Freedom moves through Europe

At least, for now.

Buckley on Panama

What Buckley Tells Us: Vol. 1

This is taken from Buckley: The Right Word, but was originally published as a column entitled "Mystifier" on April 23, 1968:

"...the speech was so heavy with rhetorical pomposity that it would have required a Saturn IV Booster to launch it. Would you like a taste? 'Our time of testing now follows like a twin heritage of challenge - from both these earlier ages....'

If you believe that I selected the single worst passage, I give you the peroration which, I have a paralyzing suspicion, somebody at Rockefeller's shop actually thought was eloquent. . . [sic]

'I believe deeply in such a new government, such a new leadership, and such a new America.
'We as a people have - right now - a choice to make.
'We must choose between a new division or a new dedication.
'We can live together as bullies - or as brothers.
'We can shoose a life of the jungle, or a life of justice.
'We cannot have both.
'We cannot live for long with parts and pieces of both.
'We must choose.'

We must cut the crap...it takes men of archaeological passion to find Mr. Rockefeller's ideas in Mr. Rockefeller's current prose."

Now, you tell me that isn't relevant.

Shari'a?

From wikipedia:

The idea that certain rights are inalienable was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter."^[1] These ideas may have influenced John Locke's concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.^[2]

So what do we know? That Western Civlization would never have happened without Islam. Never mind that, at best, they were copyists, scribes who translated previously-written texts (their mathematical achievements were paralleled by other cultures), their best [i.e., most famous] figures [I think of Averroe and Omar Khayyam and the Arabian Nights] were publicly denounced, that they didn't show this "respect for inalienable rights" to anyone in Tuscany, Spain, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc., but they were the birth of inalienable rights?

Try again, mon ami.

Wake Up

It's been a while since I've posted, not including the requiescat in pace for Saint (William) Francis. World's going down the drain, though. No one has courage, no one has backbone, everyone trembles before an unseen enemy (which, bizarrely, is supposed to be overwhelmingly moderate and peaceful - which begs the question, then why are you afraid?).

If anything, it calls for the rediscovery of passion, a complete optimism and a refusal to back down. The world can be yours, if you take the time to claim it. There is no obstacle that the West has found insurmountable, has been afraid to face. We should not start now.

Current reading: Sophocles (Oedipus the King), Zora Neale Hurston, William F. Buckley (Miles Gone By). Current music: was Bach, then Rachmaninoff, now Van Morrison.

To quote Churchill:

"You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

On that note, what have you done to save Western Civilization?

Rest in Peace, Saint William Francis

1925-2008


I still have the unmistakable feeling that something very important has been lost. America, and Christianity, and Western Civilization, has lost a passionate defender and eloquent gentleman. God, though, has gained a great dinner companion.

Viva la Reagorgimento!

Ann Coulter and Tammy Bruce, along with various others, have come out for Romney, but more importantly, against McCain.

Hallelujah!

McCain is just about the most hazardous candidate the Right has. I hesitate on that one, given Huckabee - it's close, but either way, hellish.

McCain is: all for amnesty, all for the suppression of free speech (which is to say, a leftist), all for unscrupulous behavior, all for defining water-boarding as "torture" (which I'm fine with - I just disagree on whether it's moral or not).

Huckabee is: a Marxist (get the rich!) who doesn't have the courage to stand up for Christianity. Other than to make a few "pass the plate" jokes, which were (and it pains me to admit) pretty funny - the first time.

I agree with the idea that conservatives need to lose this one, rather than vote for McCain just because he's an "R" (something I dispute, by the way, assuming that "R" means something). We've got Alan Keyes for the conservatives, and that's about it. If the Libertarians nominate a candidate who is strong on the war (which is to say, if pigs fly), and McCain receives the nod, it might be time for conservatives to go third-party. Maybe. I also like the idea that, should McCain get the nomination, all conservatives do a write-in. Shake off the elitists (i.e., the ones saying "McCain has the mantle of conservatism") and do things for ourselves.

If I could write to him (and if I actually thought he'd read my letter), I would say:

Dear Senator,

Congratulations on winning over the Republicans of my home state, Florida (or, more accurately, the moderates and the independent-identifying Republicans). The results of my state's turnout led to your comment that you are the one who can "unite" the party. Tell me, Senator: You know better than I that immigration was the strongest issue for conservatives. You know that freedom, especially for gun rights and for speech, is important to us. You know that, during your long career, you have distanced yourself from us - on these issues more than any others. This is why they call you Maverick - because you enjoy being against us (maybe it's easier to get reservations this way in Washington, maybe you get more dinner party invitations by standing against us - I don't know). How is it, then, that you claim to hold the mantle of conservatism? That you alone can unite the party? Because as polarizing as Romney is, as absolutely stupid as Huckabee is, you are worse. You are far worse, because you play the game - you will govern as a liberal because you behave as a liberal. Your friends and co-sponsors are liberals. Ronald Reagan was friends with Tip O'Neill, but in his journals he makes clear - O'Neill was a New Deal Democrat, and had to be convinced. In the old days,
"reaching across the aisle" didn't mean caving; it meant persuading, arguing your point. You are not a conservative, and you will never unite conservatives.

How do you plan to unite a party that stands for that which you are against?

Yours,
Charles

Patriotic conservatives need to be out for a while, to understand what it's like not to have the power - if we're willing to sell ourselves to McCain, then there's no point.

Then, in '12, viva la Reagorgimento! (look it up: Risorgimento!)