VDH Lays It Out

Sign at a protest outside Trump Tower in New York City, February 8, 2018. (Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)

Victor Davis Hanson in National Review brings the summary of the situation in the US now. It’s not a pleasant picture…

When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering. Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution. Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.

Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler.

Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing. State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool. Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

And more. Keep reading: Revolution and Worse to Come.

Mind, there’s not a word he writes that I disagree with, except that he might be overly optimistic.

 […]The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.

That’s an acute observation, what we are seeing is the last act of the revolution, the lack of which differentiates the American Revolution from all others – the descent into tyranny. It was the original French revolution that first talked about equality of outcomes, while the British quiet revolution and American Revolution stressed equality under the law. It’s a huge difference, one between freedom and slavery.

VDH ends with this:

The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.

He may well be right. But in a way that begs the question. Is it proper for America to tolerate this fifth column in our midst? They have proved themselves at most disloyal to the ethos of the American Revolution and our founding documents.

Advertisements

Other stuff, mostly in Britain

Well, I’ve nothing much prepared for today, so let’s get a bit more bashing of Britain out of our blood, shall we. Then perhaps we can move on. I’m quite pleased, by the way, that yesterday’s article drawing on Solzhenitsyn was our most read post in over a month, and I think the most read ever, in the UK. Still lot’s of good and decent folks there, just not in authority. Let’s start with why the mayor of Londonistan thinks Trump should not visit

There some good stuff in that, as for visiting London, well I tend at this point (admittedly still in pretty hot blood) think instead of visiting England, Trump should appoint a commission to look into the lack of civil rights in the country.

Peter Hitchens is not right yet about emigrating, but the trend is not favorable, and I would seriously consider it if I planned on having kids. Who wants to watch the government starve your sick kid to death.

The Council of Ealing (it’s in west London, BTW) has passed an ordinance prohibiting prayer vigils within a hundred meters (328 ft, for normal people) of a human abattoir abortion provider. There is no record at all of the people, mostly Catholics, interfering at all with those going to and from the so-called clinic. From the Catholic Herald.

They accused Ealing Council of violating basic rights to free speech, prayer, and free assembly

A group of mothers has lodged a High Court challenge against a so-called “buffer zone” outside an abortion clinic today.

Alina Dulgheriu, a mother who was helped by a pro-life vigil, filed the challenge to Ealing Council’s decision to enforce a Public Space Protection Order mandating a 100m (328 ft) exclusion zone around an abortion clinic.

Ms Dulgheriu was joined at the press conference by other mothers who had been supported by vigils. “Without sufficient justification, Ealing council has decided to criminalise otherwise lawful behaviour…to criminalise charitable activity that is needed by some of the most vulnerable women in our society,” she said.

Situation normal for the UK these days.

And a bit more on Alfie, more even-tempered than I can manage, but just as accurate, from Sohrab Ahmari writing in Commentary.

[…]The cases are silly, but the chilling effect on free speech in Britain is all too serious—and real.

That brings us back to Alfie. As the case has progressed, the political, religious, and class fault lines running through it have become ever more visible. Alfie’s parents are working class and Catholic. Judging by the social-media outpouring, many of their supporters hail from a similar class firmament: the type who voted for Brexit, who read the Sun and the Daily Mail, who are puzzled by all this talk about gender and newfangled pronouns, and who quietly cheer Donald Trump across the pond.

On the other side stands an administrative elite that has had it with “these people”—with their voting habits, their sentimentality and patriotism, their common sense on Islam and integration, and, well, their failure to understand that it is up to experts, not parents, to discern the “best interests” of a toddler like Alfie. The members of this elite worry a lot these days about the health of liberal-democratic order. An entire cottage industry has sprung up, churning out books and policy briefs on how to preserve democracy against populists and uncouth, excitable majorities. But fair-minded observers of the Alfie Evans debacle can decide for themselves which camp poses the greater threat to freedom in Britain.

Never in all my life did I think I would see such words published about Britain, let alone agree with them completely. Sad days, my friends.

In other news, I understand that the White House correspondents hosted a very ugly bash the White House Press Secretary dinner Saturday night. Inventive group, these cretins, always finding more ways to alienate themselves from the people of America. Rather like the London elites, in fact.

 

Life, Liberty, and Property; Part I

I’m bringing back some of my earlier posts since I’m partially taking some time off. Besides, these posts make some points that need reinforcement. They form sort of a basic, underpinning to American conservatism, which is different from that anywhere else in the world.

“Life, Liberty, and Property.” 

I know, you are thinking I misquoted Jefferson. Actually, I didn’t. I seem to remember that the first draft read, after markup:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property the pursuit of Happiness.

Most of the theory here goes back to John Locke originally. Much of it, through Locke’s employment by the Earl of Shaftesbury, underpinned the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights, and the founding of the Whig Party in England. It also underpins the libertarian cast of the American founding.

Shaftesbury also developed the Carolina Plantations. It is believed that Locke wrote, virtually unaided the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which included a parliament of property owners, separation of church and state, and military conscription, which seems rather surprising.

We can easily show this with a few quotes:

“The Magistrate,” he declared, “ought not to forbid the Preaching or Professing of any Speculative Opinions in any Church, because they have no manner of relation to the Civil Rights of the Subjects. If a Roman Catholick believe that to be really the Body of Christ, which another man calls Bread, he does no injury therby to his Neighbour. If a Jew do not believe the New Testament to be the Word of God, he does not thereby alter any thing in mens Civil Rights. If a Heathen doubt of both Testaments, he is not therefore to be punished as a pernicious Citizen.”

Be it noted that here he shows a toleration of Catholics that was not particularly evident in his writing on England and Holland. The reason for that is the French King Louis XIV, by far the most powerful Catholic king and opponent of England and Holland, not to mention the tyrannical tendencies of the Stuart (and Catholic) kings of England.

and

“Reason, which is that Law,” Locke declared, “teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” Locke envisoned a rule of law: “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.”

Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

That implies that it is quite an old concept, as indeed it is. It goes on back to the concept that ” A (free) man’s home is his castle”. Thus we see that it is very deeply ingrained in Anglo-Saxon (and associated) cultures, indeed. The wording changed because it caused a ruckus in committee (some sources say because of slavery).

You’re probably thinking it a small change. In some ways, it is but in some ways it’s not so small. Let’s look at the next big revolution, the French and their slogan “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”. Specifically, think about the difference between “Created equal” and “equality”. Would I like to be equal to Sam Walton? Yeah, but I don’t want to work that hard.

Judith Miller (and others) assert that revolutions are plays in three acts, and they are correct.

Act 1: The people get fed up with the ruling class and revolt.

Act 2: The people erect a new form of government.

Act 3: A (or a group of) despot takes control of the revolution and takes tyrannical power. (see Robespierre and Napoleon, or Lenin if you prefer)

Always happens that way, except once: The American Revolution. Our Revolution stopped after Act 2. That’s what we mean when we talk about America as still the original revolutionaries.

Why? the French and Russian revolutions were revolts of peasants. I mean no disrespect, they are as worthy of respect as anybody, but they were uneducated peasants. The American patriots were educated freeman. Boy, were they educated. They had read Plato, and Plutarch, and Cicero, and Burke, and Voltaire and who knows who else. Two (Jefferson and Franklin) were members of the Royal Society many had been military officers (although mostly not regulars) and most were men of property and substance.

What’s my point? They knew history, they knew what happens to men of property when the mob takes over and they took care that it didn’t happen here.

Most of the information on John Locke and all the quotes are drawn from: John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. There is quite a lot more there and it all very good. I expanded the section on Locke considerably, (originally I misattributed the concept to Burke, and chose to correct it here). And so we will continue tomorrow.

 

 

Another Wild Sunday Morning!

And a joke, from Ace’s

Two engineering students were biking across a university campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”

The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday, minding my own business, when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike, threw it to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.

The first engineer nodded approvingly and said, “Good choice: The clothes probably wouldn’t have fit you anyway.”

From the Speccie:

On Tuesday Captain Shults contacted air traffic control shortly after 11AM and, after identifying her Boeing 737 as Southwest 1380 and noting that it was carrying “149 souls,” she calmly advised them that she had a serious in-flight emergency that required her to put the plane on the ground immediately. ATC then asked, “Where would you like to go? Which airport?”

The following is a condensed version of Captain Shults’ response:

The closest one, Philadelphia. We’re single-engine descending… We have a part of the aircraft missing… If you would have them roll the emergency trucks. It’s on engine number 1, captain’s side… could you have the medical meet us there on the runway, as well? We’ve got injured passengers.

Shults conveyed all of this in the same unemotional tones most people would use to order a ham sandwich. She then landed the plane as smoothly as if she were putting it down after a routine flight. Her next act, after graciously thanking the ATC guys for their help, was to go back and speak with each of the passengers as she and the rest of the crew helped them off the aircraft.

If I read correctly, she is also the first woman pilot of the Navy’s F-18. I’d fly with her anytime, anywhere. BZ Captain.

 

Of course!

Mostly from Bookworm and PowerLine as always.

And you know, for the last 53 weeks (about) we have managed at least one post per day, and I’m tired. So, I’ve lined up some of my best posts (in my opinion, anyway) for you, and I’m gonna take a few days mostly off, although I’ll look in some, so comments are welcome. Enjoy.

Ah, here’s my ride, I’m outta here!

 

 

Alfie’s Saga Continues

This is one of those stories that won’t let go of my imagination. We have spoken about it before, as far back as August 1st of last year, and again on last December 26th. On that occasion my friend Caroline Farrow was forced by a British court to edit her post saying this:

Edited Wednesday 20th December 2017: The first version of this blog was published on Monday 18th December 2017, the day before the Directions Hearing in the High Court. At this hearing, an anonymity order was put in place which prohibited publication in the UK media of the names of the medical professionals involved in the case. Out of courtesy for this order, passed on Tuesday 19th December, I have therefore removed the names of the individuals, even though this blog is published on an international platform, for an international readership.

I was able to verify the involvement of one of the named individuals in another well-known case via a number of independent sources, which I already knew at the time of the case.

While I respect Caroline’s decision and will comply, frankly it is bullshit. If you are not man enough to take responsibility for what you do, you have no business making decisions for yourself, let alone anyone else, especially a helpless baby. It makes a damning story even worse, I think.

That is still true, and here it is, 4 and a half months later, and there is no movement. A few days ago Caroline Tweeted this:

And yes, she is taking some heat from some very callous people, not to mention those who actually believe in the Stalinist NHS, which again, in this case, seeks to kill a baby, even though they don’t even have a clue what is wrong with him.

Steven Woolfe wrote in The Catholic Herald about this some days ago, as well, saying:

Alfie’s dad, Tom, and I recently met with hospital officials. At the meeting, we offered video evidence of Alfie’s improved condition, pledges from other specialist European hospitals to treat Alfie and details of a second air ambulance that adhered to the hospital’s requirements.

We left the meeting with the view that Alder Hey had agreed to a further internal meeting where they would consider the points we raised and our new evidence to support Alfie receiving a second opinion in Italy. Tom was overcome at what we all believed was a small chance of hope for Alfie.

However, within a few short hours, and without analysing Alfie’s parents’ video evidence, Alder Hey had again applied to the High Court to set a date to turn-off Alfie’s life support.

But, irrespective of that ruling, the ultimate decision to switch-off life support remains in Alder Hey’s hands. The opportunity for Alfie to receive a second medical opinion and to undergo pioneering treatment in Italy is still available.

The behaviour of Alder Hey and its Trust is incomprehensible. Senior management continue to bury their head in the sand, ignoring compelling evidence that Alfie has a fighting chance. Alfie’s parents find themselves fighting a bureaucratic behemoth with its enormous resources and vast legal budget.

Instead, Alder Hey seem more concerned about saving face than saving a young child’s life. As we have seen from Charlie Gard and Ashya King, Alfie’s situation is not without precedent.

Totally despicable, there is simply no excuse for torturing this baby for all these months, simply because the so-called medical professionals don’t want to look as evil as they are.

Last Sunday, Pope Francis…

Pope Francis used his Sunday Regina Coeli address to pray for Alfie Evans, saying his situation is “very painful and complex”.

The Pope called for Alfie’s human dignity to be respected, and said those who are terminally ill should be cared for “with the unanimous” support of family members and medical professionals.

The pontiff also prayed for Vincent Lambert, a 42-year-old Frenchman who has been quadriplegic for 10 years. His hospital recently ordered the removal of his food and water, against the wishes of his parents and the advice of other doctors.

“I entrust to your prayers persons like Vincent Lambert in France, and little Alfie Evans in England, and [persons] in various countries who live, sometimes for a long time, in a state of serious infirmity, and are medically assisted for their basic needs,” the Pope prayed.

“They are delicate, very painful and complex situations. Let us pray that every sick person is always respected in his dignity and cared for in a way that is suitable to his condition, with the unanimous support of family members, doctors and other medical professionals, with great respect for life.”

This happened after Tom, Alfie’s father met with the Pope, and Tom was reassured that Alfie could be treated at a hospital affiliated with the Vatican at no cost to the NHS, as well as reassuring him that he would receive diplomatic level support from the Vatican.

Sadly, The Catholic Herald reported today that:

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales have defended Alder Hey hospital’s handling of dispute over seriously ill child Alfie Evans.

Hours after Alfie’s father, Tom Evans, met Pope Francis, the Bishops Conference of England and Wales said the “professionalism and care for severely ill children shown at Alder Hey Hospital is to be recognised and affirmed”.

During the meeting, Tom Evans begged Pope Francis to grant his son “asylum”, saying that British hospitals “do not want to give disabled children the chance of life and instead assisting in the death of children.”

“If your holiness helps our child you will be potentially saving the future for our children in the UK, especially the disabled,” he added.

Following the meeting, Pope Francis mentioned Alfie Evans at his general audience on Wednesday, saying: “I would like to reiterate and strongly confirm that the only master over life, from beginning to natural end, is God! And our duty, our duty is to do everything to preserve life.”

Such is Catholicism in Britain these days, at least as bad as the Church of England, although there are honorable exceptions in both churches, there are very few bishops included. A most unChristian stand, from the ‘leaders’ of a church that grew originally because of its respect for life from conception to the grave. We have a right to expect better.

Perhaps we shouldn’t expect better things from the atheist, bureaucratic NHS, who apparently has found it congenial to bury both its mistakes and its ignorance. But we have a right to expect basic Christianity from the Church. Well, we aren’t seeing that in Britain these days.

The Week in Pictures

And that is the name of that tune!

And heeere’s Brenna!

And some friends! Call it a bonus!

From Bookworm, PowerLine and Twitchy, have a good day!

%d bloggers like this: