Feds go after Idaho man who shot grizzly bear to protect his family
Maybe it’s time to start a Jackboot Watch feature.
We’ve got DOJ lawyers going after Gibson guitars. There’s the ongoing Fast and Furious debacle. Add the eco-nitwit rogues at the Interior Department. Then there’s the War on Lemonade Stands.
And now, we’ve got the U.S. Attorney in Idaho filing federal charges against Jeremy Hill, a father who shot a grizzly bear on his property to protect his wife and kids — even though state officials who investigated the case thoroughly took no action against the man. He now faces up to a year in prison and a $50,000 fine. He pleaded not guilty last week and faces trial in October:
A Boundary County man pleaded not guilty Tuesday to unlawfully killing a female grizzly bear in his yard.
So many friends and family members showed up to support Jeremy M. Hill at his arraignment that the hearing was forced to move into a larger room at the U.S. Courthouse in Coeur d’Alene. Hill, 33, faces one charge of killing a grizzly – a federally protected species.
Supporters said that Hill, a father of six, acted responsibly in shooting the female grizzly on May 8, which appeared with two cubs in the yard of his home near Porthill, Idaho, while his children were playing outside.
“It seems unjust to me that someone would be charged when they were protecting their family,” state Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said after the hearing. “I’m at a loss to understand why the U.S. government is pursuing this in the manner they are.”
After shooting the grizzly with a bolt-action rifle, Hill contacted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
“Jeremy did the right thing, he called Fish and Game,” Keough said. “I think that prosecuting this case really sets back the grizzly bear recovery effort. … People are saying, ‘Boy, if that happened to me, there’s no way that I’d report it.’ That’s a human reaction.”
Hill’s wife and six children – the oldest is 14 and the youngest is an infant – attended the arraignment. The family declined to comment.
Gun rights blogger Dave Workman in Seattle notes the festering anti-rural bigotry (and anti-gun stupidity) rearing its head in the wake of the case.
Having lived in bear country for three years now, I can say with certitude that I’d do the exact same thing if faced with the situation Hill found himself in. Absolute certitude.
Idaho GOP Gov. Butch Otter has appealed to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to intervene on Hill’s behalf. Not likely that Obama’s Loathsome Cowboy Salazar will do anything to help, but Otter’s letter will at least bring needed attention to this injustice.
Here’s the letter (h/t Cam Edwards):
Other Idaho public officials weighed in on Hill’s side:
Idaho’s U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, who serves on the committee that oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which filed the charges, also expressed his view Friday.
“I have deep concerns about this incident and the decision of the government to prosecute Mr. Hill, who did what any parent would do in this situation,” Crapo said. “Clearly, Mr. Hill thought that his family was in danger and was protecting them from harm.”
Idaho U.S. Sen. Jim Risch also had to weigh in, suggesting maybe the Endangered Species Act needs to be changed, a long held position of most Idahoans.
“What Mr. Hill did was not a criminal act in the court of common sense,” Risch, a former prosecutor himself said. “My hope is that common sense prevails in this case.”
Finally, Idaho U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador raised questions about whether the law needs changes. But He also had an opinion on the shooting.
“Only Jeremy knows the threat this bear posed to his family and property,” Labrador said. “No one from D.C. or Boise was present to know the circumstances surrounding his actions, but the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t force us to second-guess these types of life or death decisions.
“If the facts that have appeared in the media accounts are true and accurate, then the judgment call Jeremy made to protect his family and property appears to be justified,” he said.
You can put pressure on the Interior Department here or on Twitter here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
52 CommentsJaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsWhite House lied, jobs died
May 11, 2012 09:49 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsDrilling moratorium probe update: Green stonewallers caught red-handed
May 10, 2012 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 CommentsHillary Clinton convinces China to allow dissident and family to accompany her back to the US join ‘Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves’
May 5, 2012 11:17 AM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Tens of thousands to fly to Rio to discuss how to limit greenhouse gas emissions
May 3, 2012 07:03 PM by Doug Powers
51 Comments
Obama energy solutions: Chicken crap is the new algae
April 30, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
145 Comments
EPA’s “Crucify them” guy throws himself under the bus
April 30, 2012 12:41 PM by Michelle Malkin
60 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits,Guns
JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
ok: LOL
Dave Turson, why does it matter what caused the bear to turn towards the house?
The fact is that the bear turned and charged the house (according to the prosecutor’s version of events).
Again, why does it matter what caused the bear to turn towards the house? Would it be different if a mouse, fence, or eagle caused the bear to turn towards the house?
Are you somehow under the impression that blaming the dog makes Hill guilty of forcing the bear to charge him?
Seriously, explain it to us. Currently, your obsession about the bear makes you seem crazy. Wouldn’t you rather us go back to simply considering you stupid?
Happyscrapper #199&200:
Happy, you’re hilarious! But maybe a lot of city slickers don’t know that bears can climb tall fences, or simply break them, if there’s the smell of food on the other side. I’ve seen flims of bears ripping cars apart and lifting huge boulders, in order to get to food. If you ever go to West Yellowstone, go to the Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center. In the back, there’s an exhibit of what their bears have done to various garbage containers. After seeing it, I say shoot first to kill. You may not have the chance to fire again.
What a load of bullcrap. Dogs are very territorial. They know the limits of their territory very well, and they will defend it against anything they consider a threat. I deal with dogs every time I go out to exercise. When the gate is open and they’re out in the road, they’re as friendly as can be and I can pet any one of them. When they’re inside the fence, I would expect that if I stuck my hand through to pet them I’d come back with a stump. Of course it chased the bear. That’s what dogs do.
As far as the bear chasing the dog, more than likely it saw the dog as a quick meal more than anything else. Depending on where it was shot, it might not have even realized it was wounded, and at any rate wouldn’t have associated the injury with either the dog or the man, because neither was close at the time. From what I’ve seen of wild animals, they will associate the injury with the sound of the gun, but they don’t if you shoot to scare them – the noise frightens them briefly, but only until they realize that they’re not injured and there’s no apparent threat. I’ve been through this all before with a variety of wild animals. If you shoot to scare them, they will eventually just ignore the sound as not being a threat. And as long as there is a food source, they’ll keep coming back, frightened or not, until you kill them.
Bears can, and do, break into buildings. It’s a constant problem in the north country, especially with hunting camps that are only occasionally occupied, or where deer have been killed and the scent endures.
Two people have been killed recently by bears at Yellowstone.
Is that preferable…?
The_NeoKong:
To some environmentalist whackos, it is.
Well HappyScrap, in 1959 I’d taken the family hiking/hunting in the high country. Late dusk, after a trip to the trench, I encountered a bear… yes, I had my 30-06 with me. Let mre tell you though, even the best-kept arm can misfire and jam!
I screamed, yelled, and charged jumping up & down! Our Irish wolfhound, Rug, came zipping out of nowhere and closed faster than me from a slightly different vector. Wow! My whole life I’d thought bugles were loud! Rug’s bay shook the rocks (it seemed so at the time…) the bear ran, and yelling for Rug he stopped running but kept hollering at the bear. Not something I ever wanted to do,though, even once.
It does seem to me that these large predators have lost their fear of Man.
Hill wounded the bear and the bear was fleeing — if Hill did not have a dog the bear would not have returned to his house. I’m not making a big deal out of the dog — Truesoldier is.
Hill’s trouble stems from not first firing a warning shot to try and scare the bear away. Read this account:
I only started making an issue out of the dog when you started to try to tell us that you knew that the dog was trying to “stir it up” in reference to the bear as it pointed out that the “facts” you were presenting were actually suppositions that you could no more prove than I would be able to prove the dog was just protecting the owner. But I digress, the dog is not at issue.
As for the “should have fired a warning shot” why would he. By the accounts it is a bolt action rifle. If he had fired a warning shot and the bear charged instead of run off it would take the shooter time to reload the rifle and to take aim and fire. This added pressure could cause the aim to be off and the bear very may well have reached him in time.
Question for you Dave? Have you ever taken a firearms self defense course? Im guessing (and I could be wrong) that you have not. One of the first things you are taught is there is no such thing as a warning shot (that is just for the movies and tv). Same thing is taught to law enforcement and the military. To many things can (and usually do) go wrong with “warning shots”. Just as you do not try for a headshot you shoot center mass as the target is much larger at center mass which improves your chances of hitting the target (which is the goal whenever you fire a weapon).
People, we are in trouble when moronic axses demand that animals be given the same rights and considerations as Citizens/Humans. Fire a warning shot, yell halt or I’ll shoot. Please. The above quote says it all and clearly. It’s now time to take our country back from the dim witted clowns that have no clue how the world works nor cares what the danger may be to YOU.
What other type of relationship can you have with a large fearless carnivore?
Oh, yes. There’s the old “What’s that bear doing in your pig pen?”
Answer: “Whatever he wants to.”
Not if it’s my pigs.
Dave Thurson:
I’ll chain you to the U.S. Attorney, get you both covered in honey, huckleberries and pine nuts, drop you in the middle of Yellowstone and see the two of you make a run for it. Maybe then you’ll understand Mr. Hill’s point of view, and realize what a moron you are.
That is based on the assumption that the bear was aware that a human was nearby and vice versa. Had the person unwittingly surprised the bear somehow, that might have provoked an aggressive reaction (depending upon an array of factors). So, in short, presuming or assuming is second-guessing. Like LiveFreeOrDie said, you can make the assumption that the bear would not be aggressive, but is that assumption worth risking a human life over?
To my view of the world, the answer is “no”. Every situation is different and assumptions are pretty worthless without being there and having witnessed the events unfold first-hand.
The issue of wildlife vs. livestock and other farm animals is an age-old dilemma out here in the West. Wolves, bears, etc. have all been the subject of a lot of debate about how much leeway a rancher/farmer should have to protect his/her property. That, in a nutshell, is really a property question. But, up close human encounters with powerful critters of the wild are a fundamentally different type of question.
Warning shots? That’s what they do in the movies. Police don’t do that, military doesn’t do that, plus, no responsible firearms safety course/instructor will tell you a ‘warning shot is a good practice’. Nope, just doesn’t happen.
Can I take a couple cans of pepper spray?
Dave Turson:
NO!!!!!THE IDEA OF THE EXERCISE IS TO PUT YOU BOTH IN MR. HILL’S SHOES, AND SHOW YOU WHAT A MORON YOU ARE IN YOUR MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING!!
So, to paraphrase the Soup Nazi: “No pepper spray for you!!”
Take the damn 30-6 Dave Turson and be sure, unless your alone and your wife and kids aren’t there to protect.
If you don’t have a wife and kids do what you want.
But Hill did have a dog. Again, why does this matter? Does the possession of a dog make Hill guilty because the dog caused this to happen?
So what? Is Hill under some legal obligation to fire a warning shot? I couldn’t image any legislature making that requirement for fear that people would die firing warning shots instead of kill shots.
That’s not an account. That’s commentary.
No definition of danger that I know requires that such danger be “face to face.” This is a stupid strawman.
Dave Turson, are you able to be in danger without being in “face-to-face” danger?
On August 31, 2011 at 06:29 am, Stan25 said:
How dare you judge his alternative lifestyle! They are consenting adults. /libturd
The man had a wife and kids to protect and the guy is talking about using pepper spray.
Yes, when the danger comes from humans who are holding guns.
On August 31, 2011 at 10:01 am, conservative hispanic said:
Proper gear=large caliber semiauto handgun and >2 spare magazines
Fixed it for you, Phil
As oposed to bears holding guns? Your statement gives us a pretty clear idea where you are coming from Dave.
On August 31, 2011 at 10:38 am, Hiraghm said:
Venison is far healthier than corn fed Iowa. More iron, less fat. Some folks can only afford to eat meat by hunting it. Hunters donate game to homless shelters. Hunters were our best shots in WWI & WWII.
I wouldn’t say “no good reason.”
Time to get “bear smart.”
Dave Turson:
Again, you’re a moron. They may not be time to be “bear smart” when a grizzly is charging you. Pepper spray or a gun might be the only way to save yourself and/or others. Despite all arguments to the contrary, you appear to enjoy the mental masturbation of creating “what if” scenarios, and trying to justify the abusive persecution of Mr. Hill.
P.S.: I’m heading to Yellowstone this weekend, and I’m carrying bear spray and a couple of noise makers, just to be safe.
If you live or hike in bear country, it is time to get bear smart. But for you, I’d also recommend a large supply of clean, heavy duty undershorts.
Dave:
Been there, done that. And no, never needed heavy duty undershorts, although you definitevely need some for your mouth, with all the crap you spill out every time you speak. So stop projecting, you idiot.
And that is the only occasion in which you can be in danger without being in “face-to-face” danger?
Yes, this silly Hill guy should have quickly implemented a “bear aversion system utilizing the latest methods and tools” in order to protect his family from the immediate threat posed by a grizzly.
Seriously, Dave Turson, I can understand prosecuting hunters that use self-defense as an excuse to bag a grizzly, but how many hunters do you know that hunt from their shower?
You should admit that your previous statements were irresponsible and wrong.
corkie:
It’s obvious that Dave is a humanity hating troll. It’s best to ignore him.
Don’t go where there are bears Dave Turson with your family. Seriously.
Hill chose to live in Idaho.
I’ve commented on MM’s site for many years and this is the first time I’ve been called a troll. You must be wishing for something. Is it your birthday?
“The other side of the story”…hmmmm…
It was late. The fog was coming in. I already had two shots of rye in me when I got the call. I was back on the case. The fat man agreed to my $75 a day with expenses.
So I went to the morgue. Doc Smith was there. We chatted a bit, then pulled back the sheet. She was a big one, a bit too hairy for my tastes. But she had cubs, so someone liked her. Sad to see anyone on the cold slab, the toe tag their last statement to this crazy world. I slipped Doc a sawbuck, then caught a cab uptown.
I was able to con my way into the home, but the cubs weren’t talking. No amount of honey could open those jaws. No doubt they were spooked. I guess I would be too, if someone just offed my mother.
Really, the other side of the story? From someone who was not there? Jeez, what did you guys smoke in college (or a few minutes ago). Do they offer the Grizzly dialect of Bearnese at Harvard as a foreign language?
I never accused MM of misreporting. It must be your birthday also.
I found this link which supported my opinion from this link posted by MM.
Dave:
It’s not my birthday, but I’m wishing for a bear to show up at your door and maul you, you troll!
Dave:
You’ve posted for many years? How come I don’t recall ever reading your drivel before? Or did you change your pen name?Inquiring minds would like to know.
***
HI PLYMOUTH_ACCLAIM–#223. The large caliber handgun is to shoot yourself with rather than getting eaten alive by a bear.
***
Minimum acceptable rifle for use as a bear repellant is .308 or .30-06. And it may take a few shots to down the critter. Bigger really is better.
***
Don’t leave home–or camp–without it! Or end up as a Yogi snack.
***
John Bibb
***
Rocketman:
Sorry, not much experience w/ either rifles or bears so I went where I knew. Plus, harder to jog w/ a rifle.
So, a .50 handgun wouldn’t phase a bear? I knew a 9mm wouldn’t stop a bruin unless EXTREMELY well placed brain shot (Batman level accuracy).
Or would the slug not even penetrate the bear’s skull?
From what I’ve read so far, I’d say you have a closed mind. Here’s an oldie — hope you learn something. Sorry, only one per sourpuss customer.
I offed an Armadillo with my .357 magnum last week. One shot and he just blew up. Cool!
Discuss amongst yourselves.
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
Anyone remember this?
Even if it was my birthday, I would not try to blow my candles out while some else in the room is blowing everything else out of his *ss.
A 300 Magnum can handle anything on this continent. One shot, 1 kill
Okloyalist: but would there be any edible meat left on the rabbit?
Smith & Wesson 460ES .460 MAG (500ES .500 also available!)
Comes in a little plastic case with camping knickknacks, and a book about bear attacks… kinda odd addition there. If you shelled out the cash for a gun that size, you probably already know about bear attacks.
Dave:
I already learned something: you’re a douchebag, a humanity hating troll, and if your best post is from 4 years ago, there’s no wonder I’ve never noticed your posts before.So there. As for being closed minded, I’m not the one who prefers to see dead people instead of a bear. As much as I love animals, I rather see people live (although in your case, I’ll happily make an exception.)
For those that know little about this caliber/round, it’s capable of coming straight through a automobile engine block.
Growing up, I had the opportunity to shoot a scrapped a full Halon french fryer extinguisher tank with a 300 Magnum from about 100 yards out.
It punched the tank and a few milliseconds later, it staggered and fell over. At that point, it shot white stuff about 100 foot in the air. After it was all expelled and we examined the shot, the pressure of the gas stopped the bullet once it penetrated. It was a great sight
Do you have any idea of the amount of ozone-depleting, greenhouse-inducing, chlorofluorocarbons you released?! That must have rocked!
Hey, I try to do my part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300%20Winchester%20Magnum
I was referring to the Weatherby of course
***
HI AGAIN PLYMOUTH_ACCLAIM–#243. I read a supposedly true Alaska story about a pistolero who wanted to take on a bear with a .44 magnum revolver. He was backed up by a hunting guide with a heavy rifle.
***
The guy hit the bear in the head with all six shots. The bear kept coming and the rifleman killed it with one shot.
***
They cut open the bear and found that all six shots had failed to penetrate the bear’s skull–probably hollow point ammo. Maybe armor piercing would have worked better.
***
I don’t know how a .50 cal pistol compares to a .44 magnum. But the rifles are 3 to 5 times more powerful. And if you really want to see a bear fly up in the air–the .458 elephant rifle, .600 nitro express, and the .50 BMG are awesome. If you still have a shoulder left after the recoil hits it.
***
John Bibb
***
I still get to ROFLMAO even though you addressed Plymouth_
grizzly bear
noun
a large North American brown bear, Ursus ( arctos ) horribilis, with coarse, gray-tipped brown fur, once widespread in the western part of the continent as far south as northern Mexico but now restricted to some regions of Alaska, western Canada, and the U.S. Rocky Mountains: a threatened species except in Alaska.
Thanks for the info. As I said, no real experience with either rifles or bears.
I am now less ignernt.
I do wonder about the pistols chambered in rifle calibers… not as powerful as a rifle in the same caliber, of course (shorter barrel reduces velocity, FYI).
Think the Thompson Contender …
This is NOT an “animal rights” question. If you wanted to repel a bear or beast, what’s the least lethal way? One blog says a Very Pistol would do the job. Any other candidates?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Obviously rifles are more powerful, but not very practical for outdoor activities. The .460 uses long cartridges, and gets good velocity. It’s better than any rifle you left behind.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” — Winston Churchill
So anyone that chooses to love in Idaho is obligated to use ineffective methods of repelling bear attacks?
Dave Turson, this is the problem with having a knee-jerk liberal brain instead of a brain which actually thinks.
That’s an opinion piece, Dave. It doesn’t provide any new facts about the incident. Providing a link to a stupid columnist doesn’t justify your stupid position on this at all.
Most people want the bad guys as enemies, Dave. You appear to want the good guys as enemies. Stop quoting Churchill out of context.
“It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations is an admirable work, and I studied it intently. The quotations when engraved upon the memory give you good thoughts. They also make you anxious to read the authors and look for more.” — Winston Churchill, My Early Life (1930)
“Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.” — Churchill in 1925.
Churchill’s conservatism was sometimes in the center (or even independent). He went from conservative to liberal to conservative — it’s all about timing and whether one’s party is moving too far left or too far right.
The decade from 1929 to 1939 are known as Churchill’s “wilderness years” because the party leaders shoved him aside.
Dave, please explain Churchill’s liberalism.
Dave, did Churchill’s quote applies to Hilter? Did Churchill think “good for Hilter” because he only had enemies because he stood up for something?
Sorry Corkie, I don’t have the time to spoon-feed.
1. I spent quite a bit of time spoon feeding you during this thread.
2. You don’t have time to spoon feed? Or you don’t have time to spin something from nothing?
It’s very simple — just Google.
I have no idea what Dave’s political beliefs are, although it appears he is a devout animal rights activist, or sympathizer.
I suspect Dave has no idea about how quickly a bear of any kind, or size can move, nor how devastating one swipe of a bear’s paw can be to a human being. Regardless, I respect his right to his views, even though I strongly disagree with him.
I’m hoping Jeremy Hill gets a jury that will refuse to convict him. Then the Obama appointed U.S. Attorney can wipe the egg off of his or her face for bringing this case to Court.
If the attorney’s a nit-wit, you must aquit, or something like that!
The government should also reimburse Hill for any expenses related to his defense, even though it’s our taxpayer money.
I suspect the government is going after him because of his political beliefs, as well as, or even more than his actions in this case. In any event, we will see, as I suspect MM will keep track of this case.
Early in the thread I said Hill will have his day in court. I’m not against using guns in self defense, but they have to be used with good judgment. It seems more conservatives than liberals claim to be Christians, so here’s a Bible story ( one among many ) that supports the God-given right to kill animals that turn to attack humans, since God put the double-fear-of- man in animals. Corkie — note the warning given to man and beast.
***
HI AGAIN PLYMOUTH_ACCLAIM–#261. If you want to see what real overkill looks like–Google .600 Nitro Express Pistol! Yes–a 15 pound 5 shot revolver that shoots the rifle round. And cleans out the person holding this baby a few milliseconds after pulling the trigger. Let’s hear it for YouTube.
***
Next best thing to using a hand grenade on yourself and the bear. Like standing behind a Bazooka or a Recoiless Rifle.
***
John Bibb
***
I find it offensive that people go berserk when an animal is abused or killed, resulting in human beings arrested, tried, and sentenced to time in prison and/or fines. At the same time the butchering of an innocent new human being via elective, induced abortion, which includes burning the baby alive with chemicals, chopping, slicing, and dicing baby with sharp tools, pulling her tiny body apart, dismembering her, and inducing labor, and, while baby is being born, puncturing the back of her skull, inserting a suction device, and suctioning the contents of her skull, just to name a few mothods, is just dandy.
What a sick, misguided society, and what misplaced priorities!
Go ahead, be my guest.
***
HI WILLIAM–#279. My feelings exactly. The liberals have such “compassion” for the critters–not so much for the 40+ MILLION! innocent babies (not “choices”) murdered over the last 3 decades.
***
We think that Hitler’s murder of 6 million innocent Jews and millions more innocent civilians murdered by him was horrible. Looks like small potatoes in comparison to 40+ million.
***
And many so called Christians and Jews don’t see anything wrong in voting for abortion supporters like Comrade Obama and His evil Ilk. I hope they will be very good at convincing God that it was just all about approving a few “choices”–nothing important.
***
Read what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah when the Lord lost patience with those abusing the innocent. His patience is great–but it isn’t infinite. The archeologists digging out the 5 cities say it looks worse than a nuclear attack there.
***
John Bibb
***
This comment is unintelligible.
Google doesn’t describe Churchill as a liberal at all. Disagreeing with the conservative party line from time to time doesn’t make one a liberal.
why?
Churchill was a member of the Liberal Party from 1904 to 1922. I’m not going to dig up his speeches showing how he championed the working poor — do your own homework.
Ha! That’s like saying that Reagan was a liberal.
The bottom line is that Churchill would never have told Hilter that it was good he had enemies because it meant that he stood up for something. You need to stand against the bad guys – not the good guys.
One more time — and only one more time.
Churchill worked to get the social liberal “camel’s nose” under the tent:
Churchill was one of the “new liberals” laying the groundwork for the welfare state. He married to a lifelong liberal.
He only objected to later Liberal and Labour Party extensions of the welfare state because he thought society was not ready for the massive expansion of the programs – thus, for example, he opposed the national healthcare system that was rammed through under a Labour Party government following WWII.
Read this speech where he defined liberalism and socialism in 1908.
One more time – and only one more time.
This is like saying that Reagan was a liberal.
The bottom line is that Churchill would never have told Hilter that it was good he had enemies because it meant that he stood up for something. You need to stand against the bad guys – not the good guys.
Yes, Reagan was once a liberal cheering on the sidelines for the New Deal, but he was not a leading liberal like Churchill. I mentioned that Churchill did not always tow the conservative line and that he had enemies within the conservative movement. You wanted me to “explain Churchill’s liberalism.” Happy now?
Churchill would disagree:
“Anyone can rat [change parties], but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.” — Churchill in 1925.
Churchill changed parties while holding high office — he did not quietly change his party preference at the ballot box.
That’s not disagreement.
It’s sad that you haven’t learned much from reading Churchill.
One definition of enemy: “unfriendly opponent: somebody who hates and seeks to harm or cause trouble for somebody else.”
So, you believe when Churchill left a party to join the opposite party he made no enemies? Would you like me to define “naïve”?
If your enemies are the good guys, then you’re doing something wrong, Dave Turson. If your enemies are right, then you’re doing something wrong, Dave Turson.
Churchill never said, “Good for Hilter. He has enemies because he stood up for something.”
Try to think with the other half of your brain once in a while.
Corkie, you deserve the last word on this thread since you’ve never posted anything worthy of a response.