Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Andrew Malcolm calls our attention to the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Follow his link and you can hear the sermon by Rev. Richard Chartres.
Britain staged the funeral of former British Prime Minister and staunch American ally Margaret Thatcher the other day. It contained almost all the pomp and circumstance you’d expect from the Brits.
They skipped the RAF flyover at the request of Thatcher, a conservative thrift even in death. We wrote here about that impressive day, including its regrettably classless dismissal by America’s highest-ranking South Sider. It’s as if Obama already knows and resents how much more she accomplished as a leader from the front than he can ever dream of from his chosen position behind.
You can watch the entire Thatcher funeral video here. And we have another one below too. As the baroness’ remains were being cremated Wednesday, the Marathon Finish Line bombings in Boston were completely distracting this country.
Now that the threat of these lethal culprits is over, we wanted to devote a few quiet minutes on this Sunday to ruminate over something that struck us about the Thatcher funeral. British pageantry aside, we were quite taken by the language in general of the service–the music, hymns and gospel–in the exquisite 17th-century St. Paul’s Cathedral of Sir Christopher Wren.
And more specifically by the sermon of Bishop Richard Chartres. He has a richly-deserved reputation for elocution, diction and simplicity/clarity of presentation. …
Nile Gardiner has more on Lady Thatcher’s funeral.
I have just returned to Washington from London where I attended the funeral of Lady Thatcher. Many Telegraph writers have described the deeply moving and truly beautiful service held at St. Paul’s Cathedral. It was a fitting farewell to a great leader who dedicated her life to serving her country and fighting for freedom, both at home and abroad.
On a personal note, it was a final farewell to my former boss and mentor, for whom I worked in her private office in Belgravia. I was with Lady Thatcher for some of the final years of her public life, and owe her an immense debt of gratitude. She was extraordinarily kind and compassionate towards her staff, and looked after those who worked for her as though they were part of her own family. She was a leader of great principle and integrity, selfless in her dedication to the British people, and remarkably humble for someone who had achieved so much in her life. She will be missed beyond words by those who knew her, and her death leaves a huge void in Britain and on the world stage. …
James Pethokoukis posts a chart everyone should understand.
It’s sad that the case for economic growth needs to be made. But it seems that too many people have lost sight of why growth is good as they fret about issues such as the environment and inequality (both of which growth actually helps).
In response, AEI’s Values & Capitalism series has published a little book, Economic Growth: Unleashing the Potential of Human Flourishing, that explores the benefits of growth and addresses common concerns regarding how growth impacts the poor, the environment, and culture.
Think about it: In real terms, the average income of Americans over the past two centuries went from $2,000 per person to $50,000. Here is the book’s formula for growth: …
Matthew Continetti on the president’s worst week yet.
… The combination of policy success and coddling by the media was sure to affect the president’s judgment. His ego never has been what one could call petite. “Phil, what’s my name,” the president is said to have asked his legislative director one day in the first term. “President Obama,” the aide replied. And Obama said, “Of course I’m feeling lucky.”
Such words are usually delivered at the moment in the play when Nemesis appears onstage, ready to correct the hubris of a tragic hero. And though Obama is neither a tragic figure nor a heroic one, he definitely suffers from a case of misplaced confidence. He clearly assumed that the power of his oratory, his charisma, and national shock at the horror in Newtown, Conn., would allow him to sign the first significant gun legislation in a quarter of a century. He was wrong.
The president entered the gunfight with three priorities: reinstating the assault weapons ban, banning high-capacity magazines,and universal background checks. By the beginning of this week it was clear that the assault weapons and high-capacity magazine amendments could not pass the Senate and that the background check language would have to be riddled with loopholes and concessions to have any chance. The amendment cobbled together by Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) was a misshapen shadow of the original proposal.The president hoped it would earn the requisite 60 votes. It did not.
Hence the genuine frustration and anger the president displayed Wednesday evening during his statement on the failure of his gun initiatives. Obama’s words may have been a futile protest directed at the Senate and the NRA, but they also carried the weight of shock at his own inability to convince four Democratic senators to support Manchin-Toomey. Once more, in Obama’s view, “politics” had conspired to frustrate his will. But even he would have to acknowledge that this happened only because he chose to fight over gun control.
The public did not want a fight. It has consistently prioritized the economy and the deficit over gun control. Nor had Obama campaigned on gun regulations in 2012. If there was any substance to his reelection, it was the promise he made in the Des Moines Register interview to push for amnesty for illegal immigrants. But the president went ahead anyway, deluded by the polls and by the misperception that the politics of the gun issue had changed.
And so any objective spectator would have to ask: What exactly has the president accomplished in the first 100 days of his second term? And here the only answer can be that Obama won Chuck Hagel confirmation as secretary of defense despite only four Republican senators voting for him and having Hagel recant all of the positions that endeared him to the antiwar left and right. Some accomplishment. …
Boston Herald tells us the Tsarnaev’s were funded by Massachusetts welfare. We live in a country that not only cannot defend itself, but goes one step further and finances those who attack it.
Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.
State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.
The news raises questions over whether Tsarnaev financed his radicalization on taxpayer money.
And ABC News notes Mom Tsarnaev has outstanding warrants for shoplifting $1,600 of clothing from Lord and Taylor. By all means, lets make sure we ease up on immigration. It is working so well for us. However this helps us enjoy the irony that it was security video recorded by the Lord & Taylor store that provided the information that led to the capture of the bombers.
The mother of accused Boston Marathon bombers has continued to defend her two sons from her home in Dagestan, Russia, but if she attempts to return to the United States to bury her older son, or care for the boy that remains hospitalized, she could face arrest on an outstanding warrant for shoplifting.
The clerk of the Natick District Court confirmed to ABC News that Zubeidat Tsarnaev, failed to appear at a court hearing on October 25, 2012 to resolve charges that she stole $1,600 worth of garments from a nearby Lord & Taylor department store. …
The NY Times reports on Denmark’s struggle to rein in welfare costs.
It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.
It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.
In past years, Danes might have shrugged off the case, finding Carina more pitiable than anything else. But even before her story was in the headlines 16 months ago, they were deeply engaged in a debate about whether their beloved welfare state, perhaps Europe’s most generous, had become too rich, undermining the country’s work ethic. Carina helped tip the scales.
With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.
But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.
Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support. …