Jury of Our Peers?

Is anyone surprised? The British jury privileged with the opportunity to send seven Islamaniacs accused of plotting the most spectacular terrorist attack since September 11, 2001 to legal martyrdom, hadn’t the nerve to do so.

Evidently they found greater accord with the defence which proposed these gentlemen had no intention whatsoever of simultaneously blowing up six transatlantic airliners full of innocent men and women with liquid bombs while flying over American metropolitan areas, but instead were merely planning a little anti-war protest at Heathrow airport enhanced by a few homespun pyrotechnics.

To their credit, the jury did manage to find three of the plotters guilty of conspiracy to murder, which is rather like finding John Wilkes Booth guilty of disturbing the peace.

British defense and intelligence officials are beside themselves and prosecutors are expected to seek a retrial as soon as humanly possible.

We submit, however, and regrettably so, that whatever gaggle of British citizens are thrown together in judgment of this case, they are all too likely to arrive at precisely the same verdict.

Stewed in a culture of relativism, non-judgementalism, and multi-culturalism; and seasoned with daily sprinklings of contempt for Western Civilization, they could hardly arrive at anything else.

Far be it from us to draw sweeping conclusions from isolated incidents, but do we not see here the suicide of the free world in microcosm? If a jury of our peers in an open and shut case cannot bring themselves to apply the full weight of the law where and when it is needed most, then why bring the case to trial at all? Why the pretense of a judicial process when in practice it will be subordinated by our fashionable distaste for judging others?

In the post 9-11/7-7 world, if we cannot bring our 800 year tradition of jurisprudence to bear in defence of itself, we are no longer worthy of it.

Cheers,

Charlie

(We invite any and all to peruse this photo essay by our personal secretary, Mr. B Walter Farley, What I Learned on Tuesday: Lessons of Tuesday September 11, 2001.)

Remember the Alamo?

Hilarious and nauseating at once is mankind’s chronic inability to retain wisdom acquired at the cost of much blood, toil, tears, and sweat. This tragicomedy was played out for us in no uncertain terms upon our recent Stateside pilgrimage to one of the more forgotten shrines to the cause of Liberty: the Alamo.

Internationally acclaimed as our mastery of history is, we must admit our general ignorance heretofore of this brief but profound chapter in the American story. Upon being made aware, however, we were somewhat stunned (as so often we are) at the parrallels between then and now, and the lessons afforded those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

For in the eternal battle between tyranny and liberty; collectivism and individualism; centralism and federalism, our current status is not unlike that of Travis, Bowie, Crockett and the 182 other men who gave their lives at the Alamo fighting the forces of despotism. As the United Nations seeks to centralize global authority and nullify national sovereignty through its “Earth Charter”, as the European Union increasingly overrides the will of the electorate, as the Islamists openly declare their intent to enforce a global Caliphate, those of us who yet hold dear the principles of limited government, national sovereignty, individual liberty, and free enterprise find ourselves surrounded and quite possibly outnumbered.

Naturally today’s popular consensus will regard such sentiments as laughable. Indeed the story of the Alamo itself has been reduced by many to that of an embarrassing display of drunken male bravado in the face of overwhelming and – they would suggest - legitimate authority. Others claim it was a battle over slavery, with Mexican authorities on the side of right, for they had abolished slavery in 1829, well before their Anglo-European cousins to the north. (Nevermnind that the Mexican government allowed slavery once again six years later, just prior to the battle of the Alamo.) No doubt alcohol, bravado, slavery, even ethnic tensions played their roles in the blood bath of the Alamo and subsequent Texas Revolution, but clearly these issues existed on both sides of the firing line. The core drama at play here, as always, was that of tyranny versus Liberty.

Allow us to illustrate by briefly revisiting a few key aspects of this once well known tale.

In 1808 Emperor Napoleon of France put his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne. For most, nothing more really needs to be said. Nonetheless we shall continue. Shockingly, this appointment made a mess of things in Spain, ergo ties between Spain and her American colonies eroded, and a war for Mexican independence erupted in 1810. The rebels eventually emerged victorious with Spain recognizing Mexican independence in 1821.

As is the case with most such revolutions, however, (except – thank The Lord and George Washington - the American revolution) the victorious revolutionaries were quickly perverted by the power they had just won. Inaugurating the 187 year (and counting) fiasco that is the Mexican “government", General Agustin de Iturbide – one of the leaders of the revolution – was made Emperor of the new “Mexican Empire.” At this time, mind you, this empire was not an insignificant piece of real estate, comprised of more than 5,000,000 kilometers square stretching from the present day Oregon/California border to Panama.

What it boasted in territory, however, the Mexican empire lacked in substance. After just ten months of arrogant disregard for his new nation’s constitution, Iturbide decided to dissolve the government, prompting rebellion. He then reinstated it, prompting further rebellion. He then submitted his abdication, prompting further rebellion. He then fled the country, prompting his being declared a traitor. He then returned to Mexico, prompting his immediate execution at the hands of local officials.

Somehow, however, from the midst of this swirling vortex of ineptitude, a constitution establishing a representative federal republic of the people came into being: the 1824 Constitution of Mexico. It was this constitution and its promise of freedom, deliberately styled after the Constitution of the United States of America, which inspired multitudes of American and European settlers to emigrate to the the "Mexican Republic."

This experiment in self-government and free-enterprise yielded the usual results: thriving communities of increasing strength and prosperity. Settlers came in droves, bringing with them their customs and beliefs, not all of which were looked upon favorably by the Mexican officials. Ostensibly their objections were over the settlers’ tendancy to ignore laws regarding compulsory Roman Catholicism and the abolition of slavery. We suspect, however, a more fundamental impulse was at play – envy. Consider the words of French political writer and statesman, Alexis De Tocqueville, who was composing his classic Democracy in America at this very point in history:

“The territory of the Union (The United States of America) presents a boundless field to human activitiy, and inexhaustible materials for labor. The passion for wealth takes the place of ambition, and the heat of faction is mitigated by a consciousness of prosperity.

But in what portion of the globe shall we find more fertile plains, mightier rivers, or more unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America? Yet South America has been unable to maintain democratic institutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placed in a remote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territory before them, the Spaniards of South America would have no reason to complain of their fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperity than the inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be such as to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are no nations upon the face of the earth, however, more miserable than those of South America.”

“Other inhabitants of America have the same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and their customs; and these people are miserable. The laws and customs of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that special and predominant cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.”

It was those laws and customs, and the prosperity they wrought, that incurred the wrath of the Mexican authorities, much as the success of the Jewish Palestinians enraged the Arab Palestinians in the 1920s (and does to this day.) Thus, in 1834, President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (the self-styled Napoleon of the West) rescinded the 1824 Constitution, dissolved the Mexican federation of free and sovereign states, and set about centralizing all power under his control in Mexico City.

Lo and behold, the Liberty Lovers – American, European, Mexican et al – who had chosen to live in Mexico because of Her freedom, rebelled when that freedom was taken away.

This is why 185 men held their ground at the Alamo, even when it became obvious that doing so meant certain death. Whether seeking the restoration of the 1824 Constitution, or out and out independence for a “Republic of Texas”, they fought to defy tyranny personified in Santa Anna, to slow if not stop his advance across Mexican Texas, and to appeal to the world on behalf of Liberty. This conviction was articulated clearly and profoundly by then Commander of the Alamo, Lieutenant Colonel Willam Barret Travis, in his letter to “The People of Texas and All Americans in the World”:

‘Fellow citizens & compatriots;

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country.

VICTORY OR DEATH.

William Barret Travis”

Travis and his men held to this pledge. Unable to achieve victory, they fought to the death. Their courage, however, galvanized Texan forces who just 46 days later won independence for Texas under General Sam Houston at the Battle of San Jacinto; their famous battle cry, “Remember the Alamo!”

Santa Anna was captured the next day. At one point during his confinement, he made a statement about his motives which revealed not only his own mindset, but which represents the mindset of “Centralists” immemorial in terms of their esteem for the freedom of man:

“It is very true that I threw up my cap for liberty with great ardor, and perfect sincerity, but very soon found the folly of it. A hundred years to come my people will not be fit for liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are, and under the influence of a Catholic clergy, a despotism is the proper government for them, but there is no reason why it should not be a wise and virtuous one.”

Is this rationale for despotism, dripping as it is in arrogance and unconscious contempt for the unalienable rights of man, not echoed in the manifestos and statements of votaries of The State ever since? Do we not hear it, for example, in the United Nation’s so-called “Earth Charter?”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Did we not see it in Britain’s House of Commons’ betrayal of the people with their refusal to put the European Union Treaty to a referendum?

Does not the European Union itself increasingly see fit to ride roughshod over the rights and freedoms of the people it presumes to govern?

Are the statements of the Islamists not clearly in agreement that “despotism is the proper government,” a despotism of sharia law for all the world?

When Santa Anna’s forces first surrounded the Alamo, they raised the flag of no quarter and demanded immediate surrender. Travis and his men responded with a cannon blast. Today, through the gentle guises of environmentalism, multiculturalism, tolerance, international cooperation, community cohesion, and social justice that same demand is being made increasingly of Liberty Lovers worldwide. What shall our response be?

To the world we say: Herinner Alamo! Erinnern Sie sich an den Alamo! Souvenez-vous de l'Alamo! Remember the Alamo!

Cheers,

Charlie

The West's Inadvertent Hero?

Regrettably we are forced to announce the cancellation of our star-studded induction celebration of Dr. Rowan Williams – England’s Archbishop of Canterbury – into our Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame. This is not due to the good Archbishop’s proving himself any less of an idiot useful to the advance of the British Caliphate. It is, however, an instance wherein one’s demonstration of idiocy is so profound that it serves to more vigorously enflame opposition to that idiocy than support for it.

In short, the Archbishop sought to bring awareness to the dilemma of Muslims in Britain wishing to live according to Sharia law and their difficulties reconciling this with British civil law. Evidently this is not the tidiest of relationships. The Archbishop inaugurated his mission with an impeccably incomprehensible bit of academic yib-yab at Lambeth Palace last 7 February. As no one present at the lecture was capable of remaining awake through its duration, however, the Archbishop’s comments stirred no controversy. But shortly after the lecture the Archbishop took to the airwaves and reiterated his concerns for Muslims living beneath the boot of British oppression. This then was the spark which ignited the present firestorm. The Archbishop’s subsequent cheeky and half-hearted attempt to douse the flames before the General Synod last Monday has only made matters worse.

The last thing the Archbishop (or for that matter Gordon Brown, Labour, the Socialists, the secularists et al) wanted was to rouse the patriotic passions of the British street by drawing attention to how speedily modern Britain is falling away from her cultural foundations. This is, however, precisely what he has done; a fiasco made all the more hilarious by the good Archbishop’s utter bewilderment at the British people’s reaction to his eloquent jackassery.

In no small way the Archbishop has achieved what this blog and several others seek to do with virtually every post: bring into public-consciousness the acute lethality of multi-culturalist dogma to the existing culture and traditions that have served Britain and the West well for the past several centuries. Furthermore, he may well have re-opened the debate over socialism and how government shoving its greasy fingers into every pie in the land to see it passes the taste test is antithetical to human freedom, human dignity, and Common Sense. A sticky wicket for Lefties is this!

Our personal reaction to all this is mixed. As a Champion of Western Civilization, Chair of the Anglosphere Consortium, and passionate advocate of Britain’s legacy of liberty we are of course delighted at the British people’s visceral and vociferous rejection of this egg-headed suicidal nonsense. As curator of the Useful Idiot Hall of Fame, however, we must admit we are deeply disappointed. Archbishop Williams would have proven a venerable, prolific, and accomplished addition to our roster of dupes, fools, traitors, and cowards whose purpose – whether they know it or not – is to distort Western Civilization’s understanding of itself and loosen its grasp upon its Judeo-Christian moorings.

As the good Archbishop appears to have only strengthened that grasp, however inadvertently, we cannot in good conscience bestow upon him the prestigious title of “Useful Idiot” nor the honor of inducting him into our hall of fame at this time. But never fear; we suspect this story has only just begun!

Cheers,

Charlie

Of Lionhearts and Bloody Cowards

Our good friend Shane Borgess, co-conspirator at http://www.politicalvindication.com/, has penned a masterpiece I simply must share with you all, not merely for its lyrical prose, but for its profound and disturbing subject matter as well. For now, I shall let Shane's words speak for me, as I have ripped the majority of plummage from my hind quarters and must now seek medical attention, so enraged did I become upon reading this. Best you take more care, eh? Nonetheless, we WILL have more to say on this.

Cheers,

Charlie

http://politicalvindication.com/?p=1629

The Burden Of Freedom Takes The Heart Of A Lion
By Evrviglnt January 5, 2008

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” - Thomas Jefferson

We Americans are sensitive about our liberty - it was won at a high cost and throughout our history good men and women have died far from home to protect it. Some of the liberties we insist on keeping are used by the irresponsible to prey upon the civilized, like the right to bear arms or the first amendment right to express our political thoughts. Some ask why we pay such a high price for the right to enjoy such adult liberties? Our answer is that human history has taught us that no life is “so dear, or life so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery.” What the European has dismissed we cherish, asking ourselves “what infringement on our freedom are we willing to endure for promises of peace and equality? ” In America, such questions are answered by our willingness to endure ignorance and insult, we believe that to ban expression because it hurts feelings creates a standard so low that we are all soon in chains. There has been a movement to impose such a standard here, but we reject it as unbecoming of a free people, while believing that the relationship between a government and the citizen is built upon the belief that there is inherent dignity due every one of us. When our government begins to believe that its citizens are not worthy of the liberties of a free people - not worthy of the dignity afforded a living soul - then the relationship becomes one of the authoritarian to the child, and we are not free any longer. It is the legacy of the West that we have empowered the free man to direct his government to protect his rights, for in human history freedom is rare and the seduction of the tyrant draws a line of shame in blood unbroken to this very day. So we have learned only that freedom is fleeting.

There is a choice for the free man. A battle of civilizations has broken out; on one side Western values of individual liberties and equality, on the other submission and order. One claims to unburden mankind from its fetters of prejudice and poverty, the other claims to unburden man of his arrogance and greed. One offers a world free to express human aspirations and ingenuity, the other a world free from chaos and sin. The dichotomy is stark, and as the world grows smaller and these two visions collide, the debate rages about the rude influence of Western freedom on Islamic submission, or in grander terms, democracy versus totalitarianism. In America, Western values define us, and we will abide a Serrano’s crucifix in urine rather than legislate permissible expression pegged to the subjective reactions of those injured. It is another battle in the larger confrontation between cultures clashing, but a battle on the home front as important as the one the soldier faces in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Britain, home of the sagacious Winston Churchill, finds itself suppressing again his wisdom and faith in freedom. The birthplace of Western values finds today those values inconvenient in a multicultural environment, where the diminution of Western culture seems a small price to pay for peace and stability. Ayaan Hirsi Ali would tell you that a free society cannot trade away its freedom to accommodate immigrants who deny themselves such things - a state must teach freedom or soon the free will find themselves boxed into an argument pitting the chaos of freedom against the order of submission. Mother England finds herself there now, home to a growing insolence that mauls the hand that feeds it. Extremists argue that freedom breeds entitlement and arrogance, and it does, for all the reasons every slave, woman or minority might argue from a position of oppression. It was once deemed liberal to insist on such libertine avenues of expression - but today liberals argue for order over liberty, and collude in the deconstruction of notions that once freed a people. After banning the gun and the blade, they have now come to ban the word. Calling it the ‘Public Order Act of 1986‘, they have dropped to a knee in response to those who claim that the outrage directed at their efforts to undermine freedom ought to be silenced. Islamists in Britain are using the nation’s own laws to defeat any opposition to its home grown insurgency against British culture and Western values.

There is a case in point I’d like to use. Those who blog and those who read our musings may not recognize it but what you see before you is proof of our freedom here in America. The ability to write and disseminate our thoughts without censorship is crucial to any functioning democracy. What do you call a society that censors its bloggers, or censors any free expression whatsoever? Authoritarian might be an apt description. An English blog has become a victim of the authoritarian state in its quest to enforce peace and tranquility. The blog is titled Lionheart, and its writer, who goes by the same name, writes forcefully about the growing Islamist threat inside Britain - doing so without threats of violence but vows of defiance. His site is loaded with history and outrage, and unabashed opinions about the appeasement approach his government has taken even after the 7/7 bombings by British Islamic terrorists that killed 52 people and wounded scores more. He certainly represents those Brits yet uncowed by Big Brother, and that might be why the multiculturalists have come after him. He has been alerted by Ian Holden of the Bedfordshire Police that based upon the complaint by an unnamed person he will be arrested upon arrival back to his home country. When he contacted the police for an explanation, they replied ” The offence that I need to arrest you for is “Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material” contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent.” What has he written about that is worthy of imprisonment? They won’t tell him, they want to arrest him first then tell him. Here are the sections of the Public Order Act that the officer mentioned:

18. - (1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
and:
27. - (3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [ seven years ] or a fine or both;
(b)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

The blogger Lionheart is being hunted by his government not for threatening the life of another, or urging the death of British Muslims, but for expressing thoughts considered offensive by those he intended to offend. Had this law been in force when Sir Winston Churchill stood and denounced Nazism and the Nazis that practiced such depravity, the savior of Britain would have been at the mercy of British Nazis who, with one complaint, could have had him silenced and imprisoned for insulting them. Are you curious to see what chains sound like when put into words? Then read the Public Order Act of 1986 - and imagine yourself confined to the sensitivities of those you disagree with! It would be near impossible to escape harassment, and would certainly prove paralyzing to anyone who dared depart from main stream opinion.
But the blogger stands and fights, and bloggers in England must understand that Lionheart fights for them as well, regardless of what they may think about what he has written. It is said that freedom is won wielding swords and armor and lost wearing silk slippers and robes. The decadence of the West has led to its slow demise, and from across the ocean, where God granted liberty is a reflection of inherent dignity, we see the English have left themselves in a very undignified condition. What is it that they are thinking will come from abandoning the right to rise up in outrage? How can they not see that they put their freedoms in the hands of those who care nothing for it? We must always teach the value of freedom, for we see ironically those that have it often forget what it was like without it. Whether what inspires such self loathing in the English is guilt or insecurity, they have abrogated the responsibility they have as a free people to prevent tyranny for ever darkening the globe again. Thank God there are still a few there like Lionheart who will fight, and God willing, will serve to inspire once again the will to carry the burden of freedom.

By Evrviglnt
http://www.politicalvindication.com/