London, England. Imagine reading a news report that "U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi resigned this morning, and it is expected that more than half of the members of Congress will either resign, choose not to run again or be defeated in next year's election."

This statement might seem to be a dream come true, but it is equivalent to the headlines the British public was treated to this past week. Effective June 21, Michael Martin will become the first speaker of the British House of Commons to resign since 1695 (a mere 314 years ago).

The Times of London reports the expected "departure of 325 [out of 646] members of Parliament as a result of forced resignations, retirement, and defeat at the polls would represent the biggest clear-out of Parliament since 1945." 

Will this wholesale slaughter of British politicians be duplicated in the United States?

The current flurry of diplomatic activity is deeply disturbing. It isn't simply that the Obama administration has strong-armed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into participating in diplomatic theater with the PLO whose successful completion will leave Israel weaker and less defensible. It isn't merely that the newest "peace process" diverts our leadership's attention away from Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

The most disturbing aspect of the latest round of the diplomatic kabuki is that Israel's leaders and Israel's staunch friends in the US are enthusiastically participating in this dangerous project.

Certainly the best news of the week is that Copenhagen is imploding.  The "Climate Change Conference" is where the world's Fascist Left intended to cement its control of a global bureaucracy.  But then China and India balked, demanding they be paid oodles of Western money to reduce their "carbon footprints."  Whereupon every hick country from Tuvalu to Sudan demanded they be bribed as well, calling the bribes "climate reparations" from America and the West.

Knowing there is utterly no way to extract hundreds of billions in such bribes from Congress, the chief US negotiator at Copenhagen, Todd Stern, publicly told all those demanding bribes to forget it.  The US rejects "any notion of debt," he said. "Any sense of guilt or culpability or reparations" are "categorically rejected."

Stern is no conservative.  Take a look at his bio.  Yet this guy - under orders from his boss, Hillary Clinton, which is intensely interesting - has done the quintessential thing most necessary to protect America:  reject envy, tell the envious their guilt-mongering has no power. 

There's still a week to go (the conference ends next Friday 12/18), but this is high drama unfolding.  The US has finally told the world to take its envy and shove it.  This is Hillary at work, folks, doing a number on Zero who would never do such a thing.  Lots of drama on several levels.  Enjoy the show.

Bratislava, Slovakia -- This pleasant city on the Danube River is considered part of eastern Europe, although it is only as about as far from Vienna as Washington is from Baltimore (about 35 miles) and is, in fact, near the geographical center of the European continent.

On May 15, a meeting sponsored by several think tanks in Slovakia and Vienna's Hayek Institute was held here in Bratislava to discuss the current situation and what should be done.

Nobel laureate in economics Myron S. Scholes spoke, as did several other prominent European and American economists. There was nearly unanimous agreement that the financial crisis was not only primarily caused by governments, but that the solution was less rather than more government spending -- and less but more focused financial regulation.

There was similar agreement that Europe's financial crisis may be even worse than America's.

Here's the question of the week:  What if King Canute had been a liberal?

You know the ancient tale.  Canute (985-1035), son of Sven Forkbeard, Viking ruler of both Scandinavia and England, tired of the endless flattery of courtiers trying to curry his favor, ordered his throne brought to the seashore at Bosham in West Sussex on England's southern coast.

Ensconced on his throne wearing his royal robes and commanding his courtiers to stand around him, he delivered a Royal Order to the sea to stop the incoming tide so that his royal feet should not get wet.  The sea did not obey, the tide washed over his feet, whereupon he railed at his flatterers:

"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."

But what if Canute had been a liberal?  What if he really believed he could command the tide - and continued to believe it as the tide washed over him and threatened to sweep him out to sea? 

Wouldn't that remind you of Democrats facing the tide of 2010?  Of glowarmers commanding the tide of truth to stop?  Of the OPM (Obama Propaganda Media) denying the very existence of tides?

Other things being equal, would you start a new business in a higher- or lower-tax jurisdiction, and would you prefer to live and invest in a higher- or lower-tax locale?

This is not a tough question for most people, but the powers in Washington (the administration and the congressional Democrat leaders) are incensed that the American people are answering the question in a most politically incorrect way by opting out of high-tax places.

Last week, the Treasury announced a whole series of proposed new laws and very complex regulations to prevent both American businesses and individual citizens from investing where they wish. So much for the promise to simplify the tax code. So much for using the recession to reignite economic growth rather than as an excuse to expand political power.

I came to the World Trade Center in early 2002 expecting to find a disaster zone, which I certainly did. But I also found an important surprise. I can't imagine that I was the only one to walk away from the WTC with these impressions and with these ideas running through my mind, but if anyone else has tread this ground, I haven't seen it, and it is far too important to let pass in silence.

A prefatory note before we begin this Thanksgiving Edition of the HFR:  I am celebrating in particular the at-long-last completion of The Jade Steps.  The final chapter, the Epilogue, was finished this week.

Once the final edit is done, it will be available as an E-Book, and then in a print edition.  It is one of history's most epic sagas of heroic love and liberation - and one of the most unknown, misunderstood, and distorted. 

As I have said, The Jade Steps is a true story. Every principal event described actually happened, every named person really lived and had that name.  It all happened almost 500 years ago, but it still remains the cause of the civil war within Mexico's soul.  Mexico will never rise out of the Third World and overcome its inferiority complex towards America until this spiritual wound is healed.  That is the purpose of this book  -- and hopefully, the movie.

***
Hear that sound - the wails of fury, the gnashing of teeth of the world's Fascist Left over its defeat by tiny little Honduras?

Many on the political left and in the mainstream media complained about the peaceful protests of hundreds of thousands of Americans who held "tea parties" on tax day.

Yet they lightly dismiss truly destructive actions by leftist advocacy groups, many of whom take Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals," as their bible. Mr. Alinsky wrote, "In war [i.e., war for an ideal or goal], the end justifies the means"; thus almost any action is acceptable for one's cause.

How, then, would MSNBC and the New York Times react if free- market groups started hanging "Wanted" posters for Internal Revenue Service officials and employees who clearly serve as instruments for job destroying policies?

Inflation is a tax that hits the poor particularly hard and is caused by the Federal Reserve creating too much money and credit. What would happen if monetary-reform groups adopted Alinsky tactics and started picketing the homes of Federal Reserve members and harassing their spouses and children?

Last weekend the mullahs took a big step towards becoming a nuclear power as they powered the Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Israel's response? The Foreign Ministry published a statement proclaiming the move "totally unacceptable."
So why did we accept the totally unacceptable?

The answer to this question was provided in large part in an article in the National Interest by former Clinton Administration National Security Council member Bruce Riedel. Titled, "If Israel Attacks," Riedel -- who reportedly has close ties to the administration - asserts that an Israeli military strike against Iran will be a disaster for the US. In his view, US is better served by allowing Iran to become a nuclear power than by supporting an Israeli attack against Iran.

Riedel's reason for deeming an Israeli strike unacceptable is his conviction that such a strike will be met by an Iranian counter-strike against US forces and interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. While there is no reason to doubt he is correct, Riedel studiously ignores the other certainty: A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten those same troops and interests far more.