July 4, 2010  We noted a little known survey the other day that many in the USA today actually believe- because their schooling forbids fact based education- that the British American colonies fought a war of independence along with Mexico and Bolivar against the Spanish- not the British crown, whom they believe actually owned all of North America as purportedly the Spanish owned all of Mexico and South America. This is not just some excuse of our favorite shoppers and UNIVISION TV watchers. We do not know the genesis of this stupidity by Americans in this poll. We do not know if any of the tens of millions of illegal Ecuadoreans in the USA were polled and if they actually were counted among the millions who lies that the USA in 1776 declared its freedom from Great Britain and not, as they believe, from Spain. We do know that most Ecuadoreans have chosen to remain stupid and today are as lemmings, easily afflicted by extortion and bribes as well as perpetrators of the worst sorts of disinformation. One has to work very hard to ignore facts of history. And one has to pretend that nothing matters except attending the US Embassy in Quito’s 4th of July party for secured social status. Does no one- no one at all ever reinforce the facts of the value of this day for this world? We sincerely doubt it. Ecuadoreans flood into the USA and Europe and carry their prejudices that stupidity is the best way to live and that uneducation serves mankind even better. We disagree.

While we compliment the US DEA, forbidden from actually acting inside Ecuador, for its delicate dance around Correa’s love fest with the FARC, we are delighted that the US DEA overwhelmed the criminal drug cartel leader Correa, also called president of Ecuador, that in Northern Ecuador new classes of drug running submarines are developed. This of course required concerted efforts involving all that Correa’s government stands against: actual law enforcement to prevent escalating cartel activities. Did Correa, who knew of these sub builders, no doubt in Sucumbios province- Correa’s own crime zone for global vermin, once arrest or shut down this multi year crime zone? No- Correa did not. Correa did nothing and has never done one thing to set Sucumbios to rights. Correa knows, as we know, that he has crafted a vast lawless zone for money making in Sucumbios. Correa pretends that this is all the fault of Chevron Texaco, Occidental and Dyncorp. Correa is a liar and the Sucumbios crime zone is his baby, fully his creation and none others, much as Correa lies, co funds fake law suits and demands that he is innocent of his own crimes.  Indeed, the US DEA should not have had to “diplomatically” call up Correa and suggest that the narco sub should be shut down. Correa has enough manpower and intel to have shut down the narco base that is all of Sucumbios and done this years ago but he did not, by choice. Correa once again has been outed as a drug king pin. Today, thanks to Correa’s dishonesty and his perversion of facts, we do not know where this narco sub is today nor whose money built it. We do know this took much money and many years- years that one and all knew about these actions but Correa did nothing but lie.

The truth remains a vibrant need. Here is a terrific slice of history regarding 1940. You know of course that Ecuador was utterly unmanned, like the French and the Kennedy family in the 1930s. During the years of World War II. Ecuador disgraced itself by failing to stand against global evil- the Axis of evil….communism, fascism and dictatorships, not doing anything meaningful, as is the case today, while the world’s needs were most dire. Ecuador, as all Latin nations, refused to lift one finger to defend liberty against the Japanese and Nazi invadors who sole purpose was global conquest for the total state machine. Today, most Islamo fascists from Iran, Syria and internecine actors such as Chavez and Castro’s own Hezbolah, engage is the same evil.  Lying inert and supine as usual, Ecuador failed to distinguish itself in those years [ as it fails yet today], even refusing to sustain US bases in the Galalapagos islands. There is not much for Ecuador to celebrate on July 4, except its unending shame and disgrace in July 4th. But troop off they do to pretend, along with US ambassadors in Quito that none of this matters and to praise every Ecuadorean on July 4th with a Free Pass on anything remotely resembling honor and valor, however much Mariscal Sucre delivered honor at Pichincha, now only to be replaced by the fake Joan of Arc called Manuela Saenz who was no saint and was surely no military participant, serving a role not unlike Al – the sex poodle- Gore’s paid massage parlor ladies of the hour for Bolivar. Hardly an admirable leader of mankind.

ECrisis is tough, we know. We are tough because history does not need to keep repeating itself. Ecuadoreans have all the tools they need to act with valor and integrity. Nothing more is needed except the internal decision to act accordingly. Stop complaining and pretending that your value and your honor is powerless. Indeed you own great power to make a difference for the good.

Just review how great were the odds against England in 1939-40. The entire world had joined the Russian communist push with its frontal spear of Hitler’s Nazism.

Stalin’s plan was well under way to place Hitler on the front lines of seizing western Europe while Stalin would keep eastern Europe. Stalin funded and trained Hitler’s multi year devastation across the globe until Staling himself pretended to turn against Hitler and join England and the USA for the 1945 peace. AS we now know, Stalin [Castro’s hero] was a horrifying monster of evil, far worse- if possible- than his paid proxy named Adolf Hitler.

But notice how mistakes were made and lies perpetrated. The USA was under the lull and thrall of the glorious Kennedy family who,  as ambassadorial plenipotentate from England cornered and lied to the USA- abusing US intel and massaging non facts, were selling lies to the USA that Hitler was just fine indeed. Ultimately the Kennedy family lost its favored son to battling against Nazism but the stain on their reputation from this and many other crimes remained in situ. The USA president Roosevelt, himself a huge fan of communism- as was his wife and many of his cabinet- dithered, appeased and enabled the spread of Stalin’s communism until the blood of a defeated England appeared a reality and a surety that the Axis of Evil would become real for North and South America as well under the Stalin proxy called Adolf Hitler. Not one Latin nation defended itself from the Axis of Evil in the 1930-40s era. But the USA did….finally when all appeared as if the Americas would be next on the Stalin-Hitler expanding menu of conquests.

Winston Churchill is revered today for his moral realism- not his moral relativism and definitely not for enabling and pretending that living a life of vapidity is a great thing. Clearly Churchill did not suffer the moral relativism so dishonestly instructed by all Ecuadorean mothers today. No indeed. With great clarity unknown in any Ecuadorean today, Churchill realistically called upon the world to stop pretending that pretending and hiding from evil was great and glorious. And in the dark nights that followed, Churchill was absolutely correct. Churchill’s light of truth was a beacon in times of great darkness.  Enabling evil never works.

---------
Winston Churchill’s July 4 Message to America
BY Joseph Loconte     July 4, 2010
 

http://www.weeklystandard.com    The celebration of American Independence has a way of illuminating the Anglo-American relationship, especially during times of war. Although July 4, 1776 marked the date when the American people dissolved "the political bands which have connected them" with Great Britain, July 4, 1940 signified just the opposite: the moment when the two great democracies solidified their “special relationship.” Seventy years ago, British prime minister Winston Churchill delivered a speech before the House of Commons that masterfully rebuked the United States for sitting on the sidelines while Britain stood alone to defend freedom against totalitarianism. Churchill’s insights are worth recalling during our own season of war, when the historic ties between the two nations seem frayed and in doubt.

The speech was occasioned by the dramatic events of the previous day, July 3, when Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to destroy the French fleet in North Africa. Breaking a solemn agreement with Britain, France had just signed an armistice with Nazi Germany. It represented a colossal and dangerous betrayal: After the Royal Navy, the French possessed the most powerful fleet in European waters; they held the balance of power in the early stages of the Second World War. Churchill calculated, quite correctly, that if the French vessels were seized by the enemy, Britain would lose the war.

The prime minister pleaded with Franklin Roosevelt for 50 American warships, warning that the Nazi threat to the United States was growing rapidly. But the president, on the advice of his ambassador in London, Joseph P. Kennedy, was persuaded that sending the warships would be a waste of American resources. Kennedy—a liberal defeatist and an appeaser of Hitler—had filed dispatches claiming that Britain would surely surrender to the Germans and was not worth supporting. To make matters worse, it was an election year. Ever the political animal, FDR promised to keep the country out of another European war: “The United States of America shall and must remain un-entangled and free.” Roosevelt even suggested that Churchill send the Royal Navy to Canada to prevent it from falling into Nazi hands—a proposal interpreted as a cynical effort to save the United States at the expense of Britain. America’s message to the British people was clear: expect no help from the United States in the war against fascist evil.

Churchill revealed his frustration in a telegram to his ambassador in Washington: “I don’t think words count for much now. Only force of events can govern them.” The force of events was pushing the British leader toward a horrific decision. There was no time for lengthy deliberations. Churchill offered the French commanders a choice: join the British and continue the fight for freedom, sail to a British port and be repatriated—or prepare to be sunk. The French were given just six hours to make up their minds. Vice-Admiral Sir James Somerville, who had helped rescue over 100,000 Frenchmen during the evacuation at Dunkirk, led the assault. With a “severe measure of force” and a heavy loss of French lives, the fleet was destroyed.

The prime minister later called the order “a hateful decision” and contrary to all his instincts—except the desire to preserve Britain’s survival against a totalitarian nightmare.

Churchill’s martial resolve, reinforced in his July 4 speech to Parliament, demolished American doubts about Britain’s mettle. In the process, he challenged the nation’s democratic friends to join the struggle against international terrorism and tyranny. “I call upon all subjects of His Majesty, and upon our Allies, and well-wishers—and they are not a few—all over the world, on both sides of the Atlantic, to give us the utmost aid,” he said. “In the fullest harmony with our Dominons, we are moving through a period of extreme danger and of splendid hope, when every virtue of our race will be tested, and all that we have and are will be freely staked.”

Here was Churchill’s moral realism on display. Most everyone expected a German invasion of Britain at any moment, a trial whose outcome was uncertain, but which certainly would cause unspeakable suffering and destruction. Nevertheless, with a keen sense of the transcendent meaning of the moment, Churchill summoned his nation to find the courage required for survival. “This is no time for doubt or weakness,” he said. “It is the supreme hour to which we have been called.”

As Churchill described the attack against Britain’s former ally, the House listened quietly, stunned and enthralled. Churchill was overcome with emotion. So were members of Parliament: They burst into cheers, relieved not only that French warships would not be used against Great Britain, but that they had a prime minister who would not allow their island nation to perish without a fight. The country overwhelmingly supported the decision.

Churchill’s daring action sent shock waves throughout the American foreign policy establishment, particularly among the appeasers in the White House and State Department. Liberal delusions about the limited nature of the Nazi threat, the wisdom of isolationism, and the impotence of British democracy were beginning to unravel. Two months later, Roosevelt sent Churchill the warships.

“The action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies and rumours which have been so industriously spread by German propaganda and through Fifth Column activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negotiations in any form and through any channel with the German and Italian governments,” Churchill told the House. “We shall, on the contrary, prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us until the righteous purposes for which we entered upon it have been fulfilled.”

Thanks in part to Churchill’s Independence Day speech, America would join Britain’s “righteous purposes” in defending freedom against the immoral monstrosity of fascism. There are, of course, new monstrosities and barbarisms in our own day, new threats to human dignity and decency. Alas, there is also a new fraternity of defeatists eager to accommodate them. Churchill’s speech is a bracing challenge to both English-speaking nations to resist the siren song of appeasement and renew their commitment to democratic freedom—and to one another.
__

What we wonder would have happened if Winston Churchill had not, by the power of one man with one voice- urged mankind to stand united to defeat evil?

Evil is totalitarianism. Evil’s tools are dishonesty, corrupt acts, extortion, bribery, violence and denial of the facts. Who in Ecuador today stands with Churchill?

And while we are busy reminding the walking dead who enjoy pretending that Mexico will enjoy the  reconquest North America for the “indigenous”- as the utter idiot Evo Morales likes to tell us- here is a small picture about what happened to lead the American colonies to stand united for liberty in law, called the American Declaration of Independnece which singularly- then as now- decreed that God grants us all liberty as a gift and the only job of a government- any government- is to defend what God has given and that no man shall take away.

--------
July 2, 2010          www.nationalreview.com           Rich Lowry

What Jefferson Wrought

The author of the Declaration laid the philosophical bedrock of the American republic.

If only all congressional committees were so inspired.

The committee charged with putting to paper why the Continental Congress had resolved to declare independence from Britain turned to Thomas Jefferson to do its drafting. If the reasons for that choice weren’t particularly profound — Jefferson’s talents as a writer were widely recognized, and no one thought the declaration as important as other pressing revolutionary business — its consequences assuredly were.

Jefferson’s work of a few days was for the ages. John Adams had handed the writing over to the Virginian while he led the floor debate over independence — and came to regret the missed opportunity for glory. “Was there ever a Coup de Theatre that had so great an effect as Jefferson’s Penmanship of the Declaration of Independence,” the jealous Adams later asked, querulously.

But Jefferson’s words were more than rhetorical theatrics; they laid the philosophical bedrock of the American republic. In the space of three magnificent sentences in its preamble, the Declaration packs enough content to fill volumes of treatises on political theory.

In declaring that “all men are created equal,” it insists that there’s no such thing as a natural ruling class. Put another way, it tells us, as Jefferson wrote near the end of his life, “that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God.”

In spelling out our “unalienable right” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” it anchors our very humanity in the right to self-determination. Jefferson amended the traditional trinity of “life, liberty, and property” by inserting the pursuit of happiness in recognition that property is only a means to that larger end. “What is important is the colonists’ liberty to do what they believe necessary and useful with their lives,” historian Robert Webking writes.

In saying that “governments are instituted among men” in order “to secure these rights,” it grounds the authority of government in the protection of our freedom.

Finally, in stipulating that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,” it asserts the right to revolution. The rest of the document details the long train of abuses by the British government that justifies the colonists’ assertion of this right.

All of this was a direct steal from the natural-rights philosophy of John Locke. These Lockean premises were so widely accepted among revolutionary leaders that the preamble — which has never lost its power to awe and to command the reader’s assent — was adopted by the Continental Congress with nary a peep of protest. “Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments,” Jefferson later wrote of the Declaration, “it was intended to be an expression of the American mind.”

It expressed our mind, though not our practice, most obviously when it came to the disgrace of slavery. Yet the Declaration has served over time as an acid test of freedom; it has exposed our failures to live up to truths we pronounced “self-evident.” In the 19th century, apologists for slavery felt compelled to dismiss the Declaration as a “glittering generality.” It was Abraham Lincoln, the great vindicator of freedom, who boasted, “I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

Those sentiments, so vividly expressed, should always inform debates over the role and purposes of government in America.

“All honor to Jefferson,” Lincoln once proclaimed, “to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, and so to embalm it there, that today and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.” Amen.
__

Today is a good day to read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. They are short so it will not cut in to your World Cup watching mandates. You might learn something. Ecuador’s constitution could have embodied the same commitment to liberty as is found in the USA. But no- Ecuador voted with haste and exceptional stupidity for one of the worst guarantees of Cuban communism in its 9-08 constitution, Correa’s ALBA gift to himself to install cartel governance for him inside Ecuador at your expense. If you are at all about acting as “a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression” which is before your very eyes today, revisit these truths for they are as fresh today as 200 years ago. And no….Manuela Saenz, however clever she may have been, held none of these truths for her own. As Bolivar’s general Mariscal Sucre’s glorious strategic victory at Pichincha did not embody the same succor as Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776-77 this is precisely because the American colonies demanded not just independence from a monarchy but freedom from state interference to manipulate what God almighty had gifted mankind. As camp follower to Bolivar, among many, Saenz neither cared nor curried the insistence that liberty in law is what the law is narrowly to deliver, not caudillo law, itself a manipulative and selfish cortege of failure. John Locke’s moral underpinnings were not within five million miles of the Bolivarians, then as now. But you can and are called upon to embody the principles of freedom and undo what Manuela refused to do: stand for the principles of liberty in law for all.

-Pedro Camargo for ECrisis