Please Pray for Fr. Neuhaus

Wednesday, December 31, AD 2008

Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor in chief of First Things, is currently undergoing treatment for cancer. Jody Bottum has conveyed the following general message:

Please forgive this group email, but so many have asked after the health of Richard John Neuhaus that is seemed best to send out this single message to all our friends.

Fr. Neuhaus is in the hospital here in New York. Over Thanksgiving, he was diagnosed with a serious cancer. The long-term prognosis for this particular cancer is not good, but it is not hopeless, either, and there is a possibility that it will respond to the recommended out-patient chemotherapy.

Unfortunately, over Christmas, he was taken dangerously ill with what seems to be a systemic infection that has left him very weak. Entering the hospital the day after Christmas, he was sedated to lower an elevated heart rate and treatment was begun for the infection. Over the last few days, he has shown some signs of improvement, and there is a reasonable expectation that he will recover from this present illness—sufficiently, we hope, that he will be able to begin the chemotherapy for the cancer.

Fr. Neuhaus is not able at the moment to receive visitors or speak on the telephone or answer his mail, and he has requested that no flowers, candy, or other get-well presents be sent—just your prayers for his quick recovery. Further bulletins will be sent when there is news to report.

Fr. Neuhaus disclosed his condition in a post to First Things‘ “On The Square” earlier in December.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Please Pray for Fr. Neuhaus

  • Prayers on the way! If all Catholics were as stalwart in their faith as Father Neuhaus, a convert, most of our problems would shrink to insignificance

  • Prayed and done. Will put him in my daily prayers from here on out. Fr. Neuhaus a fine clergyman and a good example to many in practicing the faith.


  • Very sad news. Padre Neuhaus is a stalwart defender of the faith. Clearly one of the Good Guys. Along with his prodigious literary output, he and Raymond Arroyo were sparkling in anchoring EWTN’s coverage of the transition between the ascendancy to heaven of Johannes Paulus Magnus and the ascendancy of Benedictus Splendiferous. Prayers for healing.

  • Father Neuhaus and I live on different planets theologically. I will certainly remember him in my prayers.

3 Responses to You know!

  • It has come to this. Caroline’s stumbling, fumbling interviews are now embarrassing to the chattering classes. Comes word that Mayor Bloomberg’s aide has given up on his efforts to lobby on her behalf. Seems he’s been a bit too aggressive on the matter. As though the prospective senator hasn’t been aggressive enough, breaking bread with people with whom she would not share the same oxygen two months ago. While in Colorado, Senator turned Interior Secretary appointee Ken Salazar wishes his replacement to be……brother John, a Congressperson. While in Illinois, Gov. Blago his bad self plays the race card shamelessly in appointing Roland Burris, perennial African American candidate and nice guy, to the post now vacated by the Apostle of Hope And Change. WSJ connects the dots nicely in an editorial. In New York, a Kennedy and a Cuomo are vying for a Senate seat held by a Clinton. In Colorado, a changing of the Salazars. In Delaware, Jabberin Joe Biden’s longtime aide will keep the new Veep’s seat warm until son Beau assumes power in 2010, after National Guard obligation. In Illinois, the embattled Governor causes wailing and gnashing of teeth. I wish to shove the WSJ editorial in the face of every citizen who voted for the Apostle of Hope And Change. And remind them of a verse in a Pauline editorial rarely quoted because it burns to the touch- ‘bad company corrupts good morals.’ Oh, Philly Library Update- a lib judge yesterday ruled that 11 neighborhood libraries scheduled to close for good around 5 p.m. today must open at 10 a.m. on Friday. While advocates of their opening issued a Citizen Indictment against Mayor Nutter for announcing their closing on November 6. Happy New Year to all. Hope and Change, y’all.

  • That is, a verse from a Pauline epistle. Hope and Change, y’all.

  • You know, sorry, you know, I couldn’t, you know, like, you know, sit through the, you know, whole thing…

    WCC +<

6 Responses to Soybeania Forever!

  • Before signing on as a good and faithful servant of the Clintons, James Carville devised a masterful re-election campaign for Robert Casey as Gov of PA. At that time, he issued a comment on the state that remains true today. As thus- on one end, Philadelphia- we will also consider four surrounding counties, benefitting from years of insane taxation, rising crime, and All Other Wrong Things Done In Cities. On the other end, Pittsburgh and vicinity. In between, Alabama. Or in this case, a tide of Penn State blue and white.

  • Speaking from experience of visiting and living in Mexico, there is no way in a million years will the border areas of the United States ever join itself with Mexico. Maybe the inverse, a couple of states may break away from Mexico herself and align with the U.S. such as Chihuahua and Baja California Norte, but not the other.

    Mexico is so corrupt, they make make Blagoyevich seem like George Washington or Persepolis. The central government is inept and their bureaucracy horrible (slept overnight at the border because the Mexican border agents had called it a day at 4pm before I could drive further into Mexico).

    The “Empty Quarter”, I thought that applied to New York City and Sodom and Gomorrah (San Fran & L.A.).


  • Foundry and Breadbasket would merge into one great nation, because Ontario, the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and the Ohiowa prairie contain more farmland than factories. Plus mines and processing plants still operate in the breadbasket region around Lake Superior.

  • As a native of the Republic of Quad, we welcome war with Iowa to win back two of our five Quad Cities. Sometimes I wish lived in a futuristic distopia just so I could be warlord of such a state. After conquering east-central Iowa, we’d set our targets on South Wisconsin. The gambling “boats” of Galena and Dubuque are just too rich a target.

  • ROTLMAO! I spent most of my life in various cities of Greater Peoria, and actually have been to Goofy Ridge and lived to tell about it!

    Goofy Ridge is actually an unincorporated community of dirt roads, trailers and shacks in Mason County near Havana. Originally it was more of a campsite for hunters and fishermen, and over time became a full-time community. It gained some notoriety in the 1980s as a haven for criminals; today it’s more reminiscent of some of the poorer towns of Appalachia or Mississippi.

    In recent years the Sangamo City State in which I now live has fallen on hard times due to the misrule and outright persecution of King Rod the Hairy. Many of its more famous watering holes (Boone’s Saloon, Norb Andy’s) have closed in the past couple of years, as have many other shops and downtown buildings. We hope our new ruler, Patrick the Rumpled, will help restore at least some of our former glory.

  • ” We hope our new ruler, Patrick the Rumpled, will help restore at least some of our former glory.”

    Although if he does double the income tax, I think he will go down in Illinois history as Quinn the Short!

Atheist Praises Missionaries

Tuesday, December 30, AD 2008


At one of the blogs I read regularly, Neo-Neocon, the proprietress has an excellent story highlighting the praise of Mathew Parris, a British atheist and writer, for the work of missionaries in Africa and the enormous positive spiritual changes which frequently occur in their converts.  I have long thought that the good work performed by missionaries around the globe, but especially in Africa, was the major overlooked story of the last century.  If I had to pick one development of the past century that will still be having a major impact a millennium hence, I would pick the fact that Africa is becoming a Christian continent.  As much of Europe is forgetting the Faith, and too many Americans are cold and indifferent, the message of Christ is meeting with cries of joy throughout Africa.  Perhaps some day Christian missionaries from Africa will light the fire of faith again in “darkest” Europe.

Continue reading...

One Response to Atheist Praises Missionaries

  • I found this same article Saturday afternoon and found it very intriguing. Mr. Parris recognizes the common denominator that movitivates Christians (and Christian society) and that is the belief of the Trinitarian God combined with the practice of Christianity. Truly an epiphany for Mr. Parris and hopefully the beginning on the road towards Christ.

Thoughts on Israel's war with Hamas

Tuesday, December 30, AD 2008

On December 27th, 2008, Israel launched a series of air strikes on Hamas training camps, headquarters, weapons storehouses, underground missile silos and command-and-control centers in Gaza — the start of an open-ended offensive to stem the increasing barrage of rocket-attacks that have plagued Southern Israel in the past months.

Israeli ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shaleb defended the operation:

“Israel is taking the necessary military action in order to protect its citizens from ongoing terrorist attacks originating from the Gaza Strip and carried out by Hamas and other terrorist organizations,” Shalev said, adding that Hamas “holds the sole responsibility for the latest events.”

Israel, she continued, “has exhausted all means and efforts to reach and maintain quiet and to respect the state of calm… Israel’s response is aimed solely against the terrorists and their infrastructures in the Gaza Strip. It is not intended against the civilian population. Israel is committed to prevent a humanitarian crisis.”

Shalev asserted that “No country would allow continuous rocketing of its civilian population without taking the necessary actions to stop it.”

Commenting on the three-day air assault by Israel on Hamas, Deal Hudson states “Bombing Gaza Won’t Make Israel Safer”. It’s a good post and, if anything, certainly jeopardizes Hudson’s standing as a member of the cabal of “Catholic neocons” beholden to Israel and the Republican Party (see Robert Sungenis and other tirades from the fringe-right). That said, I wish to register some thoughts in reaction, both to Hudson and our fellow critics at Vox Nova:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Thoughts on Israel's war with Hamas

  • The only peace Hamas will ever make with Israel is the peace of the grave. The sad truth is that they are supported in this position by the overwhelming majority of the population of Gaza. Diplomacy is of little use when one side has as its ultimate aim the destruction of the other side.

    From the Charter of Hamas:

    “Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
    [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)”

  • This is my own brief take on the conflict:

    Iran fuels Gaza conflict to increase oil prices –


  • Key quote in the Catechism: “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason . . . ” This teaching is not about the holiness of killing. It is about the holiness of defending life.

  • Q: Is there any such thing as a “just war”?

    Cardinal Ratzinger: This is a major issue of concern. In the preparation of the Catechism, there were two problems: the death penalty and just war theory were the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the Americans. Or, another example: Poland, which defended itself against Hitler.

    I’d say that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values, many people, but the image of humanity itself.

    In this case, defending oneself and others is a duty. Let’s say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible — even if that means using proportional violence.

    Thus, the just war problem is defined according to these parameters:

    1) Everything must be conscientiously considered, and every alternative explored if there is even just one possibility to save human life and values;

    2) Only the most necessary means of defense should be used and human rights must always be respected; in such a war the enemy must be respected as a human being and all fundamental rights must be respected.

    I think that the Christian tradition on this point has provided answers that must be updated on the basis of new methods of destruction and of new dangers. For example, there may be no way for a population to defend itself from an atomic bomb. So, these must be updated.

    But I’d say that we cannot totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors.

    — Cardinal Ratzinger, Interview with Vatican Radio. November 2001.

    Citing the above is not to defend this or that action taken by the U.S. or Israel as automatically justified or “holy”; but I think there is the clear recognition — even by our current Pope, co-editor of the Catechism — that, in the defense of life against unjust aggressors, “proportional violence” may be an obligation.

    I would also suggest that those charged with the obligation to defend and protect the lives of its charges, in Ratzinger/B16’s example “for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible”, or to speak of a nation obligated to defend its citizens, that the refusal to employ ‘proportional violence’ [Ratzinger’s words] in the defense of life would constitute a sin.

    Nate Wildermuth, circa April 2008:How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. …

    I have so much to learn.

    After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.

    Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!

    I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words – if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.

    Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”

    Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.

    I believe we’ve had this conversation before?

  • At the risk of beating a dead horse 😉 I’ll reiterate what I said then as well, responding to your post:

    Just as Catholic tradition makes a distinction between ‘killing’ and ‘homicide’, it seems to me that rather than condemning any and all use of armed force as “violence” [= evil], the Catholic tradition rather evaluates the use of force, judging its worth according to moral criteria.

    The former has often been dubbed the “‘dirty hands’ tradition” (whereby to pick up a gun, even defensively, is to unavoidably involve one’s self in sin), the latter the “just war tradition” of moral-reasoning and a moral evaluation of armed force. (My father examined this in an essay “War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning” back in 2002).

    None of this discounts the witness of pacifists — who by their actions and adherence to nonviolence anticipate and manifest in this reality a time where the lion will truly “lay down with the lamb”, where all swords will be “beaten into plowshares.”

    Probably no movie illustrates this ongoing debate between the two traditions than one of my favorite movies, Robert Bolt and Roland Joffé’s 1986 film The Mission.

  • I confess I’ve never understood Pacifism other than non-resistance to martyrdom. How does anyone familiar with a history book object to the idea, for example, that governments have an obligation to defend their citizens or parents a responsibility to protect their children? Granted, this principle can be (and often is!) easily misapplied, which means it is similar to….every other moral principal.

    I think that pacifists perform a valuable service in reminding people of the horrors of conflict, and in balancing out the the tendencies of some people to view military action as the hammer for which every problem is a nail. But I do not understand the position that violence in all situations is immoral.

  • As Warren Carrol says in his wonderful history of Christendom when Jesus drives the money-changers from the temple the first time,

    “Nor did He (Jesus) hesitate to use physical force, thereby establishing once and for all, contrary to modern pacifists, that the use of physical force is not always evil in itself. The teaching of love would come when men were prepared to listen. But first they must know that One had come among them with a power which was God’s.”

  • “The teaching of love would come when men were prepared to listen. But first they must know that One had come among them with a power which was God’s.””

    And how different from worldly power was that “power which was God’s”…

  • I think pacifism at bottom rests on the modernist moral error of thinking (probably subconsciously) that the physical body is the most important (or perhaps the only important) fact about human beings. Hence the one moral absolute is that you can’t do something that hurts someone’s physical body, even by accident, not even for the most pressing of reasons. Pacifism, in this respect, is similar to the modernist tendency to think that spanking your children is morally worse than instilling in them a desire for material success (one that is ultimately devastating to the soul).

  • Pingback: History for Dummies (II) | The Cranky Conservative
  • I sense a Catch-22.

    Hamas needs Israeli attacks to keep its people riled up, but Israel can’t simply let assaults continue unchecked.

    Are the Hamas attackers launching rockets from their own neighborhoods? A true Machiavel would launch attacks from areas where enemy retaliation is likely to kill off his local opposition, and not his friends and family.

  • Proportionality includes not only the methods used but also the consequences of those methods. While I acknowledge the right to self-defense and the use of force in that defense, I question whether it is really possible to ensure that the force used doesn’t produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated. The structure of the world today, marked by its interconnectedness and interdependency, opens the whole world to the consequences of a local act of violence, and therefore renders the knowledge that one is using proportional violence difficult if not impossible to acquire. Deal Hudson rightly points to likely unintended consequences of Israel’s strikes, but how many other unintended consequences remain beyond our foresight? Too many to speculate accurately, I’d say.

  • “I question whether it is really possible to ensure that the force used doesn’t produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated.”

    Then proportionality merely becomes an argument for pacificism, something that no nation which wishes to continue to exist in this world will ever embrace. The Jews in Europe in World War 2 were slaughtered like flies because they had no military to fight for them. I cannot blame the Israelis for not wishing to follow their example. Catholics are not quakers and I cannot think of a Catholic nation that ever existed that chose to embrace pacifism rather than to fight for national survival.

  • Kyle,

    Well said. I am in absolute 100% agreement of all that you’ve said. I personally think that a sense of reluctance in this matter has been too easily dismissed as pacifism, when I think that is an oversimplification of the position being presented.

    I, as any good Catholic, believe in the “just war” doctrine of the Church. However, I do think that doctrine, even in the last ten years, has been glossed over casually and the tenets not really examined by those not necessarily opposed to any of the armed conflicts occuring in the Middle East.

    Even if there is such a thing as “Catholic pacifism,” I think it is profoundly different than that of secular pacifism. Dorothy Day comes to mind and her thinking in regard to nonviolence does not necessarily echo the immediate or familiar arguments of modernist secular humanists who really base their convictions on an agnostic metaphysical view of reality.

    I think a Catholic can on good grounds be a pacifist. It does not require others to follow in suit by obligation. I believe, just as Dorothy Day did, that war is the perfect breeding ground for imperialism, militarism, and nationalism. These sociological errors of modern society live off human vices and perpetuate division and in many ways presents barrier to any sort of peace or meaningful dialogue. All these “-isms” symbolize the false gods of modernity that I believe we should be resisting, not appeasing.

    Pope Benedict XVI once said in an interview that “…given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”

    I think the Holy Father here makes a profound insight into the nature of war. War is sometimes a necessary evil, but it is one that evolves and this evolution has created a horror that was hardly imaginable even over a century ago. War is no longer a matter confined to a battlefield where those in immediate danger are those within confinement of the space in which combat is being engaged in. Modern warfare and military weapons are indiscriminate in whom gets killed.

    But this is not the bulk of my point. Pope John Paul II warned that “humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it.” War by its very nature destroys precisely what it intends to create — that is freedom, peace, and reconciliation. War strikes at the very heart of civilization: the family. Regardless of perspective of who is right and wrong in such matters, men die, women die, and children die. Hurt, anger, bitterness, and division is written on a new page of history. I have never read of any war or act of violence that paved the way toward justice and peace, but rather eliminated perhaps one challenge only to give birth to a host of others.

    Gandhi asked mankind, “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” It is not merely the fact that innocent people who’s livelihoods, little do they know, might be altered permanently in a matter of moments; it is rather that this violence only more deeply entrenches the hatred and division that the war is trying to, in some ways, heal.

    This is what Kyle was getting at when he talked about the connection of the international community in our modern circumstances — there is much interdependentness. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his day saw this: “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” We cannot be what we ought through the means of violence. I don’t and can’t believe that even remote material cooperation in evil — for war itself is not of the nature of God — will bring humanity where it needs to be.

    I don’t think you must be a “pacifist” to be a Christian. But, I do think (rightly or wrongly) that many Christians quickly gloss over Jesus’ “hard sayings” to love your enemies — they are impratical and senseless — even though the Lord, for some reason, decided to hold us to this standard. Pope Paul VI declared “No more war!” Pope Benedict XVI so beautifully described the vengeance of the God of Israel. “True vengeance” is the healing goodness of God. The definitive explanation is found in the one who died on the cross: in Jesus, the Son of God incarnate. His ‘vengeance’ is the cross: a ‘no’ to violence and a ‘love to the end.’

    Perhaps, this is silly idealism. I’m certainly not arguing that a State does not have the God-given duty to defend the lives of its citizens; however, the manner and strategy of exercising that duty in given circumstances is a matter of prudence. There is an old saying that “in times of war, the laws are silent.” I think for some reason this includes moral laws. Man has found himself capable of terrible things in times of war and I cannot see how war brings no more war. Yes, this is a fallen world, but the Christian call is to transform not get behind the status quo of sin.

    Yes, there is a right to self-defense and yes, there is such a thing in theory as a “just” war; however, I think we oversimplify what it takes to make that call. In all truth, the matters of war do not immediately impact us. We continue our daily lives and in many ways take our countless blessings for granted. It is hardly clear to us what it is we may or may not be saying is morally licit. I’m personally of no position on the matter of this armed conflict, except that my prayers are with all involved and I hope this conflict ends as soon as possible and an all out war is not waged.

    Again, I think Kyle nailed it on the head. I don’t think it is fair to say a reluctance in this matter and/or asking the question of whether this is something that should be engaged in with its potential consequences on many levels is necessarily pacifism; I think it’s taking the “just war” doctrine very seriously. As Catholics, we are called to be in opposition of unjust war and I think the modern reactionary tendency leads more to the latter than the former.

    That’s my two cents.

  • Eric,

    Beautifully said and excellently argued.

    Just an afterthought: even if a potential military action does meet all of the just war criteria in Catholic social thought, this does not mean that the issue is over. The exhausting of all alternative means to dispell conflict are still strongly, strongly advised.

    I hate to say it, but some of your cohorts here seem to have a minor devotion to military violence, and it is rather sad.


  • While I would to an extent share the fear that Israel’s current offensive will do little to make Israeli citizens safer from Hamas’ daily rocket attacks (in that I fear they would have to reduce Gaza to the 1943 condition of Stalingrad or the 1945 condition of Berlin to thoroughly remove Gaza’s ability to operate — and neither they nor the international community have the willingness to allow such a thing to happen) I’m hesitant to condemn Israel loudly as some are going either.

    Eric says:
    Yes, there is a right to self-defense and yes, there is such a thing in theory as a “just” war; however, I think we oversimplify what it takes to make that call. In all truth, the matters of war do not immediately impact us. We continue our daily lives and in many ways take our countless blessings for granted. It is hardly clear to us what it is we may or may not be saying is morally licit. I’m personally of no position on the matter of this armed conflict, except that my prayers are with all involved and I hope this conflict ends as soon as possible and an all out war is not waged.

    I think in some sense I agree, but with the difference that while I fear the unleashing war on Gaza will do little to help Israel, I do not feel that we in the US have the standing to tell Israel: Sure, you’re suffering daily rocket attacks with ever increasing frequency, going farther and farther into your country, targeting civilians. But we’re really not sure if attacking Hamas would resolve that, so you better just grin and bear it.

    I really can’t say what decision I would make if I were the prime minister of Israel (since that is thankfully not my duty) but seeing as Israel has decided to attack Hamas (which is, after all, the duly elected government of Gaza right now) I don’t see it as my place to blame them for the decision at this time.

    Certainly, one does not want to use the just war criteria too casually — yet at the same time, one must recall that the just war criteria are generally used in determining if one may start a war, not whether one may defend oneself against an already ongoing attack. Given that Hamas had already decided to attack Israel via indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas, it strikes me that Israel’s right to strike back is pretty clear — though its duty to behave proportionally obviously remains.

  • Mark, I would object to your addendum on one minor technicality (so you can brain me if you feel I’m being too nit-picky), but exhausting the alternatives is a criterion for just war. I’d offer instead that even in the cases when all criteria are met, there argument is not over because we can still choose not to go to war.

    The problem, I feel, is indeed in judging the consequences of taking military action. Because we cannot know the future, working with the purest utilitarian ideal of whether or not to engage in war is impossible. We cannot know that taking action will indeed make things better or worse, and we cannot know–not with any certainty–that not taking action will make matters better or worse. I think judging the lasting harm of a war is like predicting the weather, only slightly more complicated because now we’re trying to predict over a body of thinking, reasoning beings (I almost said rational, but I think that might draw objections) instead of a highly chaotic, but largely deterministic system. We can predict immediate consequences fairly easily and with a moderate degree of accuracy, but long term is much harder.

    Where does that leave us? The gravity of going to war should always, always, always make us think thrice. There’s no question there. And we certainly shouldn’t be chafing at the bit to go and fight. In that regard, Mark, I would not say that people here have a devotion to military violence. Instead, we may be a little too blase about using military force. But unless you’re truly prepared to state that military force is never justified in any circumstance, i.e. a complete blanket prohibition, then all we’re arguing about is when to go to war.

    Eric, I certainly would not call what you said “silly idealism”. What you’ve said is really where we all need to be starting from when we contemplate the notion of war. However, I think there’s an aspect of war–what justifies us in taking action if we choose to do so–that you’ve glossed over. Perhaps I’m just making this up, and I’m certain that not many will agree with me, but I believe that war can be waged in full love of the enemy, and can be a corrective measure for the enemy as much as a defensive measure for the assailed.

    In the treatment of war, just as with the treatment of law, we have to keep in mind the fallen, sinful nature of man. Just as some are tempted to steal, murder, commit adultery, and commit other crimes, so too are leaders tempted to wage war for one purpose or another. When there is no threat of retaliation, no threat of punishment, then sooner or later someone caves and commits a crime. That’s why we have our laws and our penal system, and that’s why we endeavor to ensure that the criminal is always caught. In the same way, a standing army acts to deter war, but it only works as a deterrent as long as there’s the very real possibility that the army will be called to action. And when someone does choose to unjustly engage in war, calling the army forth to combat the aggressor is not partake in bloodshed, but instead enforce on the aggressor that his actions are wrong and need to be changed. Keep in mind, of course, that this stands as the final safeguard against unwarranted aggression, and that there are other means that can be employed first to prevent war or even de-escalate it once it has started.

    The corrective part of war, blunt as it may be, is showing the aggressor that cost of his aggression far outweighs the benefits. Of course, the biggest problem with this view of war is actually best exemplified in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The blunt weapon of war may be simply too much, just as a SWAT team is too much for a shoplifter, and a lifetime imprisonment too much a first-time, single count drug offense. But this is exactly what Hamas is counting on, so that they can continue their aggression with impunity.

    So what is Israel to do? I waffle. Some days, I want to say, every citizen in Gaza that condones the actions of Hamas by allowing them to fire rockets from civilian neighborhoods and so on is complicit with evil and has made himself a combatant. Fortunately, I know that such thoughts are a thinly disguised “Kill-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out” mentality, which is very, very, very wrong, so I tend to keep that on a tight leash.

    Other days, I think, “only a few dozen have been killed, a fun hundred injured, so that’s not a huge deal. Israel should just stand firm and teach those terrorists that a few thousands rockets each year isn’t going to faze the Israeli people.” But then, I feel strongly that the Hamas terrorists are of the mentality that if they can get away with sending more rockets or worse into Israel, they will do so. And this is where the unforeseen consequences come into play. Who can honestly say what will, indeed, happen? I could speculate that the terrorists will eventually get bored with having little effect and will either a) go home or b) escalate. I could speculate that the Israeli people, seeing their government doing nothing to protect them will a) face martyrdom bravely b) overthrow the current government and install one that will wage war with Hamas or c) take matters into their own hands and start firing rockets into Gaza. So what will it be?

    As a final point, where I think you’re wrong, Eric, is in talking about the negotiating table. Wars are ended at the negotiating table, true, but waging war sometimes is the only thing that forces one side or the other to the negotiating table. Certainly it would be better if nations talked out their differences instead of declaring war, and if you look at the diplomatic measures we engage in today, it should be heartening. We have embassies to and from most of the nations in the world, or at least the ones we deal with regularly. We spend vast amounts of time in diplomacy so that we never come to combat. But when one power is bent and determined to wage war and refuses to sit down to negotiate, then the negotiating table has no power.

  • Ryan,

    I don’t disagree with you. I believe that the State has a right to defend itself and in doing so is delivering justice by means of a remote as possible material cooperation in evil — an evil that the State wishes to end not perpetuate and did not intend in using as a means of bringing justice until compelled to do so.

    As Darwin said, proportionality and the extent to which one can exercise the right of just defense or fighting justly to stop a growing evil before getting carried away is a very fine line. Not to mention, as Pope John Paul II repeatedly reiterated, that war undermines itself; the end one may try to achieve is contrary to the means that are being used and I, rather, emphatically think that reality gets very little attention. I don’t believe much good will come from this, quite the contrary.

    On a tangent, I was watching the FOX news today and there was a black and white video recorded by an Israel aerial target-tracking camera showing men inside of a building loading long tubes or cylinders on a flatbed truck. These were supposedly “terror operatives” loading crude rockets. Nevertheless, the air pilot fired and destroyed the building.

    It turns out that the rockets, in fact, were salvaged oxygen tanks from a welding shop being moved by civilians — in a building next to a building that a previous Israeli airstrike destroyed.

    The group had loaded several oxygen tanks before the missile hit. Eight people were killed and little did many of their families know that their livelihoods were going to change forever. They showed photos of the truck and the charred oxygen tanks. They weren’t rockets — they certainly would have gone off upon impact. This case highlights the complexity of targeting in urban areas.

    On a separate note, Israel has hit more than 400 targets since the airstrikes began. Some 400 Palestinians have been killed and 2,000 wounded and its been estimiated that a quarter are civilians. I’m not sure of the accuracy of these figures, of course, but if they are somewhat accurate I think it’s horrible enough in itself.

    Not to mention, Israeli strikes have targeted mosques because they believed they were storing rockets there. I’m not certain of whether they are or not. But blowing up places of religious worship, especially that of Muslims, in this region, with these circumstances…God help us.

    It is an unfortunate situation and I pray they stop fighting.

  • Israel never seems to learn and time is running short.After a brutal 18 year occupation of South Lebanon in the 1980’s,it was forced to withdraw leaving a more radical Hizbollah foe that did not exist prior to invasion. Israeli forces in lebanon slaughtered over 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians(most non combattants,Christians and Moslems).Israel’s overwhelming use of US supplied cluster bombs against civillians(a violation of the US Arms export act)resulted in the birth of suicide bombing.It is yet to be seen how long the unwitting US taxpayer will supply Israel with unlimited arms with no strings. Israel’s 2006 war against lebanon saw Israel request millions of dollars in emergency munitions and aviation fuel from the US to enable it to maintain it’s bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure.

  • Hezbollah is sitting this one out. I wonder if they would have done so without the 2006 war?

    Israel isn’t the problem. The problem is the jihadist movement throughout the Islamic world that views us as enemy number one and Israel as a minor threat.

  • Israel is still occupying Gaza and the West Bank, contrary to what some people think or want us to think.
    I am an Iraqi Jew and I know what occupation, siege, starvation and suffering mean.
    So pls. stop blaming the victim and trying to find excuses for the bullying murderers. This is totally immoral and inhuman. If you are not able to say the truth, just keep silent and do not add salt to the wounds of the helpless Palestinians.
    Try to watch TV images from Gaza. Stare in the faces of the Gazan children and women, for you may come out with a clear and just conscience.
    I wish I ll see the day when Palestine is freed from its occupiers and the Palestinian people live in peace and security in their own land.
    May this be achieved either with Hamas or any other Palestinian freedom fighters.

  • “I wish I ll see the day when Palestine is freed from its occupiers and the Palestinian people live in peace and security in their own land.”

    Hey Rami, I’ll perhaps believe you are actually Jewish when you give a real e-mail address. Until that time I think you are as Jewish as the members of Hamas.

  • “40 years after 1967 and 58 years after 1948, why is the occupation not yet over?
    Because Israel does not want it to end. Because Israel wants the land and the resources without the people. Because you have to eviscerate a culture in order to maintain total control over it. Because the United States says that’s just fine with us, you serve our purpose well. You help make the war on terror convenient. You help fit Iraq into the scheme. You’ll help us with Iran as well. Who the hell cares about a million and a half poverty-stricken Gazans and their dust, their sand, their stinking, crumbling heap of a disaster area homeland?
    What a terrible shame it is that Gazans have not yet attained the status of human in the eyes of the Western powers, for the resistance there will continue to be an enigma until this changes. For now, however, the slaughter will continue unabated.”>>

    The above is just an excerpt from an article on one of the many massacres perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians.
    Try to read the article in full. The writer is professor Jennifer Loewenstein. She is also a Jew, but with a human compassion and clear conscience plus a thoughtful insight into the history of the warfare in the region.
    Read what Jennifer Loewenstein wrote carefully and thoroughly if you want to know the true character of the state you are defending its genocide war.

    How Gaza Offends Us All:

  • Hi Donald,
    Believe me I am a JEW. And I am proud to be so.
    But, unlike you, I hate injustice, murder and prejudice.
    Being a Jew does not mean that I should ignore or tolerate the suffering of other people just because my coreligionists are the bad guys who have been inflicting misery and suffering on helpless people.
    Our humanity should prevail over our narrow affiliations and inherent prejudice.
    Thanks my dear.

  • Believe me I am a JEW. And I am proud to be so.

    A rude question to ask, I am sure, but out of curious, when’s the last time you attended Sabbath services?

  • Rami,

    the highest reported totals from Israel’s defensive action in Gaza is about 700. 3/4 are military by all accounts. Do you have the foggiest clue how many civilians would be killed if a single F15 where to deliberately attack an occupied civilian target? If Israel wanted to destroy the UN school that Hamas was using to shield it’s rocket attacks, there would have been nothing but a pile of rubble, just on 1000 lb bomb would have killed everyone inside. Clearly that IS not the objective.

    God Bless,


  • Still haven’t given me a real e-mail address Rami. Until you do so I think you are a supporter of Hamas flying a false flag.

    “But, unlike you, I hate injustice, murder and prejudice.”

    Coming from the supporter of an organization that specializes in cowardly attacks on civilians, I assume you are attempting to be humorous with that statement.

  • Rami,

    check this video out, and then get back to us:
    Hamas in their own voices

  • Dear Crankycon,
    How are u doing?
    Do u mean I can not be a true Jew without attending Sabath?
    Who say that, my dear?
    It seems this is a new theory on the identity issue. So, if u do not pray you are not a true Jew or Christian!
    Being a Jew goes deeper than ritual things. It is about culture, psyche, self fulfillment and how you look at yourself.
    If I do not attend prayer, that does not necessarily mean I am not a real Jew.
    Thanks my dear.

    Dear Matt,
    There could be no more cowardly than the Israeli soldiers who kill innocent children and women in cold blood. There is no honor or heroism in killing children, I guess. It is pure cowardice. There is no other name befitting their evil and inhumane deeds. The Israeli military establishment has rubbed the honor of their soldiers in the blood of Gaza’s children. But who knows, we may see their leaders at the Hague very soon for the war crimes they are committing in our name.

    Dear Donald,
    Believe me I am not fond of Hamas. I know they are violent sometimes. But they are not more violent than the Israeli soldiers. Whether we like Hamas or not, we can not deny the fact that they are resistance group wanting to liberate their land. Resistance is a legitimate right for all peoples under occupation. Now remember what I am saying: it won’t be long till we see the Israelis and their benefactors, the Americans, indulged in some sort of dialogue or negotiations. Hamas will remain there, believe me. Israel could fight for ten years from now and it will reap the wind. Hamas remains the difficult figure in the equation.

  • “Believe me I am not fond of Hamas. I know they are violent sometimes. But they are not more violent than the Israeli soldiers. Whether we like Hamas or not, we can not deny the fact that they are resistance group wanting to liberate their land.”

    No rami, the Israeli military attempts to minimize civilian casualties, while the terrorists of Hamas attempt to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and to make all of Palestine Judenfrei.

  • There could be no more cowardly than the Israeli soldiers who kill innocent children and women in cold blood. There is no honor or heroism in killing children, I guess. It is pure cowardice. There is no other name befitting their evil and inhumane deeds.

    This is all of course true, but it’s a red herring. If this were even marginally frequent then there would be 100’s of thousands of dead Palestinians every year. Instead, the whole history of the conflict (50 years) about 70,000 have died. By contrast more mohammedans than that are killed by their co-religionists every year.

    I notice you failed to answer my question? How many Gazan’s could Israel kill with a single bomb if they wished to annihilate them? You know the answer, it is in the 1000’s, far more than in the number that have been killed in 2 weeks of air attacks against military targets.

    I know they are violent sometimes. But they are not more violent than the Israeli soldiers. Whether we like Hamas or not, we can not deny the fact that they are resistance group wanting to liberate their land.

    Violence is neither good nor evil under Jewish, Christian or Islamic law (which I believe is your actual religion). Violence is only evil when it is directed at the INNOCENT. When Hamas “resists” it is not usually against the IDF, but against innocent men, women and children.

    Did you check the video? They do not deny their approach, why would you?

  • ps. Rami, you should be aware that Hamas seeks to maximize civilian casualties ON BOTH SIDES in order to garner sympathy. In doing so they are responsible for the bloodshed on both sides.

  • Do u mean I can not be a true Jew without attending Sabath ?

    Yes, that is what I am saying. Just as you cannot be a true Catholic without attending Mass. I understand that there is a cultural aspect to Judaism, but to me that is precisely why Judaism is dying. Especially in the US, too many Jews treat the spiritual aspect of their faith as merely a secondary (if at all) aspect to their religion. I’ve even encountered several Jewish friends who think it is not at all a contradiction to be considered an atheist. Ummm, excuse me?

    And unless you’re my wife, please do not call me dear. Thanks.

  • Then again, maybe I’m off and that whole “remember the Sabbath and keep it holy thing” was optional.

  • rami,

    more evidence of Hamas terrorism, violating the ceasefire that Israel permitted to allow humanitarian aid.

  • Absolutely not true. Even the CNN itself said today that Israel, not Hamas, is to blame for braking the ceasefire.

    Anyway, here is another link that will take you to another free Jewish thinker,

    Dr. Norman Finkelstein, who also provides a great insight into what is really happening in Gaza.

    Remember! Dr. Finkelstein is a Jew not a Palestinian or an Arab “a smiling face here!”.

  • rami,

    CNN? They are the shoddiest news organization in the world (next to the reuters perhaps). Just because a self-hating jew like Finklestein and you want to spew lies doesn’t make them true. Are you going to respond to my earlier posts? Or do you accept that Hamas is responsible of all civilian casualties as I have demonstrated?

  • CNN is almost ludicrously bad in regard to the Gaza story. They had to pull a fake Hamas video about an alleged atrocity by the Israelis.

    Ted Turner’s vanity news network is the last news source I would ever turn to, and that includes the New York Times!

5 Responses to I'll Take Her on a Test Drive

  • Love “consists of a choice to devote oneself to another.” That is one of the truths that the vast majority of Americans don’t know about or cannot come to grips to. Love is a choice, it is not a “feeling”. Yes, you can have feelings of love, but the greater and correct definition of love is “the commitment of oneself to another”.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,


  • I’m paraphrasing it badly, having seen it only once somewhere, but didn’t Bishop Fulton Sheen say something to the effect that to like is biology, to love is an act of the will?

    Ryan, this is probably your best post in this series so far. There’s a lot here to think about. Just for the sake of counterargument, one might say that you’re arguing by assertion that all premarital sex is not self-giving. I’m sure there are a lot of people who think that they’re very giving of themselves in this regard. How do you convince them that they’re holding back from that full union?

    I think your point about the “must have sex” mentality is a very good one, one that’s completely lost on our society. However, I’m sure that someone would counter that it might not be an imperative to have sex, but that it’s darn close enough. I’m not sure how to change that understanding.

  • I agree with J. Christian, an excellent post as well.

    How does one engage with secularists who live together and claim they are willing participants and thusly not “using” each other so to speak. Citing statistics that cohabitating couples have the highest propensity of divorce certainly shoots down their theory of “preventive divorce” by “living together”.

  • I would argue that any premarital sex is not self-giving, but there’s a lot of qualifications to be made about that. I’d be willing to concede, for example, that there are indeed self-giving aspects to some of the premarital relations out there, but that perhaps the selfish aspects outweigh the self-giving. That’s a very hard thing to judge for either the individuals involved, much less for someone looking on. It takes a vast amount of self-honesty to look at our sexual behavior and see it for what it is. (Of course, we can go overboard the other direction and feel any sexual behavior is reprehensible, so keep that in mind.)

    One of the questions I found myself asking a number of years ago when I was obsessed with one girl or another was, “If I can’t have her as my girlfriend, do I even want to hang out with her?” Implicit behind this is the selfish mentality. If we’re not going to have sex, do we even have a relation? I think a lot of people would be surprised at their answers if they were actually confronted with that reaction. We’ve become so inculcated with the notion that to be a couple is to have sex that we’ve grown to the point where a relationship is practically only about having sex, and then, sex for pleasure, not sex in its fullness.

    One revelation I had recently, probably back in February or so (so about 3 months before our wedding), I had to seriously stop and ask what it meant for my relationship with my wife if we could never have sex (for health reasons, for example, or simple accident in following NFP and not being in the mood during the infertile areas of the cycle). It was astounding when I realized how personally painful the thought of never having sex was, and eventually making the commitment to give up sex altogether, if our marriage warranted it, was something that has greatly strengthened our relationship.

    So how do we talk to people about whether or not their sexual relationship is selfish or self-giving? That’s hard, because sex tends to be so intimate an act you have a difficult time getting anyone to talk seriously about it. Trying to suggest to someone who is not seeking advice that, say, cohabitation is harmful is bound to turn them away in anger. The problem, of course, is the cognitive dissonance. I’m willing to bet that most people feel there’s something not quite right with premarital sex, but they dismiss it with any number of excuses. It doesn’t feel quite right because of the linger social expectation that sex should be within wedlock, or because of fear of pregnancy, or something like that. Eventually, we become so acclimated to bringing out those excuses to the fore that, for most intents and purposes, we rarely feel that discomfort.

    Perhaps the best we can do is try to, subtly, force people back into thinking about why the discomfort exists in the first place. Trying to get them to answer seriously the questions “Could you go without sex?” or “if you couldn’t have sex with her, would you still want to be with her?” could at last replant the seeds of doubt. Something else we could try is just to explain our Catholic position. Instead of trying to denounce any of their actions, simply explain why we Catholics view premarital sex with disdain. If we can get them to hear us out, and perhaps even get them to ask questions just so they know better the reasons why Catholics seem such prudes, that might also plant seeds.

    The biggest problem with secularists, especially materialists, is that trying to suggest there’s something wrong with using another as an object, or even demeaning oneself as an object for someone else’s pleasure tends not to work. They’ve convinced themselves that there’s no inherent dignity in the human person, and that’s where, I think, we have to start. It is sometimes horrifying in conversation to realize that the person you’re talking to really has no respect for the human person, believing we’re just chunks of meat with a “take what you can, when you can” mentality. To be honest, I have no idea how to uproot that, other than through prayer that God might move this person to faith.

  • Recognizing the dignity in each person is one of the basic concepts of Christianity that seems to have been fallen on the wayside in society. Part of this problem may lie in the public school system as well as parents, both of which have stopped in teaching Christianity at all (which could be an entire post in itself).

    Not recognizing the dignity in each other tends to make us more course in our engagement with others. Thus it’s easier to demean other whether physically, verbally, or any other manner.

66 Responses to Russian Professor Predicts Breakup of US in 2010

  • Hey! As a Virginian, I hope you all down in Texas will hold off Mexico while we stand fast against the EU up this way! Russia will pull back nubs if they grab for Alaska. Canada would surely say, “Do we HAVE to take our share? Americans are so hard to manage.”

    United we stand.

    Back to my hole with my religion and gun…

  • I’m not so sure that I agree with the divisions. California, Oregan, and Washington I see going their own way together, being a firm Pacific nation, and certainly I’d agree that a fair amount of the Atlantic coastline would indeed form their own group and join the EU. I deny that Canada, China, or Mexico would take hold as sovereign over any division. We Americans are a little too free-wheeling for that to happen. Any takeover would have to be military. But as for the central divisions, I might have shunted off anything east of the Mississippi to the Atlantic Seaboard Committee and Trust Fund, and included Idaho and Utah in the Western American Union. I don’t know about Nevada, but probably most of it, with Las Vegas and Reno breaking off to California.

    In my dreams, Wyoming would be the lead state in the secession, since we have so much fun with our representation in Congress.

    In reality, I started to think that we’d see such a secession, in that the U.S. seems predominantly left-tilting on the coasts, and right-tilting in the middle. One of the things that help fuel resent in the South at the time of the secession just prior to the Civil War was the clear division between North and South on how the states voted in the presidential election. When that clear division seems cropping up between the heavily-populated coasts and the sparsely populated mid-west-to-western region, it starts to feel like the same scenario. Fortunately, the recent election painted the map by far more blue than I expected, so I guess Wyoming will just have secede on her own.

    Maybe we can convince Texas to join, but the relative isolation might make coordination difficult.

  • I am sure the Union will be maintained, but if anyone would care to make an offer to Illinois for the city-state of Chicago…

  • While I don’t see anything like this as being all that likely, I must admit finding the division question very interesting.

    I’d see Idaho sticking with whatever Montana and Wyoming did — and probably Utah going the same way. Nevada leaches so much money from California that Reno and Los Vegas would be strongly incented to stick with the coastal states, though the rest might want to join Texas. I could see Arizona and Southern California east of Barstowe going with Texas as well.

    Another thing this fellow seems not to have taken into account is economic similarity. Texas, Georgia and Florida all have fairly booming tech economies, and Texas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky benefit a lot from non-union manufacturing. Arkansas could, of course, simply become the Independent Republic of Wal-Mart.

    So I’d tend to see a good chance for a tech and manufacturing-based, moderately conservative and free trading southern republic including the Texas Republic as shown plus the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. Perhaps the non-DC-suburb part of Virginia as well.

    Then you’d have to sort out the political and cultural differences between the Great Lakes states and the Great Plains & Rocky Mountain states.

  • He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. California is going with the Cylons.

  • This guy’s never been to the South. The Texas Republic, indeed! fah!

    And if you think all the Cubans and Puerto Ricans in Florida are going to knuckle under to Mexico, I’d say you don’t know jack about Hispanics, either.

  • LOL

    Right. Arizonans in league with California. We hate Californians. Actually, I don’t see Arizona tolerating any other state. We would have to go it alone.

    It’s easy for a Russian, who lives in a disordered society that has rarely if ever functioned well except under absolute totalitarianism, to imagine us cutting each others’ throats. We are divided now, but I don’t see any of us willing to drive a tank over our political enemies just yet.

  • I doubt this will happen as well, though it is interesting to note that the same professor predicted Russia’s rise during Yeltsin’s abysmal rule. Hence why he is getting a lot of attention now.

    As far as division is concerned, I find it laughable that Mexico would have ANY control whatsoever. Being that the majority of my extended family are proud Mexicans (living in Mexico), I see the reality of high corruption and a weak central government (considering that the government is created on the French model of a ‘strong central government, this isn’t good news).

    Hispanics cannot be painted as a monolithic group at all. Chris M. is correct on that point for sure. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans all look down on each other for various reasons. Even among Mexicans, Mexican immigrants look down on Americans of Mexican descent and visa versa (it’s incredibly nasty).

    As far as Canada and China having influence that is beyond fantasy. IF the U.S. were to have “internal conflicts” I can understand Hawaii falling under California or Japan protection, but not under Chinese.

    I certainly see divisions between the two coasts and the rest of America, but if there were to be a break up of the states, seeing the northeastern U.S. (parts of New England) have some of formal relationship with the E.U. seems plausible.

    But for the sake of argument, IF there were to be a Second Civil War, I don’t see how the coastal states would be able to hold-out as combatants against the rest of America.

    Now back to clinging to my guns and religion.

  • Rob,

    Having lived in Arizona for more than 10 years I agree with your analysis. Arizonan’s have contempt for Californians. I’d also have to say that Washingtonians and Oregonians have no love for Californians as well.

    Shoot, Californians don’t like each other for that matter. Northern Californians and Southern Californians don’t like each other. Throw in the central basin and the extreme north I could easily see California breaking up into two to four states (Fredonia, Alta California, Central California, and the city-state of Los Angeles).

  • Enough of this California-bashing. In my experience, there are few people who actually know native Californians. Many Californians are transplants of some stripe or another. They move from NY to west LA, work in The Biz, and think that their little, insular world is “California.” These NY transplants live here a few years, get bored, and move to Washington, Montana, Arizona, etc., and proceed to tick off the locals there. And in turn, those people think these transplants are somehow “Californians.” Sorry to disappoint you all…

  • Reading this Russian analyst, I can now easily imagine how weird and off-base American analysts sound to native Russians.

  • J. Christian,

    I believe south Floridians have that same attitude towards transplanted New Yorkers in Miami.

    California should be able to put up some sort of quota of New Yorkers moving to California. Can states do that amongst themselves?

  • The Professor Doctor’s map looks like nothing more than Government by Sports Mega-Conferences. From Florida to Texas there goes SECLand, populated by large numbers of people still reenacting the Civil War with every football game. Then that large swath of Big 12 Land, taking in Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone else they dadgum well please. Produces high school quarterbacks that conquer throughout the republic. California is heaven knows what. The southern part belongs to USC and the rest to remaining Pac 10 Land. Who woulda thunk it. A third-rate Russian professor, providing minor satisfaction to countrymen afflicted by acute alcoholism, TB and HIV; a pre- WWII infrastructure; and the dreams of tyrants muted by the price of oil- is really a proponent for The College Bowl Structure As We Currently Know It. And no playoff system, thank you very much.

  • At least, Sarah Palin will be able to see Russia from her house!!!

  • Obviously, this professor knows nothing about Tennessee…..(and we ARE in the SEC.) Lol!

  • I just noticed that.. TN and KY join the EU?? Maybe after depopulating both states!

  • Enough of this California-bashing. In my experience, there are few people who actually know native Californians. Many Californians are transplants of some stripe or another.

    True. As a native born Californian I’d certainly assert that most real Californian’s are the most laid back and easy to live-around folks you could meet. (Though that didn’t stop me from wanting to leave.)

    I could certainly see California breaking up, though. In twenty five years of living in California I never once ventured north of Yosemite, and it was no loss. That LA belongs to a state whose capitol was Sacramento was always a source of utter confusion to me. (Though if there’s someone who should be sent off to be their own city state, it should be the Bay Area. Their mayor already thinks he can make state law.)

  • Pingback: Soybeania Forever! « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective
  • I don’t like these teams. I really have to play with California?

    -Arizona Guy

  • This may be an interesting theory that hopefully remains that way. If you’ve watched any of the short-lived series “Jericho” you may see some similarities between Panarin’s theory and the show. The gist of “Jericho” is the country divides into six nations after a domestic terrorist attack in which 24 major metropolitan areas are destroyed by nuclear bombs. It appears that Mr. Panarin has watched the same show or provided part of his theory to the producers. I hope that art doesn’t replicate life in this particular instance. “Do not tread on me,” Mr. Panarin.

  • Russia will suffer their own civil war before it ever happens to the United States.

  • The Central North American Republic would have a larger population than Canada (by around 20 million). I don’t think we’d fall under the influence of the Canucks (although I live in NoVA now, I’d move back to the Midwest to get out of the EU. I think it’s all a scheme to talk about how Russia should get Alaska back (does a certain Russian academic have a crush on Sarah Palin?).

  • The Russians sold Alaska fair and square and it’s ours until the end of time. If anything we may end up purchasing Kamchatka before we let go of Alaska.

    For the record, Texas doesn’t recognize Alaska.

  • Powerline has interesting comments by Mark Falcoff on the article by the Russian professor.

    “When I was a graduate student of international relations at Princeton decades ago I remember one of my professors, the late Harold Sprout, explaining that one way to analyze a foreign country’s behavior was to appreciate its own historical perspective. Given what has happened to Russia in the past two decades, its idea that the U.S. is a fragile empire of disparate entities (while wrong) is at least understandable. In many ways indeed it is a projection onto its supposed rival its own experiences.”

  • Yoh bros. Why don’t youse rebels just split along the Mason – Dixie line? Seems fine and dandy for bible faced hypocrites

  • Andrew,

    Actually, the Russian “prediction” reminds me of the world portrayed in Robert Heinlein’s Friday. Heinlein’s divisions certainly made more sense. Given that it was a Russian doing the predicting, I was also reminded of the old miniseries Amerika.

  • Why would Utah want to go with California? People would still come here to ski, snowboard, visit our parks, do business, etc. Our economy wouldn’t be affected at all!

    We have a large air force base here, the productions plants and companies for the US space program, etc., and a lot of Utahns are already military trained.

    We’re small, so why would we want to be steamrolled politically by the West Coast, especially since we’re more conservative?

    Plus, California is looking like it’s on the road to bankruptcy while Utah’s managed to weather the economic storm fine and we have minimal state taxes and still have sound state finances!

    Utah would be better off by itself.

    And without half of our income going to the Feds or California, we’d be rich, too! People would flock to the Mountain West! We could defend ourselves with air superiority over the western desert but wouldn’t need to since California could take the hit if China decides to invade.

    And all we have to do to hold back others is hold onto the nukes stored here and have Thiokol Co. (which makes the shuttle booster rockets) maintain and produce ICBMs and larger nations wouldn’t want to invade us; we’re small, anyway! Thus, we’d make the risk too high for the benefits a foreign nation (or former US state) would have from trying to take Utah.

    Utah would prosper in this scenario.

    This guy’s crazy but it is kind of fun to think about.

  • The US is a third world economy and has been living on credit for years. A nation where half are banged up, live in pverty with no medical care, rely on tips to make a living and have 3 jobs to make ends meet is headed for self destruction. The Foundation myth that Americans swallow is a smokescreen for the fact that the Revolutionery war was in fact Americas first civil war, between loyalists and rebels. When the rebels were seen to be enriching themselves by confiscationg loyalists property and renaging on their debts the undecided followed the example of the lawless. That is the American weakness, everything has been seized and not paid for. From the genocide of the Native Americans to the non paying of income tax until 1915 allowing the robber barons to prosper. America was not a proper democracy until 1830. The land that was ceded to them was as a result of The Treaty of Vienna, they never won the land in battle. At the start of World War 1 Belgium had a bigger army than the Americans. America has lived beyond its means for years with no competition from abroad the auto industry has been churning out obselite gas guzzling trucks posing as vehicles for years. The only way an American can get medical cover is thru his employer, so if he’s not employed he’s not covered. It’s ironic that the temper tantrum of not wanting to pay taxes for the protection of the Royal Navy has led to an economy which spends trillions of tax dollars on defence. At the end of the war of independance there were more Americans serving in the British Forces tahn Americans in the revolutionery army. The colonies all go the same way. Unleashed to govern themslves they become corrupt and turn on each other. American businessmen appear to model their practices on those of the mafia. Madoff is surely destined to appear in the Wall Street Hall of Fame (or should that be shame?)

  • Thank God for 1776. Without America Great Britain might well now be one of the lesser provinces of the German Reich.

    As to your opinion of America, I prefer that of a greater Englishman who wore a redcoat in his youth:

    “No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war — the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand’s breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutiliated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, bound together with every scrap of their life and strength, were, according to my lights, twice or even thrice the force of their antagonists. No doubt it would take a long time. I expected terrible forfeits in the East; but all this would be merely a passing phase. United we could subdue everybody else in the world. Many disasters, immeasurable cost and tribulation lay ahead, but there was no more doubt about the end.

    Silly people — and there were many, not only in enemy countries — might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before — that the United States is like “a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate.” Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”

    – Winston S. Churchill, _The Grand Alliance_

  • The American people revere Sir Winston, it helps that he had a pushy American mother. The British people on the other hand voted him out of office at the first opportunity. It amazes me that so much adulation is given to Sir Winston by Americans who should really go down on their knees and give thanks for Roosevelt, truly he was our and your saviuor, for without his political will, Churchill would have become what many expected, a failed politicion. His grasp of strategy was non too good given his record of attacking the Turks during World war 1 and inflicting murderous casualties on Commenwealth troops at Gallipoli.

    It is always painful for a nation to confront the truth, Americans are as much victims of their own propagan as were the Germans and Russians who were led by the nose into Fascism and Communism. After the fall of these two, there are still those who worship Hitler and Stalin.

    My view is that the original 13 colonies plus Florida should come back into the fold. Imagine the untold wealth this would generate for the inhabitants. Not in the EU as the UK is not, but part of Team GB. From day 1 they would get free medical care, and be entitled to any number of welfare benefits which would really raise up the under class (not just promises as given by Obama). Americans from the other states would flock to a properous economy when the dollar is only fit for wallpaper. In truth Americans are seen abroad as rather gullible, niave, folks who don’t have a good grasp of History or Geography. On the other hand American Business people are regarded as Mafia who wil suck you dry of every last dollar.
    North America includes Canada, and their are still plenty of Empire Loyalists alive and well both in the States and Canada. New Yorkers whose ancestors served in the !st Royal New York Rifles are combing geoneolgy sites to find compatriots. (don’t believe me? just Google it)
    I sense that the good Dr does not believe me, this is not my personal opinion but historical fact. If the 50 States were soveriegn countries you would be far better off in what is in effect a Free Trade Zone. That is all that you have got. A 50 country free trading zone but you introduced a whole new layer of buracracy on yoursleves in the shape of federal taxes. It is truly amazing that despite the song and dance you made about tea tax you now hand over trillions to a governing burearcay and the only way you can some of your tax dollar back is by lobbying and pork barell politics..
    When the UK introduced the NHS under the elected government that took over from Churchill Doctors surgeries were overwhelmed by women presenting with prolapsed wombs. Those who could not afford treatment used towels and rags to hold the womb in place. What is hidden in the US?

    Churchill had a job of holding the Allies together in WW2, the Americans think there industrial might prevailed but in truth the real slaughter was on the Eastern Front where Mother Russia lost 30 million. Churchill sucked up to Stalin as much as he did to Roosevelt, he had too.

  • “The British people on the other hand voted him out of office at the first opportunity. ”

    After the war was won in 1945. Then, after a few years of socialist government, they voted him back into office as Prime Minister in 1951. They also voted for him overwhelmingly in 2002 in a BBC poll as the greatest Briton of all time.

  • We had to have a socialist government after WW2 because the Liberals left in power after WW1 promised “homes fit for heroes” but failed to deliver. Churchill was past it when he returned and was in his dotage, the Tories used him to get re-elected.
    Meanwhile back to the first American civil war go here to see the list of American units in the British Army.

    This is a list of British units in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) who fought against the American rebels and their French and Spanish allies in the North American colonies, including battles in Florida and the West Indies. In addition to the regular army it includes German auxiliary units (known collectively as Hessians), and militia and provincial units formed from Loyalists, West Indians, and Canadians.

    No battle honours were ever awarded to British regiments who fought in America as it was seen by the British to be a civil war.

    The freed black slaves, the black loyalists, who came over to the British side were rewarded with thier own country, Sierra Leone, and named its capital Freetown. Those black slaves who remained in the rebel hands continued in serfdom until the second American civil war. Some would say the fate of black Americans has not changed much summed up by the phrase, “They swapped the Southern rope for the Northern dope”.

  • The Black Loyalists see

    Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolutionary War
    Published to accompany a four-part BBC TV series – written and presented by military historian, Richard Holmes, this book offers a somewhat controversial and revisionist view. Most people regard the American Revolutionary War of the 1775-83 (also known as the War of Independence) as a popular struggle for liberty against an oppressive colonial power. This book demonstrates that it was in fact America’s first civil war.

  • Redcoat, every American school child knows that the Tories fought for the English. This of course does not detract from the victory of the Patriots but rather magnifies the glory of the victory since they had to contend not only with a foreign foe but also a domestic enemy. The Tories throughout the war were utterly dependent upon the English and showed a striking inability to control territory without protection from the Royal Army. When organized into military units by the English and trained as regulars the Tories proved as effective on the battlefield as the English units they fought beside. Without English assistance the Tories proved totally ineffective to raise armies of their own and wage their own war against the Patriots. Their few attempts to do so ended quickly in routs. When the English decided to toss in the towel, the Tories who fought with them meekly went into exile rather than attempt to carry on the struggle on their own.

    As to Churchill, he was more effective in his old age than most British Prime Ministers at any age. The turn to the socialists in 1945 was part of the process by which Great Britain has been turned into Weenie Britain with a nannie state that crushes intiative and breeds hopelessness. Thatcher, your last great Prime Minister, was a ray of light, but she was unable to undo all the misteps that have made Britain a third-rate power.

  • Greetings to all those who are in search
    of Americans who remained Loyal
    to the British Crown during the
    War for Independence

  • I am not running Churchill down, that would be silly but in discussing history and miliatary campaigns you have to take in the strategic objective. What exactly was Churhills war aims? The UK declared war on nazi Germany following the german army invasion of Poland. After the war Poland was “liberated” by the Soviet Union not the UK so there is a case to say the UK failed to achieve its objective. Americans woke up after WW2 and decided to run down the British Empire, they wanted one of their own, and the principle architect was John Foster Dulles. In no way could he be described as a friend of the UK. So again as the British Empire faded away into a Commonwealth there is a case for saying that Churhills war aim of maintaining the British Empire came to nothing. So that’s two failures on his part.
    War has to have a point, that is why there was never any danger of the Cold war escalating into a hot war. Neither the US or the Soviet Union could see any point in inheriting a nucluer wasteland.

    California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities.

  • California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities

    wow, you’re not even remotely familiar with our culture or how our political system operates, are you?

  • Redcoat,

    It’s possible to find the endorsement of impossible historical political grievances charming, but you seem to have your arguments a little tangled up. For instance, you charge that the US is guilt on the genocide of the American Indians, and yet I don’t get the impression that you want to return Canada to the French and the Native Americans, nor that you want to evacuate all whites out of Australia and New Zealand.

    Similarly, you blast the US for having a sky high national debt, calling it a pyramid scheme and a third world economy — yet you then praise California whose state debt is so bad that it may need to declare bankruptcy in the next year or two, if it isn’t bailed out by the Federal Government. Not to mention that California was one of the prime offenders in trashing the national economy with the real estate mess over the last six years. (Which was the reason this native Californian bailed for the saner home market of Texas five years ago — where I bought a home that is still worth more than a paid for it and the economy is humming along.)

    The charm of the Torry cause is mostly a conservative one, yet you try to wile people to support it with promises of a socialized welfare state.

    Still, as I say, quixotic historical causes charm my conservative instincts. So I’ll entertain your advocacy of the US rejoining Britain — after you blokes kick out these imported pretenders from Germany. Get some descendants of James II on the throne, or better yet get rid of the silliness of the whole last thousand years and find some descendants of Harold Godwinson and Edith Swanneck.

  • The verge of bankruptcy looms large for the USA as a whole, not just CA, and all because of the American Financial system lending money to people who have no hope of paying it back. Everything is on credit. Other countries in the same predicament are those with dollar reserves. The UK has no reserves linked to the dollar. Apart from anything else I resist the temptation to go with the herd mentality, so called experts, like this Russian Professor, have a 50/50 chance of being proved right/wrong as the case may be. How long ago was it that “experts” were predicting that oil would go to 200 USD? We in the UK are grateful for the US armed services who laid down their lives in WW2, but, in reality, you were acting then as loyalists as we fought our old foe Germany. To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish) because the Royal Navy defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and our Royal Rifle brigades who had learnt their trade in the American war, defeated the French at Waterloo. We don’y make that claim because it is too sweeping a generalisation. Prior to the outbreak of WW2 America had many pro German elements. Go to Youtube and dig up the old archive footage of American Nazi footage. “From Detroit they came, from Chigago they came” and so on.
    I love America and visit many times a year, but when I leave I always have the same thought. “It’s a beautiful country but its wasted on the Americans”.

    I was last in Boston and Rhode Island. It’s always the same, the American motorist appears straight out of the 1950’s. For a start the roads in RI are appalling, full of potholes even on the main roads, plus the signage is laughable, as it is allove the US. As a drive sedately along I am overtaken by hill billies in old crocks of SUV’s doing a reckless 80mph in a lump of old iron while shouting into their cellphones. Later I drive past the carnage with a babys pram strewn across the road. This reminds me of the phrase, “What’s the difference between an SUV and a hedgehog” Why, a hedgehog has the pricks on the outside.

  • Redcoat,

    Being descended from Welshman I demand the return of Cymru, and for that matter the rest of Britain to the original (aborigenes in your language) to the Welsh. We have been part of an apartheid system of being forcebly moved to the fringes of Britain and demand our rightful lands returned to us for posterity.

    I demand that all the Germans (Angles and Saxons) and Danes (Jutes) that infest the holy land that is Greater Wales return from whence they came to rectify the wrongs imposed upon us Celts in the name of Owain Glynd?r.

    The Brythoniaid will rise again!

    Sounds a bit off-base doesn’t it? That’s how we ‘colonials’ read your comments.

  • I must admit, there’s a sort of endearing innocence to Redcoats’ pride in the English social welfare institutions. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that when American progressives try to sell the idea of socialized medicine to the populace here they always assure us: “Don’t worry, it won’t be nearly as bad as the UK’s NHS.”

    Still, lest anything think that one has to sound like a yahoo in order to be all Up With the English, you can always check out Flanders and Swan’s “The English Are Best”

    From back when England was comparatively civilized.

  • “To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish) because the Royal Navy defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and our Royal Rifle brigades who had learnt their trade in the American war, defeated the French at Waterloo.”

    Napoleon had no designs on America as he proved through the Louisiana purchase. If he had been foolish enough to send a force over against us, I suspect we would have given them the same reception as the elite of the Royal Army under Packenham received from Jackson and his backwoodsmen at New Orleans in 1815. I do feel grateful for the stand the Brits made against the Nazis from 1939-1941 when there was absolutely no hope of victory and they fought on anyway against an evil second to none. That truly was their finest hour.

  • I might also note that my great Uncle Bill, a Newfoundlander, fought in the Royal Army from 1939-1945. When asked why he was enlisting he said, “Someone has to teach the Limies how to fight!” My own father considered enlisting in the Royal Army after marrying my mother in Newfoundland, but when told that he would have to renounce his American citizenship he declined.

  • -To say that the US saved the UK from becoming part of the Reich is like a Brit saying that we saved you from speaking French and Spanish (although you seem intent on importing Spanish)-

    This from a man in whose country many areas are now run under sharia law. We’ll do just fine absorbing the Latin American population, thank you. Talk to us after they put your wife in a burqha, dhimmi.

  • Anyone who thinks that the EU would take Kentucky and Tennessee or that anyone in Texas would be under “Mexican Influence” needs to have a background check done on their credentials. I don’t care how many degrees he has in Russia or how often State TV there interviews him for these beliefs. This man should take a vacation here. Maybe he’ll go back and suggest to the Kremlin that they put Russia up for sale.

  • Tito Edwards – I’m with you on that one as I am Welsh born myself and find it hard to accept the present Prince of Wales who is an English imposter. A penny for your thoughts and a full and frank discussion has been beneficial to us all without descending into personal abuse. It is always very dangerous to tackle Americans on the foundation myth because it is embedded in their hearts like reinforced concrete and surrounded by a peculiar nationilstic fervour that brooks no challenge. Many myths have been perpetuated by the media and this is something I always encourage my American friends to disassemble.

    The myth that parts of the UK are under Muslim law is like saying some parts are under Catholic law. Practising Catholics where ever they live around the world look to the Pope as thier leader. Muslims look to thier spiritual leaders in the same way. This is completely different to having an alien law imposed on you which obviously is not happening. I don’t want to get drawn into to this but I understand the official Catholic line on abortion is pro-life, notwithstanding this, women in the UK are legally entitled to an abortion, a plane lands in England from the Irish Republic every day carrying women coming over for terminations.

    I simply wanted to opine that the Atlantic States would do better to become part of the UK not the EU. Joining the EU would mean swapping American Federalism for European Federalism. Not a lot of difference there then.

    Despite our true Welsh Prince having been decapitated by the English, his head par-boiled and exhibited on a stake on London Bridge, today Wales has its own Parliament, as does Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Its called devolved Government and that is probably what the Atlantic States would enjoy. Thier own elected representatives caring for the interests of their own state. Those who live in Cornwall are treated as part of England.

    The media easily whips up mass hysteria, after all the news bread and butter is “death, shock, and horror” and “If it bleeds, it leads” Tabloid papers leaven this with “Human interest stories” I have felt for some time that the Americans really believe that the UK is in imminent threat of being taken over by Islam. Fear not, the zenith of the Caliph was when Southern Spain was ruled by the Moors, when they tried to advance further north they were defeated by the French.

    Donald R. McClarey – Napoleon had no designs on America but he had plenty on England. It was the French Navy at Yorktown and the French army that sealed the fate of Cornwallis, redoubt 10 was stormed by dissident French units who were promised that their old unit, which had been disbanded, would be reformed if they carried the redoubt.
    Without the French allies Washington may not have enjoyed the success he did. The Spanish as always jumped in to have a go as well. In defeating Napoleon the British learnt form the American campaign of the importance of aimed shot and taking cover. At that time the accepted practice with a musket was the volley and usually because the blood was up, without waiting to reload, the line broke into a bayonet charge.

    Your hunters and backwoodsmen fought differently, not in the European model, as the British Army was trained for. They took cover behind trees and aimed shot picking off the British Officers first. As a result the British Fusiliers then developed into Riflemaen and adopted the same American practice and used it on the battlefieds of Europe against the French who without this lesson still used volleys. For that we have to be thankful.

  • I find the professor theory interesting and in some ways a very big possibility. Think about it, as we are trying to bailout industries to keep our country afloat and we are believing in a new president and hoping that America is prepared for a minority race to lead us into a better future.

    Everybody keeps mentioning that America will not allow this to happen, but we as Americans have also become very spoiled and don’t seem to want to work anymore but expect things to be handed to us. When we don’t get what we want, we find an easier route. What is easier than fixing a trouble country – allowing another country to fix our lives for us.

    For the U.S. to break apart, we are more than likely not believing in the American dream and are in such a depression that we no longer want to try.

    I am not fighting for the Professor’s theory, but I am only speaking about what could be possbile sometime. To believe that it absolutely won’t happen is to be in denial as every country and government has to rise and fall. Whether we do it together or just give up is going to depend on what morals and values we have invested into the future generations.

  • California has a GDP just below that of the UK, it seems to many that a prosperous state such as CA is subsidising the non productive states. Some of your states have a lower population than we have in our major cities.

    Be careful about linking productivity to population. Wyoming has the least population in the union, only around 500,000 (counting tourists), and yet we run a huge budget surplus thanks to our resources. California for a number of years has either run a budget deficit or has barely gotten by. Moreover, due to their laws, they can’t provide all of their own energy needs. We in Wyoming launder our energy through Oregon, which is then presented to California as “green”. You could claim that we Wyomingites do more than our fair share.

    But there’s no problem with any one state subsidizing other states in the union, anymore than there’s a problem with a rich district in a city subsidizing the poor district. That’s part and parcel of being a union.

  • Redcoat,

    You won’t find malice here at American Catholic (I hope). Your ideas and thoughts are certainly provocative and welcomed here.

    I’m not to bothered by Wales ajoined to England, but I find it insincere to put a German as the Prince of Wales, especially the current holder since he holds almost no Christian values at heart.

    I’m aware of the devolved government under Tony Blair, though if I were an Englishman I would have fought it tooth and nails. From a secular point of view it just adds another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.

    I’ve only recently have been studying and learning more about my wonderful Welsh ancestry and I do like where Wales stands now, attached as unified kingdom under English with the Scots and Irish. Though I strongly oppose ANY integration whatsoever into the E.U.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,


  • Tito,

    Llandilo was the coldest part of the UK last night with a temperature of -14C. It is easy to get to South Wales on the M4 motorway which runs from West London, past Heathrow, practically to Ammanford. Our family along with most inhabitants of these islands have oftened discussed emmigrating. My namesake sailed to Madagascar in 1792, some family went to Fargo, USA, in the 1800’s, but I decided against North America after hearing that an Uncle who went to Canada was killed in the first week when two trains met head on. Many Welsh Christians left to make a promised land, they still speak Welsh in parts of Patagonia, South America. Simon Jenkins was going to write a book on 1,000 Welsh churches, but he was pipped by someone who brought out 100 churches of Wales. He now has a book called “Wales”

    A hat tip to Wyoming, I don’t know if that State was in the dust bowl, but as a family of Welsh farmers, the intensive cultivation of US farmland was hotly debated. Big can be good but sometimes it pays to think small. The US, to us, has the advantage of being 50 countries in middle America, who have sufficient mass to trade with each other. The disadvantage is lack of competition, and the US auto industry is an example.

    I would say the Welsh are happy with their lot. With a devolved Parliament the nationlistic urge is curbed, while introducing beneficial laws for the Welsh (such as free medicines, prescribed by Doctor’s, something they also enjoy in Scotland, so much so, that some English towns on the borders want to join Wales or Scotland) while we still have the embracing arm of being governed centrally.

    If the Atlantic States did revert to the UK I now see a problem, namely many descendants of loyalist families would probably sue for the return of land, property, and businesses confiscated (stolen) by the rebels. These claims could end in in the European courts which are processing many similar claims of Eastern Europeans who had their estates confiscated by the Communist Soviets.

    The hypothesis of the break up of the USA is just that, but nothing can be ruled out, after all our own Defence plans includes the possibility of another war with the US
    with Russia as allies. Russia now free of Communism sits on the fence between Europe and Asia. Under Soviet domination it resembled the US with all countries combining to form one whole. This is where their manpower came from, mainly Asia. Now it is split apart and and we can see what the Russian Proffessor is getting at. The Baltic States favour Europe. Swedes fly and sail to Estonia to do their shopping. European countries are standing in line to join NATO and the EU. What we see today in the break up of the Soviet Union could then be a possibility for the US. But, while the Soviet countries stayed as countries, with their own culture, history, religion and culture, suppressed and now released, the US States are uniformily the same, up to now sharing a common language (albeit somewhat mangled) and an Anlgo Saxon heritage, so the balance is the other way.

  • Nice welcome to join the eu.
    we can use more people to start a war and kill everyone agains us.
    Like: Tito Edwards and Redcoat enz, enz.

  • Hey!! What does this russian think he’s doing? Everyone down south knows that we’d stick together! It’s time to rise again! lol -Arkansas

  • The south will rise again –

    There is no way that wealthy states will pay for the debt of liberal states in the north. I dont see a civil war as much as I just see a sucession of Texas followed by about 6 other states to form their own country.

    The USA is not going to last- as much as it hurts to say.

  • 4/26/08
    9:45 am

    my soul does see…before the peace
    another zugzwang activity.
    it’s all to real;
    we’re failing with direction.
    corporate scandals and corruption thunders
    confidence in the dollar continues to wane,
    a 4th marker of crude happens on exchange
    with alarming rise
    the petro euro allures the eyes of dubai.
    nymex and ipe must do
    what naturally comes next,
    and this leaves the [u.s.]
    with little trust;
    executed by the posion pawn,
    a trick box of economic destruction.
    abaddon thunder
    behind the veil
    has stolen foreign reserves
    and the dollar no longer services debt
    through investors on dragon shores.
    my soul does see…the collapse of
    [u.s.] soveriegnty.

  • Newton has nothing to do with climate I just like inventors, philosophers, poets. Sorry im a nerd. I love history also. To me life is a paradox. Ill leave im just a 20 something year old in the the medical field. By the way you guys some on here have great agruments, would make good lawyers. ;)! Merci!

  • Sorry, im trying to learn more about our economy and politics and I found some nice people who responded. Can someone tell me what do mean a cival war is going to happen so I can book a plane trip to Europe now and start packing. :`(

  • Do you honestly believe they will let Mexico just have Texas with all the oil?? And some of the largest US military bases and commands are in the areas predicted to go to Mexico??? Come on, Mexico can’t take care of itself now. What has this Professor correctly predicted in the past anyway?

    The economy and climate changes should be watched, but I am not about to loose any sleep over a civil war happening in the horizon.

  • Yesterday they said climate was fraud and it wasn’t a concern and they backed it up with websites and it was on the news and that they are just trying to scare americans. I got bashed for it. 🙁

  • Well, its December 15 with no civil war. It sounds like another conspiracy theory out the window. Of course Pak Alert Press is saying something about Obama organizing something around one million troops for possible civil war by the end of winter 2010. Well see.

  • This is December 29, 2009. The Russian professor said that civil war would break out in November of 2009. He also said that if this did not happen he has a ready explanation. Civil war has not started. We are still here. I looked for the explanation and have not found it. Anyone know where it is?

  • Our Lady of Fatima said “Nations will be annihilated”.
    She specifically didn’t say in what way they will be annihilated. Very bluntly, I would take the Russian Professor seriously, as the Church say’s, God will not be mocked!!!
    Abortion, 50% divorce rate. lukewarmness especially by us “Roman Catholic’s, pathetic LOW numbers of men and women willing to sacrifice themselves( but willing to sacrifice themselves for worldly things, career’s that most likely won ‘t help them get to Heaven actually for real when they die ) for the Kingdom of God by joining Roman Catholic Religious Order’s.
    Pathetic low numbers of Roman Catholic’s going to confession every week and or a month thus presumption they are receiving Holy Communion worthily.
    People having more faith in secular medical than than in the power of the keys, namely Christ Jesus healed people from being crippled, etc by absolving them of their sins.
    Sin’s of the3 parent’s and their little children get to suffer the consequences because the parent’s or grand parent’s or great grand parents ( sin’s of the parent’s past on to the 3rd or 4th generation ) didn’t make enough satisfactory amends either by invincible innocent ignorance or by culpable ignorance or actually knew and blew it off as it was nothing.

  • Pingback: Russian Professor Predicts Breakup of US in 2010 - INGunOwners
  • Son of a gun! Looks like he was right! Look at what’s happening in Arizona – the federal government has refused to protect its citizens! Look what’s happened in DC – a socialist is now president of the US!!

  • The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, how does a nation that is ethnically diverse from sea to shining sea devoid along ethnic lines? This guy is a fool think god he is one of their best! How will Mexico gain control over the South East? Mexico is close to spliting into different parts not The USA. Why don’t he just call it an Aztec empire? I would think they would go for Arazona before the South East USA really this guy is stupid and knows little about the history of North America. Mexico has white flight trust me I am a Taxi driver in Austin, Texas it is plan to see they are fleeing Mexico and buying homes in west Austin. The US immigration problem makes it hard for people of Native decent to come here legally not people of European decent. How would that whole Mexican thing go over in the South East a place where Native American ancestry is very common? Oh yeah and the kill ratio is about 100-1 btw really dude get real!

  • I just wanted to make a comment here. I read only a few posts but enough to give my opinion. I live in Canada and believe me Canada is in no situation to swallow up any part of the US. What we are all afraid of including the American people is this NAU known as the North American Union. We all don’t want any part of it. We are all different even though we have a lot in common with the US. We are great neighbors and want to keep it that way but we are very different in our outlooks and politics. There is going to be a great deal of problems in the US and it is just starting to come to fruition and there will be problems here in Canada as well since so much is multicultural. There are problems in Europe as well and nobody is going to not feel the lumps of what is coming. If you follow the alternative news instead of just mainstream you will learn so much more. All this is done by design by the globalists (secret societies and all) to get us at each others throats. If we don’t jump on one another then we win and they lose. Who do you think did away with our jobs and outsourced them to China, India, etc. Mexico is suffering badly folks. Lately Russian military aircraft have been invading our airspace here in Canada so that is a worry. I do know that they are in tanglements with our government over the Arctic to want to take some of it for their oil drilling as well as some European countries. I don’t put anything past anybody anymore for what I know what is going on. I do know that the US is bankrupt and printing money to survive which will lead to Weimar Germany type of hyperinflation. The US was the greatest economy of the world and now look at what happened. Honestly it will take more decades to pay back if not longer than what any of us will ever see in our lifetime. I do know that Russia and China have their sites on the US so everyone wake up and not let the globalists and secret societies of the world turn us all into slaves. Remember the book in school called 1984 well people that is what is happening and I used to think that it was a very stupid book – fiction – well come to find out it wasn’t fiction but reality. Take care everybody and hold on for the ride. The world’s leaders are only puppets and the real power is behind the screen.

Caroline Kennedy, The More "You Know"

Monday, December 29, AD 2008

Mrs. Caroline Kennedy is pining for the open Senate seat that is being vacated by Hillary Clinton and is battling the media perception of her entitlement.  Unfortunately Mrs. Kennedy doesn’t help her case with her constant use of you know in this interview.

(Biretta Tip: American Thinker)

UPDATED 12-30-08 A.D.

Caroline Says ‘You Know’ 142 Times– Toby Harnden, Telegraph

(Biretta Tip: Lucianne)

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Caroline Kennedy, The More "You Know"

  • There is a despiration in the background. Her realization that at 51, she’s behind the curve when it comes to Kennedy standards. Her use of nervous ‘you know’s.’ Her willingness to break bread with Al Sharpton. Her obsessiveness to meet with other people whom she would not give the time of day to before the Presidential election. Her shameless puffery of work among New York public schools, that, while admirable, amounts to resume inflation. Her children are now 20, 18, 15. Her husband is either in deep background or no longer in her life. There are also the rumors that her friendship with New York Times Co. CEO Pinch Sulzberger is a bit more than casual. To endorse Caroline Kennedy for the U.S. Senate is to ignore the slings and arrows fired at Sarah Palin in September. Midlife crisis does not a candidacy make.

  • Her meeting with Al Sharpton is a big sign of desperation. To associate oneself with a bigot like Mr. Sharpton is incredulous. In addition to dropping her married name to capitalize on her maiden name is straight out of the Clinton political handbook of expediency.

    She’s actually getting an easy pass compared to what Governor Palin went through. I can talk ad naseum about media bias, but that would be beating a dead horse.

  • Wasn’t there recently a female candidate for high office who was criticized by the MSM for her lack of experience?

  • I thought she is [was] Mrs. Schlossberg?

  • You know, the thing about her is how absolutely uncourageous she is. What has she done, you know, that has shown that she is her own person? All of her beliefs and ideologies are right in line with the leftist wing (although I think they are the main house now) of her party. True courage would be if she, you know, lived and proclaimed her alighment with ALL Catholic social teachings.

  • I thought her last name began with “P”.

  • Gabriel Austin,

    I don’t know when she dropped her married name, but I hear she did it within the last year or so.


    I agree, she seems to be having a mid-life crisis and is desperately trying to make up for it by capitalizing on her name. Camelot never existed, it was a myth made up by the MSM during JFK’s presidency. Ted Kennedy and his cousins ruined the myth and Caroline may be puting the final stake into it with this run.

  • The ivy-league princess speaking like a high school dropout. Hilarious. Or painful (if you believe in the camelot stuff)

  • Thank Heavens Princess Caroline didn’t serve as mayor of her town for two terms and get elected governor of her home state, then we would know she was unqualified based upon the standards observed by the media in the last election! Credit should be given to the Princess for overcoming the twin disadvantages of being fantastically wealthy and bearing the name Kennedy. Imagine what she could have accomplished if she had started out with nothing and possessed the last name of Palin!

  • Caroline Kennedy wrote two books on the constitution.

    Sarah Palin probabaly could not pass a high school sophomore level U.S. government class.

  • Mark,

    Apparently most elected officials cannot pass a high school level government class:

    Writing books doesn’t make one a leader. If you’re going to start requiring flawless public speaking and writing as a sign of intelligence and leadership, you might want to check the way you spelled “probably” in your post.

  • “Caroline Kennedy wrote two books on the constitution.”

    Snort! She wrote those books as much as her father, courtesy of Ted Sorenson, wrote Profiles in Courage.

    As for Palin, she accomplishes more in a month than Princess Caroline has accomplished in her entire wastrel life.

  • Pingback: You know! « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective

Obama's Internship?

Monday, December 29, AD 2008

From the most dependable news source on the Internet, the Onion.  I missed this during the campaign for some reason.  Zapatero and Obama do seem to go together, and, as in the case of Obama and many Americans  in this country, many Spaniards are not convinced that Zapatero is good for Spain.  For the sake of the country, I hope it was one whale of an internship!

(Content advisory:  A bit of bi-partisan crudity at the very end.)

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Napoleon on Christ?

On the Nativity

Thursday, December 25, AD 2008


I. The Truths of the Incarnation Never Suffer from Being Repeated
The things which are connected with the mystery of to-day’s solemn feast are well known to you, dearly-beloved, and have frequently been heard: but as yonder visible light affords pleasure to eyes that are unimpaired, so to sound hearts does the Saviour’s nativity give eternal joy; and we must not keep silent about it, though we cannot treat of it as we ought.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Merry Christmas!

A Proclamation

Wednesday, December 24, AD 2008


The twenty-fifth day of December.

  • In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world
    from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;
  • the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year after the flood;
  • the two thousand and fifteenth year from the birth of Abraham;
  • the one thousand five hundred and tenth year from Moses
    and the going forth of the people of Israel from Egypt;
  • the one thousand and thirty-second year from David’s being anointed king;
  • in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;
  • in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;
  • the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome;
  • the forty second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;
  • the whole world being at peace,
  • in the sixth age of the world,
  • Jesus Christ the eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,
    desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,
    being conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    and nine months having passed since his conception,
  • was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary,
    being made flesh.
  • The Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
  • Continue reading...

    A Taste of Christmas

    Wednesday, December 24, AD 2008

    One of the things I love most about our country is that it is not a state built to give expression to a particular “nationality” in the sense that swept the world like an plague in the 19th and 20th centuries. Our country shares a set of political ideals and cultural touchstones, but it is also a glorious mix of different traditions which we, as a nation of immigrants, have brought with us and continued to develop here.

    In honor of which — and because it seemed to me that perhaps we could use a “getting to know each other” thread around here — I take the liberty of cross posting the following from my personal blog:

    The feast of the nativity of Our Lord has traditionally been a time for feasting and the gathering of family and friends. And since taste and smell are powerful hooks for memory, many of us have intense connections to various Christmas foods and drinks. The other holiday here in the US which is heavily food-centric is Thanksgiving, yet with a few familial variations, the Thanksgiving food palette is pretty well defined. Christmas food traditions, however, are pretty various.

    Continue reading...