U.S.-backed Terrorists Complete Their Takeover of Serbian Province

ANOTHER STRIKE AGAINST Christendom's fragile frontiers: the assembly of the UN-administered Serbian province of Kosovo has unilaterally and illegally declared independence. The United States government, which is bound by its own law to deny recognition to the putative country, nonetheless swiftly extended official recognition to the Kosovar assembly's declaration. The U.S., which claims to currently be fighting a "Global War on Terror", has backed the Albanian Muslim UÇK terror group that has run Kosovo for nearly a decade now, and continually encouraged it because Washington views any defeat for the Serbs as by extension a defeat for a Russians; and in Washington's point-of-view, no matter how irrelevant it is to the actual safety and well-being of we Americans, any defeat for the Russians is a victory for Washington — or "the United States", as the clique of insipid upper-middle-class bureaucrats supported by the taxes of hard-working Americans likes to style its rule. (Naturally, a complete inversion of this attitude — in which any defeat for America is regarded as a victory for Russia — now reigns in Moscow. After a decade of Washington kicking Mother Russia while she was down, the Ruskies finally took the hint and so we once more have nuclear missiles aimed at our shores.)

BELGRADE, 18 February 2008 – Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Alexander II and Crown Princess Katherine attended this afternoon at St. Sava Temple a public prayer for the salvation of the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija.

On behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Pavle of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the public prayer was led by His Eminence Archbishop Amfilohije of Cetinje and Metropolitan of Montenegro and Littoral, with the Vicar of His Holiness the Patriarch, His Grace Bishop of Hvostno Atanasije, priests and deacons from Belgrade churches. The performance of the Mokranjac Choir, in the presence of thousands of citizens who came to pray for the well-being for Kosovo’s Serbs and for Kosovo and Metohija, the heart and soul of Serbia, to remain in Serbia.

Many bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church were present at the public prayer, as well as various officials: HE Mr. Slobodan Samardzic, Minister for Kosovo and Metohija, HE Mr. Radomir Naumov, Minister of Religion, HE Archbishop Eugenio Sbarbaro, Apostolic Nuncio, and others.

After the Holy Liturgy and the Holy Oration, His Eminence Metropolitan Amfilohije and His Royal Highness Crown Prince Alexander addressed the present.

In his speech, the Crown Prince emphasized:

"We are here today in the great Saint Sava Temple. In disbelief and horror. United in pain at a time of great tragedy for our people. I am deeply hurt and shocked. What has happened is a big injustice. What was thrust on our Serbian people is very painful and illegal.

"My wife and I visited Kosovo on Saturday. It was very emotional and sad seeing our dear people. His Grace Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren led the prayers in Saint Dimitri Church in Kosovska Mitrovica.

"I stand, as Karadjordjevic, with all my heart by our people in Kosovo and by our Serbian Orthodox Church.

"It is very important that we remain united. Our actions must be peaceful, dignified, diplomatic and legal. We all pray to dear God for negations to continue and that a solution and compromise will be found. Therefore I appeal again for unity and responsibility of all our authorities. Violence or destruction of property will only damage our efforts. Therefore there must not be any violence - this is not Christian, it is not courageous, it is not in our tradition.

"May the Good Lord answer our prayers for the wellbeing of the Serbian people and all others!

"May Almighty God give our Serbia and our people strength and wisdom!”

Source: The Public Relations Office of HRH Crown Prince Alexander II

Link: Catholics for Ron Paul

VOTE RON PAUL!

Save the Dollar! Stop the War!

DONATE NOW

New York voters need to change their registration to Republican by October 12 in order to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. We owe it to our soldiers, we owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to our future!

• • •

Ron Paul was on top form in the September Fox News television debate among the Republican candidates. To borrow from sporting parlance, the man from Fox News kept throwing Ron the hardballs and Ron just hit them right out of the park.

Later on one of the other candidates, a fatuous man named Huckabee suggested we should keep the war going because "we've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve". As you'd expect, Ron Paul puts him to rights:
This guy is serious! He really thinks that the political class and the rest of the country are united. The Republican president has the lowest approval rating in history and the Democratic congress's approval rating is even lower!
You said it, Ron!

Our Armed Forces Support Ron Paul With Their Checkbooks

THE RECENT REPORT from the Federal Election Commission on second-quarter donations to presidential candidates contained an interesting piece of information. Observers extrapolated those donors who listed the branches of the military as their employer to see who our fighting men (and women) were backing in the presidential election. Who came first in military donors? None other than our own Dr. Ron Paul, the Air Force veteran who is determined to end the empire and save the republic. This didn't surprise me, but it was a welcome reassurance that good old-fashioned common sense still prevails amongst the brave souls in our armed forces.

It seems that every day support for Ron Paul shows itself in new quarters. In fundraising, in addition to having the support of much of the military, he's beaten Sen. John McCain, the former front-runner, in terms of overall cash-on-hand donations. Heck, Barry Manilow even donated the maximum amount allowed by law. I have no doubt he can win the presidential election, but it's getting the Republican nomination that's the real hurdle to overcome. The warfare faction still dangles the carrot of "security" in front of the faces of many who are oblivious to the fact that liberty is being simultaneously stolen from their back pocket.

The truth, however, is that their rule does not bring greater security for Americans, but only further entangles our country in foreign involvements which are not our responsibility, thus endangering our security overall. In turn, this allows for greater fearmongering by our overlords, thus providing them with an excuse for lessening liberty and increasing the power of the federal government. Ron Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democratic, who seeks to address the root cause of terrorism by reducing our involvement in the Middle East specifically and in the internal affairs of other countries generally. Not only does this undermine the terrorist cause, but it does so in a way which does not lessen our own freedom.

• • •• • •

This evening I did something I was sure I would never ever do in my entire life: donate my own money to a political cause. I figured since those folks serving overseas and here in America to defend our freedom were so willing to give their hard-earned money to support the political cause of liberty at home, I ought to give a few shekels myself. And if you value your liberty, you can send a few of your own shekels along to Ron's campaign at this address.

• • •• • •

Category: Ron Paul

Above, the scene outside as Ron Paul heads in to Stephen Colbert's faux news show and below, the interview itself.

On the Daily Show:

Interestingly, Ron Paul remains on top for Technorati tags, tracking what people are talking about on blogs, even beating Paris Hilton at the height of her media kerfuffle.

Looking at the dull lockstep thinking exhibited in National Review these days (John Derbyshire and one or two others excepted), it's hard to believe that the brilliant Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn had a column in NR for thirty-five years.

Previously: Christian Yachtsman | The Spectator

What can one say about Ron Paul? This man is clearly the dream candidate for the presidency. A doctor and Air Force veteran with years of experience in congress (with a record to be proud of), Ron Paul tells the simple, honest truth and applies common sense to politics. Who knew, until Paul told us, that if we returned to year-2000 spending levels, we could eliminate the federal income tax entirely. Entirely. Imagine that! Paul is the only Republican candidate willing to tell it like it is rather than spew meaningless piously ideological bits of nonsense to please the Republican establishment. I almost wish I was a Republican so that I could have the satisfaction of voting for him in the primary.

Naturally, the media have done their utmost to ignore Dr. Paul or pidgeon-hole him as irrelevant but the word's been getting out anyhow. He's even managed to turn up as a topic of discussion on ABC's 'The View', flagship television program of the bored suburban housewife.

Burgemeesteres van Kaapstad

AND SO, Helen Zille, the Mayor of Cape Town, has been elected Leader of the Opposition in South Africa, a somewhat curious choice to head the country's (liberal) Democratic Alliance against the current government (the ANC alliance of racial nationalists, the Communist Party, and the trade union confederation) as she is not actually a member of parliament and has stated that she has no intention of seeking election to that body. If only she would bring a little more reserve to the council chamber, a virtue she is sadly lacking (as evidenced in pictures above and below).

Ms. Zille has a reputation as a bit of a go-get-em mayor, and something of a pragmatist, which is welcome, as any efforts that chip away at the rule of the noxious African National Congress are wholeheartedly welcome. And she'd have to try hard to be any worse in her new job than her noxious predecessor, 'Tony' Leon. While we would probably vote (depending on geography) for the Inkhata Freedom Party or the Vryheidsfront, we wish Ms. Zille luck as Leader of the Opposition.

Which is more worrying, a former Marine being banned from flying, or the fact that Barack Obama, that brave shining light of the opposition, is being hailed and lauded by the architects of President Bush's disastrous foreign policy? (Of course, the fact that Senator Obama is a major contender for the presidential candidacy of one of the two major parties in the country makes us quite suspicious of him as it is. Steve Sailer has pointed out even deeper reasons.)

Update: Mr. Howard points out the Volokh blog's skepticism as to the veracity of Prof. Murphy's claims.

WAS I THE only one south of the border who was glued to the computer screen watching CBC TV's streaming online coverage of the Quebec elections? The results of the vote for the provincial parliament proved surprisingly exciting, perhaps even dramatic. The star of the evening was the stunning success of Mario Dumont's Action Democratique du Quebec, breaking out of their small strongholds and winning seats across the entire province. They even made inroads in the leftist bastion of Montreal. While they did not win any seats on the island of Montreal, the came second in a number of ridings (as constituencies are known in Canada), and took a number of seats in the Montreal suburbs. But perhaps I should give a little background to what's going on.

At the last election (in 2003), the Liberals (Parti libéral du Quebec) took 76 seats, the PQ (Parti Québécois) won 45, and the ADQ a measly 4 seats in the National Assembly of Quebec. To explain the parties is somewhat difficult. One of the advantages of Canada's political culture over that of the United States is that the two-party system is less uniformly entrenched. In every United State, there is a Democratic Party and a Republican Party and the state parties are for the most part in lock step with the national party, with a few slight variations. Not so in Canada.

The Quebec Liberals (along with the British Columbian Liberals) are not affiliated with the nationwide Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, Quebec's Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Charest, was formerly the head of the federal Tories (when they were still known as the Progressive Conservatives). The PQ, meanwhile, are one of those anomalies particular to Quebec. They are the Québécois sovereigntists who seek independence from Canada; while nationalists, they are most definitely of the left, much like Scotland's SNP. The ADQ were a small, more centrist, perhaps even conservative, group of 'soft nationalists' that broke off from the Quebec Liberals in 1994.

The ADQ began to look like a contender midway through the election campaign when their share of the polls began to rise. Premier Jean Charest correctly realized the danger the ADQ posed to his Liberals and began to redirect his attacks against les péquistes (the PQ) towards les adéquistes (the ADQ). The PQ leader André Boisclair, meanwhile, proved wildly unpopular and the nationalists restricted his campaign appearances to the party faithful, making sure he had as little interaction with the public. (Also, Boisclair's homosexuality probably proved unpopular with péquistes in the sticks as opposed to the urban liberals who run the party). So both the Government and the Opposition turned their attentions towards the ADQ, which in turn allowed Mario Dumont to control the frames of reference by which the campaign was run.

The result was the stuff of history. The Liberal majority slashed to a minority of 48 seats. The PQ, which had formed the government in 1998 with 76 seats, reduced to third place with 36 seats. The ADQ stole the show with 41 seats, havign had only five by the time the previous parliament was dissolved. The pundits on the CBC were stuck for words. A number of times throughout the evening (above) it looked as if the ADQ had a chance of forming the government. At one point it even looked like Premier Charest might lose his own seat in parliament. What soon became clear, however, was that the final result would be some form of three-way-split between the parties. This is the first time since 1878 that Her Majesty's Government of Quebec has not had a parliamentary majority behind it. In theory, a coalition government could be formed with government ministries divided between whichever two parties partnered. The Westminster system, however, relies far more on the adversarial than on the cooperative, and coalition governments on the provincial level in Canada have usually proved disastrous for the parties involved.

One of the most frequent criticisms of the ADQ during the campaign was the almost complete political inexperience of the adéquiste candidates. Few of those standing for the party had been involved in politics to the same extent as those of the PLQ and PQ. ADQ candidates were schoolteachers, parents, men and women of businesses of every shape and size; they were not the — cringe! — professional politicians who compose the ranks of the Liberal and PQ Members of the National Assembly. To the media, this seemed like a handicap, but I suspect it seemed like a breath of fresh air to the voters.

Also, the result bodes well for the Constitution. The ADQ have branded themselves as 'autonomists' who will fight for Quebec's power but within the framework of the Canadian confederation. A marked contrast to the independence-obsessed sovereigntists of the PQ and the federalists of the Parti libéral. The PQ promised, if elected, to hold another referendum on independence, the third following the 1980 and 1995 votes against secession. No doubt many patriotic Francophones are tired of the decades of niggling over constitutional questions, with referendums hanging like a perpetual sword of Damocles over the heads of Quebec voters.

So Charest remains Premier of Quebec. In some ways, this is even better for the ADQ than being able to form a minority government itself. Having 41 seats in the Assemblée Nationale du Québec allows these newly-minted pols to gain a little experience while the Liberals whimper on with a minority government that can't last for long. Meanwhile, the ADQ replaces the PQ as the official opposition, giving Mario Dumont the first crack at Charest during question time in parliament. On the whole, it is a firmer foundation on which to build a future government than sweeping to power having previously held only a handful of seats.

Previously: The Men Who Saved Quebec | Hitchcock in Quebec

BEING, AS WE are, in the midst of the presidential campaign pre-season, the press have been exploring the various candidates for the highest office in the land. It is a revolting parade of the sordid, the inane, the insane, the monomaniacal, and the self-obsessed. Needless to say, all of the candidates for both parties are thoroughly reprehensible in one way or another. The exception is Ron Paul, currently serving in the House of Representatives, and currently the only conservative (in any real sense) who has thrown his hat into the ring (or "formed an exploratory committee", as it is officially termed). Unfortunately (?), Paul has principles, and has stuck to them, so we can immediately disregard his chances for the Republican nomination he seeks. (When he fails to get the GOP nomination, he really ought to run as an independent, ideally with Jim Webb for vice-president. Then the warmongers will vote GOP, the baby-killers for the Dems, and the sane for Paul/Webb).

Nonetheless, it gets one thinking. What would one desire in a president? What policies would we want him to execute? Here are our humble suggestions, in no particular order:

• A prompt withdrawal from Iraq. This is too common sensical to be worth explicating.
• End NATO now. The Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade. End Europe's gravy train so they can grow up and defend themselves. Phase out foreign military aid, while maintaining strong informal links with Canada, as well as the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.
• Appoint constitutionalist judges. The Constitution says 'X' but radical judges say 'Y'.
• Abolish the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and Housing & Urban Development. The federal government has no constitutional power to interfere in education, housing, and urban development. As for "homeland security", isn't that what the Department of Defense is for? It'd probably be worthwhile to merge a few of the remaining departments.
• Balance the budget. Again, common sense.
• Abolish income tax. Income tax is wicked. It must be abolished, and if an alternative tax is necessary, then it should be a value added tax (VAT).
• Enforce immigration law. Rampant, uncontrolled immigration is an assault on our safety and security, as well as a grave threat to the earning power of American workers.

Above all: obey the Constitution. (Or at least be honest and get rid of it).

But really, this is not a political blog. If you want the goods, head over to Eunomia, where Daniel Larison really dishes out the good stuff. Mr. Larison is to be crisply saluted for not only undergoing the suffering entailed by paying attention to politics, but for going even further by cutting through the spin, the propaganda, and the nonsense like a hot knife through butter.

The Permanent Revolution in Modern Britain

ONE OF THE CURIOUS things about folks in Britain today is that they are not too sure about where they live. And often, when they are sure, they're not entirely correct. I have a friend from Abingdon in England and for ages she told me that she was from Abingdon in Oxfordshire. Imagine my surprise to discover that Abingdon is not only in Berkshire, but it's traditionally the county town of Berkshire! The trouble originates in the reforms of local government which have ensured perpetual confusion amongst the populace, and have been pretty much ongoing for the past forty years — an example of permanent revolution that would make Fidel Castro envious.

The counties of England were created quite shortly after the beginning of time. The ancient sages debated voiciferously whether the Author of Creation initiated them on the eighth or the ninth day. (Curiously, the Venerable Bede is not known to have taken either position). They remained completely and utterly unchanged until the Victorians (a cohort quite bent on the idea of civic improvement) had a fiddle with them in the 1880s. From then, there were only periodic adjustment until the 1960s, when the forces of cultural revolution (the monotony monitors, as my old Latin teacher called them) demanded change in every quarter. The counties of England, sadly, did not escape their Sauronic all-seing eye.

Lancashire, in better days.

The real problem which arose was that the traditional counties were, thankfully, never abolished, but that administrative units were created which often shared the same name as an historic county, but with different boundaries. Despite the fact that the county didn't change, the movement of cities, towns, villages, hamlets, barns, and rabbit warrens between various administrative units brought much confusion as to whether a given location which was in one particular place or another. Thus the people of the previously self-governing Bootle in Lancashire found themselves merged into the metropolitan district of Sefton, which itself became part of the metropolitan 'county' of 'Merseyside'. Meanwhile, the southern part of Gloucestershire and the northern part of Somerset were merged into a new 'county' created ex nihilo and baptised with the name of 'Avon'. So a town could be in real Somerset but administrative Avon. All a bit maddening and confusing.

The East Riding of Yorkshire, in which Hull is located.

What's worse, however, is that there are some misinformed people who believe that with the change in the units of governmental administration, the traditional county boundaries are somehow different. Only recently on this very site, a lady falsely corrected another commenter saying that "Liverpool is in Merseyside, not Lancashire". But Liverpool is in Lancashire, as it is also in Merseyside. Late last year, Joanna Bogle mentioned Hull on her blog, quite correctly, as being in Yorkshire. Lo and behold, a gentleman chimed in "Sorry to nitpick, Joanna, but Fish City happens to be in Humberside, not Yorkshire." I felt compelled to reply:

The perpetual changes to local government, naturally, were continued under 'New Labour' with the Local Government Act 2000. Tony Blair wants to change Britain into America in every way it shouldn't (i.e. the continued destruction of tradition and increasing centralization) and is against changing Britain into America in every way it should (i.e. lowering crime rates and protecting individual liberties). Among myriad other changes, the 2000 Act provided for the direct election of mayors, in direct contravention of the traditional British way of mayors being selected by councils after being agreed to in a committee-like fashion. Before the peasants could hone their pitchforks and ready their torches, an added proviso submitted this particular proposal to local referendums, and the overwhelming majority of direct-mayor initiatives were soundly defeated by the common sense of the people.

Nonetheless, awareness of traditional counties is at a distinct low point, and splendid organisations such as the Association of British Counties ("Saving Our Shires") and the more extreme CountyWatch exist to preserve and protect the status of the traditional counties throughout Britain, while more particular groups such as the Friends of Real Lancashire, the Yorkshire Ridings Society, the Huntingdonshire Society, and so on and so forth exist to remind inhabitants of their county's existence.

The brilliant Mr. Peter Hitchens ruminates on the old Russian bear, and relays to us this account of the state of Britain today from the point of view of a Russian journalist:

I STAND IN AWE of Nigel Farage. He is the oratorical master of the European Parliament, which, of course, doesn't count for much since about as much attention is paid to the European Parliament as was to the Reichstag in Nazi Germany. This is despite the fact that the majority of laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom are not actually initiated by British MPs, but rather rubber-stamped from Brussels on high.

If you're asking yourself "Who is this fellow?", then I should tell you that Farage is the somewhat-hokey leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, the party which should get the votes of all visitors of this site. These days, one should be a Tory every day of the year except Election Day. The next general election is especially important as it must be proved to the bigwigs in the Conservative Party that Europe matters. Labour will likely win the next election anyhow (it's even possible for the Tories to have 10% more of the popular vote but still come out with fewer seats than Labour), and the more seats that the Tories lose because just enough people voted UKIP instead of Conservative will hopefully turn the party round.

But back to dear old Nigel Farage. In the video clip above (1:29), Mr. Farage takes on José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission for his blatant contempt for the democratic will of the people. Excellent stuff.

The above clip (3:03) features Nigel going through the new members of Barroso's proposed Commission. It is rather amusing to hear about the various scandals and dirty pasts of the Euro-bureaucrats until you realize that they are the ones ruling Britain. "I mean you couldn't make it up!" quoth Nigel.

In this clip (2:25) Nigel Farage, MEP gives Tony Blair the old what-for at the end of Britain's presidency of the European Union. Why-oh-why isn't this man in the British parliament? It would be great to see him kicking up a storm during PMQs. Then there'd be some real opposition in Westminster instead of the namby-pamby tit-for-tat between Tony and Dave.

Mr. Farage enjoying the countryside.

Or, What £40,000 Gets You in Today's World

The new Scottish Tory logo, on top, with the previous design on the bottom.

AMONG THE MANY changes which the Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP has wrought in his ten months as leader of the Conservatives one of the most public is the change of the party's emblem. The flaming torch is out and the solid oak is in, at a cost of £40,000 to Conservative Central Office (according to the Times). There are three slightly different designs of the tree for the UK-wide, Scottish, and Welsh parties. Previously, the national party used the 'flaming torch of liberty' logo while the Scottish party used a blue lion rampant and Wales had its rather comely red-white-and-blue dragon with fire pouring forth from its mouth. The former logo was the 'flaming torch of liberty', which only entered into usage in the 1980's under Mrs. Thatcher. In its place, we find instead an oak tree with healthy greenery on its limbs and a trunk made out in the traditional Tory blue.

We don't often like discussing politics because it's such a filthy business these days, and besides, if there's anything worth saying about politics, no doubt Daniel Larison has already said it. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see the schadenfreude developing amongst conservatives eager to see the Republican Party wreap what it hath sewn come the midterm elections of November 7 this year. The GOP has really done it this time, or so says the common wisdom, and the combined effect of conservatives staying home on Election Day and of swing voters swinging to the Democrats may very well throw the House of Representatives to the Democrats for the first time in twelve years. The glee conservatives once exhibited only for the most delightful defeats of Democrats is now, in a truly bi-partisan spirit, extended to the Republicans as well.

Why will conservatives stay home on Election Day? Well, that is not the right question, as it is the natural inclination of the conservative to be at home. The question then is: why should a conservative vote Republican? The President, for starters, is an ardent devotée of liberal internationalism abroad and wants to impose it with our military, which he has disgracefully abused as his own little plaything. In Congress, meanwhile, the Republican majorities in both houses have enacted an orgy of spending and goverment largesse as if the concept of self-restraint is foreign and irrelevant, while refusing to act on issues important to conservatives, such as border enforcement.

Voting Republican means we get liberal internationalism at our own expense (in blood, mind you, not just taxes), while at home we get porous borders (despite the terrorist threat), implicitly condoned illegal immigration (it's good for business!), egregious spending (the 'compassionate conservatism' which is neither compassionate nor conservative), and the expansion of the powers of the federal government (continuing and augmenting the flagrant breaches of the Constitution which began in the 1960's). Such being the case, the real question should be: what kind of self-respecting conservative would support such things with his vote?

But of course there is a silver lining. As much as conservatives may delight in seeing the Republicans thrown from office, in our two-party system the defeat of Republicans means the victory of Democrats. This is most unfortunate. However, with the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court (which will likely be remembered as one of G.W. Bush's few conservative acts in his eight years as president), there is a feeling that sooner or later the highest court in the land will hear cases which return power to the states, as ordained in the Constitution. Having Democrats in charge, given their traditional predilection for centralization, might further spur such cases to come to the fore.

So farewell, then, GOP majority... and good riddance. Think about what you've done and come back in a few years. We are good Christian folk, after all, and forgiving; we will likely give you another chance in the future.

NOTE: I should clarify that we are speaking in this post only about the federal government. No doubt there are many decent conservative and conservative-leaning GOP officeholders on the state and local level.

"A famous Loyalist said that 'I would rather be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away, than by 3,000 tyrants not a mile away.' It is the unique genius of our system (given that D.C. is 3,000 miles away from my home here in Los Angeles) that we are able to have both."

Old Europe Lives?

An incident took place at sea on September 14, 2001, just a few days after the attacks on New York and Washington, which has not been widely recounted. In the time leading up to September 11, the U.S.S. Winston S. Churchill was in port in Plymouth, England, where it was moored next to the Lütjens of the German Navy. During their time in port together, the officers and crews of the Churchill and the Lütjens had combined for a number of lively convivial undertakings in the generous spirit of friendship and brotherhood. After the attacks, however, Churchill immediately put to sea to perform a number of drills while maneuvering back in forth in the same area.

"It hasn't been that fun I must confess," an ensign aboard the Churchill wrote home, "and to be even more honest, a lot of people are frustrated at the fact that they either can't be home, or we don't have more direction right now. We have seen the articles and the photographs, and they are sickening. Being isolated as we are, I don't think we appreciate the full scope of what is happening back home, but we are definitely feeling the effects."

"About two hours ago the junior officers were called to the bridge to conduct Shiphandling drills. We were about to do a man overboard when we got a call from the Lutjens. […] Now at sea they called over on bridge-to-bridge, requesting to pass us close up on our port side, to say good-bye."

"We prepared to render them honors on the bridgewing, and the Captain told the crew to come topside to wish them farewell. As they were making their approach, our Conning Officer announced through her binoculars that they were flying an American flag. As they came even closer, we saw that it was flying at half-mast. The bridgewing was crowded with people as the Boatswain's Mate blew two whistles – Attention to Port – the ship came up alongside and we saw that the entire crew of the German ship were manning the rails, in their dress blues. They had made up a sign that was displayed on the side that read 'We Stand By You'."

As the ensign wrote later in the email, "It's amazing to think that only a half-century ago things were quite different," and it's interesting to note that both ships are named after figures from the Second World War; Winston Churchill the half-American Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Günther Lütjens the admired German Admiral who died aboard the Bismarck.

Philippe de Villiers is preparing his campaign for the 2007 presidential election, Le Figaro recently reported, after having conducted an informal tour of holiday spots around France to bring his candidacy to vacationing voters. As the articles notes, one of the most important challenges for de Villiers and his Mouvement pour la France (MPF) is carving out a niche in the media for his campaign. Press coverage of the 2007 competition has portrayed the election as a showdown between the Socialist Party's Ségolène Royal and the UMP's Nicolas Sarkozy, a lack of fundamental differences between the two candidates on the major issues notwithstanding.

Despite a number of recent high-ranking defections to the MPF from the populist/nationalist Front National, the party which usually takes third place after the UMP and the Socialists, it's unknown whether a significant portion of the Front's electoral base with follow through and vote for de Villiers instead of the FN's Jean-Marie Le Pen. During last year's referendum on the EU constitution, de Villiers swept the rug from under Le Pen's feet by masterfully organizing the right wing of the successful 'No' campaign himself. If the Vendéen can repeat such a performance and seize the electoral momentum from the misanthropic FN leader, there's a chance of both making it to the second electoral round and putting the ugly spectre of Le Penisme in its grave.

Le Figaro: Philippe de Villiers will carry out a tour of France this fall with MPF secretary-general Guillaume Peltier.

In an interview with le Figaro, the MPF's second-in-command Guillaume Peltier proclaimed that "France needs a candidate who personifies the real Right and who will commit the country to a break with socialism". When asked about the MPF's policy on the impôt sur la fortune (ISF) tax on wealth, Peltier refreshingly replied "We propose its repeal, pure and simple".

"The ISF strikes great fortunes less and less while striking middle-class homeowners more and more," Peltier claimed. "Because of real estate prices are on fire, one finds farmers who do not even qualify to pay income tax who are stuck with the ISF. The UMP, with the capability for four years, has not done anything to end this unjust situation."

And Europe? "Instead of an incomprehensible constitution, we propose a European charter on three points: 1) A truly European Europe, without Turkey; 2) A democratic Europe directed by the parliaments and by the peoples, and not by the technocrats of Brussels; and 3) A Europe of free cooperation against terrorism, drug trafficking, and organised crime." The MPF would also support a referendum on whether to continue France's participation in the Euro monetary union.

And finally, his prediction for 2007: "I consider that Philippe de Villiers will be in 2007 what the 'Non' was in 2005. Villiers is the only candidate of rural France, the candidate of the France of common sense. I'm persuaded he can make it to the second round. I see a Villiers/Royal run-off, the real Right against the real Left."

Previously: On Walkabout with Philippe de Villiers

WE LIVE IN an age which is almost completely devoid of Christian statesmen. In their stead, we are today ruled by faceless bureaucrats and vapid masters of spin. Once gentlemen sought public office in the hopes of ensuring order and the public good while knavish men sought the same in their lust for power. The politicians of today, meanwhile, are of neither inspiration but rather seem all too often to have engaged upon the 'career' of 'public servant' because they lack any of the skills necessary to succeed in any real, productive employ or station. Given the sad state of affairs in our day, we must look to the past – to another age and another country – in our search for models of Christian leadership in the temporal realm. In this search, the name of Gabriel García Moreno, President of Ecuador, stands taller than any other in the Americas.

The above video is a ten-minute portion of a South African news programme exploring the brutal killings of innocent farmers in that country. It is most certainly worth watching, with the caveat that it's not for the faint of heart. It is astonishing that people can live in such a climate of violence and fear. "But with the Lord's strength, I'm here," says one victim.

Even more appalling once you've watched that video is to watch the video below of South Africa's Safety and Security Minister, Charles Nqakula, attacking those who complain about the rise in rape and murder. "They can continue to winge until they are blue in the face, they can continue to be as negative as they want to or they can simply leave this country." It doesn't take a genius to understand that the 'they' he speaks of is the community of white South Africans. Plus ça change, eh?

Further along the theme of South African online videos, why not watch the trailer for the upcoming film 'Catch A Fire'? Soon to be released by Focus Features, the film tells the true story of Patrick Chamusso, a man brutally tortured by the police while falsely accused of terrorism. He is freed when they realize he is innocent, but soon makes up for his innocence by, you guessed it, becoming a terrorist. (I guess you can tell I graduated from the university which was the home of the 'Hang Nelson Mandela' campaign in the 1980's).

The fair-minded, independent observer would look at the figures above and think to himself "Interesting, the proportion of Asian students is on the rise, while that of White, Black, and Hispanic students is generally in decline". However the racialists (I will not use the more loaded term of 'racist', though the meaning is exactly the same) at the New York Times can only see the Black and Hispanic decline, captioning the chart 'The share of black and Hispanic students New York City's three most elite specialized schools has declined'.

And why no chart depicting the racial make-up of the also public selective Hunter College High School? Is it, by some unknown criterion, not in the same league or perhaps the proportion of black and Hispanic students there actually rose? The Times reader is left uninformed as to the greater picture, but suitably inculcated in racialist thinking.

Gothamist's Jen Chung notes the decline is "in spite of the city's best efforts to encourage [Black and Hispanic students] to apply and attend" while City Councilman Robert Jackson ponders ""Is it institutional racism or is it something else?".

Could it perhaps be that the racial makeup of the city's elite public high schools is subject to (quel horreur!) occasional fluctuations? What is the racial makeup of an elite public high school "supposed" to be? Here's a concept worth considering: how about giving the students in selective public high schools the best education on offer and admit students based purely on a meritocratic standard which does not descriminate by sex, race, class, or creed? Just a thought.

Viscount Philippe le Jolis de Villiers de Saintignon is the head of the French political party Mouvement pour la France, and one of the leading voices against the Islamisation of France. The MPF is, in some sense, the 'Catholic' party on the French right, being conservative and traditionalist in contrast to the Front National (headed by the genial misanthrope Jean-Marie le Pen), which is thoroughly republican and nationalist. De Villiers has been trying to encourage patriotism in contrast to the nationalism of the FN and the continentalism of the other parties.

A native of the Vendée, he led the right flank (so to speak) in the May 2005 French referendum against the European Constitution. The rejection of the Constitution by the French voters has put the nefarious project on hold, though likely not for long. (The established precedent with European treaties of this nature is for the ruling bureaucratic elite to hold as many referenda as it takes to pass). Let's follow le bon vicomte and see what he's up to these days…

National Review, Nov 21, 1986
by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

IN THE Islamic world's relations with Israel, the hard-liners are the various Arab and non-Arab republics. When there is any sign of softness, it comes, almost always, from one of the monarchies. (Egypt, and Egypt alone, is the exception.) It thus did not come as a great surprise that King Hassan II of Morocco agreed to meet with the then Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, this summer.

While individual monarchs historically may have been capricious or cruel, monarch as an institution is inclined to be generous: Montesquieu has told us that while the driving element in republics is virtue, in monarchies it is clemency. And, indeed, the Islamic monarchs of old were infinitely more tolerant than their modern republican successors. They traveled extensively, and many had a cosmopolitan outlook. Some had relatives abroad. When King Hassan II of morocco writes to members of Europe's royal families, he addresses them as "cher cousin" or "chere cousine," since he is a descendant of Mohammed's daughter Fatima, as by now are all the Christian royal families. (Many centuries ago, a Moroccan prince was taken prisoner by the Castilians and converted in captivity. After his release he married into a princely family, and over the centuries his bloodline has spread into countless aristocratic and royal families.) In chooing their administrators, officers, diplomats, bankers, and doctors, Islam's monarchs looked for able men regardless of religion, never caring whether their choices were popular or not.

It is true that local slaughters of Christians took place in various parts of the Turkish Empire, but things got really bad only when the enlightened, highly nationalistic Young Turks appeared on the scene. Their political organization was called "Unity and Progress," by which they meant ethnic uniformity and modern methods. It was they who were behind the big Armenian massacres during World War I. The Turkish sultans, by contrast, frequently gave preferment to Christians (and sometimes Jews) in high positions. The Phanariotic Greeks, so called after the Lighthouse Quarter of Constantinople in which most of them lived, acted as trusted administrators; the governors of the Rumanian-speaking provinces, for instance, were taken from their families.

Very typical is the story of a family known to me. Originally called Black, they were Scots and good Catholics who emigrated after the fall of the Stuarts and settled in France, where they Gallicized their name. There are still Blacques in France, but one branch of the family emigrated to Turkey, where its scions made a splendid career without changing either their name or their religion. One of them, Edward Blacque-Bey, became the last Turkish imperial ambassador in Washington. (His sons, too, made diplomatic careers. One married an American, and his son, having graduated from Harvard, became a colonel in the U.S. Marines and later an American diplomat.) Edward Blacque-Bey wore a fez and was a loyal subject of the sultan, under whom Constantinople became an international metropolis. All this ended with the republic under Ataturk.

Similar conditions existed in the kingdom of Egypt before Nagib and Nasser. Forty per cent of the administrators and civil servants were Coptic Christians, who considered themselves the genuine descendants of the Old Egyptians. Before 1952 Cairo was an eastern Paris, where Christians and Jews played an important role--socially, commercially, politically, Arab nationalism put an end to all this, not only in Cairo, but also in Alexandria, which is so well described in Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet. In Iran--a non-Arab state--the old monarcy under the Kajar dynasty and the more recent one under the Pahlavis were notably tolerant. Non-Muslims (such as the still-surviving Zoroastrians) could make all sorts of careers, and the country's political orientation was Western. The window to the West remains open in the Islamic monarchies of today--in Morocco, in Saudi Arabia, in Oman, and even in Malaysia.

MONARCHIES HAVE the advantage that, although they might be oppressive toward the political ambitions of their subjects, they are never totalitarian. To my knowledge there is no Jewish community left in Algeria, but there still is a small one in Morocco. Variety is the keynote of monarchies, and with it goes internationalism. In 1910 only two sovereign nations in Christian Europe had truly native dynasties: Serbia and Montenegor. (Peter III was the last genuine Romanov; the Hohenzollerns were not Prussians but Swabians; and so forth.) These dynasties could often follow unpopular policies, both domestic and foreign. Popular policies are not always good for the country, and the courage required to stick to an unpopular good policy is immensely rare among politicians in democracies. They crave popularity and want, above all, to be re-elected. King Hassan II might be trembling lest he be assassinated by fanatics, but he pursues policies that he considers to be right. He certainly is not guided by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's idiotic dictum, "Self-government is better than good government," which is roughly equivalent to saying that self-treatment in case of illness is better than treatment by a qualified physician.

AS THE MONTH of July draws to a close, we'd like to announce the Polish scientist and politician Prof. Maciej Giertych has been anointed our 'Man of the Month'. Professor Giertych, who holds two degrees from Oxford and his PhD in tree physiology from the University of Toronto, is a Member of the European Parliament and recently took part in that inauspicious body's debate commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the commencement of the Spanish Civil War, a debate which even the BBC's Europe editor slated as "one of those debates that seem rather pious and pointless". While the usual gang of characters spouted their unthinking praise for the tyrannical and genocidal Communist and Anarchist forces, Prof. Giertych had the decency to stand up and set the record straight.

"Thanks to the Spanish Army and Franco the Communist attack on Catholic Spain was thwarted," Prof. Giertych told the European Parliament. "The presence of such people in European politics as Franco guaranteed the maintenance of traditional values in Europe and we lack such statesmen today. Christian Europe is losing against atheistic socialists today and this has to change."

"I thought it was necessary to remind listeners in the EU Parliament," the Professor said later, "that this was not an anti-democratic movement, but a movement that was in defense of certain values that are inherent in the Catholic way of seeing things pertinent to government to run civil society. The uprising was a defense of Catholic Spain, so the civil war in Spain was a conflict between Catholic Spain and communist Spain." The Professor also used his speech to praise António de Oliveira Salazar, Portugal's Catholic dictator who, like Franco, managed to keep his country free from the devastation of the Second World War. (Salazar was also a very close friend of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith, who claimed in his memoirs that if Salazar had lasted a few more years, Rhodesia would still exist today).

Prof. Giertych is a Member of the European Parliament for the League of Polish Families, one of the political parties in Poland's tripartite coalition government. His son, Roman Giertych, is both Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education of Poland.

Previously: The Tomb of Francisco Franco | Requiescat in Pace | The Caudillo in Action! | Fun with Franco! | The Reconquest of Madrid

General Eisenhower and General Franco

In the midst of my summer indolence, reading Chronicles proves to be one of the most nourishing experiences. There is no other monthly (except the New Criterion) which features such good writing on such a variety of subjects and which refuses to take anything for granted. The overwhelming majority of the intellectual culture of the West today lazily presupposes agreement with Enlightenment concepts and all that nasty business unleashed by the French Revolution. Chronicles dares ask the question "What if they're wrong?" and quite often posits the statement "Actually, they are wrong!" which then opens the door to truly considering, well, all the aspects of society; this even though Chronicles rather humbly subtitles itself 'A Magazine of American Culture'.

The August 2006 edition highlights the convergence between socialism and capitalism in our society and contains much of interest. However we will provide you with only a few good snippets from Thomas Fleming's piece, 'Socialism is Theft'.

[…] I remember my astonishment, in the 1980's, meeting college students who were already talking about which corporations offered the best retirement plans. At that age, I did not imagine I would live to see 25 – and the way I was living more than justified such skepticism. Girls and Greek poetry were my principal inspirations, and Greek still brings pleasure. When a young male is thinking about retirement at the age of 20, he has already given up all hope of ever becoming a man. […]

'We are all socialists now,' as Sir William Harcourt observed over a century ago, and nothing has so contributed to the socialist mentality of modern life as the disappearance of private property, not only as reality but even as an ideal. American mobility, combined with the frenetic hallucination that 'ending is better than mending,' has detached Americans, in particular, from local roots. These days, a home is not the place in which your father was born or your grandfather died; homes are sold by the dozens by realtos who are ever eager to help you move up. If a 'home' is nothing more than an investment, it is hard to blame the politicians for thinking they could turn your house and lot into a more socially productive investment by selling it to developers. […]

The abuse of eminent domain is only a minor symptom of a much deeper malaise. Our rights of possession are contingent on the power of government at every level to tax property and, if taxes are not paid within a specified period of time, to confiscate it and sell it to the highest bidder. For most of us, this power does not represent an imminent danger, but it is symbolic of our dependency on government. […]

Whatever they may earn, working stiffs who depend for their very existence on government agencies and corporations larger than most nation-states are a far cry from the confident and assured citizens of the old America. The old Americans were men and women few government lackeys wished to provoke. Today, we seem to live at the behest of powerful and impersonal forces. At best, we are their loyal (and timid) retainers.

Is this result – the weakening of our character – intentional? I do not know, but the motives of politicians are always suspect. The most successful lie put forth by neoconservatives is the so-called law of unintended consequences, which would have us believe that the architects of centralized state education, the New Deal, and the Great Society did not realize that the consequence of taking control of schooling might be to transfer authority from families and communities to state and federal bureaucracies, and they never imagined that, in paying people to do nothing, they would not only discourage the necessary habits of work and thrift but undermine the self-reliance and initiative that supposedly characterized the true American. This same political class, we are called upon to believe, had absolutely no idea that the 1965 Immigration Act would dramatically alter the ethnic composition of the United States or that flooding the Horn of Africa with weapons would lead to war. Credat Apella iudeaus!

Socialism marches on, and, in its progress, it attracts more dedicated capitalists and free-enterprise capitalists to the cause. Planned obsolescense in appliances is good, argues one libertarian con man, because we should always be buying the new and improved model. The same argument applies to houses, wives, families, and communities. We are all caught up in Progress Fever, like the Gold Fever that sent so many foolish men to die, far away from all they loved, in California or Montana.

Economic liberty and free enterprise can be maintained only by a certain kind of human character that is created and nourished under certain specific social and cultural conditions. A farmer who farms his own land and defends it with his gun, who supervises the schooling of his children and sits on his church's vestry, is a far cry from the deracinated consumer who switches houses every five years and pays other people to protect him. The consumer may make and spend far more money, but he does not have a clue as to the meaning of the term economic liberty, and, when times are hard, he will cry like a stuck pig for government to reach out its ever-extending arms to save him from the consequences of his cowardice and greed.

NEW YORK STATE ELECTIONS 2006

Governor	Lt. Governor	Comptroller	Attn'y General	U.S. Senate
John Faso (Conservative)	C. Scott Vanderhoef (Conservative)	J. Christopher Callaghan (Conservative)	Rachel Treichler (Green)	John Spencer (Conservative)

The Conservative Party line, except for Attorney General; Jeanine Pirro must be stopped! The most important races are for the United States Senate (back native John Spencer to dump the foreigner Hillary) and Governor, the race which determines the party's ballot status. Bill Kauffman says Rachel Treichler is a good localist so she's got my vote (and so should have yours, too!). And naturally, anyone who votes Demoblican or Republicrat is sowing their own perdition.

Hold the Front Page!

The Canadian Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper PC MP, has moved higher in my estimations since I read the transcript of his speech given this past Friday to the Canada-U.K. Chamber of Commerce. The Prime Minister recalled the words of Sir Winston Churchill speaking in Ottawa in 1929 that at the heart of the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom "is the golden circle of the Crown which links us all together with the majestic past that takes us back to the Tudors, the Plantagenets, the Magna Carta, habeas corpus, petition of rights, and English common law… all those massive stepping stones which the people of the British race shaped and forged to the joy, and peace, and glory of mankind."

Quoting these words, the Prime Minister continued: "Britain gave Canada all that – and much more. Including: Parliamentary democracy; a commitment to basic freedoms; the industrial revolution; and the entrepreneurial spirit and free market economy. Not to mention Shakespeare, Dickens, Kipling, Lewis, and Chesterton."

Chesterton! How splendid to hear a politician, not to mention a head of government – an American head of government (North American, if you insist) – include G.K. Chesterton as one of the precious gifts of the Mother Country to her far-flung children in the English-Speaking World.

Previously: Dilbert on Gilbert | Chesterton Remembered

Cherwell, 26 May 2006
THE FLAG of the Oxford University Conservative Association has been stolen by a splinter group and is being held at ransom. David Cochrane and Ian Wellby raised the flag up the Keble flag pole in an act that Cochrane says “claimed Keble for OUCA”.

“This does mark an historic occasion for OUCA as we have essentially created a new OUCA. We have got rid of all the gimps and all is fun now,” he said.

“This is a historical occasion comparable to Labour’s landslide in 1997, the end of the Hundreds Year War, the first time that William Shakespeare put pen to paper, the development of penicillin, or the winning of World War II,” he added.

By the next morning the flag had been taken down by the porters and had been claimed by a group calling themselves the People’s Front for the Liberation of OUCA, and who are believed to be loosely associated with the Moles Dining Club.

The Spiritual Leader of the People’s Front for the Liberation of OUCA said, “The OUCA colours have been liberated from under the very nose of the criminal Steel. They have been taken ‘Over The Water’. They shall remain there until True Monarchy is restored to OUCA. The nefarious Steel must be deposed and face justice for his manifold crimes.”

An ex-OUCA member who was present when the flag was stolen said that the oversized flag was a tradition, and that their actions were a response to rumours that Charlie Steele, the current OUCA President, planned to sell the flag.

Steel said, “Although it is no bad thing to see the OUCA flag grace the mast of the Keble flag pole, and indeed this is essentially harmless fun, it is very disappointing that people have taken it upon themselves to then steal it the following day. This amounts to nothing more than theft, and the Association will not tolerate illegal behavior of any kind.”

The Dean of OUCA, Reverend David Johnson, said, “It was incredibly stylish to fly the flag from Keble. It was bought at an extortionate cost of £400, and I thought it was ludicrous, but when it was draped over a table I thought it looked rather smart and was sort of nostalgic.”

SO IT APPEARS that the electorate of Montenegro have chosen to end their confederation with Serbia (c.f. BBC News, "Montenegro 'chooses independence'"). It is my firm belief that the more local a government, the better it is, and that decisions ought to made at the level closest to those they affect. This is more or less the idea of subsidiarity so enshrined in Catholic social teaching, especially in Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno, and rather implicit in the Tenth Admendment of the U.S. Constitution (which, to my mind, has proved to be the greatest component of the Bill of Rights).

Believing in subsidiarity, I am also inclined to believe that (up to a certain point) the smaller a state the better. (The ideal of government, after all, lies in hereditary principalities and kingdoms under a superceding imperial monarch, akin to the Holy Roman Empire). So does this mean that Montenegrin independence would be a good thing? Not necessarily. Essentially, the only disagreement between the governments of Montenegro and Serbia is that Montenegro wants to stomp out its own traditional culture and become an other outpost of boring liberal capitalism very very quickly. Serbia wants to do the same, but only quickly instead of very quickly. Look at the leadership of any European country today and you will see leaders who, despite their ritually professed anti-Americanism, want to erase their own traditional cultures and turn their countries into little cookie-cutter states slavishly beholden to American "popular culture". (Regional differences in architecture are all that will be allowed to remain, as they encourage tourism, which itself is another destroyer of genuine organic culture). The governments of both Serbia and Montenegro certainly subscribe to this vision of a bright liberal, corporate future so Montenegro's proposed separation is merely an exercise in trying to join the country club before the family next door.

Both countries aim to meet the same doom, so whether they go together or not is largely an irrelevance. Of course, if they had any sense in Belgrade and Podgorica, they'd restore their monarchies and take a peek into the ideas of Christian Democracy, a philosophy which is rather neglected these days (most especially by Christian Democratic parties, naturally). But we will lament the neglect of Christian democratic ideas (which, despite the name, are not necessarily democratic) on some other day.

It is always refreshing to hear a monarch speak his or her mind, especially when it is something quite plain and sensible that the high-falutin' politicos and public servants in their bufoonery would not dream of saying. As such, we were very happy to read some thoughts Queen Margrethe II of Denmark expressed last year:

"We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

I am sure we will all raise a glass to Her Majesty, and wish her many more happy years.

The AP doesn't have a clue… Yeah, so what else is new?

YOU'VE GOT TO hand it to the mainstream media and the depth of their understanding of American Conservatism. Just a short time ago Chief Justice Roberts began his tenure in that office by handing down a decision which dealt with some aspect of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. Just today Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court's newest member, handed down a decision regarding an inmate on Death Row in Missouri. In both cases the new justices handed down opinions siding with the constructionist school of constitutional law rather than the activist school. Yet in both circumstances the media reported it as first Roberts and now Alito somehow being un-conservative. The Associated Press headlined a piece released minutes ago 'Alito Splits With Conservatives on Inmate'.

Why has the media interpreted these decisions as somehow unconservative? Such an interpretation fits perfectly into the mindset of the judicial activist. Since about a third of our readers are British I will take a moment to explain.

Conservatives in America for the most part are constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. This means they believe that when it comes to settling constitutional disputes, the Supreme Court should go primarily with what the Constitution actually says, and if there is room for interpretation on the meaning of what it says, then we should persue the original intent of the words as best we can. Because the Fathers of the Constitution happened to write a lot (The Federalist Papers etc.) in many cases discovering the original intent is not hard. Constructionists believe that it is unlawful (and unconstitutional, naturally) to change the Constitution by any means except that which the Constitution provides (namely, the amendment process). Most liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe in judicial activism, the school which claims the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" and our interpretation of it should change to suit the age; effectively they want the ability to change the Constitution via reinterpretation every generation.

BUT THE FATHERS of the Constitution effectively made three points with the document: 1) The importance of stability and order, 2) The occasional necessity of change, and 3) The necessity for change to be slow and have a wide support-base. They emphasized the first point by making a constitution in the first place, which implies that the intent to create a settled order of government to stand the test of time. Then there is the second point: in order to stand the test of time, it is sometimes necessary to tweak with the settled order, to further define it just a bit so we can continue to enjoy our freedoms and liberties. The Fathers of the Constitution allowed for this necessity by allowing for the Constitution to be amended via the means in Article V of that document. Which continues to the third point, the requirement that major changes be slow and have an exceptionally broad base of support. The Fathers emphasized this by making the process of amendment so difficult. To lawfully change the Constitution requires a resolution proposing an amendment to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, a mean feat in and of itself, but even then it only becomes law if it is ratified by at least three-fourths of the States (either by their legislatures or by special conventions convened for that specific purpose). The other method, so far unused, is for two-thirds of the States to request Congress to call a national convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment, then subject to the same methods of ratification. Either way, it's not an easy task but therein lies the point: liberty and order are best served by a stable framework of government, which is impossible if it's being continually fiddled with.

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. If you except the Great British Constitution (which with the effective neutering of the upper house and the submission to the rule of Brussels has, since 1997, changed beyond recognition), then the Constitution of the United States has been the longest-lasting constitution still in force in the history of the world. That's no small task.

Thus penumbras wane?

BUT BACK TO Roberts and Alito. The media claimed Roberts was breaking with conservatives because he refused to strike down a lower court's ruling that an Oregon physician-assisted suicide laws were constitutional. The Associated Press, meanwhile, judged Alito as "splitting with conservatives" for "refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection". Because the media are generally in the same liberal camp as the judicial activism proponents they think like judicial activists and a judicial activist would think "Gee, Alito's conservative so he opposes physician-assisted suicide so he'll rule against it." But that's the point, you ninnies! The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution not to usurp the legislative authority of Congress by deciding to follow our own whims, fancies, and personal beliefs. The Supreme Court justice must not say whether a law was right or wrong, or whether he would've voted for it, he must ask "Does this law contravene the Constitution of the United States" and if it does not then he is obligated to rule as such and to let the law stand regardless of his personal opinion of the law. Legislative power is appropriately invested in Congress, not the Supreme Court nor the President, and the seperation of powers is fundamental to the continued success of our Constitution.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have ruled according to the law rather than to their own respective whims. This is to be commended, and could set the tone for the Roberts court as a return to normalcy after the white squall of Holmesian jurisprudence and spark a concurrent deemphasis of federal power. We can only hope and pray it will be so.

Sign: IS IT FASCISM YET?
Scribbled Graffiti: Nope, you're still making signs!

Credit: Gothamist.

St Andrean Responsible for Hong Kong's 'Economic Miracle'

Sir John Cowperthwaite was the main figure responsible for Hong Kong's economic transformation, lifting millions of people out of poverty. While scholars like Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek put an intellectual case for the free markets, it was Cowperthwaite who provided the textbook example showing economically liberal policies leading to swift economic development. His practical example provided confidence to the Thatcher and Reagan governments, and was a key influence in China's post-Mao economic liberalisation.

Cowperthwaite read classics at St Andrews and Christ's College, Cambridge. While waiting to be called up by the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles), he went back to St Andrews to study economics. This Scottish education imbibed him with the ideas of the Enlightenment, especially the work of Adam Smith, who had been born nearby in Kirkcaldy. He was a liberal in the 19th century sense, believing that countries should open up to trade unilaterally. In 1941, he joined the Colonial Administrative Service in Hong Kong. When it fell to the Japanese, he was seconded to Sierra Leone as a district officer, before returning in 1946 to help the colony's economic recovery. "Upon arrival," the Far Eastern Economic Review put it, "he found it recovering quite nicely without him." He quickly worked his way up the ranks and was made Financial Secretary in 1961, in charge of its economic policy for a decade.

When he became Financial Secretary, the average Hong Kong resident earned about a quarter of someone living in Britain. By the early 90s, average incomes were higher than Britain's. Cowperthwaite made Hong Kong the most economically free economy in the world and pursued free trade, refusing to make its citizens buy expensive locally-produced goods if they could import cheaper products from elsewhere. Income tax was never more than a flat rate of fifteen percent. The colony's lack of natural resources, apart from a harbour, and the fact that it was a food importer, made its success all the more interesting. Cowperthwaite's policies soon soon attracted the attention of economists like Milton Friedman, whose television series Free to Choose featured Hong Kong's economic progress in some detail.

Asked what is the key thing poor countries should do, Cowperthwaite once remarked: "They should abolish the Office of National Statistics". In Hong Kong, he refused to collect all but the most superficial statistics, believing that statistics were dangerous: they would led the state to to fiddle about remedying perceived ills, simultaneously hindering the ability of the market economy to work. This caused consternation in Whitehall: a delegation of civil servants were sent to Hong Kong to find out why employment statistics were not being collected; Cowperthwaite literally sent them home on th