Displaying posts published in

November 2018

BOOKS Comments turned off

Roger Underwood: On Armistice Day, a Pilot Remembers

By on November 11th, 2018

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/11/armistice-day-spitfire-pilot-remembers/

Geoffrey Wellum’s memoir does not glorify war. On the contrary it demonstrates its folly, cruelty and tragedy. On this day, November 11, it also serves as a reminder of all who bent their will to persist with something they hated in the name of a noble cause.

I have only just discovered First Light by Geoffrey Wellum. Published in 2002, it is an account of the author’s experiences as an RAF fighter pilot in 1940-43. It is based on notes he kept at the time, but which lay dormant for nearly forty years before he was able to confront and write about his memories of that time.

It is one of the most authentic books I have read about the Battle of Britain and the early war years as seen through the eyes of a young Spitfire pilot. It is not a gung-ho “Biggles” adventure, quite the reverse. Rather it provides an unfolding tragedy as a young man with a passion for aircraft and flying is caught up in the horrors of war. Pain and sadness soon replace excitement and exhilaration.

Wellum left school aged 17 in 1938 and in early 1939 was accepted as a trainee pilot by the RAF. After a brief period of instruction, first flying a Tiger Moth biplane and then graduating to the lumbering American-built Harvard, his training was suddenly cut short and he found himself posted to an operational fighter squadron. It was the time of the Dunkirk evacuation. As Churchill put it, the Battle of France was over and the Battle of Britain was about to begin. The RAF’s fighter squadrons had been losing pilots all through the Battle of France (especially those flying early model Hurricanes against the latest Messchersmitt 109s), and Wellum and his colleagues at the training schools were drafted into the real world up to a year before they would normally have been considered ready.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The plight of Asia Bibi should have everyone in the West trembling Charlotte Gill

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/11/plight-asia-bibi-should-have-everyone-west-trembling/

Watching the horrifying crowds of men in Pakistan calling for the death of Asia Bibi seemed like watching another, medieval world. Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman, spent eight years on death row, after allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad during a row with neighbours. Last week, the Supreme Court acquitted her, and she secretly left her prison, causing violent protests from Islamists, who said she should be hanged for blasphemy. The Foreign Office has said that she is still in the country, meaning her life is at tremendous risk. Even the judges who allowed her release are in danger now, after an Islamist leader said all three “deserved to be killed”.

Many of us will rightfully feel far removed from Bibi, a victim of one of the most oppressive mobs this decade has seen. But, while the secularisation of the West may have led us to believe that the violence and authoritarian nature of Pakistan could not be replicated here, both history and contemporary life show us that societies twist and turn, and new movements are quite capable of replacing religion. What happened to Bibi should serve as a lesson as to what happens when censorship is allowed to engulf a country.

Indeed, there are troublesome parallels here. The UK has been slowly moving in a dangerous direction of late, steered mostly by the politically correct Left, which has become ever-more authoritarian about what people can say, and therefore believe. Their behaviour is alarmingly akin to that of the religious fanatics in Pakistan: monitoring words for any signs of evil sentiment, sometimes misquoting them as proof of wicked deeds. Heavily applied political correctness is no different from religious extremism. It is the same thing: believing that everyone is blaspheming against you.

The news is littered with examples of this sweeping fanaticism, which paints a picture of a new religion – a belief system with its own absolute truths, revealed only when someone offends against them. Insult the idea that people can self-declare whether they are male or female, or suggest that the gender pay gap is not a real thing, and you find yourself at the whim of the fundamentalists. The offensive may not be thrown in prison, but they will be ostracised and cast out by way of Twitter excommunication. And let’s not forget the existence of dubious laws that can punish people for “insults” that cause “distress”.

Continue reading →
BOOKS Comments turned off

‘Peace at Last’ Review: Remembering Flanders Fields A day of spontaneity—the war is over!—changed over time, as celebration morphed into the solemnity of Remembrance Day. Brendan Simms reviews “Peace at Last” by Guy Cuthbertson. By Brendan Simms

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/peace-at-last-review-remembering-flanders-fields-1541968562

Of all the British traditions, the observance of Remembrance Day, which marks the end of World War I on Nov. 11, 1918, is surely the most poignant and deep-rooted. Every year, millions gather in churches or public squares—or take part in somber parades—to commemorate not merely the 900,000 or so British and Empire men who died in 1914-18 but also the British war dead since. For the two weeks or so leading up to the day, an imitation poppy—the flower of Flanders, where most of the British losses in the Great War were suffered—is widely worn. It is a sober, moving day, a fixture in the national calendar.

The original Armistice Day, as Guy Cuthbertson shows in “Peace at Last,” was very different from the current Remembrance Day. It was characterized by striking contrasts. On the Western Front, the morning started as usual, with continued small-arms and artillery fire as the Allies made their final “push.” The last British soldier to be killed in action was George Edwin Ellison, a middle-aged man with the Royal Irish Lancers who fell at Mons, in Belgium, near where he had been involved in some of the first fighting at the start of the war in August 1914. His death, like those of the other men who were killed on the war’s last couple of days, has often been described as futile, because the combatant countries had by then agreed on a precise timetable for the cessation of fighting. In fact, hostilities continued up to the last hour to ensure that the Germans did not wriggle out of their armistice obligations, which were effectively terms of surrender.

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Will Run Again Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination. By Mark Penn and Andrew Stein

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599

Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

It’s been quite a journey. In July 1999, Mrs. Clinton began her independent political career on retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s farm in upstate New York. Her Senate platform included support for a balanced budget, the death penalty and incremental health-care reform. It was a decisive break from her early-1990s self. Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian “It Takes a Village” appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.

This was arguably the most successful version of Hillary Clinton. She captured the hearts and minds of New York’s voters and soared to an easy re-election in 2006, leaving Bill and all his controversies behind.

But Hillary 2.0 could not overcome Barack Obama, the instant press sensation. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton held fast to centrist positions that would have assured her victory in the general election. But progressive leaders and donors abandoned her for the antiwar Mr. Obama. Black voters who had been strong Clinton supporters in New York and Arkansas left her column to elect the first African-American president. History was made, but not by Mrs. Clinton. Though she won more delegates from Democratic primaries, activists in caucus states gave Mr. Obama, who had called her “likable enough,” the heartbreaking win.

Licking her wounds, Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state while she planned her comeback. It was during this time that the more liberal Hillary 3.0 emerged. She believed she could never win a primary as a moderate, so she entered the 2016 primary as a progressive like Mr. Obama. Then she moved further left as Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to derailing her nomination. This time she was able to contain her opponent’s support, crucially by bringing African-American voters into her camp.

But Mrs. Clinton’s transformation during the primaries, especially on social and cultural issues, cost her an easy win against Donald Trump. As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama—but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.

Claims of a Russian conspiracy and the unfairness of the Electoral College shielded Mrs. Clinton from ever truly conceding she had lost. She was robbed, she told herself, yet again. But after two years of brooding—including at book length—Mrs. Clinton has come unbound. She will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.

Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of “Lock her up!” This must be avenged.

Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat—the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Who Lost The House? John McCain His July 2017 vote killed ObamaCare repeal and made Democratic lies impossible to refute. 24 Comments By Jason Lewis

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-lost-the-house-john-mccain-1541968422

The Republican Party lost its House majority on July 28, 2017, when Sen. John McCain ended the party’s seven-year quest to repeal ObamaCare. House leadership had done an admirable job herding cats. On the second try, we passed the American Health Care Act in May. Then McCain’s inscrutable vote against the Senate’s “skinny repeal” killed the reform effort.

McCain’s last-minute decision prompted a “green wave” of liberal special-interest money, which was used to propagate false claims that the House plan “gutted coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.” That line was the Democrats’ most potent attack in the midterms.

It was endlessly repeated by overt partisans in the media. An especially egregious column in Minneapolis’s Star Tribune asserted the AHCA would turn back the clock so that “insurers could consider sexual assaults and even pregnancy [to be] pre-existing conditions.” In fact, the bill prohibited sex discrimination and stated: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting insurers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions.”

The problem was—and still is—that under ObamaCare all policyholders are charged as if they are sick. If restoring a modicum of traditional underwriting by loosening the Affordable Care Act’s strict age-rating rule discriminated against the old, then ObamaCare was—and is—discriminating against the young. The AHCA would have relieved this problem by allowing states to opt out of ObamaCare’s most onerous mandates and instead cover the most difficult-to-insure with $138 billion worth of high-risk pools. That would have arrested the ObamaCare “death spiral” and, as the Congressional Budget Office admitted, reduced both premiums and the deficit.

Emerging in response to World War II-era wage and price controls, health insurance has been tied to employment. When older workers lose their coverage along with their job, it creates a serious barrier for entering the individual market, as pre-existing conditions are often the result of age. This is primarily due to an unfair tax code that gives employers but not individuals tax breaks for buying insurance. CONTINUE AT SITE

Continue reading →
HISTORY Comments turned off

The Danger of Rushing Into Peace Gen. Pershing thought the World War I armistice was premature. He was right, and a bloodier war ensued. By Arthur Herman

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-danger-of-rushing-into-peace-1541968382

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the guns were stilled in what was then the bloodiest war in history. A century later it’s worth remembering that while the armistice ended a world war, it also set the table for the next, thanks to the misguided idealism of its author, President Woodrow Wilson.

The Allies had no military reason to stop the fighting. The German army had been badly beaten in a series of battles and was streaming homeward in confusion. The British and French were at the point of exhaustion after four years of constant slaughter, but Gen. John J. Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, wanted to turn the German retreat into a rout. His forces had taken a bloody nose in the Argonne Forest, but they were still fresh—and growing in numbers. By the start of 1919 Pershing expected to have more than a million men in the field. Completing Germany’s defeat, even advancing to Berlin, would put the U.S. in a position to dictate final peace terms. Germany’s unconditional surrender would allow America to shape Europe in ways that would guarantee Americans soldiers need never die there again.

But Wilson demurred. The president had entered the war pledging “peace without victory.” His objective was to create a new world order. When the new German government sent a note to Wilson on Oct. 4 asking for an armistice, he saw an opportunity to achieve his aims without further bloodshed.

He was flattered that the Germans asked for peace terms based on his own Fourteen Points, which he’d announced in late 1917 as America’s war aims. They included “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at,” a reduction in world armaments, and the establishment of a League of Nations. Convinced that Germany was willing to act in the spirit of democracy and peaceful coexistence, Wilson proposed an armistice. On Oct. 20 Germany formally accepted Wilson’s terms, with the proviso that Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicate his throne.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

How Immigration Changes Britain By Douglas Murray

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-immigration-changes-britain/

Almost nothing is discussed as badly in America or Europe as the subject of immigration. And one reason is that it remains almost impossible to have any sensible or rational public discussion of its consequences. Or rather it is eminently possible to have a discussion about the upsides (“diversity,” talent, etc.) but almost impossible to have any rational discussion about its downsides.

When I wrote The Strange Death of Europe, I wanted to highlight the sheer scale of change that immigration brings. Some people might be happy with it, others unhappy: but to pretend that the change doesn’t occur, or won’t occur, or isn’t very interesting so please move along has always seemed an error to me. For instance, as I noted then, an internal document from the Ministry of Defence that leaked a few years back said that Britain would no longer be able to engage militarily in a range of foreign countries because of “domestic” factors. It takes a moment to absorb this. We’re used to wondering about how immigration changes domestic politics. But foreign policy as well?

All of this is to say that the latest news from the U.K. is both thoroughly predictable and deeply disturbing. Readers of National Review will be familiar with the case of Asia Bibi. She is the Christian woman from Pakistan who has been in prison on death row for the last eight years. Her “crime” is that a neighbor accused her of “blasphemy.” As Mairead McArdle wrote:

In 2009, Bibi found herself in a quarrel when she went to get water for herself and other farm workers and two Muslim women objected to drinking from a container used by a Christian. A mob later came after Bibi, accusing her of insulting the prophet, and she was beaten up in her home. She was subsequently arrested, tried, and sentenced to death.

Her case has had ramifications throughout Pakistani society in the years since. For instance, it provoked the statement by the brave governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, which led to his own murder by one of his own bodyguards. In the days since her release from jail, there have been mass protests in Pakistan where thousands of enraged fanatics have called, literally, for Asia Bibi’s head. The case has amply demonstrated the type of country that Pakistan is these days. But who would have guessed that her case would also throw so much light on the type of country Britain now is?

Continue reading →
POLITICS Comments turned off

Here’s a Preview of House Democrats’ Cavalcade of Investigations By Rick Moran

By on November 11th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/heres-a-preview-of-house-democrats-cavalcade-of-investigations/

Incoming Democratic chairmen of various House committees spread out over the airwaves on Sunday to preview the coming avalanche of investigations into the president and Republicans.

All that’s missing is a guillotine.

I suppose this is what passes for “the people’s business” in the Democratic Party universe.

Axios:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week” that protecting the Mueller investigation will be his top oversight priority. Nadler said that if acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is still in office when he takes the gavel, his first order of business will be to invite or subpoena him to appear before the committee.

Nadler also added that the Judiciary Committee will re-examine the White House’s apparent stifling of the FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that “the appointment of Mr. Whitaker should concern every American — Democrat, Republican, liberal conservative — who believes in rule of law and justice.”
Schumer said that he, Nancy Pelosi and several other ranking members have sent a letter to the chief ethics officer of the Justice Department asking him to issue guidelines urging Whitaker to recuse himself from all matters related to the Mueller investigation.
Incoming House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said on “This Week” that one of his top oversight priorities involves the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census.
He also added that looking into voter suppression is a priority: “We cannot have a country where it becomes normal to do everything in folks’ power to stop people from voting.”
Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Democrats will have to “ruthlessly prioritize” which investigations to follow so that their “positive agenda” — things like fixing health care — does not get lost.

Continue reading →
IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

Illegal Alien, Released in NJ, Charged with Triple Murder in Missouri By Rick Moran

By on November 11th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/illegal-alien-released-in-nj-charged-with-triple-murder-in-missouri/

Advocates of sanctuary policies really don’t care if you live or die.

An exaggeration? I don’t think so. Not when they justify their policies after incidents like this.

An illegal alien, arrested in New Jersey in December 2017 on domestic battery charges, was released by local authorities even after ICE requested a detainer on him. Luis Rodrigo Perez then made his way to Missouri, where earlier this month he went on a murder spree — killing three people in two days.

Washington Times:

“Had ICE’s detainer request in December 2017 been honored by Middlesex County Jail, Luis Rodrigo Perez would have been placed in deportation proceedings and likely sent home to his country — and three innocent people might be alive today,” said Corey Price, acting ICE executive associate director.

John Tsoukaris, ICE’s deportation operations field director in Newark, New Jersey, called Middlesex County’s policy “reckless.”

He said Perez had a history of violence and would have been a clear candidate for cooperation.

Middlesex officials reject the notion that they are to blame, pointing the finger at ICE instead.

In a statement the county government rejected blame and said it was ICE that dropped the ball.

Officials said they have repeatedly told ICE they will only cooperate in some instances, such as someone convicted of a “first or second degree offense.” They said Perez’s case didn’t reach that level.

Still, they said, ICE had 51 days while Perez sat in jail during which the agency could have tried to get a deportation order for Perez. The county said it would have honored that order.

“Instead ICE officials chose to do nothing, which places all responsibility of Mr. Perez’s actions squarely upon ICE,” the county government said in a statement.

Police in Missouri say Perez attacked a home which he had been kicked out of. The victims could be heard “begging for their lives,” The Associated Press reported, citing charging documents.

So if Perez had been charged with a first-degree felony, they would have held him indefinitely? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge over the Chicago River I can sell you.

The fact that he was illegal and proven violent should have been enough to assure his indefinite detention. But under sanctuary laws, drunk driving, slapping around your girlfriend, and other “lesser” offenses aren’t enough to protect the people from violent criminals.

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Honor Our Veterans With a Better Foreign Policy . By William Ruger & Dan Caldwell

By on November 11th, 2018

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/dan_caldwell/

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, millions of Americans were deployed overseas to combat zones in nearly a dozen countries. They joined the honored ranks of millions of other American veterans alive today who fought bravely in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, not to mention those who served during the Cold War or participated in 1990s conflicts such as the Persian Gulf War.

The veterans of our most recent wars distinguished themselves in challenging situations time and again. When we consider martial valor and individual sacrifice, we shouldn’t only think about our troops on the beaches of Normandy or Iwo Jima. We should also remember those who fought in dusty places like Fallujah, Baghdad, and Kandahar, displaying heroism to rival that of previous generations. Thus, we rightly honor their service today.

However, the tactical successes and individual bravery of American fighting men and women over the past 17 years cannot mask the broader failures of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11. Nor should they be used as justification to continue endless wars disconnected from U.S. security in places like Afghanistan.

The best way to honor the sacrifices of our post-9/11 veterans and their families is to make sure we pursue a foreign policy that only calls on our troops to fight when absolutely necessary for our safety, prosperity, and way of life. We shouldn’t ask people to risk everything for their country when what they are fighting for has little to do with U.S. interests or can only be connected to them indirectly via distorted or idealistic theories of the world. We dishonor veterans when we continue to pursue failed policies that can’t be clearly linked to why so many of them joined in the first place: to defend America and our freedom here at home.

It isn’t surprising when we hear so often about the need to “stay the course” in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan in order to honor our fallen and the veterans who served in those conflicts. We understand the psychology of not wanting our heroes’ sacrifices to have been in vain. However, when we can’t connect continued fighting to a plausible strategy for victory, it doesn’t honor anyone. Would those who have given the ultimate sacrifice want us to continue pursuing the same failed strategies that lead to the same disappointing results while also ensuring that more service members will serve and die in those places?

Continue reading →