The Nanny Who Saved Western Civilization

Few pedigrees read as impressively: descendant of John Churchill, “the Duke of Marlborough,” by some accounts the greatest military leader Britain has ever produced; son of Randolph Churchill, a man of such political aptitude he was made England’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons simultaneously at the unheard of age of only 37; son of Jeaneatte Jerome Churchill, the beautiful American heiress whose favor was sought throughout Victorian high society. From this magnificent lineage emerged one Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill upon this day, 30 November, 1874. Nonetheless, Sir Winston somehow managed to overcome all this and make something of himself!

You see the remainder of the story reveals that Sir Winston’s father was your standard issue upper-class twit whose ambition and pride drove him to make disastrous decisions leading to the destruction of his career and then, of course, the requisite excesses of alcohol, drugs, and ultimately death by syphilis in 1892 at the age of 48. His mother was a notorious adulteress whose legendary promiscuity saw her thrice married and ever scandal-ridden. Their marriage was a hushed and hurried affair as Jeanette had gotten pregnant prior to it, presumably by Lord Randolph but no one could be quite sure. To secure the nuptial, Jeanette’s father (Leonard Jerome, stock speculator and editor of the New York Times - need we say more!) bribed Lord Randolph with a “dowry” equivalent to roughly 2.5 million in present day American dollars.

As was the fashion in Victorian England, Lord and Lady Randolph Churchill completely ignored their two son’s – Winston the first, John the second (also believed sired by one other than Sir Randolph) – devoting their time to far more important matters of high society and career advancement. What time they did spend with young Winston was hurried, harried, exasperated, and fraught with contempt and irritation at their “little monster.” Lord Randolph openly and regularly expressed his disapproval of and disappointment in young Winston –he thought the boy retarded – and maintained his paternal aversion until his dying day. That Sir Winston was never able to prove his worth to his ever-disapproving father was a source of profound pain for him throughout his life.

With this then we wonder from whence came the Sir Winston we know today; the embodiment of courage, character, conviction, righteous defiance, and the eloquent championing of “Christian Civilization?” Clearly the man was endowed by his Creator with innumerable gifts. But far too often – more often than is probably known – the story of such gifted individuals in circumstances such as young Sir Winston’s goes the route of Lord Randolph Churchill and not that of his heroic son.

The salvation of Sir Winston Churchill, and thus, we would argue, of Western Civilization some 66 years later, was a nice little old lady named Elizabeth Anne Everest. The consummate nanny of Victorian England, this plump, pleasant, quiet little woman was charged by Lord and Lady Randolph as wet nurse and keeper of our little monster. From Sir Winston’s birth until his twentieth year, Mrs. Everest provided a steady regimen of love, understanding, faith, firm principles, gentle guidance, and Christian instruction. Her influence upon him is incalculable, however, in this inspiring tribute to Mrs. Everest, author Stephen Mansfield concludes,

“So it was that when the man some called the ‘Greatest Man of the Age,’ lay dying in 1965 at the age of ninety, there was but one picture that stood at his bedside. It was the picture of his beloved nanny, gone to be with her Lord some seventy years before.”

We strongly encourage you to read Mr. Mansfield’s tribute, particularly on this day, November 30, Sir Winston’s birthday. A day and a man likely few would distinguish from any other, were it not for a fussing little English nanny called, Mrs. Everest.

Cheers,

Charlie

Hidden Costs and Bollixed Priorities

As the obvious costs of the Long War in the Iraqi theater increasingly reveal themselves – even to war critics - as worth it, Congressional Democrats have hastily pieced together their latest strategy for ensuring defeat: the Hidden Costs of the War.

Effervescent with the zeal of their new found fiscal conservativism, Democrats gleefully presented their “Hidden Cost” report last week citing a $12 billion a month expense tied to military operations, interest payments on money borrowed to pay for wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans, and, of course, the cost of oil market disruptions which is – evidently – entirely due to American intervention in Iraq. These “Hidden Costs” bring the war tab to roughly $1.3 trillion for Iraq alone; an obscene amount of money and far too monstrous a burden to place upon the American tax payer say these champions of fiscal responsibility. Thus , the Democrats believe themselves justified in demanding cuts to military spending and effectively letting go of the ropes just as it appears the American military is about to hoist the Iraqis from over the edge of the cliff.

Not surprisingly, there is some doubt as to the efficacy of these numbers. In fact, senior Republicans on Congress's Joint Economic Committee have called for the withdrawal of the “Hidden Costs” report, claiming its methodology flawed and facts in error. This remains to be established, however, we have little doubt this is the case. As Rush Limbaugh points out,

“Folks, if this war had cost $1.5 trillion (for both Iraq and Afghanistan), that's half of the federal budget!”

Not to suggest that the Democrats are exaggerating their case, but they have been known to do a bit of theater now and again haven’t they? Mr. Limbaugh continues,

“But more importantly, every social program that the United States Congress has introduced has never been constrained by its actual proposed cost. Social Security, Medicare, you name it, Medicaid, they all balloon beyond what we are told they are going to cost.”

This painful truth is made blisteringly clear in a recent report by the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. In short, the report chronicles how, in less than one year, the aforementioned “fiscally conservative” Democratic Congress has:

* Enacted $98 billion in tax increases while also passing a budget resolution that assumes approximately $2.7 trillion in tax increases over the next decade;
* Increased entitlement spending by $179 billion over 10 years--barely half of which is paid for;
* Appropriated $22 billion more for discretionary programs in fiscal year 2008 than President Bush requested, which will cost $275 billion over 10 years;
* Added more than $300 billion to deficit spending over the next decade; and
* Repeatedly violated their own ethics reforms, while including 11,351 pork projects in the spending bills.

It would seem, perhaps, our Democratic congresspersons are somewhat selective in their fiscal conservativism?

Here, it is instructive to remind ourselves of the precise verbs employed in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States delineating the limits and duties of American government: “… provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare….” (Emphasis added). You see the distinction? To “provide” is to furnish, to supply, to make ready, to prepare. To “promote” is to contribute to the progress or growth of, to further. The words are not, nor were they intended to be, interchangeable. To put it in the vernacular of modern corporate America, funding defense is JOB ONE for the Federal government.

“But,” the Lefties will of course counter, “Iraq poses no threat to our national security and our abandoning it will net no negative consequences.” I find these arguments and the circumstances provoking them profoundly (and disturbingly) reminiscent of the summer of 1938.

At that time, despite Sir Winston Churchill’s incessant haranguing as to the gathering storm of Nazi aggression, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his cabinet chose not only to marginalize Sir Winston and ignore his warnings, but also to continue minimizing British defense expenditures so as to leave England virtually defenseless. Why? In his masterful treatise, “Winston Churchill’s Prewar Effort to Increase Military Spending,” Mr. Williamson Murray writes,

“To a certain extent, the government's initial response reflected its readings of the British electorate's mood and the deep hostility to any idea of rearmament throughout virtually all of British society.”

Sound familiar? The suicidal folly of all this, and where pre-World War II England perhaps most closely parallels the present day American dynamic regarding Iraq, came clear in May of 1938 as the debate over what to do about Czechoslovakia's predominantly German Sudetenland began heating up. Hitler wanted it. England and France had sworn to protect it. Chamberlain crumbled and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Murray points out,

“The 1,250 pages of published documents on British foreign policy dealing with the Czech crisis over the summer of 1938 contain not a single reference to the strategic and military impact of abandoning Czechoslovakia without a fight and the consequences that such an action would have on the European military balance of power in succeeding years.”

Today, we all know the strategic and military impact of that decision. The lesson, however, appears lost upon many.

In fact England, allied with France could likely have stopped Hitler once and for all at the Czech juncture. But the mindset of Appeasement and distaste for conflict saw them opt to postpone the inevitable, with near apocalyptic consequences. Again, however, only Sir Winston appreciated the reality of the situation:

“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with France, under whose guidance and policy she has been actuated for so long.... Every position has been undermined and abandoned on specious and plausible excuses.

I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week, the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth....They should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged and that the terrible words have for the time been spoken against the Western Democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting." And do not suppose that this is the end. This is the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup....”
- Sir Winston Churchill, October 1938.

Having tasted again that bitter cup in 2001, America, under the leadership of George W. Bush, heeded this lesson of history and proactively sought to neutralize its enemies before they grew any stronger than they already were. Progress has been made, to the ultimate benefit of all mankind. To stop now – particularly for such petty and specious reasons as cited by Congressional Democrats – would be the moral equivalent of England’s sell out of Czechoslovakia, and a strategic and military disaster of potentially even greater proportions. Behold, the true “Hidden Costs” we cannot afford to pay.

Cheers,

Charlie

A Word to Islamaniacs

Watch this video!

Kudos Mr. Condrell! Could scarcely have said it better ourselves. You are an inspiration to freedom loving Brits (and all) everywhere. We are reminded, once again, of Sir Winston's observations regarding Islam some 90 years ago:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

- Sir Winston Churchill

Cheers,

Charlie

House Democrats to Host Special Edition of MTV’s Jackass

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: churchillsparrot@gmail.com

November 9, 2007. Washington D.C. – In an attempt to bolster flagging approval ratings amongst their constituents, Democratic strategists approached the producer’s of MTV’s hit program Jackass on Friday to request recording a special episode of the program.

According to sources, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told producer’s she is planning to bring another troops-out-of-Iraq bill to the House floor on next Friday - the 58th such attempt this year - and would like the Jackass team there to record the event.

“I’ve never seen the show,” explained Pelosi. “But my grandkids tell me it’s ‘da bomb!’ So who am I to say no?”

The Jackass program featured individuals performing ridiculous, dangerous, and self-injuring stunts and pranks for the amusement of its viewers. Though regular production of the Jackass television program ceased in 2002, a number of spin-offs and theatrical versions have since met with great success amongst the depraved and dull-witted, thus catching the eye of Democratic strategists.

Initial reports indicate that Jackass producers are seriously considering producing the special episode.

“I mean they haven’t got a (expletive) chance in hell,” said former Jackass producer, Don Kerschski. “This could be (expletive) funnier than (expletive) Johnny Knoxville gettin’ repeatedly kicked in the (expletive) over and over by (expletive) 11 year-old girls. (Expletive) hilarious!”

Kerschski is referring to the fact that, despite the (decreasingly) mainstream media’s best efforts to prevent it, the American public is beginning to realize that their military is currently executing one of the most brilliantly executed and effective turnarounds of fortune in military history. Reports of massive reductions in casualties amongst civilians Coalition Forces, and Iraqi Security Forces continue to seep into American public awareness. Evidently, the Democrats are entirely unaware of this phenomenon.

“Maybe somebody oughta tell Nancy and Harry?” suggest Kerschski. “Nah. (Expletive) them! This’ll be one of the best (expletive) episodes we’ve ever done!”

###
Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate flagging Western Civilization through regular injections of the Churchillian spirit, so desperately lacking in the enfeebled, addle-brained “culture” left us in the wake of the 1960’s.