Cold War.

"With the party united, the odds are now at least even that the GOP will not only hold the House but also capture the Senate in November.

But before traditional conservatives cheer that prospect, they might take a closer look at the foreign policy that a Republican Senate would seek to impose upon the nation.

Specifically, they should spend time reading S. 2277, the "Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014," introduced by Sen. Bob Corker on May 1, and endorsed by half of the Senate's GOP caucus.

As ranking Republican on the foreign relations committee, Corker is in line to become chairman, should the GOP take the Senate. That makes this proposal a gravely serious matter.

Corker's bill would declare Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine "major non-NATO allies" of the United States, move NATO forces into Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, accelerate the building of an ABM system in Eastern Europe, and authorize U.S. intelligence and military aid for Ukraine's army in the Donbass war with Russian-backed separatists.

U.S. aid would include antitank and antiaircraft weapons.

S. 2277 would direct the secretary of state to intensify efforts to strengthen democratic institutions inside the Russian Federation, e.g., subvert Vladimir Putin's government, looking toward regime change.

If Putin has not vacated Crimea and terminated support for Ukraine's separatist rebels within seven days of passage of the Corker Ultimatum, sweeping sanctions would be imposed on Russian officials, banks and energy companies, including Gazprom.

Economic relations between us would be virtually severed.

In short, this is an ultimatum to Russia that she faces a new Cold War if she does not get out of Ukraine and Crimea, and it is a U.S. declaration that we will now regard three more former Soviet republics -- Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia -- as allies.

A small, weak country might accept this dictation from a superpower.

But Russia, where anti-Americanism is virulent and rampant and the Russian people support Putin's actions in Ukraine, would want him to tell the Americans just what to do with their ultimatum.

And how Russia would respond is not difficult to predict.

Our demand that she get out of Crimea and leave her two-century-old naval base at Sevastopol in the custody of President Petro Poroshenko in Kiev and his U.S. allies, would be laughed off.

Putin would tell us that Crimea has voted to return to Russia. It's ours, and we're going to keep it. Now deal with it.

To make good on our latest red line, we would have to start shipping weapons to Kiev, in which case Russia, with superior forces closer, would likely move preemptively into East Ukraine.

What would our NATO allies do then?

The U.S. directive to the State Department to work with NGOs in Russia, blatant intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, would be answered with a general expulsion of these agencies from Moscow.

We would not sit still for this kind of open subversion in the United States. What makes us think they would?

And where do we come off telling the Russians what kind of government they may have? Do we do that with our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Is there more freedom in Egypt, to which we send billions annually in foreign aid, than in Russia?

Is there more freedom in China?

How do we think Beijing would respond if Corker & Co. openly declared not only their right but their intent to funnel U.S. funds to civic organizations to bring about an end to single-party Communist rule?

The Russian people, today backing Putin by 80 percent, seem happier with their government than we Americans do with ours.

But it may be this idea of installing a ballistic missile defense, an ABM system, in Poland and the Czech Republic, that is most dangerous of all.

Putin has already signaled that this would cross his red line, that if we start implanting antimissile missiles in Eastern Europe, he will reply by installing offensive missiles.

The Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty to eliminate all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe -- the USSR's triple-warhead SS-20s, and our Pershing II and cruise missiles -- could wind up in the dumpster.

We could have a mini-Cuban missile crisis in Eastern Europe.

And how would our German allies react to Russian missiles rising in Kaliningrad, the former Prussian capital of Konigsberg, wedged between Lithuania and Poland?

Russia and Ukraine have been like Siamese twins for a thousand years. When did where and how they separate become our strategic concern?

Under Obama, the U.S. has declined to intervene in cινιℓ ωαrs in Syria, Ukraine and Libya, or to go back in force in Iraq. He is pulling us out of Afghanistan.

The American Imperium is folding up. Retrenchment is underway.

If the Republican counteroffer to Obama's is a return to the compulsive interventionism of Bush II, this is where some of us will be getting off."

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/07/29/a-gop-ultimatum-to-vlad-n1870981/page/full&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=mLP3U8y9LtCtogTI-oHgCw&ved=0CC0QFjAD&usg=AFQjCNHSla_UduuJ6gbU7zDCbYMJ8LhcFA

Our options are not worthy of a vote/support.  Perhaps, there is a congressional option every once and a while, despite their chances of actually winning it(there wasn't one in my state this year).   Presidential and senatorial support is certainly out of the question.  Other than that, I think the only solution is be a mystery to our government with cleaner hands as opposed to being listed as a conservative post 1913 american.  Because, there is nothing worth conserving about post 1913 america; it is a losing position.

So who should we vote for in November?  I will never vote for another democrap.  What if the republican candidate is exactly like one described in the OP, and the democrat candidate is one who will vote for anything Obama (or Hillary) wants--abortion, gun control, make catholic drs & hospitals perform abortions, judicial appts., etc., and nobody else is on the ballot?

OHCA - if like public school tests they gave you the "none of the above" option, I would say that's the pick, but they don't.  So, don't play their game(especially with it now being electronic and even more dubious).  The choices they give you are nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr or nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

OHCA - if like public school tests they gave you the "none of the above" option, I would say that's the pick, but they don't.  So, don't play their game(especially with it now being electronic and even more dubious).  The choices they give you are nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr or nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

What do you mean by this:

especially with it now being electronic and even more dubious

In hindsight, we've had 2 1/2 decades of NWO presidential candidates.  But even if we had stayed home and not voted for the past 22 years, the NWO would have marched on.  What suggestions do you have for thwarting the NWO march & advancing Catholic ideals?  I don't think Catholics should forfeit the political arena and acquiesce in evil government, which I see as the eventuity of long-term refraining from participation in the political arena.

I agree that trudging along decade after decade voting for NWO-A over NWO-B gets us nowhere.  But how can we make a difference; thwart the advance of freemasonic-zionist NWO; and advance Catholic ideals in our government?

My husband and I changed party affiliations.   As Catholics we should be for the Social Reign of Jesus Christ the King.

Why can't we have our own candidates and party.

Quote from: + PG +

OHCA - if like public school tests they gave you the "none of the above" option, I would say that's the pick, but they don't.  So, don't play their game(especially with it now being electronic and even more dubious).  The choices they give you are nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr or nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

What do you mean by this:

especially with it now being electronic and even more dubious

In hindsight, we've had 2 1/2 decades of NWO presidential candidates.  But even if we had stayed home and not voted for the past 22 years, the NWO would have marched on.  What suggestions do you have for thwarting the NWO march & advancing Catholic ideals?  I don't think Catholics should forfeit the political arena and acquiesce in evil government, which I see as the eventuity of long-term refraining from participation in the political arena.

I agree that trudging along decade after decade voting for NWO-A over NWO-B gets us nowhere.  But how can we make a difference; thwart the advance of freemasonic-zionist NWO; and advance Catholic ideals in our government?

Just exactly WTF in this post got the downthumb??  I was asking questions for the most part!!  So I suppose I'm imprudent for not just saying to hell with the country & f--- them all?!?!  Grow a beard--shave upper lip--wear long sleeves & no zippers--shower once a week whether I need it or not--let the evil world go happily on it's evil course uninterrupted by me because I'm not voting?!?!

Not voting may be jusifiable & even advisable short-term in specific instances.  But anybody who thinks it's a long-term effective strategy is full of it!

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: OHCA

So who should we vote for in November?  I will never vote for another democrap.  What if the republican candidate is exactly like one described in the OP, and the democrat candidate is one who will vote for anything Obama (or Hillary) wants--abortion, gun control, make catholic drs & hospitals perform abortions, judicial appts., etc., and nobody else is on the ballot?

This is precisely why it's laughable that some Trad Catholics say it's mandatory under pain of mortal sin for Americans to go vote in their elections, for the lesser of two evils.

No, it isn't.

It's not a mortal sin, but is it prudent to allow a much greater evil to dominate one's life and harm the rights of Catholics, when a lessor evil may not in fact harm Catholics or families.  

The enemies of religion and even the natural law do not want us to vote.  They want us to surrender, and when they are comfortable enough in power, they will go for the children, completely destroy parental rights, and brainwash them into their evil and immoral agenda.

Would it be better for Catholics and the rights of the Church to have Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?

A flicker of commonsense--thank you Ambrose.  I'm trying to decide whether the notion that it's a sin to vote for the "Reagan" against the "Obama" is borne out of a heresy more akin to the Puritans or the Amish.  Either way, the chumps who pick up there toys and go home because they don't get 100% there way will have their lunches eaten.