No More Politics as Usual?

I am growing stronger...I gotta admit, the GOP debate the other night was entertaining. Like most modern debates, it was more of a gang-press conference. Such have our standards fallen that no one could accuse it of being Lincoln-Douglass redux. Given that it was the most watched event on cable television ever, one could say that FOX news was the only clear winner.

Megan Kelly

Megan Kelly

Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow

There was another winner however. The Donald. He delivered a one-two punch. He not only sucked up all the oxygen in the room but he exposed FOX news as a shill for the Republican party; something that many of us had long suspected even as we continue to watch it. (Hey what do you want me to say? What choice do I have? I can either watch Rachel Maddow or Megyn Kelly.)

No, he didn’t play by the rules. He said things that would have destroyed another politician in a nanosecond. Some of his answers were word-salads; the rest were bombastic. And yet he dominated from start-to-finish. The laws of political gravity don’t apply to him, at least up to this point.

Now, make no mistake. He’s a blowhard, a showman. Married three times, he’s got so much baggage that a small platoon of stevedoers is needed to lug it around. He’s not a serious politician. Who cares? That’s why he went into the debate with the highest poll numbers and that’s why they continue to rise.

We shouldn’t be surprised. It’s really very simple. Trump strode onto the stage in the midst of a perfect storm, something that happens only rarely in politics. And in his own maladroit way, he spoke the truth. And that is that America is no different than most other countries. He who has the gold makes the rules. I for one was thoroughly amused at the way he said that he buys and sells politicians –even the sainted Joan of Arkansas–like cheap whores.

The great unspoken truth of modern, amoral America is now laid bare. For this he will be punished somewhere down the line I’m sure.

What constitutes this perfect storm? An anemic recovery for one thing, a deeply unpopular, un-American administration for another. Add to that a demoralized military which has been hacked by Russian operatives and a meaningless border and it’s clear things are spinning out of control.

There’s another reason that the GOP is aghast. The rise of Trump coincided with with the decline of cuckservatism. He didn’t say the word, but he might as well have. Cuckservative. It’s a scabrous and jarring insult, a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative, jarring to the ears and hurtful to the object. It lays bare the pathetic nature of the insultee. And it perfectly describes the official Right and their willingness to placate the Establishment as they continue to dispossess the American people in favor of global interests.

All Trump had to do was point this out. And that is why FOX was given its marching orders to take him out. They had to; the sting of that insult has caused the guilty to lash out in horror. Trump had to be destroyed last Thursday otherwise more Americans will wake up and realize that our nation has been sold out by both parties.

Unfortunately for them, Trump refused to be taken out. Interestingly enough, none of the other candidates took the bait and piled on him no matter how hard the moderators tried to get them to do so. They know the poll numbers and no amount of blown kisses from Megyn Kelly will make them carry water for Rupert Murdoch. At least not yet.

My prediction is that if Trump continues to gain steam (and I think he will), a heated debate will take place in the conservative movement (and FOX news in particular). Now that the cuckservative meme is gaining traction, the Overton Window will continue to be pushed to the Right and Trump’s ideas, if not the man himself, will dominate politics. Who knows? he may get a fairer hearing in the ensuing months. We’ll see.

I realize of course that the nice “conservatives” who grovel before their neocon masters for their fat paychecks will continue to be horrified and continue to bray that they’re not Wrongthinkers like those icky Red-staters. Too bad. Their day is over. Nobody respects them and it’s now clear that the national GOP in its present form is nothing but a controlled opposition. That charade cannot last forever.

Will he win? Not according to the conventional wisdom. But we don’t live in conventional times. The American nation is crumbling before our eyes. Our cities are aflame and race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan are advocating for the mass murder of whites. And innocents are being slaughtered by illegal aliens. It’s not a pretty picture. Our prisons are bulging yet the southern border is as porous as a sieve. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

Not content to call out our hostile elites on these issues, Trump is laying stake to even more unconventional positions. He recently said that the Crimea and the Ukraine are not our business, a belief that is non-controversial to many in the military. This of course gives John McCain and Lindsey Graham the vapors –they are not called the Batman and Robin of the Permanent War Caucus for nothing. Still, it’s refreshing that the leading candidate for the Republican party is willing to throw a wrench into the feverish plans of the warmongering elite.

Compare this bracing splash of water to the other candidates, some of whom (like Scott Walker) do not shrink from baiting the Russian bear. Do they not realize that they are inviting thermonuclear war. How stupid is that? I imagine that Trump thinks we have no business doing regime change in the Middle East as well. This is nothing but heresy to the Establishment. But they don’t send their sons to fight simply because the ghost of Woodrow Wilson told them to. That’s for the white trash in the Red States, not for their precious little snowflakes.

The ironies continue. His appeal cuts across wide strata of society. Presently, he has higher poll numbers among Hispanics than Juan Elizondo Bush, the platonic ideal of Republican cuckservatism. The working poor know that they’re getting shafted by the Chamber of Commerce and the middle class have seen their numbers dwindle. American folkways are being displaced by Third World customs that have no place in the American polity. And to what end? So that the rich can have a servile class of helots to attend to their every whim? So that even more wealth is transferred to the upper one percent?

So let’s say he wins the nomination. Can he win the presidency? Probably not. But here’s the dirty little secret: it will be very hard for any Republican to win the presidency again thanks to Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965. Not Scott Walker, not Chris Christie, not Marco Rubio. Certainly not Jeb Bush. Even Reagan would find it difficult to win today given that once-Red California is now deeply Blue. Republicans who think that they can convince Third-world immigrants about the self-evident rightness of our Founding Fathers’ vision are whistling past the graveyard.

So what’s his end-game? My instinct tells me that if he doesn’t get the nomination he’ll go third party. That depends on how he’s treated by the national party. Some would say that in doing so he’d destroy the GOP. In reality all he’d being doing is pulling the plug on the dying corpse that is the present national party. He would be doing us a favor given the fact that the only purpose of the Congressional wing has been to serve as the compliant husband as the Establishment continues its assault on the American nation. Who needs them?

There is another possibility however. If his poll numbers continue to rise, ordinary Republicans –and not a few disaffected Democrats–may be emboldened. The spotlight has been on the GOP since he announced his candidacy back in late June. The Democrats look anemic in comparison. Their bench on the national level is shallow. So much so that our President-presumptive, Madame Hillary doesn’t look like the lock she once was. It’s pathetic how she continues to re-launch her campaign every two months, all the while Bernie Sanders is stealing her thunder. Whispers about Joe Biden jumping in the ring and saving the Democrats from Socialist Senator are getting louder by the day. It’s an open secret that Obama and his henchmen are orchestrating the criminal probe against Clinton behind the scenes. We may see a Special Prosecutor yet. (Oh the irony! somewhere Dick Nixon must be smiling.)

That’s what I mean by “unconventional times.” Whatever his real motives are, the Election of 2016 promises not to be politics as usual. If he continues to rise in the polls I’d say that all bets are off. We shall see.


  1. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    Thanks to the photo you included, I have now seen more of Megyn Kelly than is good for me.

  2. I was all for Trump being in the race. It was refreshing and appreciated that when he spoke you could be assured that he was telling you the truth. Unfortunately I can’t give him that benefit anymore. When he says that he had no thought of referring to Megyn Kelly’s (I’m no fan of hers) menstruation, that strains credibility with me. He’s too clever for something like that to just slip out. Sometimes you have to confess and say you’re sorry. It doesn’t appear that Trump can. The trust factor is fading and that’s a shame.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      Sure, Trump says all the right things, but anyone can follow a script. What matters is character, which Trump does not have much of. Disrespectful toward women, minorities, and even POWs. He hates weakness, and in a capitalist society, that attitude has some appeal, but Trump revels in trampling on the weak. He enjoys it. And that’s not Christian. Trump is not merely in the world, he is of the world. And as his string of failed marriages amply demonstrates, there are just some things money can’t buy.

      I used to have the same view of immigrants as Mr. Michalopulos does. Then I became Orthodox and realized how judgmental I was being. We’re all from somewhere, and as Christians, we’re still pilgrims, passing through this life on the way to the next.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Trump is a boor, now doubt. But cuckservatives like David Brooks assured us that suave, urbane gentlemen like Obama had the right presidential timbre. Something about the crease in his slacks made Mr Brooks weak in the knees.

      Luke, as a civilization we’re pretty much on a downward trajectory. I’d say we’re Rome, AD 450 or so. Trump at least upsets the apple-cart that is our political class’ sanctimony.

  3. I agree 100% with everything you wrote here, George. The GOP as a national party is done due to strategic demographic changes. Anyone on a high school debate team could read some simple polling data and arrive at Trump’s positions. The other GOP candidates are trying to win an impossible game by playing it nice. Trump couldn’t care less. He’s just having fun and playing on the conservative electorate’s anger….and it’s working for now. Soon, though, the circus will be over and Bush will be the candidate. If it takes a carefully orchestrated GOP attack on Trump or an IRS investigation or whatever, that’s what will happen. Early in the process, nobody wants to look like too much of a meanie; they are counting on Trump flaming out.

    No Republican can win, anyway. I’d like to see Trump go third party just to embarrass the GOP by consigning them 35% of the vote on election day. I am tempted to help him do that so that something useful might rise from the Whig-laced ashes, boor though he is.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      BradlyP say, “The GOP as a national party is done due to strategic demographic changes.”

      I don’t know enough to challenge that assessment.

      I wonder, however, if a political party is “done” when it controls both houses of Congress, most Governors’ mansions, and most state legislatures.

      Anyway, I am a Democrat, only heaven knows why.

      • George Michalopulos says

        It’a an interesting dichotomy Fr. The GOP is predominant on the state/county/municipal level almost everywhere, even in some Blue states. On the Federal level though, it’s toothless even if it does control both Houses of Congress. That’s the brief of the TEA Party/Trump rebellion essentially.

        The Congress has the greatest power of all –the Purse–and yet they don’t use it. It’s now clear why: Boehner, McConnell, etc. are part of the globalist, un-American agenda.

        • ReaderEmanuel says

          George, I hope you’re not lumping the Tea Party movement together with the Trump phenomenon. What bothers me the most about Trump is that many hard-line conservatives (who should know better) are falling for him hook, line, and sinker. People are just so angry about politics as usual that they will fall for the lines of any snake oil salesman who tells them what they want to hear.

          Now, I do not support Mr. Paul for several reasons, but I think he said it all in this article.

          So, what are Trump’s chances? Well, the last private citizen to be nominated by a major party for POTUS was Wendell Willkie (R) in 1940. He got creamed by FDR in the general election. I put it to the group that governors and military men are most likely to win Presidential elections. Senators and former Vice-Presidents, sometimes but not as often. The last person to be elected POTUS directly from the House of Representatives was James Garfield. So it’s apparent that Trump’s chances to be elected are slim and none. If he splits the GOP vote by running as a third party candidate, it will spell the doom of the GOP as we know it. I think he knows that and I think he will do it. But, I wonder: Would he garner enough votes AND enough states to throw the election into the House, like George Wallace almost did in 1968? I remember that election quite well; Richard Nixon had to win his home state of California or else nobody would have had enough electoral votes to win. I remember staying up VERY late that night as a 13 year old young teen waiting to hear what the results from California were. I hope that doesn’t happen again.

      • The Democrats have been the pro-abortion party for more than 40 years.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Father, you are exercising your rights, under God, and as a citizen of this country, on behalf of a party that believes in abortion. How much more clear can it be?

        The best way to maintain a “mystery” is not to talk about it.

        • Gail and one,

          I understand the confusion. Why would Fr. Patrick of all people be a registered Democrat, the party of abortion?

          It must be remembered that he resides in the city of Chicago where candidates of other political parties can literally be counted on less than one hand. If his vote is to have any influence at all in primary elections – the only elections that matter in a one party city – he must register as a Democrat. The general election is another matter, and I have no doubt whatsoever that, if he votes, he votes with the conscience of an Orthodox Christian.

          Moreover, I am old enough to remember a time when the Democratic party maintained Christian morality and respect for life in public policy. Some Democratic politicians (although extremely few compared to the past) still do.

          • George Michalopulos says

            I quite agree. There is a practical principle involved here, one of localism if I may say so. It’s the same principle that keeps me in the Republican party at present: on the local level things are pretty good for those of us who live in Red states. The local GOP hasn’t gone cultural Marxist (yet). Taxes tend to be lower, government less obtrusive, crime somewhat lower, etc.

            If I may speak to Fr Patrick’s continued participation, it may be due to being viable in the city in which he resides. Then again, the GOP in Illinois isn’t exactly stellar. George Ryan, the former Rep governor of that State currently resides in the pokey, as does his successor, Rod Blagojevich (D).

            Along these lines, people are watching the GOP closely here in the South. The Confederate flag has become a bell weather of sorts and many Republicans have taken notice of how certain GOP bigwigs like Nikki Haley immediately rolled over to the forces of cultural Marxism.

            If I may add a parenthetical point: many who defend the Stars and Bars warned others that the demonic forces would not rest there, that American icons such as Jefferson, Washington, and Jackson would soon be thrown in the ash heap of history. Lo and behold! several dozen local Democrat parties have now renamed their annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners.

            Speaking for myself, that seals any possible return to the party of my father.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Brian remarks that Pat Reardon “resides in the city of Chicago where candidates of other political parties can literally be counted on less than one hand.”

            This is true. In fact, I am married to one-fourth of the Republicans in the city of Chicago.

        • Thomas Barker says

          Perhaps Fr. Pat recognizes that party affiliation no longer means anything – so no need to bother changing the empty gesture of registration. Democrat is Republican is Green is Independent. Bush marched in the same direction as Clinton. Obama continues the attack on Christianity where Bush left off. If our votes counted, those who hold the reins of power would not let us vote. Harassing Fr. Pat on this issue is wasted time and effort.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I’m sorry, did I miss something? Did Father Pat SAY he was just a registered democrat, but votes republican or is that speculation?

            • Thomas Barker says

              Fr. Pat said “Anyway, I am a Democrat, only heaven knows why.” I did not see the word “registered” in his statements. Nor did I see anywhere that he votes Republican. Has anyone seen him high-fiving Bernie Sanders? I doubt it. If this is really about abortion, then I encourage you to challenge him on the issue directly.

      • Dear Father Patrick, since you brought up your chosen political affiliation, would you also share which pro-life and pro-family values (Orthodox values) candidates you have found to support as a Democrat? Or if not, would you share your thinking as an Orthodox priest about prioritizing other issues over these to determine your vote? Thank you in Christ, Nicole in Dallas

  4. Nate Trost says

    Considering the blatantly racist etymology of the #cuckservative hashtag, I was curious if Mr. Michalopulos would be able to resist its siren call. It is a bit of a dead giveaway, after all. But apparently he could not!

    I can only assume that at this point Mr. Michalopulos has no fear of driving off the clergy that frequent his site, as long as he continues say, regular, full throated denunciations of sodomy, they won’t bother themselves to look at the unsavory underbelly of this site anytime the subject of race enters the picture.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Nice try Nate. There’s nothing “blatantly[or innately] racist” about the term. It originated as a slur against “nice-guy” conservatives who are always willing to concede moral points to the Left when there is no need to do so and throw real conservatives under the bus.

      • George Michalopulos says

        BTW, I’d like to reply to another commentator (I can’t remember who now) who said that he used to agree with my “view on immigrants.”

        I’d like to set the record straight: I am not now, nor have I ever been against legal immigration.

      • The word “cuckold” has racist and sexual meanings. But if you want to persist in ignorance of those, by all means continue to do so!

        • George Michalopulos says

          Matt (Lewis?), there is nothing racial and everything sexual about the term cuckold. Those two authorities you cite are trying to tag this term to certain porn fetishes (and only subsets therein) in order to deflect attention from their own weakness.

          One of my favorite “defenses” against the slur was Robert Stacy McCain who added anti-Semitism to the list of charges of those on the Right who have called him out. That fool went so far as to justify American war-mongering on behalf of Israel by citing Genesis.

          The truth is that National Review, The Weekly Standard, even RedState have all felt the sting of that term as it lashed their backs. As have McCain, Erickson, Lewis, Ace of Spades, and others too numerous to mention here.

          • M. Stankovich says

            Perhaps you have forgotten the use of the term by Shakespeare in Othello:. You will recall that while Othello is referred to as a “Moor,” he is traditionally portrayed as a black man. When his father-in-law, Brabanzio, appears in Act I, he accuses Othello of “stealing” his daughter, not by simple persuasion, but sorcery understood to convey what a Venetian clearly understood as a racial epithet, “black sorcery.” So that in the first scene of Act IV, in the dialog between Iago, intent on poisoning Othello’s mind, we hear:

            If you are so fond over her iniquity, give her patent to offend, for if it touch not you it comes near nobody.

            I will chop her into messes! Cuckold me?

            Oh, ’tis foul in her.

            With mine officer!

            That’s fouler.

            Get me some poison, Iago, this night. I’ll not expostulate with her, lest her body and beauty unprovide my mind again—This night, Iago!

            In his rage he speaks of Desdemona in the same phraseology the audience would recognize as Venetian racism: she is a “black devil,” a sorceress, and like a Venetian of the time would cynically conclude, a slave to lust and passion. Certainly the origin of the word cuckold bore a sexual connotation, but Shakespeare clearly was aware of its racist connotation as well.

            • Patrick Henry Reardon says

              Certainly the origin of the word cuckold bore a sexual connotation, but Shakespeare clearly was aware of its racist connotation as well.

              This is a petitio principii.

              No one disputes that Shakespeare’s context insinuates a racial component.

              Outside that context, however, where is the evidence?

              • M. Stankovich says

                Fr. Patrick,

                This reference was, first, at my own hand from notes taken during the lecture of Dr. E. Killian Curry, of the Irish Order of the Christian Brothers, in the course, Critical Examination of the Shakespearean Tragedies. The text was The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, which I no longer possess, but read:

                Desdemona may have been one of the first Shakespearian roles played by a woman on the English stage (possibly by Anne Marshall at Clare Market in 1660), but it took a long time for her character to develop into something beyond the anonymous modesty required as a foil to the star roles of Othello and Iago. It became more difficult to play as racism became more pervasive and extreme: ‘It would be something monstrous to conceive this beautiful Venetian girl falling in love with a veritable negro'(1593)

                But a better reference, which I do possess, is Kinney, AF, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, Oxford University Press, New York, 2012. pp.599 ff:

                Othello was written with a clear knowledge of republican Venice. In the opening act we witness one of the most satisfactory and straightforward resolutions of a legal case in Shakespeare’s works—perhaps designed as a pointed contrast to Portia’s subtle legal trickery in the earlier Merchant of Venice, probably the first representation of the city- state on the English stage… We are aware that there is another side to Venice. In the opening scene we witness Iago and Roderigo referring to Othello in overtly racist terms as the ‘thick-lips’, and conjuring up a grotesque pornographic scenario to force Brabantio to take action against his daughter:

                ’Swounds, sir, you’re robbed; for shame, put on your gown! Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul:
                Even now, now, very now, an old black ram
                Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise!
                Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,
                Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you. Arise, I say!

                Iago skillfully packs a great deal into a short space. Brabantio is robbed; his daughter has been transformed into an animal by her new husband; and Othello is a devil. While the city sleeps soundly its most sacred values are undermined by the forces of darkness. This is popular racism at its most potent. Probably the most haunting image is that of Desdemona as a ewe, sired by Othello the black ram.

          • Nate Trost says

            George Michalopulos wrote:
            Matt (Lewis?), there is nothing racial and everything sexual about the term cuckold. Those two authorities you cite are trying to tag this term to certain porn fetishes (and only subsets therein) in order to deflect attention from their own weakness.

            No, wrong, the reason those sites are citing the modern racialized pornographic subset of the definition is because that was the precise aspect making up the inspiration for the #cuckservative meme. And it makes perfect sense because it was birthed by a bunch of racist white supremacists. And, with that understanding, the specific sexual context of a black man having sex with a white woman ‘belonging’ to another white man as a particularly unholy violation directly maps onto a worldview of white conservative politicians ‘selling out’ White interests.

            And the thing is, when you try to protest otherwise you are literally arguing against a reality that is easily demonstrated because this isn’t something from a hundred years ago, this is a meme from recent weeks and months. You can literally trace the roots on Twitter and blogs and see where it all came from.

            So, sorry, your attempt at ‘whitewashing’ aside, that dog won’t hunt.

            When presented with a memetic apparition like #cuckservative springing forth from such a toxic spring as a bunch of neo-nazi wannabes, I suppose one could condense a conservative’s potential response to it down to a few possible tacks:

            1) Ignore it as being beneath contempt.
            2) Criticize it for it’s problematic content and odious origins.
            3) Attempt to take it mainstream and try to use it to legitimize its racial connotations in broader conservative discourse and talking points. If any conservatives engage in choice 2. above, slur them with the #cuckservative label no matter how ultra conservative or right wing they may be in all other areas.

            Needless to say, in his essay and in the comments here, Mr. Michalopulos is grabbing onto number 3 with both hands:

            George Michalopulos wrote:
            The truth is that National Review, The Weekly Standard, even RedState have all felt the sting of that term as it lashed their backs. As have McCain, Erickson, Lewis, Ace of Spades, and others too numerous to mention here.

            If you dare to point out the origins or problematic aspects of #cuckservative, you are one!

            One might ask, what exactly is the subtle or not so subtle agenda of Mr. Michalopulos if he is aiding in attempting to marginalize otherwise staunch conservatives who are fighting back at an attempt by white supremacists making a power play into the philosophical operating space of contemporary conservative political discourse?


            I guess at the end of the day, by the rules Mr. Michalopulos is dictating you can be a #cuckservative or a #klanservative.

            Which camp will you choose?

            • George Michalopulos says

              Wrong again. The word itself can be traced to the thirteenth century England when there were no black people living there nor any knowledge of them. It derives from the cuckoo bird which lays its eggs in (usually) warblers’ nests where it fools the warbler to raise them.

              Even in the ranks of the alt/nationalist/racialist Right, the emphasis is primarily on castigating those of the Conservatism, Inc crowd who have sold out their principles –and thus their nation–in order to be considered right-thinkers by the globalist establishment.

              Ever since this word came to my knowledge a little over a week ago, the literature that abounds about it (that I have read so far) only uses that subset of fetishism as gravy to further humiliate Matt Lewis, Erick Erickson, et al. It’s not the prime motivation but just another layer of mockery to be heaped upon these contemptible people. Their recoiling in horror has caused them to last out and use this minor racial angle to try and turn the tables on their critics. It’s really that simple.

              And yes, selling out your nation is nothing short of treason. That’s why Israel places great emphasis on building walls around its periphery, detaining and then detaining foreign migrants. By golly, I guess that’s what they mean when they say “the Jewish state.” Whoda thunk it?

              • Nate Trost says

                That black people or Twitter didn’t exist in thirteenth century England doesn’t make the origins of the #cuckservative hashtag non-racial.

                If you can show me tweets from the 12th century that originate #cuckservative with a non-racial context than I will concede the point. However, the actual tweets from the modern era that originate #cuckservative in a racial context are not hard to find, some round-ups of them are linked in this thread.

                You are essentially arguing that since the origins of a word several hundred years ago didn’t contain a certain subtext, than in a modern contemporary setting, even if has attained that context and it can be easily demonstrated that said context applies in the generation of a memetic artifact, than said racial component can’t exist. Because the thirteenth century.

                That’s mighty queer of you.

        • The word “cuckold” has racist … meanings.

          Please tell me you’re kidding us.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          “Cuckold” does not and has never had a racial meaning. At least, not in the English language.

          That said, this hashtag or label or whatever it is is grossly obnoxious.

  5. Daniel E Fall says

    Megyn for Prez!

    • George Michalopulos says

      Hear! Hear!

    • Nah. (I lost all respect for her that evening, and I’m not a Trump backer. I was shocked to see her perform so poorly. And I was also dismayed with Brett Baier; he’s usually much more professional.

      Surely there was a more mature and dispassionate manner of questioning Trump than that. Fox’s tactics reeked of Agenda; there was nothing subtle about them at all. Is every news station now MSNBC?

      Ironically, in singling out Trump, Fox bolstered his support and lowered themselves in the estimation of many of their viewers.

      Our country is in grave trouble, and it would have been more responsible of Fox, had taken their civic mission seriously, to try to shed light on possible solutions rather than to torpedo candidates of which they disapprove. That’s not their job, and that’s why Trump has the support that he has. Americans are sick to death of biased and condescending media.

  6. Greekcatholic Uniate says

    Ukraine, not “the” Ukraine.

    • George Michalopulos says

      GCUniate, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but was there ever really a “Ukrainian” polity?

  7. cynthia curran says

    Trump position on trade would do more harm than good. Many of the factories in the South are foreign companies if Trump placed a tariff of 35 percent on any goods coming into the US, countries like China can pulled out there factories from the US. Believe it or not, there are now several Chinese companies in the Us. Volvo is own by a Chinese Company and plans to open a plant in South Carolina with Trump thinking Volvo would pull out its plant from South Carolina and moved it back to China or to Mexico. Trump and Pat Buchanan never think that 100;s of manufacturing jobs are apart of foreign companies like Airbus, Toyota, Huydui,Nissan, Mercades Bentz and so forth. Putting 35 percent tariffs on goods from their countries means that they can pull there plants out of the US. Also, Republicans and Libertarians should not support the state guaranteeing them a factory job, instead they should work a second job like Uber or Lyft which are the car sharing companies with their clerical or service jobs. Trump policy is similar to Bernie Sanders policy on the left promising you to be paid 15 an hour because you work at McDonalds Trump wants to promise you a 20 an hour factory job which is difficult in the international economy and also since lots of factory jobs are no longer unionized.

  8. I usually stay out of your political threads, but really, George… Much of your diagnosis of the GOP is reasonable, but your cure? It is like getting frustrated with the quality of a repairman’s work, and deciding to hire an ape to replace him. Donald Trump is the lowest of the low, no matter what standard of measure you use. It is better to check out of politics altogether than to shill for someone like the Donald.

    • Daniel E Fall says

      The Dems are hungry for a candidate like deferrment Don, divorcing Don, bankruptcy Don. He has done a good job of continually reinventing himself. If a guy like me filed bankruptcies like Don and tried to buy major golf courses…that’d get the laughs. I don’t mean to belittle his achievements. The guy has major baggage…

  9. M. Stankovich says

    Today marks the 35th anniversary of the falling asleep in the Lord of Archpriest Georges V. Florovsky, arguably the most gifted and insightful Orthodox church historian, patristic scholar, Byzantine & Slavic history scholar, philosopher, and influential theologian and father of our generation and of the 20th century.

    Born in Odessa, Russia in 1893 to an Orthodox priest father and a mother who was a teacher, he was educated at the University of Odessa and said to have had an “encyclopedic mind and memory,” but the ability to “analyze with insight.” He fled Russia with his family to Prague where he completed his advanced education and taught philosophy until he was invited to hold the chair of Patristics at St. Sergius’ Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris in 1926. In 1948, he became the first Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York and simultaneously taught at Union Theological School (which originally housed SVS) and Columbia University. In 1956 he accepted the chair of Eastern Church History at Harvard University, and simultaneously taught at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School in Brookline, Massachusetts until 1964. From 1964 until his repose on August 11,1979, Fr. Georges was Visiting Professor at Princeton University. I have been told by friends who live in Princeton – and perhaps with a certain amount of “apocrypha” – that there are only two people who have literally stopped traffic simply by their appearance: the first was Einstein, and the second was Florovsky.

    While there is no question that Fr. Florovsky dramatically influenced modern church historians and commentators, and that he is nearly single-handedly responsible for what he termed the “new patristic synthesis,” that is, one must return to patristic thought for a point of departure,” his influence was accomplished before his major works (e.g. The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth to the Eighth Centuries, The Ways of Russian Theology), were ever translated into a Western language! Such was his extraordinary blessing as a scholar and theologian.

    Finally, what is frequently forgotten is that, for as much as Fr. Georges Florovsky was a theologian and father of our generation, he was an Orthodox priest very intimately involved in parish life, who loved the Liturgy, who loved to preach, who loved his role as confessor and pastor as his first calling. He is buried, simply, next to his beloved wife, in the parish cemetery of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Church in Trenton, NJ. May his memory be eternal and may he rest with the saints!

    • ….patristic scholar, Byzantine & Slavic history scholar, philosopher, and influential theologian and father of our generation and of the 20th century… Born in Odessa, Russia in 1893 … for as much as Fr. Georges Florovsky was a theologian and father of our generation, he was an Orthodox priest …

      Unless you are approaching 125 years of age, Florovsky is not of “our generation.” My GRANDFATHER was born at the same time as Florovsky.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Let’s see, OOM: it is the 35th anniversary of the falling asleep in the Lord of Fr. Georges, meaning he died in 1980. If he was born in 1893, he was 87 years old when he died. I attest to being among the choirs from SVS to sing at the celebration of Fr. Georges 50th anniversary of ordination to the priesthood & his funeral. Likewise, I had the pleasure of spending some time speaking with him at the 40th Anniversary of SVS, having sneaked away from duties as “hat-check boy.” And while I may feel older than my stated age on the completion of any given day, OOM, I most certainly do not approach 125 years of age!

  10. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Speaking of POLITICS, Monomakhos reported back in May that Patriarch Bartholomew removed Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver. Who replaced him?

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      When I see 8 dislikes for a simple question, I am reminded, willy-nilly, of Lady Montagu’s wonderful confession “People wish their enemies dead–but I do not: I say give them the gout, give them the stone.”

  11. Gail Sheppard says

    I have worked with a lot of men like Donald Trump. Interestingly, I never felt offended by the comments they’ve made, but then my sense of self worth is probably a lot more grounded than the “Megan Kellys” of the world. A picture is worth a 1000 words. I never posed like this or felt the need to. Certainly not in public.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      Relative to Megyn Kelly’s picture, Gail reassures us, “I never posed like this or felt the need to. ”

      Thank you, Gail.

  12. Christophertheugly says

    But he’s not open and honest about anything. He is just open and honest (crude and rude) about what we want to hear.

    Trump is a Trojan Horse.

  13. Michael Kinsey says

    It is a rational idea to consider who or what is actually running the government. The legeslation to pass goverment power to the something called the continunity of government from the elected goverment was passed and online on 911.. In the past decade the FEMA camps(800 or more), dum dum ammo purchased( 2-3 billion), and the militarization of the police has occured nation wide. And the big brother front line organ Department of Homeland Security. None of this existed in 1980. Perhaps the election is just a song and dance of puppets, to keep the people decieved that they still have a voice and a vote in the STATE. They lied thier way into the Iraq war, using the patsy, Osama Ben Laden, after murdering the near 3000 people who died on 911.Thier lies are always obvious, like the magic bullet insultingly stupid governemnt explaination of the Kennedy Assination.Or their fact that Newton’s 3rd law of motion didn”t work on 911, being declared bogus science.
    The Truth is out there, and It’s in some of our hearts. Divine Justice Rules, was the slogan I put on my Operation Rescue sweatshirt.. Nobody, ever gets away with anything. We will all recieve perfect Divine Justice from Jesus Christ, to the last jot and tittle of the Royal Law. No favorites, our God is no respecter of persons. Obey the Vision, not doing the evil in the first place. If the real power resides in the continunity, then the election is only an exercise of our own stupidity.

  14. cynthia curran says

    Another thing which is never mention by Trump and Buchanan is that Mexico was facing job competition from China about 10 years ago hence why illegal immigration was highest from Mexico around the 2005 to 2007 period. See research by the Pew Hispanic. Buchanan usually is critical of Nafta by saying the corn farmers lost their jobs this is just also by the left. Its true that US agricultural goods drove out corn farmers to the Us as well as the Peso devaluation but Mexico also facing competition form China is rarely mentioned. Also, wages in both countries are more similar now since China went up a lot and Mexico has an advantage since it is cheaper to shipped manufactured goods to the US than China and we also have to shipped parts to Mexico to do their manufacturing so unlike what Trump says he are better off if a company goes to Mexico than China since we are still part of the manufacturing process. Also, another solution not mention by Trump or most Republicans is shifting to 3-d printing which will involved less labor costs in the US since the process can be done with less people and of course more robotics.

  15. cynthia curran says

    Finally, most of the Republicans that support Trump on trade are usually laid off machists among the younger generation they worked for Uber or Lyft and combine it with another job. Uber and Lyft are probably more libertarian since you get paid based on mileage and its more of a commission. Trump and Buchanan and the left like the factory jobs more since they offer health benefits while Uber and Lyft in most places in the US except in California for Uber is considered a contract job. Many people liked this but some who worked for Uber and Lyft want it unionized. In New York city you can average about 28 an hour similar to machists but no health benefits. Trump represents the older right which wants the older jobs which were at one time more unionized and pay better while the shared economy is where someone can have several different occupations and do Uber, Lyft, Postmasters and so forth as primary or secondary jobs. The shared economy is actually more libertarian and averages about 15 an hour sometimes as high as 30 and hour in places like New York or San Fancisco.

  16. cynthia curran says

    Also, Vdare tends to be soft on Texas. Houston Texas has about double the number of illegal immirgrants compared to San Diego, its about 2nd or 3rd in the US behind Los Angeles yet Steve Sailer has all these pro-Houston-harris county information because Harris County is a lot cheapre than San Diego and has lower poverty if cost of housing is considered. Houston Texas has a much higher crime rate than San Diego. Just looked up the stats wrote this several times to Steve and Vdare and was ignored Houston has both latino and blacks while San Diego mainly has Latinos one reason why over all income is higher in San Diego, more people finished high school and college than Houston in San Diego I could go on Most of vdare is anti-California even if its more conservative counties like Kern or the inland empire but no hit jobs that much on Houston-Harris County Texas or Dallas County which also have lots of Latinos legal and illegal along with Afro-Americans Steve Sailer remark about Texas getting Mexicans to be cleaner yet both Dallas and Houston are high crime cities because they have both Latinos and blacks.

  17. If elections changed anything, they woud not be allowed.
    Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

  18. Michael Kinsey says

    I have a lingering distrust of the residue of the Sergian Orthodoxy left by the Communist. The apparent joined at the hip collaboration between the Moscow Primate and Putin, give me a queasy uneasy feeling. What can they do? A Putin led Church might find the Papacy a worthy ally of convenience. The Moscow church seems to be the most open of Orthodox churches toward the ecumenical world of united religions, under the mantle of the Papacy. The videos on line that I have seen, show genuine sounding toward a covenant of mutual ecumenical acceptance. The latest false prophet,, Rodney King says it best. Can’t we all just get along. Said in between hits on his crack pipe. Authentic Christianity is exclusive,, it is the 6the king, that IS.

  19. Michael Bauman says

    It is clear than when the discussion of politics begins all sanity and peace depart. That ought to give us a clue..

  20. M. Stankovich says

    It seems that the few exchanges between me and Michael Stankovich on this serious matter of IUDs have disappeared.

    Since your inquiry closed the thread, I would respond here. No one had the opportunity to read my response to your unlearned & unqualified statements, all suggesting that I was in error regarding levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. You drew this conclusion from excerpts I provided from from the full prescribing information of two such systems, Skyla & Morena, and general principles regarding low-dose hormonal therapy in humans, none of which you are qualified to address.

    1) You are unable to distinguish between the forms of IUD on the US market, their modes of action, and why one should object to some, and not the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: the base principle of the LNG-IUS is by method other than destruction of live embryos:

    The LNG-IUS directly targets the endometrium by releasing levo-norgestrel into the uterine cavity. The cylinder containing 52 mg of LNG is covered by a rate controlling membrane which regulates the daily release rate of the hormone. The initial release rate is 20mg/day, declining to 11mg/day at the end of 5 years. The mean release rate over 5 years is 14mg/day (Luukkainenet al., 1990). Local administration of LNG results in high endometrial concentrations, ranging from 470 to 1500 ng/g of tissue weight and sustained over the 5 years of use (Nilssonet al., 1986). The LNG concentrations in myometrial and Fallopian tube tissues are much lower (1.8–2.4 ng/g) (Nilsson et al., 1982). The high local LNG concentrations achieve uniform suppression of endometrial proliferation, and decidualization of the stroma (Critchley, 2003). The result is a thin decidualized endometrium, an environment that is unsuitable for sperm survival and fertilization, as noted above,this represents a key mechanism of contraceptive action.

    Crosignani, PG, et. al. “Intrauterine devices and intrauterine systems.” Human Reproduction Update, Vol.14, No.3 pp. 197–208, 2008.

    What this means is that its actions are contraceptive, not abortive. Further, distinguishing it from, say, the Copper-T IUD, which are abortive,

    All intrauterine devices (IUDs) that have been tested experimentally or clinically induce a local inflammatory reaction of the endometrium whose cellular and humoral components are expressed in the tissue and the fluid filling the uterine cavity… Levonorgestrel released from an IUD causes some systemic effects, but local effects such as glandular atrophy and stromal decidualization, in addition to the foreign body reaction, are dominant. ref.

    2) Your suggestion that there is a period of time necessary for the “establishment of an environment” of contraception is incorrect. According to the manufacturer, “backup contraception is unnecessary if the device is inserted properly,” and according to the research, “Levonorgestrel IUD insertion is an effective alternative to “morning-after” hormonal contraception,” meaning it will create a hostile environment for sperm and fertility immediately upon insertion. ref.

    3) You have misinterpreted the data as to the significance of ovulation. In the actual data submitted to the FDA, the manufacturer submitted data indicating a drop in actual ovulation from 75% to 45% over the course of the 5-year insertion period (and newer research suggests Mirena may be effective for as much as 7 years). That a woman ovulates is insignificant in that the lowering of the over-all rate is one aspect of the method of contraception.

    4) Your suggestion that the “T-shape” of the delivery device acts as a “fail safe” curettage to remove the implanted embryo from the endometrium. This is patently absurd and ridiculous. You can become pregnant with the Levonorgestrel IUD inserted like you can become pregnant while taking oral contraceptives. The 12-month pregnancy rate was <= .2 per 100 (.02%) and the 5-year cumulative rate was <=.07 per 100 women (.07%). 25% were stillborn if the device was not removed and 90% were live births if the device was removed. ref.

    5) Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems have been proven safe since 1999, and continue to demonstrate long-term safety and even health benefits, albeit during research for other medical conditions, to this present day ref 1 ref 2 ref 3 As pitiful as it sounds, one recent study looked at a program provided a grant to insert the Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in adolescents immediately following an abortion procedure with the hope of preventing a second abortion; they report a 74% success rate. ref 4 And finally, regarding the issue of childbearing after removal of the Levonorgestrel IUD, the manufacturer reports that 85% of clinical trial participants were able to convieve within 12 months, and independent research comparing the Levonorgestrel IUD and the Nova-T IUD found that:

    in spite of the endometrial suppression during use of LNG-IUD, there is no delay of return to fertility and in both groups 96% of the pregnancies occurred during the first year after removal of the device. Eighty-four % of the pregnancies in the Nova-T group and eighty-six % in the LNG-IUD group ended in live births. The results suggest that the endometrium recovers quickly, normal ovulations are established and the fertility seems to be unaffected after use of an LNG-IUD ref

    And that would be DOCTOR to you.

    • Heracleides says

      “And that would be DOCTOR to you.”

      Wasn’t Mengele also a DOCTOR? (And Nestorius a PATRIARCH, Puhalo an ARCHBISHOP, Arius a PRIEST, Benedict Arnold a GENERAL, etc.). A fig for titles; they are only as significant as the character of the individual bearing them.

      • M. Stankovich says

        Well, Hercules, if you were on your knees with chest pains, pain radiating down your left arm. struggling for breath, and soaking wet with sweat, and your only options for help are FATHER James or DOCTOR me, who would you call?

        • Heracleides says

          Certainly not you, Herr Stankovich, as you are NOT licensed to practice medicine. I would, however, trust Father James’ spiritual counsel if I were anticipating an immediate face-to-face with the Maker.

          • M. Stankovich says

            You lie like a rug. And as Shakespeare concluded Hamlet, “Good night, sweet prince, and may the angels carry thee to heaven…”

        • Monk James says

          M. Stankovich (August 18, 2015 at 12:57 am) says:

          Well, Hercules, if you were on your knees with chest pains, pain radiating down your left arm. struggling for breath, and soaking wet with sweat, and your only options for help are FATHER James or DOCTOR me, who would you call?
          Here, Michael Stankovich is going on in his usual petty ways.

          The present dust-up seems to have originated in my response to one of his posts in which he addressed me as ‘dude’. Please note that I haven’t ever called him anything but his name. As a principle of cordial human relations, we should always address each other respectfully and the monastics and clergy according to their responsibilities and positions in The Church.

          But I didn’t want to preach just then. So, in a light-hearted moment, my reply included this statement and happy face; ‘That’s FATHER DUDE to you, Michael Stankovich.’ [[;-D33

          Apparently, MS took umbrage at this. It’s really too bad when people have no sense of humor — an aspect of our humanity which I’ve long thought is one of our divine characteristics along with free will, language, etc., created as we are in the very image and likeness of God.

          Well, there’s all that. But on top of it all, friends have told me that MS used to be a medical doctor but is no longer, for reasons I prefer not to disclose here. I regret writing even this much, but this pissing contest has to stop.

          I just wish that Michael Stankovich would stop trading on his expired credentials to beat us up here, me in particular.

          May Michael Stankovich forgive me as I forgive him, and may the Lord be merciful to His servant Michael and to us all.

          • M. Stankovich says

            So, Mr. Michaelopulos, you have again allowed this unqualified, undisciplined, pretentious man to address me in the character of Moliere’s fée prince Tartuffe, ignoring the fact that he owes me and this forum an apology for his massive error, and just happened to slip in a bit of “filth” for his trouble, yet you censored my reply. To my reckoning, in my response I was neither offensive, nor insulting, though Lord knows he deserves it. And thank heavens he has chosen to forgive me, though I’m not exactly sure for what: objecting to his unqualified arrogance? His distribution of misinformation? Of objecting to his accusing me of misrepresenting information to this forum? Of asking for an apology? And what, Mr. Michalopulos, are you protecting him from by censoring me? The truth? Will he melt? And for the record, I did not lose my license to practice medicine; this is scurrilous bullshit. I was only beginning my fourth year of residency and was never licensed to practice medicine outside the hospital of my residency. A man is only as free as the secrets he hides, and if his intention was to intimidate, it will not happen.

            I say again, perhaps I do not understand the policy of moderation where you allow members of the clergy to refer to me as a “joke,” a “clown,” an “idiot,” an “ass” and so on, – to which I have never responded in kind – but you have censored my responses none the less. You have allowed an individual to suggest that I might be a “child molester,” allowed references to my appearance, the questioning of my sexual orientation, references to my wife, and so on, and censored my responses. Hey, much of it is the amusing ponderings of anonymous creeps and cowards, and I accept for what it’s worth: nothing. And likewise, I could not repeat to what I have been referred by psychopathic felons. When I have used the descriptors “jackass”, “rodents,” and “creeps,” I have explicitly described that I carefully choose my words for very specific reasons, and am not engaging in “schoolyard” exchanges of name-calling. I am not easily offended. I simply like to know the rules.

            • Monk James says

              In my earlier post, I did NOT address Michael Stankovich — I merely referred to him. Were I to be in direct correspondence with him or anyone else, those words would not (almost never) be likely to appear in public

              Considering all the vile epithets which he has used in his public correspondence to address or describe the people with whom he disagrees, including myself, I find this post by MS to be not only disingenuous in the extreme, but also an example of the writing of someone who is so completely unaware of himself and of his self-created public persona as to be nearly delusional. Even reading his own words back to him, MS seems unable to see this, and that is tragic.

              I don’t blame MS for this, nor do I hate him; perhaps he can’t help himself.

              I don’t know if there’s some mental illness going on here, or some sort of demonic delusion. Either way, he probably needs some sort of help which isn’t available here, and I remember him in my prayers. Perhaps all our readers will kindly do the same.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                “I don’t know if there’s some mental illness going on here, or some sort of demonic delusion. Either way, he probably needs some sort of help which isn’t available here, and I remember him in my prayers. Perhaps all our readers will kindly do the same.:

                This is a statement with which we can all agree. Indeed, we can say this about ourselves and many others here. Lord have mercy on us all.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  Mr. Kraeff,

                  You work in a field associated withe treatment of “mental illness,” and I work in the field of the treatment of mental illness. I am further presuming you are able to discern the difference between sincerity and pejorative. Having now returned to full-time clinical work in program designated by the County as serving the “Seriously Mentally Ill,” where we are sending at least three individuals per day voluntarily by ambulance to the hospital; 1-2 involuntarily to the hospital with the assistance of the police or the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team because they are so impaired as to be unable to provide for their own safety and daily needs; a rotating “triage” clinician form 8:00 am until 5:00 pm seeing walk-ins; and maintain a caseload for care coordination, individual psychotherapy, and at least one therapy group of 100+ patients. And then you sit and type and type and type your account of the wreckage of humanity into an electronic patient management system as just how helpless and ineffective you really against illness whose natural progression is persistent and continuous morbidity. Ah, the melodrama…

                  So, Mr. Kraeff, we most certainly cannot say this about ourselves and many others. For example, I personally have a practice I call New Eyes – which I learned at the Naval Medical Center (full attribution!) – where I tell patients, on occasion I will invite another clinician or my supervisor to drop into our session to observe me for my benefit, or we’ll audio/video record our session for my supervision for my benefit. Do you honestly believe, Mr. Kraeff, if my supervisor or clinical team believed I was “mentally ill” or under some “demonic delusion” they would let me near a patient? It was an insult, Mr. Kraeff. And an insult as ugly as playing on Down Syndrome or what formerly was referred to as Mental Retardation. Am I the only person on this forum to have read Moliere?

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    Dear Dr. Stankovich. I apologize to you and to everybody for not having done one little edit. The quote that I cited should have read:

                    “I don’t know if there’s some mental illness going on here, or some sort of demonic delusion. Either way, he probably needs some sort of help which isn’t available here, and I remember him in my prayers. Perhaps all our readers will kindly do the same.”

                    My idea was not to agree with Monk James’ statement that was directed towards you but to deflect it.

                    BTW, I agree with you the vast majority of the time. Keep up the good work.

            • Heracleides says

              Pass the man-child another box of tissue… mop-up in isle four!

              • M. Stankovich says


                Through my tears, I have been commissioned – and Lord knows I need the cash – to write an inspiration “daily” for the faithful, and I’ve settled on The Positive, Supportive, Uplifting, Moral, Theological, Educational, Prayerful, and Insightful Postings (other than supporting that priest in Florida that abandoned the Church, disparaged Orthodoxy, declared himself and atheist, and attempted to live off donations from chumps on Facebook) of Heracleides to Monomkhos. For January, 1, 2016, I’ve got the sold-out “Jonah” button to be worn at the AAC, but now I’m stuck. I’ve got a deadline coming up. First edition is yours if you help!

                • Heracleides says

                  Now, now Herr Stankovich. We can’t all be a legend in our own time mind and supreme wizard of pomposity.

            • Thomas Barker says

              In the interest of seeing you win at least one round here, and as a partial payment on my indebtedness to you for the Stevie Ray Vaughan lyrics with which you regaled me of late, I offer a novel tactic from the culture of the Sherpa.

              Master the scream of the yeti, and your opponents will be mentally defeated before they even set eyes on you.

              • M. Stankovich says

                Thomas Barker,

                Your gesture is much appreciated. If I only had a dollar for every psych patient who said “you’re delusional,” or “I’m the only sane one here.” Turn the album over, pal. “Fortified wine” this time. The Mad Dog 20/20. “There’s a Flood Down in Texas.”

        • I’d call the Doctor. In the TARDIS. Doo wee ooooh….

    • Daniel E Fall says

      Setting aside for a moment the means by which an IUD does its business. Is any woman told at the time of decision that they are or are not abortive?

      Or are they told about the effectiveness at reducing pregnancy?

      Somehow, I doubt very much any woman is told she is having abortions by using this IUD or that IUD.

      And I don’t mean to belittle the science. I just think women consider all of them birth control and don’t consider the mode. Am I wrong?

      • M. Stankovich says

        Mr. Fall,

        It was my specific intention to correct the misinformation and unqualified interpretations presented on this site previously, in order for women who previously were ignorant in their choicemaking could now be properly informed, and to nullify the claim that some women were shamefully referred to as “murderers,” when they most certainly are not. Likewise, if you have, to this point, “consider[ed] all of them birth control and don’t consider the mode,” you can no longer make this excuse.

        • Daniel E Fall says

          It is not about me, per se. I am asking a rhetorical question.

          I doubt society, in general, sees the IUD as abortion. And I doubt it gets much reflection and careful thought by women. They want effectiveness.

          It is a handy argument to stand around the fire with ones pals proclaiming greatness that women using IUDs are murderesses. I suggest none. The judgement is as nitty as the science for me. They don’t want a child.

          I gotta get my 5 year old to school.

          • The public doesn’t see any difference. But plenty of faithful Christians do want to known what is and isn’t an abortifacient, so they can know not to use them. I’ve never heard even the most militant pro-lifers label a woman using an ID a “murderess,” let alone doing so casually around a fire or whatnot. Such a label requires intent, and clearly there is no such intent. I’ve never even heard anyone call a woman having a surgical abortion (who is generally a victim of one sort or another) a murderess. Such labels are generally, and rightly, saved for the abortionists who do it over and over every day — for money.

  21. cynthia curran says

    Jean Jaures And Donald Trump: A New Dissident Right Taking Shape In France And America?
    Paul Gottfried
    August 22, 2015, 10:22 pm
    Print Friendly

    jaures-fn[1]There’s an important connection between political firestorms on opposite sides of the Atlantic—the rise of Donald Trump and the“cuckservative” controversy fascinating the American Right; and the recent claim by the French National Front that they support the ideals of a noted French socialist. These debates shows the Right in the West may be reconstituting itself around ideals of traditionalism, identity, and immigration patriotism rather than the defense of corporate interests.

    The “cuckservative” label was a satirical and brutal take on why the GOP and more broadly, the American “conservative movement,” behave like cuckolded husbands—or like those warblers that allow the cuckoo bird to occupy and exploit their nests. Contemporary conservatives accommodate the social agenda of their sworn enemies and occasionally even promote it—Professional Token Conservatives like David Brooks have made careers out of writing “The Conservative Case For…” [gay marriage, immigration reform, etc.] In return, they receive minor concessions such as being allowed to quibble with Obamacare or support cuts in the capital gains tax.

    A recent illustration of the uselessness of this programmed opposition: when Hillary Clinton attacked Jeb Bush at the National Urban League, Bush didn’t even respond. Instead, the man who seems to believe he should be President because he has a Mexican wife used “his speech to offer a message of unity” [Hillary Clinton takes on Jeb Bush on racial equality issues, By Zachary Fagenson, Reuters, July 31, 2015].

    And sadly, Jeb’s disinclination to even criticize a female Democrat is apparently acceptable to much of the party—Jeb Bush has far lower negative ratings among likely Republican voters than Donald Trump, even though Trump remains the frontrunner [Here’s the lowdown on who supports Donald Trump, by Emily Ekins, Federalist, August 5, 2015].

    How voters can be OK with presidential candidates who in no way represent their stated views in polls is a mystery, especially when it comes to an open supporter of mass immigration like Jeb Bush. Either the masses of Republicans who feel good about him are as cuckolded as their would-be standard bearer, or they are incredibly stupid. I’m not sure there is a third possibility.

    Establishment Republicans were also gleefully eager to help tear down every Confederate battle flag in the country and rename anything honoring a Confederate hero in Southern states. In response to Leftist hysteria, Republicans actually try to outdo the Democrats as the party of Political Correctness.

    Republicans have been downright belligerent in opposing the Obama administration’s deal with the Iranian government. I agree with Kevin MacDonald this is simply an effort by the GOP to show that it’s more dedicated to Israel than the Democrats, even though American Jews vote overwhelmingly for the latter. These panderers seem to believe this will insulate them from the charge of anti-Semitism and perhaps snag a few stray Jewish voters.

    Some observers would contend we are seeing a similar loss of backbone by the French Front National. Recently, the party appropriated a socialist internationalist and onetime editor of what later became the French communist paper L’Humanité as a hero of the Right.

    Party president Marine Le Pen quoted from Jean Jaurès (1859-1914) when she was elected to her office in 2011, affirming the dedication of her party to “humanism and social justice” [Jaurès, nouvelle icône du FN ?, Boulevard Voltaire, August 3, 2015 ]. In 2009, FN general secretary Louis Aliot even described the party with a citation from Jaurès, saying, “For those who have nothing, their fatherland is everything.”

    When this appropriation by the Front was brought up in the national newspaper Le Figaro, leading Front politician and Catholic traditionalist Wallerand de Saint-Just insisted that “the memory of Jaurès belongs more to the FN than the false Left that has betrayed his ideas” [Quand le Front national reprend Jaurès, by Julien Licourt, July 31, 2014].

    This appropriation of Jaurès by the French Right would seem to create the same credibility problem as the glorification of the leftist radical Martin Luther King by the Heritage Foundation and other cuckservative organizations. After all, Jaurès was an internationalist, an embattled enemy of the Catholic Church, and a self-declared pacifist.

    Of course, contemporary French patriots may well deplore his assassination by a right-wing French nationalist on July 31, 1914 in response to Jaurès’s opposition to the growing French involvement in what morphed into World War One. If France had stayed out of the war, it may well have benefited the country, though it would have meant losing the chance to take back Alsace and Lorraine from Germany.

    Yet how does the authentic Right deal with Jaurès’s statements that he owed his first loyalty to the international working class? [Social democracy, the First World War, and the Working Class in Britain, LeftCom, Accessed August 18, 2015] How does the Right airbrush out Jaurès’s enthusiastic support for the anticlerical legislation imposed by the French government in 1905? [Jean Jaurès’s et la laïcité de 1905, by Jean Bauberot, Mediapart, May 9, 2014] An atheist socialist, Jaurès made no secret of his revulsion for the Church, which he regarded as a socially reactionary force.

    One might think it would be a stretch for a party stressing France’s national, Catholic roots to find a congenial predecessor in this anti-Catholic internationalist.

    Or would it?

    The dissident Right in the United States lacks a party of its own, but the National Front provides such an electoral choice in France. Since these nationalists have no horse in the race between the overt Leftists and slightly less vocal Leftists of the “center-right,” real European rightists are free to identify their own heroes and villains that defy the usual characterizations.

    More importantly, the Front National has pursued the votes of the French working class and contemptuously abandoned the corporate bosses who vote for Nicolas Sarkozy’s “center-right” UMP. The Front’s leaders know that since the leadership and moral code of the Socialists are coming from the bohemian cultural radicals of the yuppie Left, the Front can pick up support by stealing a march on economic “justice.” As a result, the National Front has even offered assurances to government workers, including public school teachers, that they won’t touch their guaranteed benefits [Au cœur du psychodrama Le Pen: le programme du Front national, by Jean-Pierre Maugendre, Novelles de France, Accessed August 18, 2015].

    In Europe, the “far Right” (or non-cuckservative Right) has come out openly for the “social state.” Its package of positions also includes the abolition of gay marriage, restrictions on immigration, the repatriation of illegals and diplomatic distance from the United States, which is perceived as a radicalizing “liberal” world power. Marine Le Pen has been lavish in her praise of “French civilization,” but not of the neocon-leftist sacred cow of “human rights,” and has commended Vladimir Putin for standing up (presumably against the US) for “Western Christian principles” [Decrying Ukraine’s ‘Fasicsts,’ Putin is allying with Europe’s far right, by Bob Dreyfuss, The Nation, May 21, 2014]

    Historically, the European Right has not been opposed to “the state,” regarding it as an extension of the nation. It has also never really rejected the idea of a “social state” that provides for the working poor and assists the petite bourgeoisie. What the European Right opposes is the current public administration that deconstructs the family, obliterates gender distinctions, and destroys the inherited identities of peoples.

    In contrast, American cuckservatives who have convinced themselves Martin Luther King is a great hero have largely made peace with these developments, while still rhetorically opposing “the state.” Needless to say, such opposition has still failed in achieving any significant rollback of government power.

    Cuckservatives both here and in Western Europe have erected a cordon sanitaire around a more authentic Right. They continue to attack it as unacceptably populist or even “fascist,” as they are doing now with Trump. They are joined by both major corporations and the entire force of the cultural Left who work together to vilify and marginalize those who don’t make the ideological cut.

    But as this process continues, the cultural Right is becoming less willing to defend the capitalist class, even viewing them with contempt.

    Moreover, as the non-Establishment Right focuses on cultural divisions rather than wonkish economic questions, some of its political leaders are abandoning its onetime hostility to the economic positions of the historic Left. It is not the current Left to which this Right is drawn, but a Left whose social programs can be blended with traditionalist stands and immigration restrictions. Thus Donald Trump has opposed cutting Social Security and Medicare.

    The unlikely rediscovery of Jean Jaurès as a French socialist celebrating “la patrie” may be the latest sign of this emerging pattern in Europe. And as the impatience with #cuckservatism and the rise of Donald Trump shows, the Europeanization of the American Right may be well underway.

    Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America

  22. cynthia curran says

    One thing I was reading all the work visas that Donald Trump hotels do and its not just the lower jobs like maids and wait staff but even into management. Trump says he wants to protect american jobs but why does he have to get so many people on work visas even management. Lots of Americans would worked in his hotels in management since those jobs pay about 50,000 and higher.