Displaying posts published in

May 2018

President Ronald Reagan: Memorial Day Ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia May 26, 1986

EXCERPTS- READ THE WHOLE SPEECH AT http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=37350

Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day to be with the family and remember.

On Vietnam: “I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they’re still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam—boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.”

On Joe Louis and Audie Murphy:

“Here in Arlington rests a sharecropper’s son who became a hero to a lonely people. Joe Louis came from nowhere, but he knew how to fight. And he galvanized a nation in the days after Pearl Harbor when he put on the uniform of his country and said, “I know we’ll win because we’re on God’s side.” Audie Murphy is here, Audie Murphy of the wild, wild courage. For what else would you call it when a man bounds to the top of a disabled tank, stops an enemy advance, saves lives, and rallies his men, and all of it single-handedly. When he radioed for artillery support and was asked how close the enemy was to his position, he said, “Wait a minute and I’ll let you speak to them.”

Swift Injustice: The Case of Tommy Robinson by Bruce Bawer

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12378/tommy-robinson-injustice

The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying.

Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison.

Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.

In Britain, rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.

The very first time I set foot in London, back in my early twenties, I kicked up into an adrenaline high that lasted for the entire week of my visit. Never, in later years, did any other place ever have such an impact on me — not Paris, not Rome. Yes, Rome was a cradle of Western civilization, and Paris a hub of Western culture — but Britain was the place where the values of the Anglosphere, above all a dedication to freedom, had fully taken form. Without Britain, there would have been no U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights.

In recent years, alas, Britain has deviated from its commitment to liberty. Foreign critics of Islam, such as the American scholar Robert Spencer, and for a time, even the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders have been barred from the country. Now, at least one prominent native critic of Islam, Tommy Robinson, has been repeatedly harassed by the police, railroaded by the courts, and left unprotected by prison officials who have allowed Muslim inmates to beat him senseless. Clearly, British authorities view Robinson as a troublemaker and would like nothing more than to see him give up his fight, leave the country (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali left the Netherlands), or get killed by a jihadist (as happened to the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh).

Parliamentary Questions on the Arrest of Tommy Robinson by Geert Wilders, Marie-Fleur Agema and Raymond de Roon

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12376/wilders-tommy-robinson-arrest

Written questions by Geert Wilders, Marie-Fleur Agema and Raymond de Roon, Members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands belonging to the Party for Freedom (PVV), submitted to the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs about the arrest of British activist and Islam critic Tommy Robinson:

1) Have you heard about the arrest of British activist and Islam critic Tommy Robinson for “breaching the peace,” while he was covering a trial of Islamic rapists, and that he was within a few hours convicted to 13 months imprisonment? What do you think of this madness?

2) Do you realize that, if the said Islam critic has to spend his jail sentence among Islamic criminals, this may cost him his life? What is your opinion of this?

3) Does, according to you, freedom of speech also apply to Islam critics in the EU and are you willing to immediately voice your dissatisfaction about this violation of freedom of speech by the United Kingdom to your British colleague and demand his attention for the personal safety of the person involved? If not, why not?

4) Do you and your colleagues in the EU realize that you cannot silence the dissatisfaction in society about Islamization by prosecuting or arresting Islam critics, and that a large segment of the population will at a certain time no longer accept
this and turn against you and your colleagues?

5) Can you answer these questions before Tuesday, May 29, 11 am?

Italy, Again, The Euro, Again By Andrew Stuttaford

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/italy-again-the-euro-again/

“Revenge,” it is said, “is a dish best served cold”. The creation of the euro, it is said, was the triumph of politics over economics. The eurozone crisis a decade or so later, it is said, was the revenge of economics.

Well, economics has returned for another helping.

Accepting Italy as one of the eurozone’s founding members was a decision only made possible by ignoring common sense, by twisting statistics, and by making a mockery of the rules. But it was a Pyrrhic victory: Italy was allowed to trick its way onto a voyage that damned it. The euro simply did not fit the realities of Italy’s economy or its politics. By dramatically cutting the country’s financing costs (borrowing lire would have carried a significantly higher nominal cost) adopting the single currency allowed Rome to avoid tackling the country’s high debt load, a debt load that was made all the more dangerous now that it was all denominated in a ‘foreign’ currency. Italy could no longer print lire to pay off its creditors.

When the eurozone crisis hit, Italy was one of the victims, and so, in some respects was its democracy. In something that came uncomfortably close to a coup, the eurozone leadership essentially used Italy’s financial fragility as a lever to secure the replacement in 2011 of Prime Minister Berlusconi by a Brussels man, Mario Monti, a pliable, unelected proconsul. Next time you hear Brussels lecturing Eastern Europeans on democracy remember that.

Italy weathered the crisis in a ‘just a flesh wound’ sort of way. Its problems became chronic, rather than acute, if that’s the correct adjective to describe the consequences of staying stuck in the euro’s deflationary trap: High rates of unemployment and anemic economic growth.

Hillary and the Married Deplorables By Carol Iannone

https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/27/hillary-and-t

Hillary Clinton couldn’t resist referring again to her historic defeat while addressing the graduates at Yale last week. This brought to mind her remarks at a speaking event in India in March, which can still rankle.

At that time, she declaimed that Trump’s “whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards,” and added for clarification: “You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are—you know, whatever your problem is, I’m gonna solve it.”

In this assignation of bigotry to, you know, the white working-class Americans who voted Trump, she makes clear that she just doesn’t listen, and didn’t get the message these voters were sending to the Democratic Party.

This is the party that was supposed to be looking out for them, that always boasted it stood for the “little guy,” for the good jobs, fair wages, and tight labor market favorable to working families. Clinton is also giving these voters additional reasons to steer away from that party in the future. You can’t trust the Democrats who pretended to be horrified by her words. Her view is theirs, too. They are panting for the demographic shift they believe will give them the permanent majority. After all, Hillary also claimed she regretted her “deplorable” remarks, (or was that only because they helped cost her the election?), but here she was, repeating them again.

An Opinion-Sharing Global Elite
Her remarks echoed those of snotty British writer Martin Amis, who pronounced on Trump supporters in a discussion with Ann Coulter as the 2016 returns were coming in on election night. Like Hillary, Amis spoke with sneering condescension. “The fallback position of every white man [in America] is,” he asserted, “I may not be much, but I’m better than any black man in this country, and they look at Obama and they suddenly realize that they’re not anymore. And the whole prestige of being white, working class, heterosexual has melted away from them. They’re called the left behind.”

Alberto Mingardi Italy: The Endless Appeal of Easy Money

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/05/italian-elections-endless-appeal-easy-money/

The two political champions of ‘moderate’ Italy — Berlusconi and Renzi — have both fallen, rejected resoundingly by voters very much imbued with the spirit of Brexit and Trump’s deplorables. ‘Populism’ has been the ready explanation, but there is much more to it than that.

On March 5, Italy looked like France without Emmanuel Macron. The national elections, held the day before, were hailed as a triumph for the so-called populists. Added together, the political parties that could be so labelled gained 58 per cent of the votes. “Moderates” of the Left and the Right, namely the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, performed badly.

This seems to be another tile falling down in a domino effect. Since Brexit (June 2016) and the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States (November 2016), observers have looked for a pattern in political shocks. Some analysts have suggested that middle- and lower-middle-class voters are protesting, all over Western democracies, against globalisation, as they feel its costs (businesses moving to emerging economies) and fail to see its benefits (lower prices, more innovation, better international division of labour). Others have pointed to a sense of frustration people are developing with international organisations, beginning with the EU, that are perceived as an attempt to shield political decision-making from democratic accountability. Almost everybody believes social media has changed the rules of the game, making “mainstream media” less and less relevant and perhaps transforming the world of news into a series of “echo chambers”, where like-minded people listen exclusively to other like-minded people.

A short history of Democrat-spy collusion How highly placed members of one administration mobilized the intelligence services to undermine their successors. Roger Kimball

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/for-your-eyes-only-a-short-history-of-democrat-spy-collusion/

Who what where when why? The desiderata school teachers drill into their charges trying to master effective writing skills apply also in the effort to understand that byzantine drama known to the world as the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.

Let’s start with “when.” When did it start? We know that the FBI opened its official investigation on 31 July 2016. An obscure, low-level volunteer to the Trump campaign called Carter Page was front and centre then. He’d been the FBI’s radar for a long time. Years before, it was known, the Russians had made some overtures to him but 1) they concluded that he was an “idiot” not worth recruiting and 2) he had actually aided the FBI in prosecuting at least two Russian spies.

But we now know that the Trump-Russia investigation began before Carter Page. In December 2017, The New York Times excitedly reported in an article called “How the Russia Inquiry Began” that, contrary to their reporting during the previous year, it wasn’t Carter Page who precipitated the inquiry. It was someone called George Papadopoulous, an even more obscure and lower-level factotum than Carter Page. Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that “the Russians” had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times, the investigation was born.

Spy Name Games By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/obama-administration-politicized-intelligence-law-enforcement-apparatus/

The Obama administration blatantly politicized the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus.

‘Isn’t it a fact that you’re a scumbag?”

Our contretemps over the nomenclature of government informants has me unable to shake this arresting moment from my memory. In Manhattan, about 30 years ago, I was among the spectators basking in the majesty of Foley Square’s federal courthouse when we were suddenly jarred by this, shall we say, rhetorical question. The sniper was a mob lawyer in a big RICO case; the target was the prosecution’s main witness, the informant.

Until this week, I’d always thought the most noteworthy thing about this obnoxious bit of theater was the reaction of the judge, a very fine, very wry trial lawyer in his own right.

The prosecutors, of course, screamed, “Objection!”

The judge calmly shrugged his shoulders and ruled: “He can answer if he knows.”

Did he know? I don’t remember. I was laughing too hard to hear any response.

The court’s deadpan was not just hilarious. In its way, it was trenchant.

The judge was not insouciant. He was a realist. The witness had done what covert informants do: He pretended to be someone he wasn’t, he wheedled his way into the trust — in some instances, into the affections — of people suspected of wrongdoing. And then he betrayed them. But that’s the job: to pry away secrets — get the bad actors to admit what they did, how they did it, and with whom they did it, until the agents and prosecutors decide there is enough evidence to convict the lot of them.

The judge understood that. For all the melodrama, whether the informant was a hero or a villain hinged on how one felt not about him but about the worthiness of the investigation.

Amnesty, morally corrupted? Hal G.P. Colebatch

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/amnesty-morally-corrupted/

When Amnesty International concerned itself with campaigning on behalf of individual and identifiable political prisoners of regimes of whatever political colour it did some real good.

However, it now appears to have become an expensive exercise in wholesale and futile virtue-signalling, with some highly dubious choices of targets. If it is still campaigning for individual prisoners, one doesn’t hear much of this.

Kate Allen, UK Director of Amnesty International (the world’s third-biggest Amnesty Organisation), would-be Labour politician and long-time former mistress of extreme leftist and anti-Israel activist Ken Livingstone, appears to have had much to do with radical changes in Amnesty’s policies and political colour in Britain. Acccording to Wikipedia, ‘Allen undertook a major restructure.’

She was quoted in the International Express of May 7 on planned demonstrations at President Trump’s proposed British visit: ‘We and thousands of our supporters will very definitely be making our voices heard. In the 15 months of his presidency we’ve seen a deeply disturbing human rights rollback.’

Huh? I do not believe there is one single instance of ‘human rights rollback’ that can be blamed on Trump. His attempted crackdown on illegal immigration has nothing whatever to do with human rights, but with stopping the law of a democratic nation being flouted and damage being done with impunity to its polity, economy and identity. The accusation is not only false but will achieve nothing good. Amnesty, in Britain at least, appears to have gone from being a respected and effective defender of persecuted individuals to being just another bunch of virtue-signalling creeps.

In the European Appeasement Olympics, Who Wins? by Bruce Bawer

The difference [between what Tommy Robinson did and any reporter] is that the BBC and other mainstream media are determined to give as little coverage as possible to the mass Muslim rape of infidel girls.

These same cops arrested Tommy Robinson on Friday not because he did anything wrong, but because he was drawing attention to Muslim crimes that they would rather see ignored – and drawing attention, too, by extension, to their own genuinely criminal failure to defend innocent children from what was essentially jihadist torture.

Within hours, according to some sources, Robinson was tried and sentenced to thirteen months in prison. Even in Islam-appeasing Britain, this seems inconceivable. It sounds like Soviet or Nazi “justice,” not like British jurisprudence.

However Tommy Robinson may have strayed from the straight and narrow over the years, he is a champion of those victimized children, a voice for freedom, and a living rebuke to the cowardice of the British media, police, social workers, and other officials and public figures who knew what was going on in flats in Rotherham, Newcastle, and elsewhere, but stayed silent.

All right, the competition is over. Britain wins.