No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes!

Churchill’s Parrot to Produce Stage Adaptation of
National Intelligence Estimate

December 6, 2007. New York – Churchill’s Parrot Productions LLC announced plans yesterday to produce a musical stage adaptation of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes.

The NIE reveals that, while it appears Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, it remains quite willing and able to resume that program at the first opportunity. Nonetheless, interpretations of the eight page report vary widely.

“The things got more qualifiers and caveats than a Clinton legal brief,” says Quentin “Daphne” de Blovianne, director of No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes. “The language is just scrumptiously non-committal and leaves a lot to the imagination. It’s just begging to be made a musical. Well now it will be!”

De Blovainne notes that while U.S. President George W. Bush saw the report as cause to stay the course in efforts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons entirely, the media interpreted it as “embarrassing” and further cause for suspicion of the Bush Administration, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed the report a “victory.”

“It’s like a poem or a song. It means something different to everyone,” observes de Blovianne. “I don’t know anything about National Intelligence, but I do know musical theater, and this baby's got blockbuster written all over it!”

The musical’s “show-stopper” according to de Blovianne is the Gershwin-esque, Remote, Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Even Chance, Probably/Likely, Very Likely, Almost Certainly which plays on the reports “Explanation of Estimative Language” section. “In terms of musical comedy, it practically writes itself,” de Blovianne gushes. “My other favorite’s a breathless little romp called The Bureaucratic Rag. The Bureaucratic Rag traces the NIE’s evolution through request committees, proposal committees, concept committees, draft committees, critique committees, review committees (including the Directors of the National Clandestine Service, the NSA, the NGA, the DIA, and the Assistant Secretary/INR),and finally presentation to the President and senior policymakers. “It’s like My Fair Lady meets Waiting for Godot,” says de Blovianne. “To-die-for funny!”

The musical’s title - No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes - refers to Ahmadinejad’s previous declarations that there are no homosexuals in Iran, the Jewish homeland ought be wiped off the face of the earth, and that he has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, a claim he insists is validated by the 2007 NIE.

The Ahmadinejad Administration responded to news of the production through a prepared statement. “His Excellency applauds this celebration of Bush’s shame, discredit, and utter humiliation,” read the statement. “Being a big fan of musical theater he would love to see it. Unfortunately, as it will likely be produced by Jews and cast almost entirely with homosexuals, this will not be possible.”

No Gays, No Jews, No Nukes is expected to debut Al Qods Day (October) 2008.

###
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.

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.

The Desert Bloom - An Insult to Human Dignity?

Reflecting upon the events of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, we felt compelled to once again examine the alleged source of all the chanting, frothing, eye-bulging, beheading, suicide-bomb vest-donning, IED-planting, plane-crashing, WMD-seeking passion that is Islamania: the existence of Israel.

At a recent Al Quds Day Celebration (October 5 if you missed it), the “It Girl” of contemporary fascism – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – declared, “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence are an insult to human dignity.” This is a most telling declaration on the part of Mr. Ahmadinejad (although it tends to get far fewer laughs than, “There are no homosexuals in Iran.”)

Therefore, let us now disassemble Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement into two parts and analyze them separately. Then, employing Aristotle’s method of deductive reasoning, we shall reassemble them as the major and minor premises of a syllogism which will lead us to a reasoned conclusion. (Hint – for those of you not wanting to read the whole bloody post, our reasoned conclusion is that all this rubbish about “Zionism” is nothing more than brute racism, Islamo-Fascism is very very bad and not at all in the interest of actual human survival … oh and that Ahmadinejad is a jackass – but you knew that.)

Item 1. “The creation of the Zionist Regime and the continuation of its existence.”
In terms of the creation of the “Zionist Regime,” few individuals were as instrumental as Sir Winston Churchill. An unapologetic Zionist, Sir Winston fought passionately – at times virtually single-handedly – to hold Britain to the promises it made via the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the subsequent Palestine Mandate of 1922 to facilitate the establishment a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Why? Did Sir Winston so hate the people of the nation of Palestine that he wished to force them from their homeland and replace them with Jews? No, for there was no, nor has there ever been such thing as a nation of Palestine. In his superlative essay, “Does Israel Have a Right to Exist,” Michael Medved writes:

“First of all, it’s not true in any sense that the modern Jewish State ever supplanted or destroyed an existing nation of “Palestine.” From the time of definitive destruction of the ancient Jewish commonwealth in 70 A.D., the land that comprises the current State of Israel never enjoyed independent existence but, rather, passed back and forth among competing world empires - Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamaluke, Ottoman and British. Over the course of more than 1,800 years, no nation with the name “Palestine” appeared on any maps, anywhere.”

What there had been, and what enchanted spirits such as Sir Winston’s so thoroughly, however, was a slow but steady resettlement of the Holy Land over the centuries by Jewish immigrants who, by their own industry and ingenuity, were transforming a veritable wasteland into a prosperous community. As Sir Winston detailed in his White Paper of June 1922:

“During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics."

Again, in 1939, before the British House of Commons Sir Winston related:

“Yesterday the Minister responsible descanted eloquently in glowing passages upon the magnificent work which the Jewish colonists have done. They have made the desert bloom. They have started a score of thriving industries, he said. They have founded a great city on the barren shore. They have harnessed the Jordan and spread its electricity throughout the land.”

But surely, all this Zionist prosperity came at the expense of the Arab Palestinians? In fact, quite the opposite is true, as Sir Winston pointed out:

“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”

This fact is confirmed by many sources, including the Zionism and Israel Encyclopedic Dictionary whose excellent analysis of the Arab Revolt in Palestine states that by 1937:

“Palestine contained more Arabs than ever before in its history, and they enjoyed a higher standard of living than ever before…”

BUT (here’s where things start getting ugly)…

“…but they could only be supported as long as they were dependent on the economic activity of the Jewish minority and the investments of the Zionist movement. At the same time, the Arabs of Palestine insisted that this Jewish minority was dispossessing them and tried to rid themselves of the Jews and the Zionist enterprise. The Arabs would say that they had been impoverished by Zionist "dispossession," but in fact they enjoyed a higher standard of living and faster economic growth than their neighbors in Syria, Jordan or Egypt.”

So what was the cause of increasing Arab Palestinian dependence upon the Zionist economy? As detailed in the 2005 essay Zionism and Its Impact, Ami Isseroff explains that Arab Palestinian infighting, disorganization, and obsession with blaming the Jews resulted in “the almost total lack of constructive effort in building up their own institutions, investing in the Arab sector of the Palestinian economy and creating their own ‘state in the making’ as the Zionists did.” Envy instead of industry possessed the Arab Palestinian population, and – as is usually the case in such instances - violence erupted.

While the most significant violence of this era took place during “The Great Uprising” of 1936-1939, previous riots had set the stage in 1929. Here it is instructive (and somewhat amusing) to read the Arab account of the events of 1929, as compared to the Jewish account. We will leave the decision as to which seems the more credible to you the reader.

It is important to remember, however, that this violence – so nauseatingly similar to that of today – occurred at a time when there was not as yet any nation of Israel, no Israeli military, no 1948 War of Israeli Independence, no war of 1967 and Jewish taking of territory, noYom Kippur War of 1973, no oil, no Shah of Iran, no U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, no sanctions on nor war in Iraq etc. etc. etc. all of the “atrocities” which our Islamaniac brethren point to today as justification for blowing up shopping malls, discothèques, and office buildings the world over. There were merely two communities in a desert – one thriving, one disintegrating – both by their own hands.

Many might here suggest that it was British repression of non-Jewish Palestinians in contrast to their support of the Jews that fueled such violence. While no one will deny that British support was decidedly behind Jewish efforts to extract civilization from desert (in much the same way one is more apt to water the budding plant than the inert rock lying beside it) every issuance of policy from the British government – and Sir Winston - regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home was rife with qualifiers ensuring that full recognition of the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians was of paramount importance.

From the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

From Sir Winston’s 1922 White Paper:
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

And …

“The Secretary of State would point out that already the present administration has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Moslem community of Palestine the entire control of Moslem Religious endowments (Waqfs), and of the Moslem religious Courts. To this Council the Administration has also voluntarily restored considerable revenues derived from ancient endowments which have been sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is also advised by a committee representative of all sections of the population, and the Department of Commerce and Industry has the benefit of the co operation of the Chambers of Commerce which have been established in the principal centres. It is the intention of the Administration to associate in an increased degree similar representative committees with the various Departments of the Government.

The Secretary of State believes that a policy upon these lines, coupled with the maintenance of the fullest religious liberty in Palestine and with scrupulous regard for the rights of each community with reference to its Holy Places, cannot but commend itself to the various sections of the population, and that upon this basis may be built up that a spirit of cooperation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.”

From the Palestinian Mandate of 1939:
Article 2 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for … safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

Article 6 – “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions…”

Article 9 – “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.”

Article 13 – “Nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.”

Article 15 – “The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”

Article 22 – “English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.”

From Sir Winston’s speech before the House of Commons in 1939:

“I cannot feel that we have accorded to the Arab race unfair treatment after the support which they gave us in the late War. The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, but elsewhere over vast regions inhabited by the Arabs independent Arab kingdoms and principalities have come into being such as had never been known in Arab history before.”

And once again….

“So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”

Without doubt there were British (Harold MacMichael) and Zionist (the Irgun Response) excesses in reaction to Arab unrest. In the end however, it cannot be denied that the only real motivation behind Arab objection to Zionism, was – and is – bald face racism.

Item 2. “…an insult to human dignity.”

Thus spake Ahmadinejad: The Zionist venture and support of such a thing is “an insult to human dignity.” In other words, to employ ingenuity, commitment, hard work, dedication, industry, wisdom, loyalty, and good will to create one of the world’s most prosperous societies is “an insult to human dignity.” To share one’s wealth and make peace with one’s enemies - Israel established diplomatic relations with West Germany on May 12, 1965 (causing several Arab nations to break ties with West Germany on May 13) and Egypt in 1979 (causing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to be shot to death by Islamic fundamentalists) – is an “insult to human dignity.” To ask nothing more than the right to tend one’s own people and business on a parcel of land slightly smaller than New Jersey amidst a vast Middle East landscape is “an insult to human dignity.” Fascinating.

One is compelled to ask then, how exactly do you define “human dignity” Mr. Ahmadinejad? Does it consist of the chaos, violence, poverty, and misery that has characterized much of the Islamic world throughout its history? Murder-suicide on an international scale? Repression of women, people of non-Muslim faith, and homosexuals? Being only a parrot, perhaps it’s all beyond me but as best I can tell, there is little of humanity or dignity in any of that.

Our Conclusion

Now let us re-examine Mr. Ahmadinejad’s original statement via Aristotelian syllogism:

Major premise: The creation of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Minor Premise: The continuation of the existence of the Zionist Regime is an insult to human dignity
Conclusion: The Zionist Regime is itself antithetical to human dignity

Very well then. Let us for a moment remove the element of “Jew” from the concept of Zionism. The above syllogism then would mean that a society that employs behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, philosophies, and actions which result in the well-being and prosperity of those employing them are an insult to human dignity. Is this what Mr. Ahmadinejad intends to say? Likely not. For even he would have to acknowledge – at least publicly – that societies such as these comprise mankind’s only hope for survival. Adding the element of “Jew” back into the equation, however, renders in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s mind – and the minds of those who agree with him – such societies antithetical to human dignity and justifies their destruction.

Here we see plainly the effects – like rabies – of Racism Gone Wild. This is what we call, “Islamania.” This is what we are fighting. And this, if we fail to succeed in that fight, will quite likely be the end of human civilization.

Cheers,

Charlie

Happy Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week!

Our planned Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week festivities have been waylaid by a rather devastating computer virus. (Coincidence?). We are working furiously to rectify the situation. In the meantime, we refer you to the following sites for your education and edification, regarding this – the greatest threat to the survival of Western Civilization.

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/

http://foehammer.net/

http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/

http://jihadwatch.org/

Facebook Facing Left?

Not since I was declared a fraud by the BBC, About.com, the Museum of Hoaxes, Wikipedia, NPR, The Churchill Centre, and others, have I been forced to endure such indignity. Facebook, the upstart would-be MySpace, has deemed me, ME – the brightest feather of the Right Wing, the only Conservative pundit who can fly – unworthy of membership, and disabled my account!

Why?

“Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site,” says the friendly Facebook form rejection FAQ. “Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one particularly egregious violation”

Zounds! And, pray tell, what was my egregious violation?

“Unfortunately, for technical and security reasons, Facebook cannot provide you with a description or copy of the removed content,” replies Facebook. Most helpful. Facebook does, however, provide a list of egregious offenses from which to choose that may or may not actually be the reason for one’s having been jettisoned from amongst its worthy ranks.

Egregious Offense #1. “We do not allow users to send unsolicited or harassing messages to people they don’t know, and we remove posts that advertise a product, service, website, or opportunity.”

As I knew no one on Facebook, I directed my content to no member in particular. Furthermore, this content contained no harassments, solicitations, nor advertisements. It could be argued that I advertised enlightenment by encouraging members to visit my blog (www.churchillsparrot.com). However, as the Facebook registration process encourages members to list any blogs or websites they might have in their command, and provides a feature by which to stream one’s blog content through one’s Facebook site, it seems not a stretch to assume this is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior.

Egregious Offense #2. “We do not allow any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit photos, as well as any photos that depict graphic violence.”

Other than the occasional reference to MoveOn.org, my content did not, nor has it ever contained anything obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, nor graphically violent.

Egregious Offense #3. “We also remove content, photo or written, that threatens, intimidates, harasses, or brings unwanted attention or embarrassment to an individual or group of people.”

Hmmm. We may have something here. A quick review of my most recent posts produces titles such as, “Study Finds Democratic Party May have Died Decades Ago”, “Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion,” “Our Second Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (not at all flattering to Mr. Ahmadinejad), “Celebrate Talk Like a Terrorist Day”, and more. It is certainly fair to say there is much “unwanted attention and embarrassment brought to individuals and groups of people” here. But such is political commentary. Does Facebook mean to say members are not to share political commentary via their online forum? Most curious, particularly as it was through a political site – www.BritainandAmerica.com – through which I became involved in this mess in the first place. (Although this site now no longer advertises its Facebook option either. Again, hmmmmm.)

Egregious Offense #4. “Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.”

Here we have, at once, the most likely and the most hilarious “reason” for my expulsion. As referenced earlier, this is not the first time the validity of my identity has been called into question. While I can well appreciate the seeming unlikelihood of there actually being a 107 year-old parrot claiming to have once been the pet and confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and issuing scathing indictments of Leftist tyranny via the Internet on a regular basis, that is, nonetheless, who and what I am.

Let us, for the sake of argument, however, suppose that I were not actually Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot. Imagine instead that I were, say, a frustrated Conservative writer from Wisconsin, USA, seeking outlet and audience for his or her thoughts, opinions, and writing. Would not the employment of the “Churchill’s Parrot” identity fall under the definition of “nickname” or “avatar,” devices used by 90% of those participating in online communication? Am I to believe that others encountered during my brief stint on Facebook are actually who or what they say they are? “Odo Barn Owl,” “Peace Love Bird,” “Ford Taurus,” “Linus McKitten,” “Tuna Bird,” the entire membership of a Facebook Group entitled, “Facebook Members Who are Not Human” to name a few … these are all somehow exempt from the “fake names,” “impersonations,” and “misrepresentations” standard?

Having brought this issue to Facebook’s attention they responded as follows,“If you see any individuals on the site who are currently in violation of our Terms of Use, it is only because they have not yet been disabled for misuse.”

Right then. We shall full well expect that, in keeping with its principles, Facebook is thus now in the process of purging well over half its membership for violating the high standard of identity integrity to which it aspires. As we say in the Queen’s Dominion, “Not bloody likely.” To attempt such would prove not only impossible – Facebook currently boasts nearly 34 million active users – it would be idiotic. Creativity (though admittedly much of it at a third grade level) is an amusing and positive outgrowth of such ventures.

What is far more bloody likely is that only certain kinds of members of questionable identity are being purged from the esteemed ranks of Facebook: those expressing overtly Conservative views and opinion. My suspicion is that some Lefty took offense to one of my posts and reported it to the Facebook security ninnies who – rather than defend my content as legitimate contribution to an open forum – saw fit to acquiesce to Lefty whining, disable my account, and throw these lame excuses at me by way of “explanation.”

Understand, what ruffles my feathers is not my exclusion from the Facebook community – I appeared to be the only one bothering to contribute any actual content anyway – but that here we may well have yet another forum wherein Conservative expression is being denied. Thus, I write this post, and thus I have solicited the assistance of the mighty Media Research Center to aid in my further investigation of this potential.

If I am proven wrong and revealed as merely an hysterical Right Wing paranoiac, so be it. I will, at such time, willingly and publicly eat crow - a far more repugnant act for parrots, mind you, than for you non-avians!

In the meantime, I would be very interested to know if there are any other Right-leaning individuals out there who have found themselves expelled from the Facebook roster. Drop us a line at churchillsparrot@gmail.com. Perhaps we shall discover that what we have here is not just another pretty Facebook.

Cheers,

Charlie

Study Finds Democratic Party May Have Died Decades Ago

October 10, 2007- London, England. A ground-breaking study funded by the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation released findings today indicating that America’s Democratic Party actually died sometime between the assassination of JFK and the end of the Johnson Administration.

“What we have now in the DNC is not a political party but a hideous, brainless, zombified caricature of what once was the Democratic Party of the United States,” declares the study’s director, Morton Clathwock, Ph.D., Dean of Political Science at Hipslawn College in Ipswich, Massachusetts.

The study cites, among other things, DNC leadership’s phony complaints about phony controversies over phony soldiers, constant references to unidentified flying economic woes, and, of course, the championing of causes which don’t exist such as man-made global warming.

“These guys make Don Quixote look like an actuary,” adds Clathwock. “At least his delusions had something to do with honor!”

Charlie – Churchill’s Parrot, Executive Director of the Churchill’s Parrot Foundation, says he called for the study in response to increasing reports of monstrously reckless behavior on the part of leaders in the American Democratic Party.

“There is a school of thought which maintains that the Democrats have always existed antithetically to America; from the cowardly Copperheads at Lincoln’s heels to the Socialists behind FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society debacle,” says Churchill’s Parrot. “Through all this, however, the party and its advocates were at least to some degree deferential to the central hypothesis of the American experiment. Our study makes clear these New Lefties just want to blow up the laboratory!”

The study postulates that in a representative government such as that of the United States, a political party needs to actually represent something of substance in order to actually exist.

Dr. Clathwock explains. “Republicans generally represent the principles of what today in America is known as ‘Conservatism’: limited government, national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional American i.e. Judeo-Christian values. In truth these are the principles which gave rise to the creation of the United States itself and its Constitution.” Clathwock says that a party’s success or failure in advancing policy in accord with its stated principles provide a means by which you can measure its vitality. “The body’s vital signs if you will,” illustrates Clathwock. “The Republicans are good here, not so good there, and so on. The Democrats? We can’t even find the body!”

In fact, what DNC positions could be identified by the study’s specially designed Issues Matrix™ pinpointed them Left of Maoist China and slightly Right of total anarchy.

“Amnesty for illegal aliens and ‘out of Iraq now’ for the anarchists; universal health care, government bailouts for homeowner mortgages , and the Kyoto Protocol for the socialists. There’s nothing for America in any of this,” says Clathwock.

The study concludes that today’s DNC does not constitute a viable political party presenting any serious option for American voters. “What you have is a loose confederation of malcontents, nihilists, lunatics, and children,” explains Clathwock. “Unfortunately, with the aid of a complicit media, you have nearly 50% of the American population taking this rot seriously. Forty years of demonizing the Right has paid off. After all, who wants to be painted as a greedy racist, homophobe, prude as surely you will be the minute you vote Republican.”

Dr. Clathwock says by all indications the Democartic party actually died the night of February 27, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson abdicated responsibility for American foreign policy to Walter Cronkite and CBS News.

“That was really the end of it,” says Clathwock. “The party had gone from – ‘we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty’ - to letting a twit like Cronkite paint victory as defeat. After that, everything ‘Democratic Party’ has just been putrefaction and decay. I give you Dennis Kucinich.”

Clathwock and the study’s authors warn, however, that a dead DNC is by no means a harmless DNC. “This thing we have today that calls itself The Democratic Party is a dangerous creature. A corpse enchanted by the funds of millionaire Marxists , inflated with feel-good rhetoric, this brain-eating zombie of a party will do whatever it has to to keep itself alive, regardless of the consequences. Consider yourselves warned!”

###
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.

Useful Idiot Hall of Fame Announces Massive Expansion

10/2/07 – Washington D.C. Due to a virtually unprecedented influx of exceptional nominees, the Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has announced plans for a massive expansion of its facilities.

A number of exciting new exhibits are in the works, all bringing to life with vivid clarity and realism the jaw-dropping idiocy and bone-chilling treachery of certain of our comrades doing their best to bring about the collapse of Western Civilization.

Expansion activities will focus primarily in the Disgrace and Dishonor wing (the Left wing) of the facility. Features will include:
* The John Murtha Multimedia Circus
* The MoveOn.org House of Horrors
* The New York Times “Truth or Consequences” Game Room (discounts available for MoveOn.org members)
* The John Kerry School of Military History
* “Variations on Objective Reality” - an art exhibit by Dan Rather
* and Étiquette pour l'Élite - a series of live seminars with Columbia University’s Lee Bollinger. (CAUTION: Guests may be subject to unexpected tongue-lashings at the whim of the host.)

Further construction to accommodate the plethora of additions to our standard roster of idiots will proceed simultaneously. Most recent inductees include Harry Reid, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, and of course, Rosie O’Donnell.

We are also pleased to announce we have successfully commissioned world renowned sculptor Fah’rt, to erect towering statues of George Soros and Jimmy Carter to adorn our magnificently re-designed entry way.

And for the Kiddie Winkies … our new “Dennis Kucinich Nut Hut” will provide a cornucopia of wacky and zany games and activities for kids to explore the joys of Marxist/Leninist delusion while being free to behave like the five-year-olds they are.

Originally constructed in 1945, The Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame has endeavored to recognize and honor every useful idiot - from Neville Chamberlain to Nancy Pelosi - who has contributed to the defamation and demoralization of both America and England.

###

Via his web log, http://www.churchillsparrot.com/, Charlie, Sir Winston’s 107 year old pet parrot, endeavors to reinvigorate the flagging will of 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.