Bush’s Final “State of the Union”: Exiting With a Whimper
Mr. Bush’s last State of the Union address last Monday was the most forgettable of the lot. A tax cut here, an education program there, a few healthcare benefits here and some global warming platitudes there—it was all pretty small stuff, especially compared to Mr. Bush’s world-historical grandiloquence of the early years. It looks like he won’t be doing much for the next 11 months and three weeks, which is just fine. An exit with a whimper by this troubled and inadequate man is preferable to yet another doomed attempt to make history.
Mr. Bush urged Congress to pass the $150 billion stimulus package quickly and to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. His wish may well be granted, but it may not be enough to affect the economy: tax rebates arriving in mail boxes next May or June won’t have an impact on the next three critical months.
More seriously, however, Mr. Bush’s statement on the economy failed to address the deeper malaise that this country faces, more acutely now than when he came to the helm in January 2001. Under his predecessor millions of Americans sought to maintain effortless prosperity by investing in dot.coms that produced no profits, and then using them to generate spending cash. Instead of helping America sober up, however, Mr. Bush presided over the similar misuse of the housing stock. The underlying financial malaise that he neither understands nor cares about is still there. That malaise is moral and spiritual: the impossibility of ever consuming enough goods and services to feel sated, and the unwillingness to settle the bill for those goods and services in cash. The tab has ballooned under Mr. Bush to nine trillion dollars—that’s a 9 followed by a dozen zeros—and it keeps growing. When mere servicing of the ever-growing tab leaves nothing for further consumption, the end will be nigh; but by that time Mr. Bush will be spending his golden years at his Texas ranch.
The President went from behemoths to peanuts by asking Congress to support a $300 million “Pell Grant for Kids” that would give low-income children in underperforming public schools a chance to attend a private, religious or out-of-district public school. If approved, the scheme would be worth one-hundredth of one percent (one 10,000th) of the 2008 Federal budget submitted by Mr. Bush (3 trillion). The President devoted two minutes to this program; if he were to devote equal attention to each and every expenditure worth $300 million, his speech would have lasted 333 hours, or two weeks flat. Furthermore, Mr. Bush knows he is getting nowhere with this one: he has proposed a federally funded private-school voucher each year since coming to the White House, and all he got—in 2004—was a five-year pilot program serving fewer than two thousand students in the nation’s capital.
Mr. Bush’s pinch of incense on the altar of Global Warming was embarrassing. Sounding earnest, he called for an international agreement to “slow, stop and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases” and proposed “a new international clean technology fund.” It’s all worthy stuff that would play well in Davos, but Mr. Bush has stopped short of endorsing mandatory limits on gas emissions—and U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases are still growing.
When the President said that “the other pressing challenge is immigration” he sounded like a reasonable man at first, asserting that “America needs to secure our borders — and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We are increasing work-site enforcement, we are deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings.”
But when he went on to claim that “we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy,” he was back to his old tricks, mixing apples and pears—border security and guest worker programs—for the sake of commercial special interests, and their appetite for cheap foreign labor. In reality the need for effective border security is clear, while the “need” for more foreign workers is non-existant. When the President calls for more foreign workers “to support our economy,” he is perpetuating a lie that is deliberate, premeditated, and pernicious.
On Iraq Mr. Bush said the increase in troops is working, although the enemy is still dangerous and there will be more fighting. Almost five years since starting the unnecessary war against Iraq, the President apparently remains oblivious to the fact that, in geopolitical terms, the main beneficiary of that war has been Iran. The United States removed its arch-enemy, Saddam, and replaced him—in the name of “democracy”—with a Shia-led government that seeks to remake the whole of Iraq in the image of the Islamic Republic across the Shat-al-Arab. Mr. Bush is still staying the course, predicated on the creation of military preconditions for an elusive political solution, and he has no exit strategy. But even after he leaves the White House there will be no precipitous withdrawal and the drain on American resources and willpower will continue.
On another and even more vexed regional issue, Mr. Bush asserted that the security of every nation in the Middle East would be helped if Israel and the Palestinian Authority can sign a peace agreement this year that will create a Palestinian state and provide increased security for Israel. That, of course, will not happen. It is far less likely in 2008 than it had been in 2000 under Clinton, and even then it seemed unlikely. The dispute is structurally imporrible to resolve without an external honest broker perceived by both parties as (1) equidistant; and (2) able and willing to distribute rewards and punishments even-handedly. Another country, perhaps, or this country under another president. The dispute is also impossible to resolve for as long as Hamas persists in regarding it as a religiously mandated, rather than geopolitical dispute.
After seven years in power Mr. Bush should have given us a more impressive performance. In those seven years he has not grown, however, as a leader or as a thinking man. Let us recall that during his first campaign back in 2000, Mr. Bush was saying that we needed a “humbler” foreign policy than that conducted under Bill Clinton. That now seems light years ago. After Dr. Jekyll’s brief early spell Mr. Hyde took over, fortifying himself with ever-larger doses of the potion.
The first disquieting signs came before 9-11, with Mr. Bush’s strong advocacy of further NATO enlargement and with his support for the missile defense system that demanded American abrogation of the 1972 Antibalistic Missile Treaty with Moscow. Its chief proponent was Donald Rumsfeld, who argued that it was needed to maintain global hegemony.
A reasonable and responsible president would have treated 9-11 as a wake-up call to revise the nation’s strategic priorities. In particular he would have sought to eliminate unnecessary strains in America’s relations with two major powers—Russia and China—whose active help, or at least supportive benevolence, would be needed to meet the deadliest threat of the new century. In the event, the failure to define a viable strategy in what is commonly known as the War on Terror was Mr. Bush’s major conceptual shortcoming. It stemmed from his inability to grasp the nature and motivation of the enemy.
In the months leading up to 9-11, and contrary to conventional accusations that the U.S. is hostile to Islam, Bush was eager to reach an understanding with the Taliban regime as part of the strategy to keep Caspian energy sources and pipelines out of Russian hands. After 9-11 Bush turned the pre-existing pattern of pro-Islamic favoritism into an obsession. According to a GOP insider, seven years of non-stop pronouncements from Bush on down regarding Islam as a religion of “peace and tolerance”—in which the factor of jihad ideology is ignored in favor of reference to a generic “terrorism” committed by “evildoers”—display the extent to which U.S. policymakers became fixated on the notion that victory in the misnamed “war on terror” could only be achieved by getting the Muslim world on our side. The key assumption of this approach, that generosity and appeasement—notably in Bosnia and in Kosovo—would be rewarded by friendship, was mistaken: loyalty to unbelievers is not a Muslim trait. Pragmatism is, and it prescribes that when dealing with fools, one milks them for all one can get. His never-ending attempts to bring the Islamists into the tent have played right into the hands of global Jihad (notably in Turkey), or else caused instability (Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority).
The President’s specific policy blunders stemmed from his conceptual failure. He used 9-11—or else blithely allowed Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al to use it—in support of an unrelated and unjustified war in Iraq. At the same time he has continued to act in relation to Russia and China as an antagonist. His actions are directly contributing to the emergence of a new global balance, and in particular to the growth of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a major economic, political and military counterweight to the United States.
Mr. Bush may yet make things much more interesting in his final year by attacking Iran, which is exactly what our Jihadist enemies would like him to do, and which the intelligence community has done its best to prevent. The return of Paul Wolfowitz to the scene is a most disquieting sign, however. The danger is that he and his promoters may convince the President to give another war a chance in his final months—not because it would be a feasible military-political project, but because Mr. Bush’s foreign policy premises, and the strategies derived from those premises, have grown more perilously sincere with each passing year of his presidency.
Mr. Bush’s successors will be forced to operate within a global system very different from the one conducive to his claim that “History has called America… to fight freedom’s fight.” If there is one thing to be thankful to Mr. Bush, it is for his unwitting contribution to the emergence of a multipolar world. External restraint, unimaginable a decade ago, is being imposed on America. It is dictated by the perfectly normal desire of Russians, Chinese, Indians and many smaller nations, to prove that “History” has not called America to anything. A new global balance will also help re-legitimize the notion of America as a nation among other nations and a state among other states, with definable and limited national interests as the foundation of its diplomacy. Contrary to what Mr. Bush and his dwindling band of apologists may claim, this is neither defeatism nor isolationism; it is sanity.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Trifkovic,
Your words:
"A new global balance will also help re-legitimize the notion of America as a nation among other nations and a state among other states, with definable and limited national interests as the foundation of its diplomacy. Contrary to what Mr. Bush and his dwindling band of apologists may claim, this is neither defeatism nor isolationism; it is sanity."
Forthtelling and not foretelling, I hold that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. If not she, then John McCain. With that context in mind, my points to your words reproduced supra are as follows:
1. Rational people who have access to the facts agree with your assessment.
2. The rational facilities of both Hillary and McCain are quite clouded by personal hubris and ideology; therefore, they will not perceive the fact-based rationale obvious to others.
3. While they, Hillary or McCain, will push a policy and acts quite contrary to the reality and its emerging manifestations, that reality will, in time stop them, but not without consequences to the American people and to those at the friction points where the "stop" occurs. Of course, were there a stateman and a diplomat in the White House, he would develop and execute a policy which would accommodate the emerging reality and thereby forgo the dire consequences of hitting headon the reality which you describe.
It does seem that we Americans relish men (women) addicted to hubris and rash action and raise them up to cult figures if not gods. However, as taken as we are with ourselves to "defeat enemies," we have never really faced competitors like Russia and China. Polk pushed around a Mexico which could hardly indentify itself. Lincoln was able to bully the tiny Confederacy. McKinley swept up the "empire" of a hollow and old Spain. Wilson cashed in on an exhausted Europe. FDR was able to "lead us to victory" against a Germany and Japan which were never really our equals and which were already in a death fight with China and the Soviet Union. And our record since then has been, for those who hold the grand schemes of war in high esteem, dismal: Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, unless you count Grenada and Panama. With various stab-in-the back myths, we have been able to shake off our post-WWII defeats, aided by an economy that remained relatively robust despite the socialist schemes which have been in place and growing since Wilson.
Today, however, we stand before real and powerful competitors, Russia and China, competitors which our indigenous war mongers want to turn into enemies, and this at a time when the economy which these same warfare/welfare statists have destroyed appears to be, at least fiscally and monitarily, on its last leg.
One intuits the end. I hold that it will come more quickly under Hillary; however, I could be wrong. If McCain is elected, he might well seek just that war, the defeat in which cannot be covered by a myth.
As a friend of mine used to say, this relevant to the passing of the Bush era and the coming of some new era, "Someone told me to smile, things could be worse; so I smiled, and sure enough, things got worse!"
"It is dictated by the perfectly normal desire of Russians, Chinese, Indians and many smaller nations, to prove that “History” has not called America to anything."
In my view, the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. are wrong. Our form of government, as originally designed and intended, was a superior form of government. It was worthy of veneration. Originally, it was not us Americans so much who desired to see it emulated around the world; it was the peoples of other nations who admired it. In that sense and to that degree I don't think it's improper to suppose that we were "called by history" (i.e. God) to be an example for others.
The sad fact, however, is that we've been a rather poor example right from the get-go. We have not consistently sought--other than in the example of the Southern states prior to their defeat--to maintain free institutions, but have rather at every step sought to consolidate more and more power in a central government, in essence emulating the governments we were designed to replace. We are today at the point where there remains no great difference between us and many other governments around the world, so that the world now looks at us and says, "I don't see the big deal." Given that, how silly must we look running around insisting under threat of arms that everyone be like us! If we actually had something left to offer, we'd no doubt encounter infinitely less resistance.
The major problem is that men like George Bush (and, let's face it, the vast majority of the American people) can't see--or won't admit--the difference between the government they were bequeathed by the Founders and the government they live under today. They think we are still pretty much the same country we were in 1787, when almost literally nothing could be further from the truth.
To Mr. Peters: For all their shortcomings, Reagan and Bush Sr were not "addicted to hubris"; the fact that we'll have two prime specimens of the pathogen on the ballot next November does not mean that a non-certifiable person cannot be nominated ab initio & in principle. Hope springs eternal...
To Mr. Newland: the messianic impulse had been there all along among the nonconformist refugees from England's religious tolerance, but it gained establishmentarian imprimatur only with the elevation of the Union to a mythical pedestal in 1861. By now it has degenerated into millenarian Kitsch. The Fathers would be disgusted and horrified.
Dr. Trifkovic @3
Yes, "ab initio and in principle," with hope therefrom springing eternal. I subscribe to that just like I hold that I will not meet the cougar which has been seen in our local climes of late; however, I do hedge my bets and carry a .357 magnum revolver and have one of my big Catahoula Leopards along when in the woods or on the back acreage of our little farm. Having learned a bit of prudence from my parents I am, therefore, metaphorically speaking, of course, so as not to alarm "homeland security," carrying my .357 magnum and ranging with my Catahoula Leopard in case ab initio and in prinicple decide not to show up at the convention.
I think this article makes rather tidy summary of the Bush fiasco. The unfortunate thing I fear about the Bush legacy, is that no matter how badly Pres. Hillary performs, the many may think "At least she is better than Bush."
I hope I am being too pessimistic.
PcH @ 5
Although I am in the arena of theology not at all a radical eschatologist, not in any sense, and certainly not in the sense of dispensationalism/rapture which I hold to be errors of great magnitude, the Lord's Second Advent being at the pleasure of the Father, I do intuit the end of something; and I, therefore, do not believe that the next administration will be business as usual, such that we will be able to judge it simply by actions and legacies past administrations.
One could, of course, retort that Americans have been saying for the last ten election cycles that if this one or that one is elected, it will mean the end of America. The difference, as I see it, is that who is elected, particularly if that "who" is from among Jezebel, Obama, Dorian Gray and Bob Dole Redux, will make no difference in the ultimate outcome, whatever that is. There seems to me to be a fin de siècle not unlike 1914, at least as far as these United States are concerned.
I am indeed a man of hope, but that hope does not rest in systems, political parties or even myself. There is, for my part, a certain apprehension, and not misapprehension, of the near future. Things are moving, and hopefully, those of us who have been graced with a sense of duty will be ready and prepared to build something good when we are given the moment.
I am also "a man of hope," and therefore conclude my forthcoming print edition article on the financial crisis (make sure to get your March 2008 "Chronicles"!) as follows:
"If reasonable men agree that our civilization is spiritually diseased, morally rotten and demographically moribund, then a colossal, rapidly spreading global economic crisis should be neither feared nor wished away. It may yet be our last best hope for survival. The meltdown has to be rapid and brutal, however. Only the collapse of hoi polloi confidence in the ability of the all-pervasive State to manage relief would force blighted billions to re-examine their lives and their assumptions. By getting no relief from the collapsing State (including the European Union, the World Bank, the IMF, or Oxfam) they would rediscover self-reliance – or die. Being disillusioned by progress, they would rediscover the value and force of tradition. The ensuing struggle for diminishing resources may make them drop the neurotic becoming in favor of just being – that is, surviving."
Dr. Trifkovic @ 7
I must then get a copy of it. We are of the same opinion!
Are you implying that you don't get each and every copy of "Chronicles" as a matter of course? Tut-tut...
Dr Peters,
You speak of the "end of something." Perhaps the end of Empire. Do you think America will go through a devolution process? Could America decentralize peacefully?
Also noting ends, I was reading Konstantin Mochulsky's introduction to *The Brothers Karamazov* and Mochulsky noted that Dostoevsky spoke of an "end" of the old European order loosely associated with Christendom. He posited that the new order would be one of bloodshed.
Regarding guns, I just bought a nice .38 special.
Dr. Trifkovic - thank you for these insights! Here is what frightens me...
It seems that we have conditions emerging which have a very eerie resemblance to those of the early twentieth century:
Great power politics of a suicidal sort is re-establishing itself along some familiar lines. While not as outwardly nationalistic as one hundred years ago, there are striking similarities. The US-UK axis was recently joined by France. Their chief targeted rival being a Russia that is on an economic trajectory that will make it the largest in Europe - just like 100 years ago.
Back then a homegrown Russian revolution was fueled by outside money and a principled, but somewhat weak tsar was martyred and Bolshvism was foisted upon the Russians. In the last few years we have had color-coded revolutions all around the periphery of Russia threatening them not this time with international communism, but global democratic-capitalism. Economic schemes were employed to destroy Russia once more, but the feeble tsar (Yeltsin) drank himself to death prematurely such that the job could not be completed before the younger and considerably more able noblemen (siloviki) took over and restored Russian strength and pride.
France firmly joined the axis when the Sarkozy unit of neocons took over and immediately radiated a belligerent foreign policy that neatly fit into the US-UK model. Massive non-white immigration played a role in destablizing the French homeland such that a strong leader (Giuliani's friend, mind you) had to be called upon to restore "law and order" which the socialists could not and which the nationalists were not permitted to do. Of course, by "order", I mean a phony attempt at suppressing the symptons while not actually addressing any of the root causes of the problem.
It is unclear where Germany stands at the moment, but one assumes she will fall into her usual anti-Russian stance quickly. Though, energy dependence may temper attitudes in the near term.
Unlike a century ago, the Russians will have no major European power to side with them unless the Germans reconsider things, which means they will have to deepen the relationship with China and others....setting up a major worldwide conflict.
Unthinkable and irrational were two words I would guess were employed by objective analysts of the situation in the early and middle parts of the twentieth century and yet we all know what happened.
Serbia is again being trapped and set up to play the part of catalyst for events which will have wider reaching impact outside of the Balkans. Whether one sees the (in)famous Serb stubborness or a tenacious spirit of principled behavior - that combined with geographic and demographic positioning on a major civilizational fault line make Serbia the ideal powder keg in which to light major conflicts. The election of the Democrats (Tadic) or Radicals (Nikolic) will only be important in terms of how fast things could go, but go they will, because Serbia will not be in control and the abuses foisted upon her will naturally be unacceptable to the vast majority of Serbs.
Sarkozy will become louder in his calls for the build-up of a European military force. (Although, it is confusing why in parallel he would offer France's re-entry to NATO central command. Frankly, I think it is a ruse so as to not excite the American military leadership as France works diligently to establish a real European military structure.) This force will first be "tested" in Kosovo. The EU will in many respects resemble the Austro-Hungarian Empire as its bureacracy arrogantly muscles the states at its periphery and even the smaller member states. (Consider the sway a Slovenia has politically. It chairs the presidency but how much of the shots does it call or even influence? Slovenia does not even have nearly enough consulates worldwide to fulfill her EU diplomatic duties. Consider Croatian fishing rights. Consider farmers rights in Poland. And so on.)
The calls for the entry of Turkey into the union will continue because the destablization of other parts of the EU is not quite where they are targetd as yet - particularly in Germany. Only then can we sufficiently hand over more power to the newly forming federal state apparatus and its rotating Leader to deal with the fear that the indigenous elements will surely exhibit.
Consider this as the reigns in the US are handed over to sure-fire ideological beligerants. Parallels to Wislonian ideological warfare, anyone?
Consider the downside of the boom-bust economy of today (from dot-com/housing boom to dot-bomb/mortgage crisis) with the 1920s boom followed by the 1930s worldwide depression.
Consider even the cultural malaise of a liberal 1920s that ushered in more modern liberal behaviors as compared with the cultural depravity of today that continues down that increasingly steep slope toward nihilism.
The situation now is both similar and worse in many respects to that of a hundred year's ago. It seems major conflict is on the horizon and it will make us wish for the days when the big states only picked on non-players in the Middle East.
Someone please tell me I am being paranoid!
Eagle #11 -- No, you are not paranoid, but you are an optimist. Your analysis of parallels is still rooted in the "traditional" Realpolitik. We have moved on, and only some outward forms resemble the old equation, like a vampire resembles a man.
All of the great powers you discuss are demographically, culturally and morally moribund (unlike their namesakes pre-July 1914). Their Gramscian, cultural-Marxist political leaders' visceral Russophobia
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=424
reflects their elites' Christophobia.
http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/133.php
The collective suicide of 1914 was arguably spontaneous. Even those who willed the war (Konrad & Co in Vienna, Bethman-Hollweg and Jagow in Berlin) played va-banque in the hope of winning, rather than with the intention of destroying their world. Their Western successors today, by contrast, are active wreckers, "creative destroyers" (Ledeen). In July 1914 the leaders were invariably arrogant, often stupid, and sometimes criminally irresponsible. Today they are e v i l.
Sadly I don't see a Blessed Karl anywhere in the mix in Europe save perhaps King Juan Carlos. Billary are Bush in a dress (pantsuit) and McCain is an arrogant and ignorant blow hard. whose being shot down saved the potential loss of more US Navy aircraft due to incompetent flying.
Until America is forced to decide if it wants to be a Republic or a fascist Empire it is going to be in peril. But the followers of God's Only Party worship nothing but the almighty dollar and have no clue as to the person or message of Jesus Christ. At least it makes it easy to see what our Lord was up against when I ponder the trial and passion. We are a nation of Pharisees and Sadducee's. I can only hope and pray that God is merciful.
Dr. Trifkovic @ 9
I am found out! I subscribe, out of habit - a habit which flows out of budgetary considerations - to no magazines or journals. But I shall move such parts of heaven and earth which are found in these climes and which respond to my energies to get a copy of Chronicles. In March, I intend to attend the Steven Dill Lee conference. Perhaps, if one is not to be found by then in the Red River Valley, I will be able to scavenge a copy thereof there. I am told on good intelligence that there are those who attend that conference who read "Chronicles."
Mr. Aitken @ 10
The peaceful devolution of the political entity known as The United States (formerly, These United States) is, from my understanding, to be desired; however, the "peaceful" part will be no little tricky, I am afraid. I understand "America" to reflect the society and not the polity. America existed before the polity which it created and is likely, although perhaps not highly likely given the demographic shifts, to outlast the polity. In essence, the Constitution is not unlike the Queen of England: trotted out on certain occasions as a grudging genuflect to tradition but otherwise ignored or plotted against.
With the right ammunition and training, a .38 special is a good weapon against cougar and common thug; I would not, however, attempt with it a shootout with the local gang of drug lords, nor do I recommend it as the weapon of choice against a grizzly.
Dr. Trifkovic @ 12
You are down range and on target with your comments and with the support which you provide through the links!
Dr Peters @ 15
Thank you for your comments on devolution. Thomas Moore wrote a book *The Hunt for Confederate Gold* which suggested devolution.
I am not as skilled as military or law enforcement, but I can hit a torso at 15 yards, which is good for self-defense in the home. I definitely would not use it in a shoot out with a gang. It is only a 5 shot revolver. I have a few speed loaders, but still it is limited firepower. I am using + Ps for ammo.
"Only the collapse of hoi polloi confidence in the ability of the all-pervasive State to manage relief would force blighted billions to re-examine their lives and their assumptions."
It's so nice to see "hoi polloi" used correctly. If I have to listen to one more pseudo-intellectual say "the hoi polloi"...
We Continentals are guilty of omitting definite articles even when they are called for. Doubling them is for unlettered natives.
It was all predicted, the whole 8 years of the Bush admin. on the old Sam Francis site - even before Bush was elected, on the assumption he would be, and the actual reasons why it would go as it did - which wouldn't see the light of day. ... it's there. Bush never read it? And Sam's site suddenly and mysteriously went off line. Too sad for 'words'.
Hi Sam - wherever you are... ! (i still say it's "funny".)
Here's an iron rule - scum is scum. cream on top of milk is cream.
____
Mr. Aitken @ 17
I wrote a response to your 17 last night and posted it, I think or thought. I either hit the wrong button, or the bear story at the end was too much for the censor to bear. (No pun intended, but it's good!)
Therefore, I'll give you the short answer: devolution is the antidote
to Gleichschaltung - a subsuming by that which is central of all that is not. Go to Google and find it. Here is a place to begin.
http://www.germannotes.com/hist_ww2_gleichschaltung.shtml
robert m peters @ #6 and 21
I am sorry to hear that you are under moderation. I can't imagine why.
I think you got the little Easter egg I left you. In another topic, you wrote about the death of the pagan world in the Niebelungenlied. I followed with a pertinent quotation from Old Norse eschatology, fitting the feeling here that this is the end of something significant.
Nicely put.
Yes, I think there have been small "end times" throughout our history: the fall of the Christian Empire, the martyrdom of English reformers, the War on the South. The fall of Constantinople was followed by the expansion of the Christian world over the whole globe, the English martyrdom by the founding of America and the British Empire. We are still waiting for something good to follow that war...
I figure that now is either our time to do right or soon will come the time of His coming in glory.
There is a third possibility, and it is far more likely: nothing "right" will be done, decline without fall will continue, and His coming will finally occur when -- as foretold -- there will be but a few, precious few, to know, let alone to welcome Him.
Yes, you are right. Doomsday: judgement for all, glory in the eyes of a remnant. The sun has not yet dimmed, the moon is not red, and the stars have not fallen off course; so on one hand, I hope for repentance, on the other I ask, "How long, Lord?"
PcH @ 22 and 24 & Dr. Trifkovic @ 23
I believe that the bear treeing me on Concodrie Bayou was too much for the moderator!
The edited version thereof which I left for Mr. Aitken at 21 turns out, in its brevity, to be better anyway. If it was the moderator and not my own thoughtless finger pressing the wrong button, he did Mr. Aitken, me and the rest who read this thread a favor.
I intend by God's grace - in faith, duty and action - to be in the remnant of my time, were my time to be the end time; and if not, to pass on to future generations that which has been bestowed on me in stewardship, nurtured and improved, so that some therein can be the remnant of their time should they live in the last days.
That is all that I know to do with the light which I have been given.
Easier said than done... Tara (my youngest, 13) has just announced that she is an "atheist" and that she has the "right" not to go to church any more.
Dr. Trifkovic,
My old pastor, Moses Eli Mercer, said that Satan's meanest snares are always close to home. Then again, thirteen-year-olds sometimes change opinions as often as they do their teenage crushes, to the expiration of their parents.
Prodigals can come to a bad end; however, its seems that most of them are purposed to instill faith, patience, love and the anticipation of a homecoming in parents and loved ones. My wife and I walk currently with a prodigal; our faith, patience and love have grown and the hope of a homecoming lies quietly but with apprehension in our hearts.
Dr. Trikovic @26
Perhaps an incident from my life will help you as you deal with your daughter's statement about atheism.
When I was 14, I fell under the influence of some strongly agnostic friends. Eventually I approached my Scoutmaster and told him that I didn't think I believed in God any more, and how could I continue to work in Scouting (which, while non-denominational in the US, does require a young man to have some form of religious belief to advance). That wise leader told me not to worry about it, to keep coming to Scout meetings and participating, and we'd talk about it again when I came up for my Eagle badge.
By the time I came up for Eagle at age 16, I had rediscovered Jesus Christ and the point was moot. Now, 26 years later, my own boys are Scouts and believers.
Moral? Have patience, I think, and charity of course, and try quietly to help your daughter surround herself with good friends who are headed in the right direction. And pray.
"Easier said than done… Tara (my youngest, 13) has just announced that she is an “atheist” and that she has the “right” not to go to church any more."
A prickly situation indeed. My brother Matthew waited until he was seventeen to make such a proclamation, and the following story, as ridiculous as it is, is told almost verbatim (truth is indeed much more bizarre than fiction):
This last Christmas, when I described him as an "atheist," he denied it vehemently, insisting that I didn't know what he was. I asked him, so then, did he believe in God? He answered that yes, he did; he just wasn't a Christian. But not the Trinity? He denied disbelieving in the Trinity. He said that he believed in God, he just didn't agree with Him on some points.
"You disagree with God?"
"Look, He's got His ways; I've got mine. He's got His opinions; I've got mine. We don't get along; that's how it is!"
"But you ARE a Christian."
"No, I'm NOT! I can't explain what I am!"
"Matthew, that's what a Christian is. You're baptised. You believe in the Trinity. And that's not a controversial definition."
"No, I'm not a Christian!"
"That's not to say you're a 'practicing' Christian or a 'devout' or 'good' Christian, but there's really nothing else to describe what your beliefs are."
"Look, I can't explain what I am in words, so you'd better just back off and shut up."
Obviously this was getting nowhere, but since I'd managed to get a Credo out of the kid it was worth it. So I stopped short of asking if he could draw me a picture of what he was.
(For the curious, ours is a religiously divided family. Actually, "divided" is mincing words: we have a Catholic mother and a Protestant father, significant numbers from both confessions are found on both sides of our extended families yet relatively few who do not regularly attend Church and as far as I can tell no ancestors who left Europe before 1900. Most absurdly of all, and for reasons I will not explain here, I was baptised [and remain] Catholic and my brother Protestant. Explains a lot, I know.)
Dr. Trifkovic does not, of course, need a child as myself to tell him how to respond to his children. But young people who rebel against the faith generally do so because they are told they need to become "independent" from their parents. By becoming financially solvent? Starting a career? Getting married? No, nowadays they are told to stop thinking because thinking is something their parents have done. (Most American parents do not, of course, think much nowadays, but those who have made it with an intact marriage and house and semi-stable children for several decades must have done some thinking.)
Although "Another Brick in the Wall" was directed at the British state school system, that is the spirit of Pink Floyd's children's chant that "We don't need no education!" and of progressive culture in general. It is not that American academics shut out anyone with a non-leftist train of thought: they shut out anyone who can think or who will teach students to think.
You are a much wiser and more cosmopolitan man than I, and I'm sure your family is much more religiously and culturally stable than mine. I've no doubt that you are a brilliant moral and intellectual example to your children. Continue to be just that. If and when Tara decides that she wants to start thinking again, the results will be inevitably wonderful.
Dr. Trifkovic,
One of the greatest religious trials and challenges we face is when others we love exercise their freedom (or attempt to) in ways we know will not be to their ultimate benefit. Biblical examples include Jacob's sons, the whole children of Israel, David's offspring, and Aaron's sons. We can persuade and we can guide those we love, but ultimately, they have been given the freedom to choose. Seeing someone turn away from something we love dearly is one of the greatest challenges we may have to bear.
The mystery of teenage communication and thought usually does not clarify such situations. But God is still a God of miracles, and His ways are most definitely not our ways.
Mr Srdjo,
what do you think about Antony C. Sutton who wrote "WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION"?
Thanks!
"Easier said than done… Tara (my youngest, 13) has just announced that she is an “atheist” and that she has the “right” not to go to church any more."
I wonder what Tara would say if she read "The Mountain of Silence" by Markides, followed by a free trip (paid for by Big Daddy) to meet Father Maximos?
Gentlemen, spirituality comes with maturity!
Back to the topic: What I would like to know, is Serbia and its province of Kosovo-Metohija strategically important enough for Russia and America – as to become a ground for a confrontation between them?
Also, I've received the following announcement. Those living close should check this out:
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Berkeley
and
The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies
invite you to a lecture and discussion by
Serge Trifkovic
KOSOVO: A PREVENTABLE DISASTER
Monday, February 4, at 5:30 p.m.
3105 Etcheverry Hall
University of California, Berkeley http://www.berkeley.edu/map
Kosovo is not that important per se (claims of its inordinate riches notwithstanding), but the issue is terribly important to the Russians. The extent to which it is seen in Moscow as a litmus test of Russia's comeback -- with all that this implies diplomatically, politically and militarily -- is not appreciated in Washington. Some Europeans see this, and fear the consequences, but lack them cojones to resist U.S. pressure from without and the EU Apparat's insistence on Euro-"unity" from within.
BURP...
let's go to what lasts...
art -
(thanks G-d)
tingle to his bones...
and watched out for a simple twist of fate...
moving
...
It's 5 more years of Tadic, after all. Only marginally preferable to Billary McCain... so let's drown our sorrows in some folk poetry!
THE TOMA NIKOLIC BLUES
(With apologies to all Good Old Rebels from S.T.)
Oh, I'm a good old Serb boy, now that's just what I am,
For "Euro-integration" I do not give a damn!
I'm glad I vote against it, I only wish we'd won,
And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.
I hates the Hague Tribunal, and ugly Carla, too,
I hates the Brussels Banner with yellow stars on blue,
I hates the nasty Sarko with all his brag and fuss,
The lying, thieving Britons, I hates 'em wuss and wuss!
I hates the Shiptar nation and everything they do,
I hates their Declaration of Independence, too,
I hates the KFOR logo, 'tis dripping with our blood,
I hates their haughty manner, I fit it all I could.
I followed the Doc and Ratko for four years, near about,
Got wounded in three places, without no scream or shout;
I cotched the "roomatism" a'campin' in the snow,
But I killed a chance o' Mussies, and I'd like to kill some mo'.
A hundred thous’d Jihadists is stiff in Serbian dust!
We got a hundred thousand before NATO conquered us.
They died of Serbian bullets and Serbian steel and shot,
I wish they was three million instead of what we got.
I can't take up my A-K and fight 'em now no more,
But I ain't a'gonna love 'em, now that is sarten sure;
And I don't want no “Europe” for what I was and am,
I won't be integrated, and I do not care a damn!
I won't be integrated! I'm better now than them,
And for the human rights crowd, I do not give a damn.
So I'm off for the new homeland, soon as I can fly,
I'll prepare me a weapon and start for Russky Rai.
Kudos to the poet! I feel disappointed and surprised and still cannot believe that Serbia fell for Tadic’s scary tactics.
Yet, five years is a long period and changes may occur before long.
It was inevitable, Dr. T. Serbians, like other Europeans and like the more deracinated Muslim Turks, will be drawn to the E.U. until its cultural plundering capitalist welfare collapses under global economic pressures and can no longer subsidize the seductively decadent Euroyuppy lifestyle.
Dr. Trifkovic @ 36,
The next time I am among re-enactors, perhaps as we once again chase Billy Yank out of the hills of North Louisiana at the "Battle of Pleasant Hill," I will see to it that we Rebels sing your version of the song as well - in honor of the poet, of you and the Serbian people!
http://www.politika.co.yu/uploads/galerija/31764/i/1/Obama,%20Hilari,%20Diseldorf04.jpg
I'm suprised no one mentioned that the main london bombing suspect was recruited by British/Pakistani intelligence was recruited for the Bosnian and Kosovan war and and that he got his explosives from a small chineses rocket head from Kosovo. It was reported in Defence and Foriegn Affairs article but I lost the link to it.
Shockproof? Google "Pretrib Rapture Desperados," "Famous Rapture Watchers," and "Pretrib Rapture Diehards" --- all by the one who authored the bestselling "The Rapture Plot" (Armageddon Books). Jon