Update: Petition Launched Against Expansion of the Syrian Conflict

Featured Comment

...

Fatimagirl • 24 days ago

...

La Pucelle Fatimagirl • 21 days ago

...

CharlesMartel Fatimagirl • 22 days ago

...

• 

  peter f Fatimagirl • 23 days ago

  I quite agree. Having said that Imho I think that the consecration performed by Saint JP II was accepted as stated by Sister Lucia. I was reading a book about Garabandal and it put forward the theory that this (albeit stuttering) attempt and all the previous ones did make a difference to the world and that exactly what will happen (the events that will unfold) is not exactly fixed. Linked to our free will I suppose? I do think if the Pope consecrated Russia as specified by Our Blessed Mother, then the effect will be huge and quickly recognised as a defining moment and will bring in the reign of The Immaculate Heart and quite probably other Heavenly graces.
  Like you highlight, I will continue to pray the Rosary for that intention.
  I pray that the consecration happens very quickly. Our Lady did say it will happen (yes, I know what I said earlier). I'm very excited at the possibility, because things are desperate at the moment. Who knows, it will possibly change our Holy Father's understanding and faith as well? God bless, and Viva Cristo Rey!

• 

  Fatimagirl peter f • 22 days ago

  The Consecration of Russia, by name, has not been done. Even Pope St. John Paul II admitted that.
  Take a look at this video.

...

• 

  Barry • 23 days ago

  "Following Just War Doctrine, we insist upon a fair investigation of the facts before entering a war. We remind President Trump of the principle of self-defense, which means that a country may only use military force against another sovereign country when it has been attacked by it. We insist upon prudence and truth."

  Excellent, clear, and simple. Who could argue against that?

  To keep this GAS hoax from being confirmed by independent investigation, Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to send in neutral experts to evaluate the claim of chemical attack. Why would Washington prevent an investigation that would prove Washington’s allegation? Clearly, Washington would only prevent an investigation that would disprove the false allegation.

  So now, although there is NO evidence of a chemical attack....

  What if there was a chemical attack? Why does it matter to people who are killed whether it was by bullets, bombs, missiles, or chemicals? Why is it so bad to use chemicals instead of Hellfire missiles? Why is it OK for Washington and Israel to blow up schools, hospitals, weddings, funerals, market places, and homes full of women and children with missiles, but not OK to kill people with chemicals? Why is it worth starting World War 3 over a hoax chemical weapons attack or a real one?

  Not saying the Russians are the good guys here, there are NONE.
  However, WE are Christians and our duty is to Christ, NOT the Nation State or Culture we happen to identify with.

• 

  Rose-Marie Mukarutabana Barry • 23 days ago

  This Vanessa Beely, has a well-established reputation for being honest, trustworthy:
  "There was no chemical attack. Am on the ground in Damascus & #EasternGhouta. No patients were admitted to local hospitals with CW poisoning, soil samples tested negative. Nothing substantiates claims of CW attack. Only #WhiteHelmet hoax movies,..."

• 

  CharlesMartel Barry • 22 days ago

  The Russians have most assuredly saved the Christians of Syria from destruction at the hand of US-backed Islamic radicals.
  http://www.newsweek.com/rus...
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk...

  The Russians are not in Syria purely for altruism (they want to keep their access to Tartus, one of their only warm water port), but by contrast to the US, which has backed Sunni terrorists without regard for the impact on Christians (same as in Iraq, where the Christian population collapsed from 1.4 million to 250,000 after the US invasion), Russia is the good guy.

  As you said, our loyalty should be to Jesus Christ. So we should be deeply thankful for Russia's role in saving the Christians of Syria. God bless Russia!

• 

  Ichbins Barry • 22 days ago

  Not sure what you mean by "Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to send in neutral experts to evaluate the claim of chemical attack", because when you read the Washington Post story below it says:
  "A U.S.-drafted resolution demanded access to areas in Douma where the attack occurred, and would create a new investigative body “to look into chemical weapons attacks in Syria and determine who is responsible.”" ... "The measure would have passed except for Russia’s veto. Vassily Nebenzia spoke derisively of the United States, accusing it of stirring up a pretext for intervention."

  It says plainly that Russia vetoed the investigation.

  https://www.washingtonpost....

  Further, the report states:
  "A rival Russian-drafted resolution would have left the decision of culpability up to the Security Council — a step that would have allowed Russia or any of the five permanent members to kill it with a veto. Russia has repeatedly vetoed resolutions to protect the Assad government."

  I also find your question pretty flippant about whether it matters to people whether bombs bullets or chemicals are used against them.

• 

  Barry Ichbins • 22 days ago

  Vetoed by Washington.

  This is what I mean........

  Following the vote on the U.S.-drafted resolution, a Russian-drafted text failed to get the needed votes to pass the council. Unlike the U.S. measure, the Russian text would not have sought to assign blame for the attack, but would have rather simply sought to determine IF a chemical attack took place.

  The comment you make about finding my question regarding a chemical attack as "pretty flippant" is a view you are no
  doubt entitled to, but I reject that notion wholeheartedly.

...

• 

  William Murphy • 23 days ago

  Strictly speaking, all weapons are chemical weapons as they are all made of chemicals. Why this rush to war
  over fake indignation at the alleged use of one type of chemical? I suppose that napalm or Agent Orange, as used in Vietnam, are OK and that phosphorus bombs, as used by the RAF during the bombing of Hamburg to slowly burn civilians alive, are perfectly OK. Who has money in this war? Who benefits?

• 

  Ivan mi je ime William Murphy • 23 days ago

  And,... Nothing to say about chemical weapons that we are daily absorbing through our 'food'.

• 

  Halina Ivan mi je ime • 23 days ago

  Big Pharma money lurking in the
  background.

• 

  Super Genius William Murphy • 22 days ago

  It's worth noting that there has been a widespread agreement for the better part of a century, based on bitter experience in WWI, that chemical weapons (as most reasonable people understand that term to mean) are a uniquely horrific instrument of war. How else to explain the numerous treaties among nations banning their use? To say that because the allies used horrific measures in WWII (in what must be admitted were desperate circumstances that you or I can hardly imagine during the most horrific war in human history) hardly disqualifies them from working to prevent the use of such weapons today.

  And, unless you're a mind reader, the "fake indignation" slur is pretty shabby.

• 

  William Murphy Super Genius • 21 days ago

  Are you serious about chemical weapons being uniquely horrible? We are forced to fund, via our taxes, nuclear weapons which could horribly kill tens of millions of people. My comment is shabby? I think we can judge the decision of our leaders to launch this misile attack on the basis of shakey evidence as shabby beyond belief.

...

• 

  Barry • 23 days ago

  Here's one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. None of the actors on the great stage of global politics give a
  damn about civilians. It's always been this way and continues apace, we are constantly fed baloney by
  our political "masters" on so many levels it would make your head spin.

   

  
  

  

  Halina Barry • 23 days ago

  http://ifamericaknew.org/hi...

  May those who have eyes SEE!

• 

  Barry Halina • 23 days ago

  Some will see, some will remain willfully blind. Some of those who choose this blindness as a
  virtue are stuck in an emotive time-box considering the historic suffering of Jews.

  No ONE culture (as a people) has a monopoly on suffering, if you know basic history you'll see that
  the list is quite long.

  The only true ISRAEL since Our Lord's call to repentance, is that of the Christian Faith. That's a Spiritual truth.

• 

  Halina Barry • 23 days ago

  "Pope Saint Pius X explained to Theodore Herzl, the founder of international Zionism, that the Catholic Church, while she could not forbid or prevent the Jews from settling in Palestine, could not favor such a settlement and would open up churches to Baptize all those who did settle there: 'We are unable to favor this movement (of Zionism). WE CANNOT PREVENT THE JEWS FROM GOING TO JERUSALEM - BUT WE COULD NEVER SANCTION IT. THE GROUND OF JERUSALEM, IF IT WERE NOT ALWAYS SACRED, HAS BEEN SANCTIFIED BY THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH I CANNOT ANSWER YOU OTHERWISE. THE JEWS HAVE NOT RECOGNIZED OUR LORD, THEREFORE WE CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE JEWISH PEOPLE.'
  (Marvin Lowenthal, 'Diaries of Theodore Herzl', pp. 427-430)."

  ....excerpt from 'Peter, Lovest Thou Me?', by Abbe Daniel Le Roux
  "In 1980, during his (JPII + RIP) trip to Germany he stated to the representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz: 'In the declaration on the relations of the Church with Judaism of April this year, the bishops of West-Germany have broken new ground with their statement;
  +whoever meets Jesus Christ, meets Judaism+
  I wish to make those words mine as well........"

• 

  Ivan mi je ime Barry • 23 days ago

  As the New Jerusalem is Christ's Church.

...

kono859 • 23 days ago

...

• 

  Roderick Halvorsen Fr. Peter Morello • 22 days ago

  Agree, but I do not think it is a "rethink".

  Trump has made his negotiating methods pretty clear but many people still get caught off-guard by them. So much so that some even start petitions.

  ;)

• 

  Steve Skojec Mod Roderick Halvorsen • 22 days ago

  I was willing to publish this petition to deal with the obvious concern, but I do recognize there's a counterpoint here.

  Trump did something like this to Kim Jong Il over in North Korea. Called him Rocketman and said he may have a Nuclear button but ours is bigger, etc. People said he was going to provoke the little tyrant to blow, but NK is now being more acquiescent towards us than ever before.

  Same basic thing appears to have happened with the China trade war. Lots of bluster, positive result.

  I talked to a military person the other day who says Putin actually respects this kind of language. It's masculine. Trump's not rolling over and showing his belly. Others have said he's intentionally signaling that we're going to strike so that Russia can pull their people and avoid causalities while we do this thing we're expected to do, blah blah blah.

  I don't know what to make of all this talk, but I can see the point: things aren't always what they seem, and a show of force and resolve is sometimes more potent than people think in a world where people sue each other over hurt feelings.

  That said, our interventionism is and remains a problem, and it'd be nice to get to a point where we're not expected to take military action in another sovereign country for an internal matter.

• 

  Roderick Halvorsen Steve Skojec • 22 days ago

  I agree about our interventionism in a general sense.

  But when Trump walks into the room to negotiate the purchase of a bicycle, he asks for the salesmen's shirt, pants, wallet and the cup of coffee on the poor guy's desk.

  When Trump brings the bicycle home, Trump's neighbors ask him why he paid so much for the bike.

...

Rocío Matamoros • 23 days ago

 ...

• 

  Borghesius • 23 days ago

  "We remind President Trump of the principle of self-defense, which means that a country may only use military force against another sovereign country when it has been attacked by it. "

  It is also possible to justify warfare for the protection of other innocent lives, not just in self defense.

  At this point I do not believe the evidence is clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" about who did it and how the chemical weapons were deployed. War is premature, and there is no clear idea of exactly who is to be protected from who. If the intent was to form a protected christian state to provide a homeland in the middle east, I might see this. But we have various bad guys fighting various other bad guys. And then, we would leave, with the vulnerable population still vulnerable.

• • 

    CharlesMartel Borghesius • 22 days ago

    The US is not in a position of self-defence in Syria. It is in the position of being the aggressor. For the last 7 years, the US and allies (Christian-friendly "democracies" like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar) have tried to topple the Syrian government by arming Islamic terrorists in Syria.

    On the one hand, you have Assad and his secular government protecting Christians. Assad, while not a Christian, even tends to visit churches for Christmas/Easter....

  • 

    CharlesMartel • 22 days ago

    I am glad that a major Traditional Catholic website has addressed this issue, at long last. For 15 years, the US has tried to "fight" radical Islam by overthrowing secular Arab leaders - Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad - opposed to radical Islam. The result has been the spread of mayhem and radical Islamism beyond expectations, and the death of ancient Christian communities. There were 1.4 million Christians in Syria in 2003, before the US invaded (Iraq even had a Christian foreign minister, Tariq Aziz). Now there are 250,000 Christians left. The overthrow of Colonel Qaddafi led to Al Qaeda/ISIS controlling vast chunks of Libyan territory (and 21 Christian martyrs beheaded on the beach in 2015). In Syria, the US/Britain/France/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Turkey/Israel has tried to overthrow a secular government protecting Christians by arming Islamic terrorists. The result is 500,000 Syrian deaths, and 10 million refugees within/outside Syria.

    What the US and allies have done in Syria is unspeakably evil. And they have lied, lied and lied again in support of this murderous policy, feeding us talk about rebels (radical Islamists with few exceptions) and chemical weapons use by Assad (in fact, the Western-backed terrorists had more reason to use chemical weapons in staged false flag attacks than Assad did). Now they seem to be prepared to risk WWIII with Russia in order to prevent terrorists from loosing. God bless Russia for protecting the Christians of Syria.

  • • 

      Rocío Matamoros CharlesMartel • 22 days ago

      Well said, votre Altesse. And thank you for turning back the Moor at Tours. Nearly all the European statesmen of today are on the other side (whatever they say in public), and there's a limited amount the likes of Viktor Orbán can do.

      You could add the U.S.-engineered Islamicization in the 1980s of formerly secular Pakistan and Afghanistan to the list, and long before that, the British installation of the Saudis and Wahhabism.

      This time, we can't count on a Battle of Tours, and the only solution will be miraculous - after the consecration of Russia has been carried out.

    • 

      CharlesMartel Rocío Matamoros • 22 days ago

      I'm beginning to be of the view that only an act of God can save us at this stage. Each time the US/Saudi/Turkey/Qatar backed terrorists loose, they stage a false flag chemical attack, inevitably blamed on Assad, so as to try to get the US to attack Syria. These provocations are sure to be repeated, because from the point of view of the terrorists, they work. Eventually, the result will be world war III, because the Russians are being systematically backed up against the wall: resist US aggression/encirclement/toppling of friendly governments, or keep fighting and risk all out war.

      As US policy doesn't seem to change, whether the man in the White House is Baby Bush (who had promised a humble foreign policy as I recall), Obama (who promised an end to the Bush wars of choice), or Trump (who had sharply critised the Iraq war and seemed to want good relations with Putin), divine intervention now looks like the only answer. Still, we have a duty to speak out about the unspeakable evil that the US and its allies are inflicting on Syria. The world must know.

 ...

Barry • 21 days ago

 ...

• 

  Bob • 23 days ago

  We would not be in this situation if the last administration did its job.

• 

  Thomas J. McIntyre Bob • 23 days ago

  But...OBAMA!...or something

  Trump was elected with a mandate to clean up the last administration's mess,,,not make it worse

• 

  CharlesMartel Bob • 22 days ago

  If the Obama administration had followed its red line and gone to war in Syria on the side of the terrorists, all the Christians of Syria would either be dead or have become refugees by now? Is that what you want?

  The 2013 Ghouta chemical attack was a false flag carried out by the terrorists with help from Turkey's Erdogan (a US ally) and Saudi Arabia (a US ally). Seymour Hersh did a good exposé at the time.
  https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n...

 ...

• 

  Sursum corda • 24 days ago

  This insanity only benefits one country and one group of people who are pulling all the strings. I don't have to tell you who they are, we already know. I'll give you a hint "away with Him, crucify Him, we won't have this man rule over us, give us Barabbas." They would see millions of people die to bring about their hell on earth. How many Christians were murdered by their plot to impose communism on the world?For that matter, how many millions period died in their drive to take over Christ's vineyard and set themselves up as their own collective messiah?

• • 

    cs Sursum corda • 24 days ago

    Are you a Syrian propagandist or a Russian propagandist?
    I do NOT appreciate your anti Semitism and I hope OnePeterFive Moderators look at this and other comments like this
    very negatively. I read enough of this on Remnant regarding this topic regarding the last saran attack used on the Syrian people.

  • 

    Lori Williams cs • 24 days ago

    "Anti-semite" (or "self-hating Jew") is a label used to slur anyone who disagrees with Zionism, who speaks the Truth about the Jewish religion and aspects of history that Jewish leadership would rather you not know about, or who dares to offer social criticism of the Jewish community in any way.

    As soon as one is labelled an "anti-semite," he is out of the game, a bigot, a Nazi, a fascist, a hater, a nutter. His ideas can be written off, he will never hold political office or be taken seriously again by "decent people." That slur, though, is usually hurled by one who, ironically, is the true hater and bigot (not that there are not true racially-motivated anti-semites out there in the world, to be sure).

    Writer Joe Sobran sums it up by saying:

    "An 'anti-semite' in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can't bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term 'anti-semitism' doesn't stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual ostracisms." (National Review, March 16, l992).

    Jews, the Church,
    and the History of the World

  • 

    Patrick Casey Lori Williams • 24 days ago

    Good ol' Joe. He lived with us for a while toward the end of his life when he was in the doldrums. He never lost his sense of humor though. "I'm not an anti-Semite. But I admit that I'm anti-semantic." One time he said that "Being a full-time Jew hater is hard work, much too hard for me." I always thought that was so funny and clever. He mentioned us in his column on Father Solanus Casey. Joe had been praying for his intercession right when me and my dad told him to come live with us. He thought we must be related to him.

• 

  cs Lori Williams • 22 days ago

  That specific comment I referred to was tainted as referring to Jews as Christ killers .”

• 

  Patrick Casey cs • 24 days ago

  Memories are short. A week ago Trump was talking about an immediate withdrawal of all our troops from Syria. Then, three days ago, Israel bombed Syria. Now we're in a prelude to World War III. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to connect those dots.

  (Seymour Hersh's reporting on the last chemical attack should make everyone suspicious of claims Assad did it this time.)

• • • 

      Ivan mi je ime Guest • 23 days ago

      Please stop with that nonsense.
      There must be nobody who should believe anything what comes out the mouth of mr. Micron.
      Take some time and do some research work about him and how it was even possible that that guy, who was until recently totally unknown, became nothing less than la presidente of one of the most liberal secular government of the European countries. Take your time please, and think good about which sources you will (and are) consult(ing).

  • • 

      Ivan mi je ime Guest • 23 days ago

      Saying that someone is president (especially in our times, here and now), and because of that, we should have trust in what such and such president says, - is ... at least, very childish.
      Remember that Hitler, Stallin, Mao, Hoxha, Ceaușescu, Castro and Co were presidentes too.

 ...

• 

  Ryan Carey cs • 24 days ago

  LOL are you a Zionist shill? As a very wise man likes to say "Anti-semitism used to be somebody who said they didn't like Jews. Now anti-semitism is saying something that Jews don't like." Accusations like that might silence the truth in a secular liberal paper, but not here. The Zionist regime is intimately involved with this "attack" and it's part of a plan to get us to topple Assad for various purposes. We don't believe the CIA propaganda. If there even was a poison gas attack it certainly wasn't done by Assad. Anybody with a brain would realize that there is NO MOTIVE FOR ASSAD TO EMPLOY A "GAS ATTACK". This is all the same line we heard years ago "Saddam Hussein is a butcher. He uses poison gas all the time. He's got weapons of mass destruction and about to shoot them off. He's taking babies out of incubators and letting them die and laughing. He was behind 9-11." All of it was lies. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Well I ain't getting fooled this time!

  Zionism is a cancer upon humanity and opposing it has nothing to do with "anti-semitism". Zionism is a precursor to the reign of the anti-Christ. Zionism does not even represent historical rabbinic Jewry. It's a modern atheistic, communistic, and hence diabolical undertaking to create a heaven on earth. Since there is no messiah (so they say) coming to save them from their sins and misfortunes, they have to create their new world order with their own hands, apart from God. It's blasphemous! Let that blasphemous regime fight their own wars.

• • 

    LB236 Ryan Carey • 23 days ago

    cs is not a "Zionist shill", Ryan. She is a faithful Catholic woman for whom I have the utmost respect. I have learned much from her over the past three years I have been commenting in Disqus forums. If you were to check her comment history (far more extensive than your own, I might add), you would realize that.

• 

  Sursum corda cs • 22 days ago

  You work for the hasbara, don't you? A Jew telling Catholics what they can and can't discuss. Talk about arrogance.

• 

  Sursum corda cs • 22 days ago

  You're obviously an Israeli propagandist pretending to be a Catholic.

• 

  Sursum corda cs • 22 days ago

  I don't appreciate your judaizing and the nauseating attempt to equate it with actual Catholicism.

 ...

• 

  Mighty Joe Young cs • 23 days ago

  What'd he write that was anti semitic?

• • 

    cs Mighty Joe Young • 23 days ago

    I saw the video.

    Read the post again that I respondnded to, if you would please.
    If one wants to make the case that Israel is behind this attack, please do so with evidence, not
    with such negative connotations as this post seemed to represent against the Jewish people.
    ( - We all crucified our Lord and He willingly went to His crucification for it.)

    We must pray for peace in the region: there shall be no winners found in an attack by the USA upon Syria.
    Even if Assad is shown to behind this attack, what good will come from ant attack on the Syrian people?
    What good came from the attack on Iraq?

    Too much hatred in the region, too much distrust, too much pride among ALL the people of the region. Things have never changed from Cain and Abel. Things never seem to change.

    Let us pray the Rosary, and pray for peace to prevail. These are very perilous moments and we need great prayer and petition for peace.

  • 

    Mighty Joe Young cs • 23 days ago

    This insanity only benefits one country and one group of people who are pulling all the strings. I don't have to tell you who they are, we already know.

    There is no claim that Israel is behind the attack (But it wouldn't surprise me as false flag operations abound in history).

    The New Testament has our first Pope telling the Jews that it was they who crucified Christ

...

• 

  Romalocuta_Casafajita cs • 23 days ago

  Thank you and others for pointing out that anti-Semitism has no place in Catholicism. Now brace yourself for the counter-arguments like "I'm not an anti-Semite, but Jews run the world and are ruining it". Or "It's ok - they're not real Jews so I can't be an anti-Semite for hating them." Or "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Hold my beer while I 'prove' only a couple of people died." It's so strange to me how anything remotely touching on the Middle East triggers these types of responses, and how this thinking has even seeped into the minds of some Traditionalist leaders over the years.

  These people do more harm to Traditionalism than they realize. They're a major obstacle to any progress of bringing people to the Lain Mass. And they're morally reprehensible, or, at best, astoundingly ignorant.

• • 

    Brian W Romalocuta_Casafajita • 23 days ago

    Who are the traditionalist leaders? Which ones subscribe to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?

  • 

    Romalocuta_Casafajita Brian W • 23 days ago

    Fr. Paul Kramer, "Dr." (snort) Robert Sungenis and even, unfortunately, Fr. Nicholas Gruner who gave these guys a platform and questioned Holocaust numbers for absolutely no reason. To be fair, I would draw the line at the Remnant since although they were more buddy-buddy with these guys in the past, they have, to Matt &Ferrara's credit, distanced themselves from these kinds of folks.

  • 

    Mighty Joe Young Romalocuta_Casafajita • 22 days ago

    ...and questioned Holocaust numbers for absolutely no reason..

    It was done for reasons of history.

    You have no problem with Jews denying that Jesus is the Messias but you do have a problem with Christians questions the claims of secular history.

    Just move to Israel and be done with it....

  • 

    Romalocuta_Casafajita Mighty Joe Young • 22 days ago

    As a Catholic, I would love it if Jews and everyone else who is not Catholic would convert to what I hold to be the one true faith.

    As a rational human being I can also see that the Holocaust was a historical fact, and that the people who deny or minimize it almost always hold view about Jews that go well beyond just questioning the precision of historical numbers. Nobody, Jew or Gentile, is going to be able to provide an exact number but consensus and evidence says 6MM is pretty close. Maybe it was 5.5 and maybe 6.5. But it sure wasn't just a handful.

    I know it's hard to accept that Gruner, by all accounts a saintly person and incredibly
    dedicated to his work and to God, dabbled in this sort of thinking in his later years, but I do think that when you spend a lot of time around people like Kramer and Sungenis, their crackpot ideas start to seep in.

    The next time you heat someone say that they think Trads are bigoted, maybe look at some of the comments here, including your own "move to Israel" remark. You and others might not consider yourselves anti-Semites, but boy does it look that way. Kind of like how the people I mentioned say "oh, the people who control the media, the banks, the world, they say they're Jews but they're not really so it's ok for me to say whatever I want." Please. I don't think most Traditinalists are bigots, but the small group that is tends to be very vocal and they're very destructive.

...

• 

  LB236 • 24 days ago

  So, does this mean the establishment, neocon warmongers have gotten to Trump? Or is this what he's always been? I honestly don't know at this point. What I do know is that the same people who got us into Iraq are the ones advocating for intervention in Syria. And Weigel has a piece at First Things today calling out clergymen who cozy up to Russia; reading between the lines, it is not difficult to see Weigel is ready to gin up Catholic support for more Middle East conflict.

  I really hoped Trump meant what he said about not getting involved overseas. Unfortunately, the man who said these things on the campaign trail seems to have vanished. I get that the constant negativity from the media can wear down any man, but this is not the way to get them off this back.

• • 

    PMB LB236 • 24 days ago

    If Weigel is for it, then we should be against it.