Saturday, March 8, 2014
In 2003 a proposal to make this agreement law was made public and was to be tied to the disarmament of the IRA. British loyalists were outraged and Sinn Fein rejected the proposal as well (and why accept a deal when the other side seems always prepared to give more) but the traitor Tony Blair was determined to press on. He wanted all loose ends tied up so he could be hailed as the man who brought “peace” to Northern Ireland after all. So, in 2007 a secret operation was put into effect to find and evaluate the “on the runs” by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. None of the public knew anything about this until recently when the deal was brought before a judge at the Old Bailey. It was then that we learned from Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein that some 187 of these republican terrorists had received letters from the British government assuring them that they were in no danger of arrest or prosecution for the crimes they committed as part of the IRA. One of the particular cases to emerge was that of John Downey who was suspected of murdering four soldiers in the 1982 Hyde Park bombing by the IRA. The judge ruled that he could not be prosecuted because of the letter he produced, from the proud traitors in Her Majesty’s government, promising him immunity.
Perhaps it should not be that surprising, given how, aside from these “on the runs” the British government seemed positively giddy to let all republican terrorists go free anyway. Nonetheless, it is positively outrageous that any of Her Majesty’s officials should have endorsed such a plan when dealing with people who were the open and avowed enemies of the Crown and who wished to do any and all harm possible to Her Majesty’s government and any and all of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. Yet, starting with the actions of Tony Blair (he must have been doing this in his free time when he was not undermining the monarchy and destroying the House of Lords) this represents just one more step in the slow surrender of the United Kingdom to the republican terrorists in Ulster. It would be nice and easy if the Republic of Ireland could somehow be blamed in all this but, shamefully, this is an entirely British affair. It is not as though they are bowing to pressure from the Irish Republic, it is not as though this is a struggle between two powers for a disputed territory. No, this is a surrender to one faction of treasonous republicans who lost their war against the Crown and yet who continue, even to this day it seems, to reap the spoils of victory.
This is positively outrageous and I think it is no exaggeration to say that those responsible are guilty not only of a “dreadful mistake” as “Call Me Dave” Cameron said but of nothing less than treason to their Queen and country because like it or not (and many certainly do not) the six counties are part of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty the Queen is the lawful sovereign over them and any who undertake the death or overthrow of the Queen or the Queen’s legitimate governments are by definition traitors. Given what these people were involved in and given the behavior of the government in endeavoring to set them free, I fail to see how it can be considered as anything else.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The British case, on the other hand, is quite different and yet here again the very document being lauded, the 1689 Bill of Rights, is at least somewhat self-defeating. The only problem with the unwritten British constitution is that the one entity which is supposed to defend it and which, allegedly, has the obligation to defend it has been completely robbed of the ability to do so in part because of those very events of 1688 and the changes which came after (of course there have been plenty of others, and more drastic ones since). At the coronation of every British monarch they must swear to uphold the law and administer justice and yet, because of the perpetual power-grabbing by Parliament, today the monarch is effectively incapable of doing this and, in fact, most legal experts in Britain today would consider it “unconstitutional” and illegal if the Queen attempted to actually uphold the very oath she took at her coronation. Yet, this is only one modern absurdity among many we can see today. Another would be politicians being required to swear allegiance to the Crown yet also being allowed by law to campaign for the abolition of the Crown. We see it as well in the law which makes Parliament supreme while Parliament votes away its powers to the European Union.
The United States, lest anyone think things are better in the “Great Republic” has come to the same thing, and in much less time. Contrary to what various presidents have said, “the buck stops” nowhere these days. The President does something that is illegal (something that violates the Constitution) and yet, the Constitution can do nothing to stop him. The opposition party may ask the Justice Department to investigate but, of course, the Attorney General is a presidential appointee and unlikely to find his boss guilty of any wrongdoing. The Congress is supposed to be able to do something but as any American should know, a thing is only illegal if someone in the *other* party does it. Unless the party opposed to the President controls large majorities in both houses, there is nothing they can do about a President who breaks the law. Most would think that the Supreme Court could do something, and it is probably true that most Americans consider them to now be the ultimate authority in the country (oddly, the institution to which one is appointed and serves for life, making it the least democratic) but, even if someone brought such a case to them and even if they deigned to hear it their ruling must be enforced by the President as they have no power other than to render opinion. As most familiar with American history know, presidents have refused to enforce Supreme Court rulings in the past and, in the right circumstances, there is no reason it couldn’t happen again.
One can debate whether or not another bill of rights would do the United Kingdom any good. Perhaps it would help for a while, perhaps it would not or perhaps it would be twisted to actually do even more harm. What is certain, and it is certain because the current bill of rights has failed in “its” duty, is that it would not be a perfect solution. Nor is their likely to be one so long as the public is limited in its thinking to trusting for the answer to their problems in more politicians (such as in the new House of So-Called Lords) or in more documents to be upheld and interpreted by politicians when the politicians are the very problem. When the monarch has been reduced to ceremonial status and the House of Peers destroyed in all but name, is it any surprise that the professional politicians of the Commons have been able to run wild? The public must awaken sufficiently to stop trusting those who advance themselves by playing on the public vanity. It must awaken to the fact that sometimes the popular majority can get it wrong and that any constitution or code of justice is only as good as those who are charged with upholding it. They must also realize that, even if they cannot consider allowing a monarch to rule or even have a share in governing, it is still a good idea to allow a monarch to say “no” and have that be the end of it. The public wanted that power and they have it. Most now realize something is wrong but they do not want to admit that maybe, just maybe, they are part of the reason why. Looking at the situation today, a monarch would not be unjustified to say to anyone asking for help, in the words of the last German Kaiser, “You’ve cooked this broth, and now you’re going to drink it”.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Yet, Canadian republicans are, thankfully, a rather inept bunch and were it not for the woefully inadequate public education concerning the monarchy, they would almost certainly have no support at all. Their own arguments frequently contradict each other. They claim, for example, that none of the royal safeguards, royal titles, royal treaties or anything at all would be changed if Canada became a monarchy because Canada is a republic already in all but name yet, they still say it is vital that Canada become a republic in name as well. So they are at the same time arguing that the Canadian monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with Canada these days but that it is somehow still damaging enough to need to be abolished. Have they never stopped to ask themselves how an institution can be doing a disservice to Canada when they are the ones claiming it does not serve at all? A close look at their arguments shows almost nothing but a long list of everything that would NOT change if Canada became a republic and yet they still try to persuade that changing Canada into a republic is absolutely vital. It is truly astonishing that absolutely anyone with their faculties in order could ever be taken in by such a cause. However, again, as with republicans everywhere, when common sense fails they do not hesitate to resort to outright lies.
Second question, “Wouldn’t we end up being a republic like the United States?” to which the Canadian republicans reply “no”, basically saying that they would probably be a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential republic like the United States. However, if Canada became a republic it would be a republic “like the United States” in that both would be republics. In fact, Canada would be more like the USA than any other republic because both Canada and the United States started out the same way, only becoming separate countries because the American revolutionary forces were defeated during the American War for Independence when they invaded Canada. The American “Founding Fathers” originally intended their new country to include all of the British Empire in North America, Canada included, but Canada resisted and when peace was secured the current division between Canada and the United States was first drawn. The fundamental difference between the USA and Canada is the monarchy. Other than that, most Americans and Canadians wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, speak the same language, listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows and movies, drive the same cars, have many of the same political arguments from environmental protection to abortion. Both countries sprang from the same root and both now have an equally diverse population representing various ethnicities and religions and so on. The only reason Canada and the USA are not the same country already is because colonial America rebelled against the King while colonial Canada remained loyal.
Another question asks about the monarchy providing stability. These oh-so “honest” republicans respond by pointing to revolts, plots and revolutions Britain has had over the centuries, the Irish problem and the upcoming vote on “independence” for Scotland. They also point out that Canada almost broke up as a monarchy, referring, I assume, to the secession vote in Quebec. Well, yes, congratulations republicans, no country is immune from treason and internal conflict as your very presence demonstrates that every barrel has some bad apples. However, perhaps a little perspective might be in order. Monarchies may not be free from internal conflict, but history has proven that republics are better at setting people to killing each other by far. The American Civil War remains the bloodiest war ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world -and that was in the republic that has worked better and survived longer than most any other in history. Russia had internal strife as an empire but nothing so bloody and brutal as the civil war following the downfall of the monarchy. France had civil wars as a kingdom but nothing close to the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution, to say nothing of the massacres that followed it in royalist parts of the country.
Aside from all of that though, when you hear these traitors being interviewed or debated, they invariably fall back on the old whine that the monarchy is a hold-over from the colonial past, from the days of the British Empire and it prevents Canada from being viewed as a “real” country. As if the foundational institution of a country should be determined based on what the neighbors will think. Frankly, the only thing I see detrimental to Canada being considered a “real” country is dimwits like these republicans and the influence they have already had on the Canadian public. Even as it stands now, the Canadian monarchy is one of the few things that makes it clear Canada is a different country from the United States. However, when I am tempted to take Canadian nationhood less than seriously it is because of things like scrapping the national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, in favor of a new, more “inclusive” model. Real countries are proud of their history, heritage and symbols and do not discard them for being ‘behind the times’. I am tempted to take Canada less than seriously when celebrated journalists like Diane Francis write books about why Canada should merge with the United States. Real countries do not want to become another country. I am tempted to take Canada less seriously when a Canadian says what they are most proud of about Canada is their respect for human rights and multiculturalism, in other words, the value of having no values. Ask an American, even when the party they oppose is in power, what they are most proud of about their country, and they will usually say “our form of government” which they think is the best in the world. If Canadians would say the same it would do more for their “image” than becoming just another republic.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
There was no radical change in flag design because there was no radical break with Great Britain. Australian independence came about step by step, legally and peacefully with no bitterness or animosity. It seems some wish it had not been so. These are the sort of people who are, make no mistake about it, traitors in their heart and soul who I am sure wince in physical pain when reading the words of the great Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies who called himself, “British to the bootstraps” and who said that, “…the common devotion to the throne is part of the very cement of the whole national structure.” There should be no doubt that everyone agitating for changing the Australian national flag is also a republican (which makes them a traitor) and some will proudly admit it. Some will smugly proclaim that they oppose the Australian national flag because it features the Union Jack and the Union Jack symbolizes the British monarchy (which is also the Australian monarchy but good luck getting any of them to say that). So, again, it seems that they cannot enjoy being an independent country because that independence came with no hateful, violent break with the past.
There is, after all, a reason why the flags of New Zealand and Australia are similar just as there is a reason why the flags of Canada, India and South Africa used to be similar; all were a part of the British Empire. Obviously, those wishing to change the flag despise that fact and hate their own history but if they value multiculturalism so highly, surely there was never a more multicultural entity than the British Empire. The British Empire included the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples (all of them outside the United States), French-Canadians in Quebec, Dutch Boers, Africans of various tribes, the Hindu states of India, the Buddhists of Burma, the Chinese of Hong Kong and the largest population of Muslims in the world. What on earth could be more multicultural than that? And how is it that the Union Jack (which is really the only part of the flag most of these people object to) cannot be considered a symbol of multicultural Australia when it is still the symbol of a very multicultural Great Britain which has sizeable minorities of peoples from countries as far flung as Jamaica, Poland and Pakistan? Of course, they will counter that with an even more absurd argument which is that it is just not “proper” for an independent country to have the flag of another country as part of its own. This, frankly, displays an astounding level of stupidity.
God Save the Queen! God bless Australia and keep it flying!
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
|Captain John Byron|
In 1766 another British expedition landed and established a British fort on Saunders Island named Port Egmont. The Spanish never knew of this outpost until 1770 at which time they found out and the Spanish authorities in Buenos Aires sent a military expedition to Port Egmont which forced the British to withdraw though they still maintained their claim on the islands. They had arrived first and none of the treaties invoked by Spain (the Treaty of Tordesillas or the Treaty of Utrecht) to back up their claim applied to the Falkland Islands. Nonetheless, for the time being, Spain was in control of them. When the Spanish empire in the Americas began to fall apart, British entrepreneurs endeavored to settle the islands again in the 1820’s. By this time, the British presence was protested by the revolutionary government of the “United Provinces of the River Plate” or the “United Provinces of South America” which was the rebel government that had broken from Spain and taken control of what had formerly been the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate (Rio de la Plata) and which presided over territory that would eventually become the northernmost reaches of the Republic of Argentina.
The United Provinces were formed, usurping authority from the Spanish Viceroy, in 1810 and were not recognized by any major foreign powers. Moreover, they did not actually declare independence from Spain until 1816. Britain, for example, did not recognize Argentine independence until 1823, a year after the Jewett episode. The Kingdom of Spain did not recognize Argentine independence until 1857! Furthermore, though modern Argentina claims descent from the United Provinces, it was certainly not the same political entity that exists today. Bolivia and Paraguay broke away and the United Provinces were succeeded by the Argentine Confederation of 1831-1861 which was itself succeeded by the rival Republic of Argentina and State of Buenos Aires. Obviously, the claim of the modern country of Argentina to the real or imagined territories of past revolutionary governments that were always in a state of transition, is extremely tenuous at best. What makes the modern-day claim of Argentina to sovereignty over the Falklands really rich is that it is based on someone planting a flag on them and occupying them, all the while claiming that when the British did the same thing that this should be considered illegal and should not count as a way of determining sovereignty. Because a government which they claim as a predecessor of their own held possession of the islands, very briefly, Argentina asserts that this negates the British holding possession of the islands for centuries.
|God Save the Queen!|