Netanyahu Speech Before Congress On Iran: Fist Pumps From The Midwest

iStock 20492165 MD - American and Israeli flagsMy, and many of yours, as well, old friend, Cultural Limits wrote today in the DC Gazette a Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress. Her article is linked here, and I recommend that you read it. But one paragraph really struck home with me:

For Americans starved for forceful leadership without excuses, Mr. Netanyahu’s address was a breath of fresh air.  It is very obvious that this man loves this country and respects the system it represents even if he is the leader of a different nation.  His presence was without apology  – and without constant references to his own achievements real or imagined.

Netanyahu Speech Before Congress On Iran: Fist Pumps From The Midwest ⋆ Dc Gazette.

I doubt that I need to say that I couldn’t agree any more with her. This afternoon Daniel Hannan. MEP Tweeted this, which you can see I retweeted.

It is rather refreshing to see a man address Congress who has, and likely will again put his life on the line to do “the harder right instead of the easier wrong”, isn’t it?

Here’s Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel to the United States Congress yesterday.

And just a quick note, Netanyahu thanked Congress for our help with the Iron Dome system that saved so many Israelis last summer. If you didn’t know the Israeli Iron Dome system is a spin-off of the much maligned Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI-Star Wars) that so many ridiculed President Reagan about.

CPAC 2015

Gladstone quoteI haven’t been doing much politics lately. That doesn’t mean that I no longer care, I do as much as ever. It means that for the present all we can really do is hold, and frankly I’m very disillusioned with the Republicans, who have turned into democrat (not so) lite.

Still CPAC is different. Even though they let some of the ones we derisively call RINOs talk, it’s about conservatism, and doing things that work. So, here’s a selection from last weekends CPAC 2015.

My overall thrust remains what it always has been. It is summarized quite well in the lead quote in the sidebar.

This you really want to listen to, it is that important!


And we’ll finish off with a man who knows all to well what Brent Bozell was talking about. If what you know about UKIP comes from the British press, you’ve simply been lied to. Unless I had a very good reason for voting for somebody else, and some do, I’d vote UKIP in a heartbeat.

 

P.J. O’Rourke on the Baby Boomers

It’s funny sometimes how things happen. Yesterday, I was chatting with some friends on a blog post about how the world went to hell in a handbasket between about 1963 and 1970. Specifically we were talking about how Vatican II unleashed the hordes of modernist (supposedly) Catholics in the clergy and academia, drawing on example we saw from Oxford to Notre Dame.

So last night I’m sitting here idly wondering what I’ll write about today when I run a cross this video. P. J. O’Rourke on his new book: The Baby Boom, they also talk about what may be the best book ever on politics, Parliament of Whores. It’s an outstanding video, worth more than your time in watching it. One of our generations best authors speaking about us.

Simply outstanding.

The Times, They are a Changin': As Usual

A few days ago, John O. Mcginnis, writing in The Online Library of Law and Liberty, had some refuting thoughts to Leon Wieseltier’s polemic in the NY Times Book Review.

It starts this way:

Old Complaints about New Technology

In this Sunday’s New York Times Book Review Leon Wieseltier has polemicized against the digital age. While beautifully written, its major propositions are either wrong or not wholly coherent.  All have been heard before in previous ages of technological change. While it is difficult to isolate all the sources of Wieseltier’s distemper, here are four in ascending order of their claim to be taken seriously.

1. Wieseltier claims that “the greatest thugs in the history of the cultural industry” (by which he means Amazon and the like) have destroyed bookstores and record shops. Similarly, journalists now earn less money because of competition from digital platforms. These complaints are the whining of producers displaced by competition that helps consumers. […]

Wieseltier’s complaint resembles nothing so much as those of French publishers of the late eighteenth century who complained to the National Assembly about competitors with cheaper means of production:

We request, sir, that you glance over it and lend all your influence to our demands. From these abuses of the freedom  of the press, yet greater abuses have resulted. Countless persons who can barely read have established and maintain shops in every quarter of the capital, hanging over their door their name and the title of Bookseller, which they have no scruple about usurping. We dare to hope, sir, . . . the National Assembly will take the book trade in hand . . . in view of the abuses and thefts as well as the sale of bad books with which France will soon be infected if everyone is free to do business as a bookseller.

Old Complaints about New Technology | Online Library of Law & Liberty.

He goes on to discuss Wieseltier’s apparent ignorance of the definitions of information, data, knowledge, and hypothesis, and perhaps even opinion. He also does a fair amount of complaining about economists, blaming them for quantifying everything in sight. In history I’m a bit sympathetic to the view but I believe it’s not due to the fact that a lot of things have been quantifiable, it’s due to the fact that a lot of historians wouldn’t know a narrative if it bit them on their backside. They’re just lousy writers, and we’re the poorer for it.

He also asserts that ‘Global Competiveness’ shouldn’t be the highest value of humanity. Well, he’s right and that’s the wonder of our communication systems; we can handle much more information much more efficiently, and thus do more in less time than ever before. That some people lose sight of the fact that this is not the highest role of humanity is essentially irrelevant. It’s also something that each generation has to learn for itself, to protect itself.

McGinnis ends with this:

It is a confusion to claim that the better knowledge offered by natural science or the greater leisure made possible by markets and technology mean that the enduring issues of honor, of responsibility, of love for others disappear. The nineteenth century Romantic Rebellion against the rise of natural science was wrong about many things, but it was right about this.  Even as our technology becomes more powerful, we can continue to “wander lonely as clouds.” Our inner life and moral choices are ever billowing and not able to be captured by digitization, however capacious the cloud of computation becomes.

I  think he is exactly right about that. All of these technologies are tools, to extend man’s power, knowledge, and strength. Like all tools, going back to fire, itself, they can be used for good or ill. And so the question becomes:

How will you use them?

 

Sturdy, Brave, and Above All Honourable

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the Unite...

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1955. Deutsch: Winston Churchill, 1940 bis 1945 sowie 1951 bis 1955 Premier des Vereinigten Königreichs und Literaturnobelpreisträger des Jahres 1953. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fifty years ago today, London, and most of the United Kingdom came to a stop. So did many things in America and around the world.

I have memories of that day, although they have become dimmed by time and events, not to mention the fact that twenty-four hour television was yet to come. And that events in London tend to happen very early in the morning indeed in the central United States.

For this was the day of the State Funeral of Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA. I think we all recognize his greatness, as a leader, an orator (in the best sense of the word), as an author, and even as a soldier, and ‘Former Naval Person’.

And so “The Great Commoner” was laid to rest to great acclaim from the leaders of the (still) free world as well as from the people. We can (and still do) nit-pick his political policies, foreign policy, and his military policies. But he did what he thought was right, and he did it with great gusto, and he spoke about it in words that ring down the corridors of time.

And then, to make sure he got favorable coverage in history, he wrote it himself. :)

Here’s ITV’s synopsis of the funeral from a few days after it. At the end you’ll hear what President Eisenhower told the British about how we share their pride in Churchill, an honorary citizen of the United States and half American by blood as well.

The title comes from Eisenhower’s description of how we Americans see the British, I think it still true, and I think it applies to Sir Winston as well

In a programming note, the BBC is re airing their comprehensive coverage  (4 hours and 15 minutes worth). this is the link, although frankly I don’t know if we will be able to see it outside the UK.

Alone and Defenseless

The Equalizer

The Equalizer

Although as we have often said here, protection from criminal acts is not, and never was, the purpose of our second amendment, its purpose is to allow ourselves to defend ourselves against a criminal government, it is a comforting side benefit. It is also one that the cousins, who taught us the lesson, forgot and gave away.

But some are thinking about it again, not so much with regard to its real purpose as spelled out here but, in response to the terror threat, which is certainly valid, both currently and historically.

[…]

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

[…]

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;[…]

From the English Bill of Rights, 1689, and if you’ve been paying attention you will hear echoes of Magna Charta here. This is the primary source document for our American Bill of Rights, and why we defend our ancient rights, so fiercely.

But we do so alone, only America still has some most of those rights. But, perhaps some Brits are wakening up finally. This is from American Thinker on 23 January of 2015.

Alone and Defenseless: A UK Citizen’s call for arms

In August 2014 the independent government advisory group in the UK known as JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) raised the threat level for the entire UK (including Northern Ireland) to “Severe,” one step down from the maximum Critical level, where it has remained to this day some 5 months on. In the words of the conservative home secretary two days ago — attacks in the UK are “very likely.

The threat of marauding gunmen in a city, so vividly illustrated at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Kosher supermarket, has been clearly apparent to western nations since the horrific Mumbai attacks in 2008. MI5 have confirmed that the Syrian arm of a resurgent al-Qaeda is planning similar attacks against the UK, possibly by British jihadists who have already returned from fighting in Syria or Iraq. They include plans to blow up a passenger jet, employ Mumbai style shootings in crowded places or even hit-and-run attacks using vehicles (an attack style employed in France in Christmas 2014). Andrew Parker (Director General of the security service MI5) said the number of random “crude and potentially deadly” plots from “lone wolf” extremists was increasing. In a stark warning, he said: “Although we and our partners try our utmost, we know we cannot hope to stop everything.”

This is where we find ourselves now. Every citizen in Europe and the UK faces the risk of an Islamic attack merely while going about normal day-to-day business. UK citizens in particular face this risk whilst being denied weapons of self defense. In the past I have fully and enthusiastically supported the UK’s complete ban on hand guns. But immediately after the killing of Lee Rigby I began to reconsider the wisdom of that ban and I now utterly oppose it. As things stand in the UK, hand guns are illegal. For those shotguns you could own, extremely strict licensing specifically disallows self defense as a motive for ownership and so the old adage “In countries where guns are illegal, only the criminals have guns” is the frankly mad situation we now have in the UK.

Articles: Alone and Defenseless: A UK Citizen’s call for arms.

Good luck to him, he’s right but, I doubt he’ll ever convince many of his fellow subjects, let alone HM Government.

And all of us should remember

When you need the police in seconds, they’re only minutes away

and in Britain the armed police may be hours away.

%d bloggers like this: