Sir Robert Peel: A Man Who Deserves His Statues

In London on this date 170 years ago—July 2, 1850—a good man died from injuries suffered when thrown from his horse three days before. His death prompted the greatest outpouring of public sorrow in nearly half a century. Queen Victoria wrote, “Everyone seems to have lost a personal friend.” He was only 62.

His name was Sir Robert Peel, one of the best of Britain’s 55 Prime Ministers. He served in that position twice, 1834-35 and 1841-46, for a total of five years and 57 days. A sketch of him hangs proudly in my home office. Why? Because he was an example of something common with cheese or wine but rare in politicians: He improved with age.

To this day, London policemen are still called “bobbies” in deference to Peel, who, as Home Secretary, created the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829. Its widely used metonym almost two centuries later is none other than Scotland Yard. The principles Peel introduced at its formation are collectively known as “policing by consent” (in contrast to policing by fear) and deserve to be revisited in light of present-day controversies.

“The police are the public and the public are the police,” Peel famously declared. He argued that policing should be professional, transparent, accountable, and rooted in a broad, public consensus. Its effectiveness should be measured by a lack of crime and a high degree of public support, not the number of arrests. Police, he argued, should be citizens in uniform as opposed to agents of a hostile, concentrated power. Whenever possible, physical force should be a measured last resort, deployed after persuasion and warning prove futile. Defense of life, rights, and property should be the objective of policing.

Peel’s views on criminal justice matters started out as liberal (in the classical, British sense) and changed little over his lifetime. He sought to streamline the system and make it more obvious and predictable. Fewer rules, he believed, would foster respect for those that remained. Toward that end, he began the process of vastly reducing the huge number of capital offenses in Britain. You could be hanged just for cutting down somebody’s hop vines until Peel cleared the books of such draconian penalties.

When Peel changed his mind on the major issues of the day, it was almost always in the right direction—toward liberty. When he was first elected to Parliament in 1809 at the age of 22, he maintained at best an indifference to the abandonment of the gold standard and the adoption of paper fiat money during the war with Napoleon. He supported legal discrimination against Catholics (such as the longstanding ban on their serving in Parliament). And he endorsed the trade protectionism that benefited the landed aristocracy of his own Tory Party. With time, reflection, and the influence of the classical liberals of the time, he “grew” in office and reversed himself.

When Waterloo ended hostilities with France in 1815, some politicians wanted to keep the paper money system of the war years. Robert Peel chaired the Bullion Committee and introduced the bill that restored the gold standard. He had become a convert to the cause of honest money.

“Catholic emancipation” as it came to be known in the 19th Century was the idea that Anglican Britain should rid itself of laws that denied equal rights to Catholics and other “nonconformists.” Many public offices from Parliament on down were closed to all but those of the Anglican faith. In the late 1820s, Robert Peel led the efforts in Westminster to repeal those laws.

In the 1840s, the cause of free trade burst onto the political scene. The culmination of decades of hard work by the Anti-Corn Law League of John Bright and Richard Cobden, the issue came to a head with crop-destroying rains in Britain and the disastrous potato famine in British-ruled Ireland. What sense did it make for Britain to prevent foreign grain from entering the country when cheaper imports could feed hungry people? It was Robert Peel, as Prime Minister, who convinced Parliament to repeal the protectionist Corn Laws in 1846, though it cost him his job on the very same day. He had founded the modern Conservative Party but it turned him out of office over the issue of free trade. He never regretted that he had put principle above party.

Announcing his resignation, Peel was defiant. He had secured “cheap bread” for the people and that was worth so much more than the applause of the vested interests he once supported but later fought. He declared,

I shall leave a name execrated by every Monopolist…but it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good-will in the abodes of those whose lot it is to labour…when they shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened by a sense of injustice.

Peels’ good friend and colleague in government, William Ewart Gladstone, would go on to found the Liberal Party, serve four times as Prime Minister, and get rid of almost every remaining tariff.

On the very morning he died, Peel attended a meeting of the commission that would oversee the magnificent Exhibition of 1851. It was a glorious tribute to the economic freedoms he helped to bring about.

Millions of Brits were distraught over his untimely death in 1850. Taken from them was a man unsullied by scandal and unyielding in his desire to get bad government out of the way of good people.

During my research for this article, I was dismayed to discover that Sir Robert Peel is under attack by the radical Left in Britain at this very moment. A statue of him in Glasgow was vandalized in early June. An online petition seeks removal of statues of him in Manchester and across Britain. The main reason? His father—repeat, his father, not him—opposed the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. Peel himself campaigned to abolish slavery entirely in 1833. He likely did more to liberate people from oppression and ignorance than the nihilistic radicals of today will ever do in their combined lifetimes.

The name of Robert Peel deserves the admiration of good people everywhere, not only on this anniversary of his death, but forever.

For additional information, see:

The Humble Farm Boy Who Made Britain Great” by Lawrence W. Reed

John Bright: Voice of Victorian Liberalism” by Nicholas Elliott

How Free Trade Triumphed and Made Britain Great” by Richard Ebeling

Free Trade and the Irish Famine” by John P. Finneran

From Crystal Palace to White Elephant in 150 Years” by Lawrence W. Reed

William Ewart Gladstone: A Decades-Long Defense of Liberty” by Lawrence W. Reed

Sir Robert Peel by T. A. Jenkins

Robert Peel: A Biography by Douglas Hurd

Huge Covid Case-Counting Deception at the CDC

For this piece, we have to enter the official world (of the insane)—where everyone is quite sure a new coronavirus was discovered in China and the worthless diagnostic tests mean something and the case numbers are real and meaningful. Once we execute all those absurd maneuvers, we land square in the middle of yet another scandal—this time at our favorite US agency for scandals, the CDC.

The Atlantic, May 21, has the story, headlined, “How could the CDC make that mistake?”

I’ll give you the key quotes, and then comment on the stark inference The Atlantic somehow failed to grasp.

“We’ve learned that the CDC is making, at best, a debilitating mistake: combining test results that diagnose current coronavirus infections with test results that measure whether someone has ever had the virus…The agency confirmed to The Atlantic on Wednesday that it is mixing the results of viral [PCR] and antibody tests, even though the two tests reveal different information and are used for different reasons.”

“Several states—including Pennsylvania, the site of one of the country’s largest outbreaks, as well as Texas, Georgia, and Vermont—are blending the data in the same way. Virginia likewise mixed viral and antibody test results until last week, but it reversed course and the governor apologized for the practice after it was covered by the Richmond Times-Dispatch and The Atlantic. Maine similarly separated its data on Wednesday; Vermont authorities claimed they didn’t even know they were doing this.”

“’You’ve got to be kidding me,’ Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told us when we described what the CDC was doing. ‘How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess’.”

“The CDC stopped publishing anything resembling a complete database of daily [COVID] test results on February 29. When it resumed publishing test data last week [the middle of May]…”

First of all, the CDC’s

You can read the rest of this article at:

A Mandatory Federal Vaccine?

According to news sources at least one COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine may be licensed by the Food and Drug Administration before the November 2020 election.

The decision to vaccinate will likely be the biggest healthcare decision any American will ever make in their lifetime.  Will Americans voluntarily line up and get immunized against the COVID-19 coronavirus?  The vaccine will have been rushed to market.  All of its side effects won’t be known till millions of Americans have been vaccinated.

The National Health Federation teams with investigative health journalist Bill Sardi to introduce a regulatory-compliant consent form that will help protect consumers from any pitfalls in the vaccination process.

Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states that Americans in a clinical study must give their written consent to any medical treatment such as vaccination.  Since vaccines gain licensure from the FDA by passing through 3  out of 4 safety trials, the side effect ratio is never truly known till the vaccine is used widely by millions.  All Americans who receive the vaccine will still be enrolled in surveillance studies (Stage-4) and subject to the CFR protections.

VitaRaw Immune Support…

Buy New $16.99 ($16.99 / Count)
(as of 02:47 EDT – Details)

According to Title 21 of the CFR, informed consent requires candidates for vaccination to be given the right to refuse vaccination; have the right to confidentiality (privacy) that their vaccination data will not

You can read the rest of this article at:

A Covid Vaccine Is Coming, and Death Is Coming With It

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

~ George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)

Mass vaccination, and likely eventual mandatory vaccination, is on the horizon, and has already been accepted by most in this country and around the world as a necessity for avoiding the so-called novel coronavirus. This false notion being pushed on the people by the state and its media is but a lie masquerading as the truth. Propaganda at this level would make Hitler proud. It will not be a godsend for the world, but will be the state’s weapon of choice for mass murder for the purpose of genocide and population control. No coronavirus or RNA vaccines have ever been effective, but have been very dangerous to the health of those inoculated. In the case of this new vaccine being fast-tracked, it will be untested, and the risks due to many factors will be astronomical.

The Invisible Enemy
Garrett, Mr. Gregory L…
Buy New $26.94
(as of 05:21 EDT – Details)

We are currently living in a world that has turned all that is sane insane, and all that is insane sane. That is the essence of a backward world, and one that is self-destructive by design. This is a world where nature and natural law have been replaced by the unnatural and manmade laws

You can read the rest of this article at:

We support the Constitution, Smaller Govt, and Individual Liberty