“a simplistic great-fool theory of history.”
Peter H. Russell, Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Be a Sovereign People? [re people blaming Mulroney’s ambition to outdo Pierre Trudeau for the Meech Lake debacle]
“He will not go far who knows from the first where he is going.”
Napoleon at the beginning of his career, according to George Gilder Wealth and Poverty [though actually Napoleon’s career rather gives me the impression of frantic energy without sensible goals].
“In the old days, they founded nations (Moses, George Washington) or saved them (Nelson at Trafalgar). Because of their grand stature, they had grand flaws. The greater the man, the greater his perversity, says the Talmud (I translate loosely).”
Rick Salutin in Globe & Mail June 10, 2005 [on “heroes”].
In my latest National Post column I argue that the lethal yet ludicrous overconfidence of Hamas and its Canadian supporters is rooted in their reading of the Qu’ran.
In my latest Epoch Times column, I say Justin Trudeau is half-right that his job is not to be popular.
“John Diefenbaker once compared the Trudeau government to a cemetery run by its occupants.”
John Ivison in National Post October 28, 2003 [obviously the reference is to Pierre Trudeau]
“There never was a bad man that had ability for good service.”
Edmund Burke, quoted in Federalist Patriot No. 04-28 12 July 2004 from Federalist.com
“One man, John Hampton, refused to pay [the “ship money”], and his case went to court. The question was how far the king’s ‘discretionary power to act for the common good’ extended. The lawyer for Mr. Hampton argued that ‘If the king alone was the judge of whether an emergency existed, and also the sole judge of the scope of his prerogative in that situation, then no English subject had any rights.’ But the king said, in effect, ‘I get to say if there’s an emergency, I get to say what is necessary to address the emergency, and I get to keep secret how I act and spend during the emergency. And no one gets to challenge or question my prerogative.’ Sir Edward Crawley, the king’s lawyer, argued that ‘necessity, as assessed by the king, was always superior to the law of the land.’ How did the court respond? Lord Justice Berkley, writing for a majority of the court, said that if Mr. Hampton’s arguments were accepted, the result would be a ‘king-yoking policy.’ He then declared he ‘never heard that lex was rex but rather the reverse, for the king was lex loquens, a living, speaking, acting law.’ As legal historian Ryan Alford notes, following the Court’s logic in this case, ‘Parliament could never bind the king, since he could operate above the statutes whenever he declared an emergency, even in peacetime. On this logic, [the king] was not even bound by Magna Carta.’ Parliament was furious.”
André Schutten and Michael Wagner, A Christian Citizenship Guide 2nd edition