Our British Allies...in more than one sense

Why does it take Bishop Nazir-Ali to tell us how it really is?

Last updated at 7:16 PM on 31st May 2008

By Peter Hitchens

Why is it that nobody in our own elite actually likes or understands this country or its people or its traditions?

Why did we have to wait for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, born and raised in Muslim Pakistan, to remind us that, as he put it, ‘the beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith’?

Just as important, why did we have to wait for him to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam?

Most of our homegrown prelates are more interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law.

Then again, why did it take the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to explain to us that our parliamentary system was the best guarantee of liberty in the world and to remind us of the courage and valour of our people in war?

This is not what British leaders say or even think, not least because they are busy pulling the constitution to pieces.

It is not what our children are taught in schools.

In fact, any expression of national pride is viewed with suspicion by the state, by the education system and above all by the BBC.

It was not always so.

Half a century ago, we had churchmen, broadcasters, academics and military men who thought it normal to love their own country, normal to support the Christian faith which made us what we are, and were willing to defend it.

The question of what happened in the years between is one of the most interesting in history.

We know, thanks to their endless memoirs and the dramas about them, that this country’s foreign and intelligence services were maggoty with Communist penetration.
I am sometimes tempted to wonder if the same organisation targeted both political parties (especially the Unconservatives), the Church of England, the BBC, the Civil Service, the legal profession and the universities.

The Communist leader Harry Pollitt certainly urged his supporters back in the Forties to hide their true views and work their way into the establishment.

An organised conspiracy could not have done much more damage than whatever did happen.

We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism.

Ripe, in fact, for a foreign takeover.

The article above is written by Peter Hitchens for the Daily Mail of the UK. As an experiment, when you read it for a second time now, replace all reference to Britain with the USA. You'll find it eerily close in the result.

Aside from references to weak armed forces and Communist conspiracies and espionage, that is remarkably close to the situation we find ourselves in here in the US. What's the significance of that? I won't try to define it, but it warrants some thought.

Question of the Day #3

Have you ever owed someone money, but they wouldn't let you pay it back? What are normally the intentions of someone who won't let another repay their debts?

Now, imagine someone loaned you a large sum of money. And they gave you this money whether you wanted it or not. The funds they are using actually come from a group of investors. They also do the same thing for several other people. You're not really sure how to take this; it's made apparent that you will have to pay the money back, but you don't know when or at what rate of interest. Then, the person loaning the money decides that one of the others they loaned to isn't using the money wisely, and they take control of the decision-making for that person. Now, you start getting concerned that they'll do the same to you. So, you contact the person that loaned you the money and try to pay them back, but they won't let you. Why would they do that?

If you haven't yet made the connection, I'm trying to illustrate what seems to be going on with the bail-out, or stimulus money, given to banks, financial organizations, and auto companies. So, here's what I want answered:

Why wouldn't the government allow companies receiving money in bail-out or stimulus form to repay the loan as soon as possible?

Expressing displeasure well beyond taxes on tea...

Today there will be hundreds of peaceful protests in our country regarding government spending and the levying of unwanted, and in many cases, unconstitutional taxes. To find a site near you, check here http://taxdayteaparty.com/.

I read a very insightful article this morning on these protests. It's worth reading when you have time, as it points out some key, and exciting, differences going on behind this movement. Find the article here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html.

Let's all remember one thing: this is our country, not the government's country. They are elected, by us, to represent us and our views when decisions are to be made. These protests are a good way to let your view be known, but they aren't and shouldn't be the only way. Find new ways to voice yourself. It makes a difference.

Three Relevant Definitions

UPDATE: Additional definition...

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. The social system associated with capitalism is based on the principle of individual rights.

Fascism - A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Words and Actions have consequences

Follow the link below to an opinion article highlighting the differences in the American Revolution and the French Revolution, what the important facets and outcomes were of each, and the dangerous path we are treading as a nation...

http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2009/04/08/the-second-french-revolution.html

What is moral?

Below is a great insight into some of our nation's problems as given by Walter E. Williams, George Mason University economics professor. He makes a valuable point in regard to what is or isn't morally right. Don't be fooled by the politically-blurred lines of "equal" and "moral."


"Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. ... Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. ...[That] is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government. ...[But] now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams

Construe the Constitution?

Below is a short piece posted today on Patriotpost.com:

"According to Harold Koh, Obama's nominee for the State Department's legal adviser and considered a possible future Obama Supreme Court pick, Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law) may properly be used to determine certain court cases. That's just one of Koh's off-the-wall positions. A former dean of Yale Law School, Koh is a proponent of what's called a "transnational legal process," which equates our constitutional process with laws instituted in other nations. That's akin to accepting the currency of Zimbabwe (where a loaf of bread can cost billions) at a 1-to-1 ratio for our dollar -- discounting the administration's best efforts to match Zimbabwean hyperinflation. Koh believes that it's "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law" in its decisions, regardless of the will of American voters...."

Really? Construe the Constitution in light of other entity's laws? Welcome to the United States of the United Nations of America, or something to that affect. This is asanign. Would a referee in a football game consult or view the occurences in the span of one play in light of the rules of basketball? Before you write off that comparison, consider this man's example: Shariah law. No matter what comparison used, the laws of the USA should not be observed or enforced in light of anything other than themselves. I'm sure this is not the first time this has been uttered from one of our honorable "law interpreters," and it will not be the last. Just be aware of this...