Fw: One Nation Under God?

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Traer

To: sermons@list.christian-bible.com

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:14 PM

Subject: One Nation Under God?

One Nation Under God?

Scripture Readings: Deuteronomy 6:20-25, Mk. 12:13-17

In 1620 aboard the Mayflower, John Winthrop told the colonists longing to reach the shores of the New World: "We have entered into a covenant with God for this work." Near the end of the next century at the time of the founding of the United States of America, Benjamin Franklin, a less pious man, proposed that the seal of the nation should bear an impression of the waters of the Red Sea submerging the armies of Pharaoh. Like Winthrop, Franklin saw America in the light of the Israelite story, which Christians read in the Old Testament. This new nation was to be free of the tyranny that marked the nations of the Old World.

Thus, the first amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion, and the 14th amendment later applied the same standard to the States. Certainly, of the fundamental freedoms in this country, the "free exercise of religion" protected by the first amendment is among the most cherished.

From the very beginning religious freedom was seen as God’s will, and America was understood as central to God’s plan for the world. When the Civil War threatened to destroy the nation, President Abraham Lincoln argued that preserving the Union was not only necessary to protect fundamental freedoms, but was also the will of God. Almost a century later, a Presbyterian minister, Rev. George M. Docherty, decided that the vision of one nation "under God" shared by founders and Presidents like Lincoln should be part of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was adopted in 1942.

On February 7, 1954, which was Lincoln Sunday, in a sermon preached at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, Rev. Docherty proposed adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. President Eisenhower was in church that day, so the sermon received national news coverage. Five months later the revised Pledge was being recited in Congress.

In his autobiography, George Docherty notes that some of his Jewish and atheist friends feared the consequences of this change, but his rebuttal then was that the first amendment protected the citizen’s right to be religious or not religious. Docherty argued that citizens were pledging "allegiance not to God, but to a flag." And Docherty saw the phrase "under God" as simply describing "the historic fact that the nation was founded by men who held a profound belief in divine providence."

Events, however, were to give a different meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance. With hindsight, Docherty later wrote: "I still consider my reasoning to be valid, but the times should have overruled my philosophical arguments as irrelevant in light of the greater issues at hand. A false patriotism was being aroused by the bogus threat of Communist encroachment; McCarthyism darkened the airwaves; superpatriots were prone to ask not whether they were on God’s side, but whether God was on theirs. As such, the new Pledge unfortunately served as one more prop supporting the civil religion that characterized the institutional Christianity of the fifties." (I’ve Seen the Day, p. 160)

The Hebrew scriptures read by Christians as the Old Testament have been used to justify the idea of "a nation under God." But if scripture is read literally, the chosen nation is Israel, not America. For two thousand years Jews have kept this hope alive in their prayers, and a half century ago Israel was reborn. Now, the Israeli government defies international law in order to wage war, with American support, against the Palestinian communities that harbor terrorists who attack Israelis. At the same time, on land occupied by Israel since the war of 1967, the government supports the building of settlements, because this land is seen as part of "the nation" of Israel created by God, so the scriptures say, more than three thousand years ago.

Meanwhile, in America as in the fifties, fear of our enemies is fostering a "civil religion" that claims fundamental freedoms must be denied for the sake of national security. Men deemed dangerous to American security are being held without bail or charges being filed against them. They are being denied the due process of law required by our constitution, and also the safeguards mandated by international law for prisoners of war. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with people loving their country and believing it is part of God’s plan for the world. But even as the Pledge of Allegiance was used in the fifties to justify setting aside the legal procedures that protect our fundamental freedoms, we are endangered today by overzealous patriots.

As Christians, we need to be reminded that the church began in an era when the Roman Empire claimed the divine right to rule. Christians were among the victims of that time of arrogance and over-reaching, and this is why the New Testament does not look for God's will to be achieved through the reign of any nation on earth. Instead, the New Testament proclaims that the kingdom of God is "at hand" despite the tyranny of earthly rule, and that the reign of God will be consummated at the end of history in a kingdom not of this world. (John 18:36) The New Testament warns Christians not to identify the kingdom of God with any nation on earth.

As American Christians, we have good reasons for believing that our nation is not only blessed, but has a heritage of freedom and government through law that is far more consistent with the teaching of scripture than many other countries of the world. Yet, much of what we see so favorably, as Americans, looks hypocritical to people living in other countries.

America defends fundamental freedoms and demands that governments enforce human rights, yet America has not ratified most of the international human rights treaties and refuses to support the international criminal court. America demands that the Palestinian government be democratic, yet America supports many governments that are clearly not democratic (including most of the "friendly" Arab governments). America pushes for free trade and the lowering of trade barriers, yet America has raised government subsidies on US farm products that allow them to be sold at lower prices and to compete unfairly with the agricultural products of poor countries. America demands that corruption be stamped out in countries receiving US aid, yet America has been reluctant to acknowledge and root out corrupt corporate practices at home.

What shall we mean today when we affirm that American is "under God"? Will we, and other Americans, take to heart the meaning that this phrase had for Lincoln, who saw the Civil War as God’s judgment on America? Will we understand the sympathy among many Muslims for terrorist acts against America, as a judgment on our failure to live up to our American and Christian ideals? Will all of us, who talk about living "under God," take to heart the responsibilities, as well as the joys and the blessings, that come with this faith?

Whether or not we pledge our allegiance to one nation "under God," our allegiance to our nation should be "under" our allegiance to God. If God is God, then our country is "under God," whether we say so or not. If God is just, then America is called to be just. If God is forgiving, then Americans are called to be forgiving. If God is our God, then we are called to be faithful.

Grace and peace...Bob
http://christian-bible.com/

______________________________________________

 

To download Hymns that are now available online, go to
http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Hymns/hymns.be.still.htm.

________________________________________________________

 

If you would like to receive a daily Scripture reading, send a blank
email to scripture-subscribe@list.christian-bible.com.  

______________________________________________

 

To unsubscribe from this Sermons list, send a blank email to
sermons-unsubscribe@list.christian-bible.com.

Fw: Supreme Court destroys property rights

Hey, Everyone!
Here is the action page to sell David Souter's home to a hotel developer! Souter, Souter, who's David Souter? Oh, he's one of the five Supreme Court Justices who destroyed your property rights! He thought this law was a good idea... Sooooo... Scroll down just a bit and click on the "Go" in the 'take action now' square...

RightMarch.com
Patriotism In Action.

FREE Email Alerts!
Your Name:
Email Address:

(Privacy Policy)

Action Alerts

Donate

News

Links

Store

Subscribe

Contact Us

Home . Elected Officials . Issues . Election . Media


Legislative Alerts and Updates . Current Legislation . Key Votes . Capitol Hill Basics

Action Alert

Punish Souter for Property Theft decision
Help see that "Justice Is Served" on Property Rights!







ALERT: Are you as OUTRAGED as we are about the Supreme Court's recent decision, allowing city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another? In "Kelo vs. City of New London", five Justices (led by David Souter) ruled that "eminent domain" allows any local government to TAKE anyone's private property if the government will generate greater tax revenue -- or any other economic benefits -- when the land is developed by the new owner.

If you AREN'T outraged, then you're not paying attention!

These black-robed dictators have now virtually destroyed individual property rights in the United States. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution AGAIN, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments have the "right" to seize private property to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls.

You read that right. It doesn't matter if your family has lived in your home since you were 11 years old -- if the local government decides that they could make more tax dollars by putting in a mall, too bad for you and your family.

Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent to the ruling, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

But, the Supreme Court has spoken, so that's the end of it, right? Nothing can be done to expose this ruling for the TRAVESTY it really is, right?

WRONG. As a matter of fact, there IS something that can be done -- we can take this ruling to its logical conclusion, and show Justice Souter and his ilk who are sitting there in their ivory towers, far removed from us "common" folk, just what their "legal theories" are doing to US.

So, in keeping with what has now been deemed "constitutional", a private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire, asking that the property of the judge be seized to make room for a new hotel.

According to WorldNetDaily.com, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

Ah, poetic justice is served. And YOU can help serve it to Justice Souter.

TAKE ACTION: This is not a prank. The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, Mr. Clements can begin his hotel development -- and we can begin the process of reversing this travesty of justice. He already plans to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

FINALLY, these tyrants in black can "face the music" and actually EXPERIENCE what they're putting the rest of us through! Click "Go!" above NOW to send a message to all five members of the town of Weare's Board of Selectmen at once, asking them to see that "Justice Is Served" by implementing Souter's decision and putting a hotel on HIS property.

NOTE: Yes, like Clements, we're aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property. "I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WorldNet Daily. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help see that "Justice Is Served" in this outrageous decision to destroy private property rights! Thank you!

LET'S STOP KIDDING OURSELVES! 9-11 was an Israeli-backed spanking on our
collective American bottom! A Boeing 757 DIDN'T pierce through six walls of the
Pentagon (impossible + no aircraft debris), a late model cruise missile did the job;
the Twin Towers DIDN'T collapse due to heat (impossible), demolition charges
did the job; there were NO Arab hijackers (the jets were guided electronically);
and the Zionists/Judeo-Christians now in control of the United States are traitors
to the U.S. Constitution... as well as being mass murderers.This has been a Zionist
WAG THE DOG operation from the start, deadly serious for our elected leaders
WHO KNOW WHO'S GUILTY, and an Arabian Nights charade for Mom and Pop
in Littletown, U.S.A.! It's an info war! Forward this to the world! henrithecelt@gci.net

Hey, Everyone!

Here is the action page to sell David Souter's home to a hotel developer! Souter, Souter, who's David Souter? Oh, he's one of the five Supreme Court Justices who destroyed your property rights! He thought this law was a good idea... Sooooo... Scroll down just a bit and click on the "Go" in the 'take action now' square...

 

RightMarch.com          Patriotism In Action.

FREE Email Alerts! Your Name: Email Address: (Privacy Policy) Action Alerts Donate News Links Store Subscribe Contact Us Home  �  Elected Officials  �  Issues  �  Election  �  Media Legislative Alerts and Updates � Current Legislation � Key Votes � Capitol Hill Basics Action Alert Punish Souter for Property Theft decision Help see that "Justice Is Served" on Property Rights! ALERT: Are you as OUTRAGED as we are about the Supreme Court's recent decision, allowing city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another? In "Kelo vs. City of New London", five Justices (led by David Souter) ruled that "eminent domain" allows any local government to TAKE anyone's private property if the government will generate greater tax revenue -- or any other economic benefits -- when the land is developed by the new owner. If you AREN'T outraged, then you're not paying attention! These black-robed dictators have now virtually destroyed individual property rights in the United States. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution AGAIN, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments have the "right" to seize private property to make way for private commercial development such as shopping malls. You read that right. It doesn't matter if your family has lived in your home since you were 11 years old -- if the local government decides that they could make more tax dollars by putting in a mall, too bad for you and your family. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent to the ruling, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." But, the Supreme Court has spoken, so that's the end of it, right? Nothing can be done to expose this ruling for the TRAVESTY it really is, right? WRONG. As a matter of fact, there IS something that can be done -- we can take this ruling to its logical conclusion, and show Justice Souter and his ilk who are sitting there in their ivory towers, far removed from us "common" folk, just what their "legal theories" are doing to US. So, in keeping with what has now been deemed "constitutional", a private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire, asking that the property of the judge be seized to make room for a new hotel. According to WorldNetDaily.com, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home. Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare." Ah, poetic justice is served. And YOU can help serve it to Justice Souter. TAKE ACTION: This is not a prank. The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, Mr. Clements can begin his hotel development -- and we can begin the process of reversing this travesty of justice. He already plans to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project. FINALLY, these tyrants in black can "face the music" and actually EXPERIENCE what they're putting the rest of us through! Click "Go!" above NOW to send a message to all five members of the town of Weare's Board of Selectmen at once, asking them to see that "Justice Is Served" by implementing Souter's decision and putting a hotel on HIS property. NOTE: Yes, like Clements, we're aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property. "I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WorldNet Daily. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation." Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help see that "Justice Is Served" in this outrageous decision to destroy private property rights! Thank you!

LET'S STOP KIDDING OURSELVES!  9-11 was an Israeli-backed spanking on our
collective American bottom! A Boeing 757 DIDN'T pierce through six walls of the
Pentagon (impossible + no aircraft debris), a late model cruise missile did the job;
the Twin Towers DIDN'T collapse due to heat (impossible), demolition charges
did the job;  there were NO Arab hijackers (the jets were guided electronically);
and the Zionists/Judeo-Christians now in control of the United States are traitors
to the U.S. Constitution... as well as being mass murderers.This has been a Zionist
WAG THE DOG operation from the start, deadly serious for our elected leaders
WHO KNOW WHO'S GUILTY, and an Arabian Nights charade for Mom and Pop
in Littletown, U.S.A.! It's an info war! Forward this to the world! henrithecelt@gci.net

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: oscully@hotkey.net.au

To: cwolman@mcn.org ; wildricechief@webtv.net ; weaverhjl@yahoo.com ; bilrum@knology.net ; grandoma@aol.com ; loria@niagara.com ; banerjee@ece.northwestern.edu

Cc: stewwebb@sierranv.net ; pcsointel@pcsonet.com ; wolfandtom@circlevision.org ; tao449@aol.com

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:09 AM

Subject: Fwd: Hey, I sent in mine!...

----- Forwarded message from Henri the Celt <henrithecelt@gci.net> -----
    Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:31:35 -0800
    From: Henri the Celt <henrithecelt@gci.net>

 Subject: Hey, I sent in mine!...
    
Hey, Everyone!
Here is the action page to sell David Souter's home to a hotel developer!
Souter, Souter, who's David Souter? Oh, he's one of the five Supreme Court
Justices who destroyed your property rights! He thought this law was a good
idea... Sooooo... Scroll down just a bit and click on the "Go" in the 'take
action now' square...

           RightMarch.com
                     Patriotism In Action.

          
    
                     
    
           
                  FREE Email Alerts!
                  Your Name:
                      Email Address:

                  
                  (Privacy Policy) 
                
                  Action Alerts 
                
                  Donate 
                
                  News 
                
                  Links 
                
                  Store 
                
                  Subscribe 
                
                  Contact Us            
                   
                             
                            
                      
                
                
              
             
  Home  .  Elected Officials  .  Issues  .  Election  .  Media
                            
                      
                              Legislative Alerts and Updates . Current
Legislation . Key Votes . Capitol Hill Basics
                      
                              Action Alert
                            
                                  Punish Souter for Property Theft decision
                      Help see that "Justice Is Served" on Property Rights!
                                                           
                                  
                                 
                                
                                                                 
                                ALERT: Are you as OUTRAGED as we are about the
Supreme Court's recent decision, allowing city governments to take land from one
private owner and give it to another? In "Kelo vs. City of New London", five
Justices (led by David Souter) ruled that "eminent domain" allows any local
government to TAKE anyone's private property if the government will generate
greater tax revenue -- or any other economic benefits -- when the land is
developed by the new owner.

                    If you AREN'T outraged, then you're not paying attention!

                                These black-robed dictators have now virtually
destroyed individual property rights in the United States. Ignoring the U.S.
Constitution AGAIN, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments have the
"right" to seize private property to make way for private commercial development
such as shopping malls.

                                You read that right. It doesn't matter if your
family has lived in your home since you were 11 years old -- if the local
government decides that they could make more tax dollars by putting in a mall,
too bad for you and your family.

                                Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her
dissent to the ruling, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel
6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

                                But, the Supreme Court has spoken, so that's the
end of it, right? Nothing can be done to expose this ruling for the TRAVESTY it
really is, right?

                                WRONG. As a matter of fact, there IS something
that can be done -- we can take this ruling to its logical conclusion, and show
Justice Souter and his ilk who are sitting there in their ivory towers, far
removed from us "common" folk, just what their "legal theories" are doing to US.

                                So, in keeping with what has now been deemed
"constitutional", a private developer has contacted the local government in
Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire, asking that the
property of the judge be seized to make room for a new hotel.

                                According to WorldNetDaily.com, Logan Darrow
Clements faxed a request to the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the
application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present
location of Souter's home.

                                Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned
by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City
of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of
Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a
hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel
will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development
and higher tax revenue to Weare."

   Ah, poetic justice is served. And YOU can help serve it to Justice Souter.

                                TAKE ACTION: This is not a prank. The town of
Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use
the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, Mr. Clements can
begin his hotel development -- and we can begin the process of reversing this
travesty of justice. He already plans to raise investment capital from wealthy
pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be
used to raise additional capital for the project.

                                FINALLY, these tyrants in black can "face the
music" and actually EXPERIENCE what they're putting the rest of us through!
Click "Go!" above NOW to send a message to all five members of the town of
Weare's Board of Selectmen at once, asking them to see that "Justice Is Served"
by implementing Souter's decision and putting a hotel on HIS property.

                                NOTE: Yes, like Clements, we're aware of the
apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using
it to purposely oust an American from his property. "I realize there is a
contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the
Kelo decision, Clements told WorldNet Daily. "Therefore, it's a case of
retaliation, not initiation."

                                Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know
who wants to help see that "Justice Is Served" in this outrageous decision to
destroy private property rights! Thank you!
                                
                            
                                         
           
    

LET'S STOP KIDDING OURSELVES!  9-11 was an Israeli-backed spanking on our
collective American bottom! A Boeing 757 DIDN'T pierce through six walls of the
Pentagon (impossible + no aircraft debris), a late model cruise missile did the
job;
the Twin Towers DIDN'T collapse due to heat (impossible), demolition charges
did the job;  there were NO Arab hijackers (the jets were guided electronically);
and the Zionists/Judeo-Christians now in control of the United States are traitors
to the U.S. Constitution... as well as being mass murderers.This has been a Zionist
WAG THE DOG operation from the start, deadly serious for our elected leaders
WHO KNOW WHO'S GUILTY, and an Arabian Nights charade for Mom and Pop
in Littletown, U.S.A.! It's an info war! Forward this to the world!
henrithecelt@gci.net


----- End forwarded message -----

Fw: Bush the Melting by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Karim A G

To: Karim A G

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:41 PM

Subject: Bush the Melting

 http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bush-melting.html

 

Bush the Melting

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Pride may goeth before the fall, but with politicians like George W. Bush, far too much time separates the pride part from the fall part. The damage that he has wrought in this country and the world goes beyond accurate enumeration – most of it made possible because he has been able to use 9-11 to pose as God's sword to smite his political enemies at home and abroad. He should have slunk away after 9-11, having failed miserably in his primary duty, but instead he used a crisis for personal and governmental aggrandizement. That's the pride part.

Now, however, his fortunes have changed dramatically – with the fall part finally kicking in. Many of us remember that Clinton was highly unpopular – in fact, I recall sensing that he was the most hated president of my lifetime. Well, his highest disapproval rating in his two terms was 33 percent. I can recall feeling buoyed by the knowledge that fully one-third of the public hated the president.

But now look at the newest ABC News poll: Bush’s disapproval rating is 51 percent – not nearly as high as it should be, but enough to give any freedom lover a lift. Half the public (statistically speaking) are willing to tell pollsters that they disapprove of everything about the guy: domestic policies, international policies, and Bush personally. You know it has gotten bad when web advertisers offer the chance to punch Bush in the chops as a way of selling their products.

Remember that dumb little war he started back in November 2001? Bush decided that the way to flog some dead hijackers was to invade Afghanistan on grounds that its leaders – direct successors to the "freedom fighters" that the US funded in the 1980s to overthrow the Soviet-installed government – had sympathy for Bin Laden, who did his best to claim credit for punching the Pentagon and knocking down the twin towers.

To war with this impoverished dustbin! Everyone signed on – did anyone among the pundit class dare not to cheer? – and his ratings zoomed sky high. But what the US wrought there was not justice, peace, or freedom, but a fracturing of the country into entrenched tribalism, a vast increase in opium production (some estimates say it is responsible for half the country's income and most of the world's supply), and an explosion in recruits to the Taliban religion dedicated to casting off the yoke of the US.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for political decentralization, and tribes are better than central governments hands down. As for drug production, how a man makes a buck is no one's business but his customers; if the opium dens of the world need the stuff, bully for Afghan farmers for beating others to market. Same goes for religion: if these folks feel a greater attachment to their god than their occupation government, that strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

But the Bush administration didn't intend the current outcome. It hoped to displace Talibania with something like an enlightened US rule – a very creepy ambition that perfectly mirrors the Soviet goal only two decades earlier. Now the refusal of the country to submit has produced a pretext for ever more violence. The client government, meanwhile, is torching drugs, jailing dealers, and cracking down on every political dissident – sort of like the Taliban used to do. Whence this amazing ability of the US government to so imitate the behaviors of its former enemies?

Most US citizens have known and cared nothing about the ongoing chaos in Afghanistan, until the news blared that insurgents had shot down a Chinook helicopter carrying 17 US soldiers, among whom were eight Navy Seals and other highly trained soldiers. They were arriving on the scene to help other ground troops who were in trouble. But they found themselves in a trap from which they could not return.

The situation is getting worse, not better. And the more the government cracks down, the more the insurgents fight and the less of the country that can be controlled. And as many military experts have said, this is not a fight the US can win, short of exterminating the Afghans with nuclear weapons.

Now, the situation in Afghanistan is supposed to be a story of victory by comparison to Iraq, which is far worse. The civil war that exists in this once prosperous, pro-Western country is desperately sad. The invasion and occupation have encouraged all the worst elements, compromised the best ones, and mowed down the moderates in between. It is a tragic and bloody story with no upside. Bush fears doing anything, whether increasing troops (bad signal to insurgents) or reducing them (bad signal to insurgents). All that US pundits can think to say is: death to the dissidents!

Meanwhile, never in modern history has a pretext for war been more transparently fraudulent that Bush's tale about Iraq's WMD. With that hoax unraveling for the 820^th time, the administration decided to step up the lies again, with Bush once again suggesting (to an active-duty military audience no less) that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

When the soldiers gathered to hear his lies did not clap – not for the entire speech until a White House employee finally broke the stone-cold silence – the White House went not for truth but for spin: that was the way it was supposed to be, they said.

Then there is Bush's much-vaunted domestic initiative, which really comes down to Social Security privatization. It was clear from the first time he took up the idea that he had no idea of what he was talking about. He believed the phony claims of beltway bandits that trillions in liabilities could be wiped away with an accounting change backed by libertarian rhetoric. When politicians talk this way, you don't have to be a bloodhound to smell a rat.

Now White House pollsters note a dip in his popularity every time he brings up the issue. So it will be dropped for the duration. It was his one and only cause, and it was pathetic from the outset. Mr. Big Government could never make a principled case against the program, so he ended up arguing for a new forced savings program called privatization and funding the revenue shortfall with mountains of debt. The idea was so intellectually dishonest that it makes Hillary's health care scheme look like a paragon of transparency and good government.

So there we have it: three more years of a lame duck president who is stuck in two losing, bloody, terrorist-recruiting wars, and has presided over one of the great domestic flops in American history. All he needs is a good recession to complement soaring gas prices, and his fall will be complete.

My prediction is that Bush's legacy will be universally reviled, leaving only a few carping revisionists on blogs, who long ago decided that they prefer Party Loyalty to truth. The important thing to note is that someday he will be gone. And with him the movement that has covered for him. Maybe his policies of welfare-warfare will take a hit too. That would be pride, fall, and justice after all.

July 1, 2005

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

Lew Rockwell Archives