Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln

In one of her very first posts here, Jessica posed a question, “What is America for Mummy?” It’s a question that has always haunted us from Winthrop’s sermon about the Cty on the Hill to last night. While then and now I really like Jessica’s answer, it is incomplete. But one of the two greatest of American Presidents also thought about it, so maybe what he said could amplify her point.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty—or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,—with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,—we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these [Independence Day] meetings in better humor with ourselves—we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations.

But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of “don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down” [Douglas’s “popular sovereignty” position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice—“Hit him again”], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden.

That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge [Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices—“me” “no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of “no, no,”] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

Abraham Lincoln on July 10, 1858, as he ran for the Senate against Stephen Douglass via Scott Johnson at PowerLine. Lincoln, along with Washington are our two greatest presidents. But Lincoln was also perhaps the best lawyer in the United States before he was president. In truth, this speech may well be what secured him the Republican nomination. And like the quote from Silent Cal in the sidebar, he recognized that any movement from what the founders wrote and said was of necessity a backwards movement, because as Coolidge said, if all men are created equal, that really is final. There can be no progress beyond that point, all movement from it creates inequality.

Something else strikes me currently, in that series of posts Jessica also wrote how Churchill and De Gaulle were outsiders from their political societies. She was correct, they were. But they both understood their peoples better than the insiders. I suspect that also applied to Lincoln, and it is very clear that it also did to Reagan, and does to Trump as well. The political class is not the people, and I suspect it never has been. Sometimes, rarely, that might be a good thing, but evidence saying so is mighty slim.

One of the wisest things Jessica ever wrote here was the last paragraph of that article, and it will serve to end this one as well…

In this case, in 1940, the ‘fools’ were two men whose status as outsiders had made them think hard and fast about their countries. They saw beyond the tawdry politics of the day to the reality of what France and what Britain were, and could again be.  The Bible tells us that without vision, the people perish – in 1940 two men stood forth in Europe with a vision sharpened by their status as outsiders – sometimes that difference of perspective makes for a better vision.

Through Adversity to the Stars

Well, in featuring our Easter series, we missed something yesterday. Yes, we missed April Fools Day, but that is not what I had in mind.

1 April 2018 was the centenary of the Royal Air Force. Almost the oldest air force in the world. Apparently, Finland’s is a  few months older, but was in a civil war at the time and had very few aircraft. Even then Britain Royal Flying Corps and Royal Naval Air Service were formidable air forces. Here’s a bit about how it came about.

You have no doubt noticed that Britain consolidated the Navy and Army air services in forming the RAF, something America never did. In fact, to this day, we have three full-scale air forces: The US Air Force, the Navy’s air force, and the Marine’s air force. They all are multipurpose but have different emphases. USAF is ground-based, USN mostly carrier based, and USMC again mostly carrier based but geared toward air support of ground forces. But the US services are quite a lot bigger than Britain’s, and by the time the USAF was formed, in 1948, well, the various air services were far too entrenched and had much too much history for it to happen.

Then this, where the RAF saved Britain and the free world. If they had lost, it is highly unlikely that the war would have been won.

Churchill was never known for understatement, but truly he did when he said –

The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and by their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

That is part of the story, the easy part, defending one’s home. But defending oneself does not win wars. Wars are won by destroying anything that supports the enemy’s war effort. And Britain did superbly at that. That it is still controversial is appalling, wars, especially existential wars for survival, are fought with any available weapon. Bomber command did nothing that the Wehrmacht did not do at Stalingrad or the Red Army at Berlin. This is a fairly non-biased story of that.

Like the 8th United States Army Air Force, Bomber Command took horrendous casualties but saved many British and American soldiers lives. Was it as effective as they hoped? No. Giulio Douhet was wrong. Wars are not won by air campaigns, they are won by men with rifles and bayonets. But many of those soldiers lived because of the men in the bombers. And we didn’t have to fight the third round, against the Soviet Union, because those same men went on to convince the Soviets that they would be destroyed, as the Germans had been.

And it continues, we saw an example in our own time when a British Vulcan bomber strike mission launched in England struck Port Stanley in the Falkland Islands, disrupting the Argentinian command and control, easing the way for the ground forces to recover the island.

And now, a hundred years from its founding, the RAF is still looking to its future, as it too welcomes the F35 Lightning II into the inventory.

One of the things that caught my eye, that F35 on display bears the markings of one of the US Marine Corp squadrons (VMF). And that too is appropriate, since US Marine Corps wings will sometimes be assigned to Britain’s new carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, which looks like it will be second only in power to an American fleet carrier. And note this, the United Kingdom is the only power that the United States trusts enough to place entire units of our military under their command. Ever, this is the first time it has happened.

Congratulations to the Royal Air Force, and here’s to many more years of keeping the peace and fighting the wars of a free people.

The title is the accepted translation of the RAF motto.

And the final installment of our Easter series will come up at noon today.


Churchill: the Last Whig?

I think I may have run this before but, it’s worth seeing again. It shows why many of us, while revering Churchill in many ways, have reservations about him, and certainly daren’t call him a conservative.

Nice start to the week, I think, four British historians on Sir Winston

The title comes from Dr. Charmley in the video. Enjoy!

The Top Five Events in 2014

OK, I admit it, this is a bit heavy (not to mention long) for a Saturday post but, this type of post hasn’t been seen here in quite a while, and I think Stratfor hit the nail very squarely on the head here. I’ll let you read it, and then I’ll have a few comments.

By George Friedman

‘Tis the season to make lists, and a list shall be made. We tend to see each year as extraordinary, and in some senses, each year is. But in a broader sense, 2014 was merely another year in a long chain of human triumph and misery. Wars have been waged, marvelous things have been invented, disease has broken out, and people have fallen in love. Nonetheless, lists are called for, and this is my list of the five most important events of 2014.

1: Europe’s Persistent Decline

The single most important event in 2014 was one that did not occur: Europe did not solve its longstanding economic, political and social problems. I place this as number one because regardless of its decline, Europe remains a central figure in the global system. The European Union’s economy is the largest in the world, taken collectively, and the Continent remains a center of global commerce, science and culture. Europe’s inability to solve its problems, or really to make any significant progress, may not involve armies and explosions, but it can disrupt the global system more than any other factor present in 2014.

The vast divergence of the European experience is as troubling as the general economic malaise. Experience is affected by many things, but certainly the inability to find gainful employment is a central feature of it. The huge unemployment rates in Spain, Greece and southern Europe in general profoundly affect large numbers of people. The relative prosperity of Germany and Austria diverges vastly from that of southern Europe, so much so that it calls into question the European Union’s viability.

Indeed, we have seen a rise of anti-EU parties not only in southern Europe but also in the rest of Europe as well. None have crossed the threshold to power, but many are strengthening along with the idea that the benefits of membership in a united Europe, constituted as it is, are outweighed by the costs. Greece will have an election in the coming months, and it is possible that a party favoring withdrawal from the eurozone will become a leading power. The United Kingdom’s UKIP favors withdrawal from the European Union altogether.

There is significant and growing risk that either the European Union will have to be revised dramatically to survive or it will simply fragment. The fragmentation of the European Union would shift authority formally back to myriad nation states. Europe’s experience with nationalism has been troubling, to say the least — certainly in the first part of the 20th century. And when a region as important as Europe redefines itself, the entire world will be affected.

Therefore, Europe’s failure to make meaningful progress in finding a definitive solution to a problem that began to emerge six years ago has overwhelming global significance. It also raises serious questions about whether the problem is soluble. It seems to me that if it were, it would have been solved, given the threat it poses. With each year that passes, we must be open to the possibility that this is no longer a crisis that will pass, but a new, permanent European reality. This is something we have been pointing to for years, and we see the situation as increasingly ominous because it shows no signs of improving.

2: Ukrainian and Russian Crises

Historically, tensions between Russia and the European Peninsula and the United States have generated both wars and near wars and the redrawing of the borders of both the peninsula and Russia. The Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II and the Cold War all ended in dramatic redefinitions of Europe’s balance of power and its map. Following from our first major event of the year, the events in Ukraine and the Russian economic crisis must rank as the second most important event.

Stratfor forecast several years ago that there would be a defining crisis in Ukraine that would be the opening to a new and extended confrontation between the European Peninsula and the United States on one side and Russia on the other. We have also forecast that while Russia has regional power, its long-term sustainability is dubious. The same internal factors that brought the Soviet Union crashing down haunt the Russian Federation. We assumed that the “little Cold War” would begin in the mid-2010s, but that Russian decline would not begin until about 2020.

We have seen the first act, and we continue to believe that the final act isn’t imminent, but it is noteworthy that Russia is reeling internally at the same time that it is trying to cope with events in Ukraine. We do not expect Russia to collapse, nor do we expect the Ukrainian crisis to evolve into a broader war. Nevertheless, it seems to me that with this crisis we have entered into a new historical phase in which a confrontation with significant historical precedents is re-emerging. The possibility of conflict is not insignificant; the possibility that the pressures on Russia, internally and externally, might not speed up the country’s own crisis cannot be discounted. Certainly the consequences of oil prices, internal economic dislocation, the volatility of the ruble and sanctions all must give us pause.

The Russians think of this as an event triggered by the United States. In the newspaper Kommersant, I was quoted as saying that the American coup in Ukraine was the most blatant in history. What I actually said was that if this was a coup, it was the most blatant in history, since the United States openly supported the demonstrators and provided aid for the various groups, and it was quite open in supporting a change in government. The fact that what I said was carefully edited is of no importance, as I am not important in this equation. It is important in that it reveals a Russian mindset that assumes that covert forces are operating against Russia. There are forces operating against it, but there is nothing particularly covert about them.

The failures of Russian intelligence services to manage the Ukrainian crisis and the weakening of the Russian economy raise serious questions about the future of Russia, since the Russian Federal Security Service is a foundation of the Russian state. And if Russia destabilizes, it is the destabilization of a nation with a massive nuclear capability. Thus, this is our second most important event.

3: The Desynchronization of the Global Economy

Europe is predicted to see little to no growth in 2015, with some areas in recession or even depression already. China has not been able to recover its growth rate since 2008 and is moving sideways at best. The United States announced a revision indicating that it grew at a rate of 5 percent in the third quarter of 2014. Japan is in deep recession. That the major economic centers of the world are completely out of synch with each other, not only statistically but also structurally, indicates that a major shift in how the world works may be underway.

The dire predictions for the U.S. economy that were floated in the wake of the 2008 crisis have not materialized. There has been neither hyperinflation nor deflation. The economy did not collapse. Rather, it has slowly but systematically climbed out of its hole in terms of both growth and unemployment. The forecast that China would shortly overtake the United States as the world’s leading economy has been delayed at least. The forecast that Europe would demonstrate that the “Anglo-Saxon” economic model is inferior to Europe’s more statist and socially sensitive approach has been disproven. And the assumption that Japan’s dysfunction would lead to massive defaults also has not happened.

The desynchronization of the international system raises questions about what globalization means, and whether it has any meaning at all. But a major crisis is occurring in economic theory. The forecasts made by many leading economists in the wake of 2008 have not come to pass. Just as Milton Friedman replaced John Maynard Keynes as the defining theorist, we are awaiting a new comprehensive explanation for how the economic world is working today, since neither Keynes nor Friedman seem sufficient any longer. A crisis in economic theory is not merely an academic affair. Investment decisions, career choices and savings plans all pivot on how we understand the economic world. At the moment, the only thing that can be said is that the world is filled with things that need explaining.

4: The Disintegration of the Sykes-Picot World

Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot were British and French diplomats who redrew the map of the region between the Mediterranean Sea and Persia after World War I. They invented countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. Some of these nation-states are in turmoil. The events in Syria and Iraq resemble the events in Lebanon a generation ago: The central government collapses, and warlords representing various groups take control of fragments of the countries, with conflicts flowing across international boundaries. Thus the Iraqi crisis and the Syrian crisis have become hard to distinguish, and all of this is affecting internal Lebanese factions.

This is important in itself. The question is how far the collapse of the post-World War I system will go. Will the national governments reassert themselves in a decisive way, or will the fragmentation continue? Will this process of disintegration spread to other heirs of Sykes and Picot? This question is more important than the emergence of the Islamic State. Radical Islamism is a factor in the region, and it will assert itself in various organizational forms. What is significant is that while a force, the Islamic State is in no position to overwhelm other factions, just as they cannot overwhelm it. Thus it is not the Islamic State, but the fragmentation and the crippling of national governments, that matters. Syrian President Bashar al Assad is just a warlord now, and the government in Baghdad is struggling to be more than just another faction.

Were the dynamics of the oil markets today the same as they were in 1973, this would rank higher. But the decline in consumption by China and the rise of massive new sources of oil reduce the importance of what happens in this region. It still matters, but not nearly as much as it did. What is perhaps the most important question is whether this presages the rise of Turkey, which is the only force historically capable of stabilizing the region. I expect that to happen in due course. But it is not clear that Turkey can take this role yet, even if it wished to.

5: The Births of Asher and Mira

I was given two new grandchildren this year. For me, this must be listed as one of the five major events of 2014. I am aware that it is less significant to others, but I not only want to announce them, I also want to point out an important truth. The tree of life continues to grow new branches inexorably, even in the face of history, adversity and suffering. The broad forces of history and geopolitics shape our lives, but we live our lives in the small things. As much as I care about the other four matters — and I do — I care much more for the birth and lives of Asher and Mira and my other grandchild, Ari.

Life is experience in the context of history. It is lived in intimate contact with things that history would not notice and that geopolitics would not see as significant. “There are more things … than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” Hamlet said to his friend Horatio. Indeed, and their names are Asher, Mira and Ari. This must not be forgotten.

Have a happy New Year’s, and may God grant you peace and joy in your lives, in spite of the hand of history and geopolitics.

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

The Top Five Events in 2014 is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

And my take on these:

1. I’ve been saying for as long as I’ve been writing this blog (actually longer) that Europe is dying. Since I have many UK readers, this is the background as to why I would likely support UKIP, out here in the colonies is a vast reservoir of liking, sympathy, and yes love for Mummy, most of us would very much like it if you were to regain your heritage and come grow with us. It worked well for the Tudors, and I think it would work even better for us all today. As Winston Churchill said, “The same language, the same hymns, and, more or less, the same ideals.”  As William Wordsworth said in 1807,

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spoke, the faith and morals held.

Your elites have had their fling with the Europeans again, it’s time to come home, where you are loved and appreciated. Freedom matters, guys, too many of our people are buried around the world not to remember our heritage.

2. Russia has bitten off far more than it can chew, I think and will choke. What happens then is anyone’s guess. It a lot like 1979 all over again but Russia is a lot less stable than the USSR was, and a lot more uninhibited. You’ve noted I’m sure that the petroleum glut has reduced Russia’s GDP by up to 50%, and American production in government fields is still down by about 17% from its peak. If we drill on government lands and Saudi Arabia, who wants to hurt Iran, keeps producing, what happens? I don’t know and I doubt anyone really does.

3. We’re not in particularly good shape ourselves, but compared to the rest of the world, US, UK, Canada and the rest of Oceania, are pulling away, although not as fast as we did in the nineteenth century. I don’t know enough in this field to offer predictions but, again we’re “better together”, as we heard a lot of last year. If we can bring India along, we have a world beater started.

4. I don’t think the Sykes-Picot world will be coming back, we’ best be thinking about what happens next. And remember that Middle Eastern oil is becoming less important by the week. What happens when the Saudi’s go broke?

5. And finally, Congratulation to Mr. Friedman and his family. He’s right, whatever happens life goes on.

Cannadine on Britain, America, and Churchill

There’s no shortage of news, as I’m sure you know, and I suspect you know nearly as much about it, or soon will, as I do. So let’s do something else.

Like so many of you, I greatly admire Winston Churchill, one of the truly great men, as both a statesman and as an author, and as one who made sure history presented him in the best possible light—by writing that history himself.

Professor Sir David Cannadine is Whitney J Oates professor of History at Princeton Univ, and  Visiting Professor of History at New College of the Humanities in London. He is a specialist in 19th and 20th century British and American history. This is a very interesting lecture if you like Churchill, and maybe even if you don’t. It’s worth an hour of your time, and unfortunately, I don’t have transcript available.

A couple of things here that I don’t quite agree with, I think the professor has spent most of his time in the US on the east coast because I think the feeling for Churchill is quite different in the country at large compared to the east coast, and especially the State Department, which has never been exactly Brit friendly as near as I can tell. The uproar over the return of the Churchill bust back in 2009 would indicate that to me, anyway. It struck me as discordant when he commented on Churchill’s amazement at going across the country, I suspect it might him as well.

Following from that, I think he underestimates the feeling and respect for Britain that runs quite deep in America. The best evidence for that recently would be how the vote in Parliament to not go into Syria seemed to almost bind the US as well, at least to the point that Congress didn’t dare authorize it.

But with those caveats, this is a very valuable contribution to our understanding of the twentieth century history of the English-speaking people.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friends and Family

w6401This morning in Statuary Hall (the old house chamber) of the US Capitol. a new piece will be unveiled. This will be one of the very few pieces of statuary that is not of an American. But in many ways, it is an American. His mother was an American, and in the rarest of honors, on 9 April 1963 by “Act of the Senate and House of Representative of the United States, in Congress assembled” the President was directed to proclaim that he would be henceforth be an honorary citizen of the United States. This was the first time that had ever happened. It has happened only six times since for these people

  • Casimir Pulaski who was mortally wounded in action at the Brandywine
  • The Marquis de Lafayette, who amongst everything else, was the first foreigner to address Congress
  • Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu [Mother Teresa]
  • William and Hannah Callowhill Penn
  • Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish Secretary to Hungary in World War II who acting under American directives and using American money managed to save nearly 100,000 Hungarian Jews from the Germans, and who was detained by the Soviets in 1945, and never freed.

It may be the most select group in modern history.

This man so honored is, of course, Sir Winston Churchill.

The Speaker will host, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid are expected to attend.

We are reminded, and my title comes from, a dinner in Glasgow, Scotland, in January of 1941, where Harry Hopkins, the personal representative of President Roosevelt, having dinner with Churchill, his physician Sir Charles Wilson (later Lord Moran), and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston. Hopkins looked at Churchill and said,

I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return. Well I am going to quote you one verse from that Book of Books in the truth of which Mr. Johnston’s mother and my own Scottish mother were brought up: ‘Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.’

Then he added very quietly: “Even to the end.”

“I was surprised to find the P.M. in tears,” Lord Moran wrote in his diary. “He knew what it meant.”

And so came about the first inkling of the Grand Alliance that would lead the free world for the rest of the century, once Harry Hopkins was convinced that the Empire was willing to do what had to be done to win through. And that it was able to.

It is being placed by invitation of Speaker Boehner and pursuant to this resolution.

H. Res. 497       Whereas Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of the 
     United Kingdom from 1940 through 1945 and from 1951 through 
       Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom led the 
     Allied Powers during World War Two;
       Whereas President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Sir Winston 
     Churchill formed a bond that united freedom-loving people throughout the world 
     to defeat tyranny in Europe and Asia;
       Whereas, on December 26, 1941, Sir Winston Churchill 
     addressed a Joint Session of Congress;
       Whereas during that speech, Sir Winston Churchill said, 
     ``Sure I am that this day--now we are the masters of our 
     fate; that the task which has been set us is not above our 
     strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our 
     endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an 
     unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us. In 
     the words of the Psalmist, `He shall not be afraid of evil 
     tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.' Not all 
     the tidings will be evil.'';
       Whereas December 26, 2011, is the 70th anniversary of this 
     speech to a joint session of Congress;
       Whereas Sir Winston Churchill was made an Honorary Citizen 
     of the United States by an act of Congress in 1963;
       Whereas Sir Winston Churchill was awarded the Congressional 
     Gold Medal in 1969;
       Whereas Sir Winston Churchill's persistence, determination 
     and resolve remains an inspiration to freedom-fighters all 
     over the world;
       Whereas the United Kingdom remains and will forever be an 
     important and irreplaceable ally to the United States; and
       Whereas the United States Capitol does not currently 
     appropriately recognize the contributions of Sir Winston 
     Churchill or that of the United Kingdom: Now, therefore, be 
       Resolved, That the Architect of the Capitol place an 
     appropriate statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the 
     United States Capitol at a location directed by the House 
     Fine Arts Board in consultation with the Speaker.

The bust is being provided by The Churchill Centre

%d bloggers like this: