Well, I have to say, the more I hear about Ayers or the New Party or any of that, the less I care.  It all seems very much beside the point in light of this whole financial catastrophe and the very absurd, very scandalous bailout that has passed Congress.

These days are just insane.  For instance, The National Review just came out with an editorial praising the Frank-Dodd mortgage bill and lambasting the McCain version.

Michelle Malkin has just shrugged off the news of Obama’s apparent socialist ties, saying:

There’s a lot of blog buzz over Barack Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party. You can read about it here, here, and here.

A year ago, I might have gotten as worked up about this as everyone else seems to be.

But after watching a GOP White House and Republican collaborationists fork over billions upon billions in socialist aid to private businesses, presiding over the most massive nationalization efforts I’ve seen in my lifetime over the past year — and then watching John McCain pitch his Treasury Department-as-national loan servicer plan during the debate — it’s hard for me to muster up much more angst than I already have.

Truly, we are approaching End Times.

So it’s only fitting that we’re about to possibly elect the most inexperienced and fundamentally wrong Fundamentalist Christian to the VP slot, doesn’t it?  I mean, first its a financial meltdown of epic proportions, then it’s Malkin with statements like that, then plagues of locusts and rivers of blood…

Then what?  Nationalize the banks? We may have to.  As it stands, the lack of Federal oversight into this whole bailout may be leading us down the road to ruin:

Welcome to another aspect of banana-republicdom. In a banana republic, the members of the national legislature will be (a) largely for sale and (b) consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere.

Things just don’t look good, when AIG is sending its execs on $400,000 spa/retreats, and still managing to rake in another $40 billion in bailouts.

Then again, if this is the End Times, maybe AIG has it right.  Take all the taxpayer money you can get your greedy little hands on and then go spend it on lavish retreats.  Hell, that’s what this whole corrupt system has been doing for years, isn’t it?

Time to buy gold, guns, and land, I think.  Gold is a sure thing.  Land can keep you and sustain you.  And guns can make sure your gold and your land don’t disappear.  It’s the American dream, baby.

It’s harvest time all across America’s fruited plain and what a glorious harvest it is this year for American liberals.

For well over forty years they have been sowing the seeds of entitlement mentality, racial suspicion, class warfare, government bureaucracy, and moral relativism into American churches, classrooms, town halls, and places of business. Now they are at last bringing home the prize they have worked so hard to achieve: The United Socialist States of America.

Best of all, they have Tom Sawyer’d the Republicans into doing most of the heavy lifting for them.

For instance, they have George W. Bush (the ostensibly Republican President of the United States) asking the Democratic party run Congress to allow the government to buy $700 billion in toxic mortgages. Genius! Not only is this the largest financial bailout of the American economy since FDR’s New Deal but, in conjunction with the $5.2 trillion government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, it amounts to the “the greatest nationalization in the history of humanity.” As we said earlier, eat your heart out Hugo Chavez!

And the people are lovin’ it!

Better still, liberals can have their socialism and eat it too, for they are rather successfully trumpeting this transition as proof positive of the failure of Conservatism.

They’re right of course. This is the failure of Conservatism; not of its principles, however, but in their application, as in - they weren’t!

Observe - at the heart of the America’s present economic meltdown is the mortgage crisis. At the heart of the mortgage crisis are decisions – empowered by liberal dogma of equal access for all regardless of ability to pay – which forced lending institutions to make suicidal loans. The Clinton Administration’s “National Homeownership Strategy” started the ball rolling in 1994. This was followed by a number of well-intentioned/economically-disastrous (read “liberal”) maneuvers which brought The Community re-investment Act of 1977 into full force making matters worse. Bushie’s “ownership society” proposals only furthered the folly. And a wee bit of good old fashioned corruption (oddly majority Democrat) sealed the deal. Alas, the American economy now lay in ruins.

Government mandates forcing businesses to give their product away to those who cannot afford it will go broke. Who knew? Well actually any Kindergartner could tell you that but … damn it was a good ride while it lasted wasn’t it?

Now faced with the staggering tab for feel-good liberalism and the corruption which funds it, the American people are clamoring for the “stability” of Mother Socialism, so long as she dons the snappy blue blazer, striped top hat, and trousers of Uncle Sam.

Bravo America. And welcome to the world federation of socialist republics!

Cheers,

Charlie

Or, You Reap What You Sow

I am an American and I love America. I was born here, I live here, and I really cannot imagine living anywhere else. Sure, I would not mind living abroad for a few years, but I would definitely want to return to America eventually.

That being said, I definitely do not agree with everything our country has done. Specifically, what America has done in the Balkans is absolutely disgraceful and terrible. To give but a few specific examples, the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the recognising of Kosovo’s independence. Both of these events, along with many others, are a stain on our great country’s history and reputation.

That is why I cannot help but feel a bit of amusement at the anger of the countries (America, EU countries, and more) who condemn Vladimir Putin’s Dmitry Medvedev’s decision to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. Is this not exactly what America and loads of other countries did with Kosovo? What right did Kosovo have to secede from Serbia? Kosovo is Serbian. They had a Serbian majority until the Serbs were driven out. Now Kosovo is a predominantly Muslim nation recognised by many countries around the world. Oh yes, is that not exactly what we need: another Muslim nation in Europe, in addition to the lovely Albania (that was sarcasm).

Since Russia’s war with Georgia, relations with Russia are at an all-time low. Yes, I do think Russia responded with rather disproportionate force in Georgia. Still, I do not think we can blame this entirely on them. America ought to bear some share of the responsibility: it is like a Kosovo for a Kosovo, so to speak. We have been antagonising Russia at the cost of appeasing Islam. We have supported Muslims in the Balkans, even when they have committed unspeakable atrocities (which are then attributed wrongly to the Serbs). Look at the future we face, especially in light of what happened on September 11: is it truly a smart thing to alienate a potential powerful ally? Russia may not be perfect, but they are much less unsavoury than the Islamic countries we have supported, both in the Balkans and not in the Balkans. Both America and Russia’s dalliances with Islamic countries are shortsighted. America and Russia ought to be allies, not enemies.

Map credit.

Originally posted at birdbrain.

A rare moment of peace in an increasingly bitter campaign.

I have to admit, I’m growing weary of this Presidential campaign.  I’m tired of hearing Obama’s middle name uttered like a condemnation; I’m tired of hearing McCain’s name altered to describe various mental states.  I don’t want to hear about the former POW’s lack of courage, or his party days.  Nor do I want to know about Obama’s association with various fringe political figures, pseudo-terrorists, or hear implications of his supposed lack of patriotism.

I just don’t want to walk into 2009 befuddled by smears of our incoming President, haunted by rumors and allegations, forced to run to one side of a bitter fence or another.  I don’t want to be part of one slice of a divided America.

Now, don’t get me wrong–America is and always will be divided based on huge, irreconcilable political differences.  The issues at stake range from the amount of government we want intervening on our behalf to reproductive rights to the nature of our foreign policy.

An Independent’s Perspective

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of not agreeing with either candidate very much.  On social issues I tend to be very liberal, very worried of the encroachment of the State on our personal liberties–especially when the State becomes too heavily influenced by the religious right.  On the other hand, I find the foreign policy stance of the Left utterly confusing.  To leave Iraq now, I believe, would be a disaster, and a human tragedy.

(more…)

I need to update my morning post on Stephen Biddle, Michael O’Hanlon, and Kenneth Pollack’s new article at Foreign Affairs, “Standing Down as Iraq Stands Up.”

As noted, the piece isn’t all that impressive. Most of the analysis seems somewhat behind the curve of events, and the conclusion’s basically the authors’ attempt to curry favor within the Democratic foreign policy establishment by re-floating the “Bush lied” meme on the origins of the deployment.

Well, the antiwar bloggers aren’t too happy no matter the motives. Indeed, this liberal warhawk-neocon triumvirate is being attacked just like the old days, although not just as war cheerleaders for the GOP imperialist project, but as enablers of American war crimes in Iraq to boot!

The meme’s getting a lot of play, but Spencer Ackerman’s attack is the most vociferous:

Matt Yglesias is on vacation until his new ThinkProgress blog launches August 11. But he IMs to ensure I don’t miss this argument in the new Steve Biddle/Mike O’Hanlon/Ken Pollack Iraq piece in Foreign Affairs:

It is worth noting that separation resulting from sectarian cleansing was not the chief cause of the reduction in violence, as some have claimed. Much of Iraq remains intermingled but increasingly peaceful. And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006. Cleansing may have reduced the violence somewhat in some places, but it was not the main cause.

I had to reread this to make sure I didn’t misunderstand. Ethnic cleansing is a violent process of extirpating members of a rival ethnicity or sect. If the ethnic cleansing occurred in 2006, of course casualties went up consistently. This argument makes no sense.

But there’s actually a broader point to make. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The U.S. quite rightly intervened in the Balkans in the 1990s to stop it. The horrors of ethnic cleansing are unfathomable to those who haven’t experienced them. What you really, really shouldn’t do is treat other people’s ethnic cleansing as a debaters’ point. It’s perverse, isn’t it, the way that ethnic cleansing that occurred during a U.S. occupation can be treated so nonchalantly by Washington polemicists.

I’d be remiss not to send a quick message to Yglesias: Dude, take some time off. You’re going to be swamped with that new, nasty gig at Think Progress.

But back to the debate at hand!

Actually, it’s not illogical for sectarian violence to have dropped if the term “cleansing” is recognized in its very common useage as a broad shorthand for the consolidation of ethnic neighborhoods and the internal displacement of populations from their homes. Iraq’s ethnic cleansing has not generally been seen as genocidal. Indeed, surge proponents using this shorthand terminology have been savagely attacked for allegedly seeking to minimize the refugee tragedy of “millions of Iraqis being robbed of their homes.”

The fact is that the antiwar hordes have never accepted the COIN strategy of President George Bush and General David Petraeus. The victory of the beefed-up troop contingents along with the tactical adjustments on the ground have long been slandered as an alleged “false narrative” of success. Just over a week ago some of the most implacable Bush-bashers on the left smeared success under the surge as a myth, or that perhaps it has “worked tactically, but hasn’t succeeded strategically, at least not yet.”

Yet now, with all the mainstream political actors accepting the new realities of Iraq - including both John McCain and Barack Obama - most of the antwar contingents are seeking to push the war debate past the question of victory to that of culpability in alleged American atrocities.

This all ties into the big push on the left for “accountability” of the Bush administration foreign policy decisions, such as the treatment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the domestic surveillance operations and the question of telecom immunity.

Ideally, for war opponents, Bush administration “criminals” would be prosecuted for war crimes under a Barack Obama administration come January 2009. What’s most likely to happen, in the advent of an Obama regimes, is that Congress would establish a “commission on torture” to investigate alleged wrong-doing under the Bush-Cheney years. Yet, the recent hard-left uproar over Obama-advisor Cass Sunstein’s recent dismissal of war crimes prosecutions indicates that the antiwar forces want a bit more than “truth and reconcilliation.”

Thus, today’s uproar over the Biddle, O’Hanlon, and Pollack essay can be seen as building more war crimes charges against the administration.

The whole thing may well end being a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing, especially as Barack Obama’s been dropping in the polls like an anchor.

On the other hand, the war crimes push is an international movement, and U.S. bloggers like Ackerman, Ezra Klein, and the crew at Newshoggers - with no substantive loyalty to the principle of American sovereignty - would like nothing more than the establishment of a universal jurisdiction of vengeance and star chamber prosecutions of Bush’s neo-imperialist cabal next year.

~cross-posted at American Power

4 July 1776 fired off a crazy rocking rolling ride that hasn’t stopped ’stirring things up’ on a global scale.

Advancing arrogance into an art form with a remarkable relentless risque commitment to liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and laissez-faire values.

America differs qualitatively from all other nations, because of her unique origins, nat’l credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions.

Great Satan is magically especial because she was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy.

Loud, proud and rowdy - early America forecast future stuff with a provocative lingo that still fits today. “Don’t Tread On Me!” “Liberty Or Death”, “Live Free Or Die”

The belief in the superiority of the American model is reflected in the perception among Americans of America’s role in the world. That American foreign policy is based on moral principles is a consistent theme in the American discourse – a phenomenon recognized even by those who are skeptic of such an assessment.

This inclination to do right has been virtually unique among the nations of the world - and for this very reason - America has been totally misunderstood. How could a nation so rich, so successful actually, really be so unselfish and so caring?

Critics cry America must have darker motives! America must be seeking imperium - to dominate everyone else, suck up all the oil, to trade and rob blind for America’s selfish purposes.

People from more grasping, less idealistic societies find it nigh impossible to accept that America honestly believes that giving everyone opportunity is the real roadmap for abundance and happiness everywhere - not merely in the magical Great Satan.

Americans honestly believe that securing other people’s freedom is actually like the best guarantee that America can keep her own.

America does not want to dominate the world. Americans want to live in peace and hope other people will too.

America will go out into the world, redress errors, stop unacceptable behaviour, to first challenge then annihilate threats to our liberty.

Creative destruction is Great Satan’s middle name. It is her natural function, for she is the one truly revolutionary country in the world for more than 2 centuries.

She does it automatically, and that is precisely why tyrants hate her guts, and are driven to attack her. An enormous advantage, tyrants fear her, and their oppressed peoples want what she offers: freedom.

Amazingly, some suspect states, illegit leaders and some people have not yet comprehended that America’s primary intention is to preserve and keep our own land and liberty and all it’s prosperity and that America will do anything and go anywhere to make it happen.

Great Satan built the modern world.

And She knows her way around.

Happy BDay America!

As electile dysfunction begins to attract and distract Great Satan concurrently with world events, perhaps it’s time to reflect on sexy bits of military diplopolitical history and the resulting nigh indestructable sexy appeal of Straussians, Pentagon Vulcans and neoconservatism in the New Millennium.

Disaster, quagmire, catastrophe, failure. Like witches cackling about a bubbly cauldron, critics and critiques enchant and re enchant a totally cursed cacophony. A pox on Pax Americana, defeat, retreat and repeat.

Such inappropiate (and boring) wickedness summoned something more than shades, spectres and hissing dissing daemoneocon denounciations. (more…)

The Arab Press and pro-Arab and Islamic bloggers and members of sites such as Newsvine are constantly up in arms over the supposed war crimes the Israeli government is perpetrating against the Palestinian people. Prior to Israel conquering the territories of the West Bank, which was annexed initially by Jordan, and Gaza, which was Palestinian only insomuch as it was a part of Egypt, the conflict in the Middle-East was referred to as the Arab/Israeli conflict.

It has now become the Palestinian/Israeli conflict–a convenient change of term for Arab propaganda, as it is much easier to define the Palestinians as the victim or minority than it was previously to define the Arabs in that fashion. The irony is that the conflict is still an Arab/Israeli conflict, and by no means a Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The Palestinians, much to their misfortune, are little more than puppets in this sad game, used by the hostile Arab states in their proxy war against Israel.

(more…)

One of the main problems in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict today lies in the fact that Israel and the Palestinians do not come to the negotiating table with equal rights. However, the U.S. State Department, in playing the role of mediator, has decided to treat this conflict as if two equally deserving parties are fighting over issues to which each have equal rights.

Secretary Rice and the State Department attempt to equate Israeli and Palestinian rights to the disputed territories. One of the prevalent global misunderstandings today about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israel occupied the West Bank after conquering it in June 1967. What ought to be made clear, is that in order for land to be occupied, it needs to have belonged to a sovereign power first. From 1948 through 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank after having illegally annexed it (and renamed it), but they were never an internationally recognized sovereign power. The West Bank was not Jordanian sovereign land when the Israeli army conquered it in 1967.

Another misunderstanding is that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the laws an occupying power must abide by. This claim is unfounded. Israel did not forcibly transfer its own population to the newly captured territories and allowed full freedom of movement for Palestinians who wished to leave the West Bank on their own accord, as outlined by the Convention.

Israel’s detractors have long preferred to use the politically loaded term “occupation” since it conveniently lends emotion to their argument and falsifies the reality of the dispute. Just as land disputes in Northern Cyprus, Mont Blanc and Abu Musa are not considered occupied territory, the West Bank certainly cannot be considered as such either.

B’Tselem, a left-wing Israeli NGO calling itself an “Israeli human rights organization,” wrongfully declares on its website that Israeli settlement “in occupied territory is itself a breach of international law.” It is unclear from their site what specific law, if any, Israel is violating. B’Tselem proudly quotes the Fourth Geneva Convention as one of their reliable sources for their accusations but it is due to their misinterpretation of the article that they are mistaken. In the end, their vague accusations lend credence to their followers and provide them with a false base of support for which there exists no real documentation or proof.

The State Department consistently uses reports by groups such as B’Tselem to support their positions on various issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In light of the last paragraph, this is a worrying phenomenon and Secretary Rice needs to take responsibility for the positions she maintains especially if they are based on a misunderstanding of key documents and international agreements.

It is important to remember that in negotiations after a war, the losing side always makes the concessions. In a defensive war on non-sovereign land, the winning country always has rights to the land it conquered without being considered occupying it.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s statement at the Annapolis Conference that she understands “what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian” and “the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness” is very worrying. This comment is ultimately misleading since it equates racist whites with non-racist Israelis and lends value to Palestinian claims that Israel violates their rights.

The civil rights movement in 1960’s America cannot be compared to the 21st century Middle East conflict by any stretch of the imagination. Israel does not prevent Palestinians from going through a checkpoint because of who they are but because of the potential danger involved.

Furthermore, Palestinians seek to destroy Israel whereas the black population and their leaders did not seek America’s destruction and did not promote the terrorization of Americans. They also did not educate their youth to hate white people nor did they send them to summer camps for hate training. Secretary Rice is mistaken if she believes that she is being “even-handed’ and “fair” by equating the conflict and comparing it to America’s south.

The Palestinians, and the Arab leaders who have led them astray, are the ones responsible for their past mistakes. There are consequences in losing an aggressive war, and the Palestinians, as the aggressors, now must face up to their obligations and recognize that they do not have equal rights in this conflict.

The Americans must realize this too and, in lieu of trying to appease the Palestinians and show even-handedness, should be talking tough and making more demands of the Palestinians – not Israel.

The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved fairly unless the U.S. State Department resolves to be impartial in approach while simultaneously recognizing the differing degree of rights between the two sides.

“Imagine there’s no countries/it isn’t hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion too/imagine all the people/living life in peace.”
- John Lennon, Imagine

With the American Democratic Party’s formal consummation of its dalliance with the Fresh Prince of Thin Air, we had anticipated at least some airing of the lamentations of regret typically following such ill-advised intercourse. Hearing little to none, we are compelled to re-examine the cultural circumstances which make it possible for a farce such as this to come to pass.

Though much discussed, the Obama ascendancy still baffles: the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy has turned the keys over to a very junior Senator whose scant voting record is the furthest left of any in the Senate. Really? It has been called “the audacity of hope.” We call it merely, audacity; that strain of defiant, reckless, irresponsible audacity one expects from a sixteen year old, not from a national institution that – at one time anyway – was of significant weight and consequence.

(more…)

By Julian Krasta

Now that the Democrats have, at long last, selected their nominee, “We” need to remind ourselves of long-standing facts concerning those persons we elected to public office. More importantly, the presidential candidates need to hear from us.

The United States is hovering closer to the thin edge of the wedge, because too large a percentage of the men and women we voted to represent our best interests – and those who will yet finagle to win our votes – are preoccupied in grudge matches for supremacy within their club quarters.

(more…)

~by Jillian Becker

I am a convinced law-and-order conservative, an eagerly practicing capitalist, an ideological libertarian. I accept enthusiastically the whole package of US Republican Party policy and sentiment - pro-America, pro-victory in Iraq, pro-gun, anti-abortion (with sensible reservations), pro-death penalty, pro-tax cuts, pro-smaller government, pro-spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world, pro-Israel, anti-welfare - all except one of its usual ingredients: belief in God. I do not accept God.

Quite simply, I cannot believe in God. I am old, past my three score years and ten, and decade upon decade I have read and listened, and there cannot be much that is old or new, famous, terse, verbose, smart, innocent, insidious, widely published or commonly uttered, learnedly debated or popularly discussed on the subject of God that I have not read or heard.

(more…)

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. (more…)

~by Churchill’s Parrot

“In history every nation that watered-down it’s Judeo-Christian heritage was taken over by Islam. Every single one.”
-Walid Shoebat, former Islamic terrorist, on The Gathering Storm Report 3/14/08
————–
Christendom - the concept of nations or families of nations united through their mutual devotion to the teachings of Christ and thus comprising a formidable foe to the forces of evil - is a concept which no doubt strikes terror in the hearts and minds of secularists and multi-culturalists presently at the helm of Western Civilization (and driving it straight into the wall.) For to them, if “evil” exists at all, it comes in no greater form than Christianity. In part, we feel their pain. The prevailing caricature of Christianity is that of a vapid, bubbleiscious, painted-smile cult offering all the spiritual depth of an Osmond family reunion on the Lawrence Welk show. To this we would most assuredly say, “no thank you.” We would also say to secularists as well as to Christians who have helped facilitate this caricature, this is NOT Christianity.
Even more terrifying for non-believers are proposals for the formation of some kind of structured world body defining and defending an official Christendom. “The Global Christian Alliance” as illustrated by Mr. Timothy Furnish, or the “Shire Strategy” of Mr. James Pinkerton. Both strategies, these gentlemen propose, would redefine the Judeo-Christian heritage shared by the vast majority of the free world and better enable it to defend itself against enemies of that heritage, most particularly Islam.

(more…)

Presidential hopeful John McCain visited the rocket-battered Israeli city of Sderot today. He was accompanied by Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.

John McCain has a much deeper understanding of the current and historical Israeli/Palestine conflict than the current President. His friendship with Mr. Lieberman is also a good sign, as Lieberman (who is Jewish) is a staunch supporter of Israel.

Very promising, Mr. McCain stated that:

“I support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

He also spoke on Iran’s involvement in the region, assuring Israel that Iran was not merely an Israeli problem, stating that:

The combination of terror, nuclear capability and irresponsible leadership is a danger to the entire world. Even the region’s Arab states fear Iran, and they need to say so out loud.

While far from the most “conservative” GOP choice, McCain is a solid backer of Israel and the War on Terror. While Mrs. Clinton is also known for her support of Israel, and Mr. Obama claims to be, McCain is far more educated and involved in the Zionist struggle, and will prove to be the candidate that Iran and the many terrorist organizations funded by Iran will fear the most, should he be elected.

from Churchill’s Parrot

“Our loyal, brave people… should know the truth. They should know that there has been a gross neglect and deficiency in our defenses… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.”

- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938
A remarkable document has been produced by our good friends at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the leading forum in the United Kingdom for national and international Defense and Security, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. So pointed and soaring are its words and concepts we are surprised we did not author it ourselves. In fact we did, in so many words. But as many seem apt to regard the word of high ranking British officials weightier than that of a 108 year old blogging parrot, we shall defer, for their clout and experience more than warrant it. We advise, in particular, our American cousins to consider this essay’s observations carefully, as you are less than a year away from deciding whether to follow Britain further down the path of surrender under President Obama/Clinton, or continuing the fight under President McCain.
“Security is the primary function of the state,” declares the RUSI essay Risk, Threat, and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, “for without it, there can be no state, and no rule of law.”

Sixty years ago, such plain logic was so engrained in the minds of Western man that it scarcely required penning. Today, in the era of post-Leftist-enlightenment, it is “controversial” as the state no longer sees its rightful role as security guard, but as doting nanny charged with tending the every whim and desire of spoiled and feckless children. This dereliction of duty has not only rendered Britain disarmed militarily, but has inspired the contempt of the British people and drastically eroded their faith in their system of government. Thus the sad case of the United Kingdom. She is a soldier, thrust onto the battlefield, with neither the weaponry nor the will to fight. And, in Western democracies, while security is indeed the primary function of the state, keeping faith that theirs is a state worth securing is the primary function of the people. Neither function is being duly tended. And this, the RUSI report warns, is potentially lethal.
“The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.”
This statement encapsulates what makes this RUSI report so remarkable to us. British defense officials have made plain their objection to governmental mismanagement and under-funding of the military before. But never can we recall this level of officialdom publicly decrying the erosion of the national character and the perils inherent therein. We and others throughout the blogosphere have been screaming this point for years. Now that it is echoed by Privy Councilors, Vice Admirals, Generals, and Field Marshals will any one listen?
“The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defense and security are ultimately met,” they rightly remind us.
And diminishment of that flow is inversely proportional to increase in vulnerability. “Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

This is a crisis we can scarcely afford, particularly in our present circumstances.
“The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. … The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the Internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan.”

The report lists other risks as well, none of which the authors feel, Britain is particularly well suited to address at present. These include the vanishing Royal Navy, the emerging superpowers of China and India, the politics of climate, the re-emergence or Russia, and Britain’s messy love triangle with Washington and Brussels.
A bleak assessment to be sure. But equally certain is that there is hope. We need look no further than our own history.
“History and experience have been neglected in favor of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defense and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links between the British people, their government, and Britain’s security and defense forces, than for many years.
What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.
We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defense and security must be restored as the first duty of government.”

Various strategies are proposed for accomplishing this. One of particular interest is the formation of a Cabinet Committee not dissimilar to The United States’ Department of Homeland Security. This committee would “draw together all the threads of government relating to defense and security whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns.”

This would come as welcome news to those left to fight Britain’s Street Jihad on their own, with no government assistance, only harassment.
Lastly the authors advocate that Britain reclaim her sovereignty from failing multilateral institutions (if you’re thinking the United Nations, The European Union , and NATO you’re tracking nicely) and place her trust in more proven alliances.
“What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.”

Ladies and gentlemen – the Anglosphere.

“Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world – manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource.”
The echoes of Sir Winston are unmistakable. However, the Britain of his day differs from that of today in that his contemporaries – with a bit of prodding - knew who they were and from whence they came. Such self-knowledge is essential, the report points out, if alliances are to be of any real consequence.
“In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.”

As dismal a portrait this report paints of Britain in her current state, it brings great joy to our heart that such has been compiled and put forth by those who have done it. The nexus of the Queen’s Privy Councillor and Lionheart, of the people and their proud history, of Britain and her true allies is the point at which our “supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor,” begins, that we might, “arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.”

The power is ours to use if we choose. For as the contributors to this essay declare “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.” The question for Britain and all free nations is - after nearly forty-five years of demonizing our histories, mocking our principles, and transferring our responsibilities onto government - do we care?

Cheers,
Charlie

Wordpress Tags: national security, defense, campaign 2008, mccain, churchill’s parrot, churchill, anglosphere, Britain