41,c_crop,g_north_west/w_609,h_343,q_auto,c_fill,f_auto/fl_any_format.preserve_transparency.progressive:none/v1520693046/1.5888890.2316694687.jpg

Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.

Source: How to Think About Vladimir Putin | Imprimis

Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, notes, “this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him,” and continues,

“Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics.

“Vladimir Vladimirovich is not the president of a feminist NGO. He is not a transgender-rights activist. He is not an ombudsman appointed by the United Nations to make and deliver slide shows about green energy. He is the elected leader of Russia — a rugged, relatively poor, militarily powerful country that in recent years has been frequently humiliated, robbed, and misled. His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat.

“By American standards, Putin’s respect for the democratic process has been fitful at best… Yet if we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the pre-eminent statesman of our time.”

In short, Putin is doing what a national leader should do: looking out for the best interests of his country, and his people. Those of us who admire him, admire him for that reason – not because we think we will always agree with him, or are naive enough to think that the interests of Russia will always be congruent with those of the West, or America in particular.

When our interests are opposed, we should act accordingly – though not in a knee-jerk or foolish way. We need to exercise rationality, discernment, and discretion, none of which seem to be strong suits of the contemporary Left.

But we need not, and should not, view him – or the Russian Federation – as an enemy, or an adversary, or even necessarily and always as a rival. There will be many times when our interests are common, or at least complementary. When that is the case, we should also act accordingly. And it is certainly foolish, and dangerous, to ratchet up the tension unnecessarily, or for domestic political reasons.

[My suspicion is that the American Left is simply congenitally incapable of believing that they lost the election – all by themselves, by their own words and actions; that a sufficiently large percentage of the American voters flatly rejected the Democratic candidate, Party, and platform to hand an electoral victory to the current President… so the outcome must have been the result of Russian meddling. It’d be silly if it wasn’t so sad – and so dangerous.]

The Russian Federation may not be the superpower that the old Soviet Union was, but it is certainly a Great Power – a very great power: large, populous, and militarily powerful – and must be respected as such. And its President should be respected as a strong and capable leader who takes his country’s interests seriously, as any good leader should do.

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

Russia, The Royal Martyrs, and Revolutionary Modernity | Throne, Altar, Liberty

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The murder of the Romanovs had been foreshadowed by the beheadings of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette on January 21st and October 16th respectively in 1793, and before that by the beheading of Charles I on January 30th, 1649.

Source: Throne, Altar, Liberty: Russia, The Royal Martyrs, and Revolutionary Modernity

I have said this myself, more than once and in more than one forum, but I have never said it better – and very likely, not this well:

“The murder of the Romanovs had been foreshadowed by the beheadings of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette on January 21st and October 16th respectively in 1793, and before that by the beheading of Charles I on January 30th, 1649. There are a number of parallels between these murders. The victims, in each case, included the legitimate Royal Sovereign of the country in which the revolution was being perpetrated. He was also, in each case, the Royal Protector of a Church which claimed descent from the early, undivided, Apostolic Church and which was under attack by the revolutionaries.

“Charles I was the Protector of the Church of England which was under attack by the Puritan Calvinists. Louis XVI was Protector of the Roman Catholic Church in France which was a target of the Revolutionaries who were disciples of the rationalist Rousseau. Nicholas II was Protector of the Russian Orthodox Church against the atheistic, Marxist, Bolsheviks. In England and France, the revolutionaries tried to give a façade of legality to the murders by holding show trials in which the kings were condemned by kangaroo courts. In Russia, the Bolsheviks didn’t bother with this, they simply declared the Tsar to be guilty of crimes against the Russian people and had him shot. In each case the royal murders failed to satisfy the bloodlust of the revolutionaries, but rather merely whetted their appetite for the mass murders that were to come.

“There is a sense in which all three crimes were committed by the same perpetrators. While the term ‘left’ did not develop its political connotations until the French Revolution, when it was applied to the enemies of the Crown, aristocracy, and Church because of where they stood in relation to the speaker in the French assembly, the Puritans were definitely historical antecedents of the French Revolutionaries, just as the Bolsheviks were their ideological descendants. The Puritans, like the Anabaptists of continental Europe, were the ‘left-wing’ of the Reformation, those who thought the Magisterial Reformers had not gone far enough. They were also the first classical liberals, or, as liberals were called at the time, Whigs.

“In their thinking, and especially the secularized version of it offered in the writings of John Locke, the foundation was laid for the much more radical thought of Rousseau, which inspired the French Revolutionaries, and in turn laid the foundation for Marx, the father of Communism. In this lineage can be seen one explanation for the fact that ‘left-wing extremism’ is a far less commonly heard expression than ‘right-wing extremism.’ The latter expression is, of course, never used in good faith. It is employed by the left, to smear those who hold views that the left has decided are to be considered to be outside the pale of acceptable discourse…

“The reason ‘left-wing extremism’ has not caught on is that it is redundant. The essence of the left, its very nature, is the relentless desire for the complete overthrow of all time-honoured institutions, traditions, and order. From royalty, nobility and the Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to the middle classes and private property and enterprise in the nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, to marriage, the family, the nation and even the biological realities of race and sex in the twentieth and twenty-first, the left has moved on from one target to another, seeking only to destroy in its hatred and rage, with its ultimate targets being the Good, the True, and the Beautiful and indeed, God Himself, for, as Dr. Johnson observed centuries ago, the first Whig was the devil.

“The left is extremism, and extremism is the left.”

Sadly but absolutely true. It’s been demonstrated over and over again.

An added bonus of this excellent essay by Gerry T. Neal – who describes himself as a “Protestant Christian, patriotic Canadian, and a reactionary High Tory with a libertarian streak, at the same time a monarchist, indeed a royal absolutist, and a minarchist” – is a detailed discussion of how Senator Joseph McCarthy, castigated as a “witch hunter” for his crusade against communists and their fellow-travelers in 1950s America, was actually far more right than wrong, noting:

“Russia has been much in the news lately as left-wing wackos have been trying to paint US President Donald Trump’s attempts to get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and allow the two countries to peacefully co-exist as some sort of treason. In my childhood, Russia was still in the grips of the murderous, totalitarian, ideological, regime bent on global conquest that had seized power in the fall of 1917. How well I remember that at that time, the same people who are crying ‘the Russians are coming’ today, labelled anyone who warned about the Communist Kremlin’s evil designs a ‘McCarthyite.'”

Or as I have commented elsewhere, including in this blog, how ironic that some of the same people – and certainly the same party – who spent years, even decades, appeasing, accommodating, and apologizing for the Soviet Union are now aghast at the idea that the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin actually has, and is pursuing, its own legitimate national interests. Perhaps not surprisingly, an attempt at global Communist hegemony was much more acceptable to the Left than contemporary Russian nationalism!

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

Trump Stands His Ground on Putin | Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website

Trump Stands His Ground on Putin

By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance.

For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?

Source: Trump Stands His Ground on Putin | Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website

Why, it tries to create one, of course!

(Actually, I am becoming increasingly convinced that there is indeed a war on, an undeclared war for socio-political dominance here in the U.S. – and more broadly, the West – and that the enemy is among us. But I digress…)

In any case, Pat Buchanan makes sense and says worthwhile things far more often than not, and this is an excellent example (using print-friendly version b/c the formatting on the main website leaves something to be desired). As he aptly notes,

“The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’ the establishment has cried ‘Fascist!’ too many times to be taken seriously.

“A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans. [N.B.: they conveniently forget or ignore that this was done under a Democratic President, namely FDR: one of the most popular and famously progressive ones in history.]

“Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.

“If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again.”

I cannot disagree!

Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this essay. It’s spot-on.

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge | Derek Hunter

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2018/174/50d8f2f4-de76-44a8-be20-4cf6bd48f21f.jpg

Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil.

Source: Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge – Derek Hunter

That is, indeed, the question.

As Hunter points out in this sobering but insightful piece,

“The ability to agree to disagree is dead, murdered by leftists who demand absolute adherence to their political will or they declare you an enemy of the people and seek to destroy you. As long suspected, those “coexist” stickers on their Priuses were for show, they should read “obey” because obedience, in absolute terms, is the only acceptable way to “coexist” with the liberal mob…

“When you hear that the President of the United States is well on his way to becoming the next Hitler, you almost have an obligation to act. When you’re whipped into a frenzy fed by dishonest reporters spinning half-truths into concentration camps, it’s only a matter of time before another person snaps at members of the party enabling the next despotic monster. It’s not only inevitable, it’s the objective. That’s the only logical conclusion you can draw…

“Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil. For that declaration to carry any emotional weight the hateful flames of their fringe have to be stoked to engulf enough people to motivate them to vote in November. The question is, will November come before the spark they’re building toward that ignites something awful?”

That is indeed the question. And on the answer, may ride the fate of our Republic. I have rarely been so fearful for our future as a nation, and a people.

And of course, in November, it all begins again… Is it any wonder that, much though I love and am loyal to the Founders’ vision for this country, I also have a political Tory’s longing for Church, King, and Country – and all of them ordered in a Traditional direction? To say that we are badly off-course is to risk severe understatement!