Thursday, December 31, 2015

Islamists' 7-phase plan to rule the world

I wanted to end the year on a note of peace, love and goodwill to all men [and women and gender-fluid persons. Ed.] but those things are in short supply, it seems. All over Europe, New Year's Eve celebrations are being scaled down or cancelled altogether for fear of Paris-style attacks by Islamic extremists. Inspectors Knacker, Poirot and Clouseau are busily rounding up the usual -- read: Muslim -- suspects, as the "Christian" West cowers in fear.

As well we might. In 2005, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein published Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda, in which he lays out, in Arabic, Al-Qaeda's grand strategy, a seven-phase, 20-year plan to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate.


Here, in Glenn Beck's précis* [with slight edits], is how it works. As you read this, keep in mind that Mr. Beck wrote this in 2007, before anyone had heard of ISIS!

Phase One: "The Awakening" - Wake up Muslims around the world, by provoking the United States to attack the Islamic world. 9/11, with its resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was a pretty good start for this phase. Hussein wrote that Al-Qaeda considered 9/11 to be "very successful" and believes that its message is now being heard "everywhere".

Phase Two: "Opening Eyes" - The idea is to turn the Islamic community into a "movement" by recruiting young men and making Iraq the central base of operations. Progressing well.

Phase Three: "Arising and Standing Up" - Attacks on Syria, Turkey, Israel and possibly Jordan highlight this stage, which is hoped to make Al-Qaeda "a more recognized organization". Also well under way except that Al-Qaeda has been supplanted by ISIS.

Phase Four: "Take Over" - With many Middle East countries facing terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda's hope is to begin collapsing the governments of hated Arabic countries. Simultaneously, terrorists intend to attack oil infrastructure and suppliers and cripple the U.S. economy through cyber-terrorism. Moving along nicely.

Phase Five: "Caliphate" - With weakened or toppled governments and a decreased willingness of Western governments to intervene -- hello, President 0 -- an Islamic state can be created to bring about "a new world order". Yes, 10 years ago Mr. Hussein predicted the rise of the "Islamic state". Et voilà!

Phase Six: "Total Confrontation" - A "fight between the believers and the non-believers" will be initiated by the new Islamic army -- read: jihadists. Attacks on schools [Mr. Beck predicted in 2007] would "turn us into a nation of irrational nut-jobs, who would do insane things like torch mosques, and that's exactly what they want. That too has come to pass.

Phase Seven: "Definitive Victory" - With "one and a half billion Muslims" fighting, the Islamic army will defeat all others within two years, and the caliphate will stand.

The only thing Mr. Hussein missed, as Walt sees it, is that the jihadists adopted a more practical "stealth" variation of Phase Six. Why raise an army -- although they're certainly recruiting lots of "radicalized Muslims" in our prisons and on the Internet -- when you infiltrate thousands, even millions of Islamists into western countries disguised as "refugees". Three jumbo-jetloads of them will arrive in Canada this evening. From the ghettos of Toronto and Montréal, it's only a short hop across the border to the outlet malls of New York. Don't say you weren't warned!

* Footnote and book recommendation: I got the précis above from Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book (Simon & Schuster, 2007), which I recommend. Some might say that An Inconvenient Book was authored by a non-writer for non-readers. It does appear to have been designed for TV viewers, people who like lots of graphics and colour. But it's a quick and easy read, and there's some good stuff in there, including Mr. Beck's 4-phase plan for preventing the Islamists from taking over.

Monday, December 28, 2015

7 famous people you probably didn't know were Catholic

Obi-Wan Kenobi?! Jedi knights are secret Catholics? Well, no... but Sir Alec Guinness, who portrayed Obi-Wan in the first of the Star Wars trilogies, was a devout Catholic, confirmed in the Church on 24 March 1956.

The Fathers [or Father? Ed.] who write the Traditio blog, from which the following list was taken, tell us that Sir Alec was not a "cradle Catholic", and was actually known for his anti-clericalism and anti-Romanism. But something happened to him during the filming in France, in 1954, of Father Brown, the story of a priest-detective based on the books of Catholic author G.K. Chesterton -- a favourite of Walt's Agent 9.

In his autobiography, Blessings in Disguise,  Sir Alec writes "By the time dusk fell, I was bored and, dressed in my priestly black, I climbed the gritty winding road to the village.... I hadn't gone far when I heard scampering footsteps and a piping voice calling, 'Mon père!' My hand was seized by a boy of seven or eight, who clutched it tightly, swung it and kept up a non-stop prattle.... Although I was a total stranger, he obviously took me for a priest and so to be trusted. Suddenly with a 'Bonsoir, mon père,' and a hurried sideways sort of bow, he disappeared through a hole in the hedge.... Continuing my walk I reflected that a Church which could inspire such confidence in a child, making its priests, even when unknown, so easily approachable could not be as scheming and creeping as so often made out [in Britain]. I began to shake off my long-taught, long-absorbed, prejudices [against Roman Catholicism]."

What eventually made Sir Alec Guinness decide, two years later, to convert to the True Faith was a miracle and a "personal encounter" with God. His only child Matthew contracted polio at the age of 11 and was at risk of dying. Sir Alec began visiting a Catholic church and prayed that if his son survived, he and his family would join the Catholic Church. His prayers were answered, and his son recovered from the almost-fatal illness. Sir Alec was as good as his word, and fulfilled his vow. From 1956 until the day he died at age 86 in 2000, he remained a traditional Catholic. A year after he converted, his wife followed him, and his son also joined the Church and was sent to a Jesuit school.

According to Traditio, other noted converts to traditional Catholicism have been:
* Actor Gary Cooper
* Actor Vincent Price
* Actor John Wayne, on his deathbed
* Irish playwright and confirmed bachelor Oscar Wilde, who made a Sacramental Confession and received Extreme Unction
* Composer Ludwig van Beethoven, who had been baptized as a baby, but had fallen from the Faith; he called for a priest and received Extreme Unction on his deathbed
and... believe it or not...
* George Washington -- yes, the George Washington -- who, although known to be a Freemason, was probably baptized on his deathbed by a Jesuit priest from the church across the river, which the President had been known to slip into, on occasion, to hear Holy Mass.

Walt notes with sadness that the Catholic Church into which these seven famous people were received was not the so-called Catholic Church which we know today. It was the traditional, pre-Vatican II Church, that cherished and taught the Faith of our Fathers, the truths taught to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when he walked among us. Nowadays, the true Catholic Faith is to be found not in the Vatican, but in the minds and hearts of the remnant of traditional Catholic bishops, priests and laypeople, who may well pray that Pope Francis may experience a similar conversion -- the sooner the better.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

The greatest Christmas gift of all


Walt, Poor Len [and Ed.! Ed.]
wish all our readers a
MERRY CHRISTMAS
and in 2016
peace and prosperity

Sunday, December 20, 2015

VIDEO: Pope Francis turns 80: many hope this will be his last year

Walt failed to wish Pope Francis a happy birthday, and many more, on the 17th. It wasn't forgetfulness. I just can't bring myself to write something which I manifestly don't mean. Like many traditionalist and conservative Catholics -- yes, there is a difference -- I hope the Pontiff's 80th year will be his last, at least in the Petrine office.

It must be said that Pope Bergoglio remains enormously popular among most rank-and-file, jump-through-the-hoop-yes-Father Catholics (Hello, Jeff Mirus!), the number of those who hold to the Faith of Our Fathers, who disapprove of the Pope's radical agenda, grows every day, especially now that his priorities are out in the open for all to see. (Except for those who will not see, that is. Hello again, Jeff Mirus!)

When you look at the recent Synod on the Family, the Pope's environmental alarmism, and his statement last week that Jews don't have to convert to Christianity to be saved, there's plenty to criticize. Here's some calm and well-reasoned crticism from Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, and Christopher Ferrara.



A few days ago, The Remnant published an open letter arguing that Francis's papacy is causing grave harm to the Church, and begging him to resign. If you sign the petition at the end of the letter, your name and e-mail address will NOT be published. Walt hopes you will join him in doing so.

Returning to the point about many Catholics hoping this will be the Pope's last year... In an interview with La Stampa, Francesca Chaouqui, appointed by Francis himself as a Vatican PR person, said "Many people in the Vatican want Francis dead."

Ms Chaoqui explained that the Pontiff's in-house reforms and nominations have emboldened his enemies, many of whom were in the Vatican when Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires and had a less-than-pleasant relationship with Rome. Some of these Cardinals and bishops are openly resisting his reforms, she said, while others inside and out of the Vatican are simply waiting out his pontificate under the argument that popes come and go but the Curia remains.

Tomorrow we will see just how far the Pope is willing to push the envelope when he gathers the Curia for his traditional Christmas greeting. A year ago, Francis threw a very wet blanket over the usually jovial affair by issuing a blistering public dressing-down of the Cardinals and bishops, accusing them of using their careers to grab power and wealth, of living "hypocritical double lives" and of forgetting, due to "spiritual Alzheimer's" that they’re supposed to be joyful men of God. The Pope's remarks were not well received.

Sandro Magister, a senior Vaticanista often quoted in WWW, wrote: "Since then, the murmuring of criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has grown, always though anonymously given the the pope's reaction to anyone who criticizes or irritates him. Many are wondering what he’ll say this time."

In fact, many wonder what the Pope says a great deal of the time! Canon lawyer Edward Condon, one of Francis's supporters, writes in the Catholic Herald that the Pope’s casual and free way of speaking has nevertheless led to confusion among the faithful about where he stands on certain key issues.

"[Pope Francis's] interventions, when they come," Mr. Condon writes, "seem to have an almost impatient tone at the inability of the rest of us to get with the programme, whatever it might be. So, if the Pope isn’t trying to leave himself open to constant contradictory interpretations, what is going on? The most obvious answer seems to be that he is simply unaware of the turmoil carrying on outside the Vatican walls."

Speaking of the Vatican walls, consider what transpired there on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. The feast day (and Holy Day of Obligation) also marked the beginning of Pope Francis's Holy Year of Mercy. To mark the occasion, St. Peter's Archbasilica was pimped out -- there's no more apt term -- with a light-show promoting "climate change". Politically-slanted images of overcrowded city centres, depictions of pollution, and negative portrayals of industry, were projected onto the facade of St. Peter's, one of the holiest shrines in Catholicism.

The profane, even sacrilegious show had nothing to do with religion or mercy, but was a shameless copy of Barack Hussein Obama's rainbow projection onto the White House after the Supreme Court approved "gay marriage". Even the Pope's own followers denounced him for turning "this most sacred space into a backdrop" for political propaganda. You can see some of the horrors of the light-show in the video.

Bad enough that he should do so at any time, but truly sacrilegious in that he ordered it done on one of the most important Marian feastdays, the Immaculate Conception, when Catholics celebrate the Blessed Virgin Mary being conceived in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, without the stain of original sin.

Criticism among conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic was swift and severe. Catholic leaders from around the world said they were flabbergasted that Pope Bergoglio would allow St. Peter's Archbasilica to be used as a backdrop for promoting the political "climate change" agenda. On his Facebook page, noted Catholic author Antonio Socci wrote, "The sense that St. Peter’s Basilica has been profaned is strong. The holy place par excellence, the heart of Christianity transformed on a maxi-screen for the show of the ‘New World Power Ideology’ -- and the Nativity crib was left in darkness."

Dear Catholic reader, if you're confused about Pope Francis's beliefs and intentions, think about the implications of the sacrilege of December 8th, and be confused no longer. As Chris Ferrara says in the video, you couldn't have a more perfect representation of what has gone wrong in the Church since Vatican II. Please click on the link above to sign the petition!

Saturday, December 19, 2015

The old fart's last hours

Must be something about the approach of Christmas. People are sending me things that bring a smile to my face, which I duly pass on to you, dear reader. This little story comes from Agent 6.

Morris returns from the doctor and tells his wife that the doctor has told him that he has only 24 hours to live.
Given the prognosis, Morris asks his wife for sex.


Naturally, she agrees, so they make love.

About six hours later, he goes to his wife and says, "Honey, you know I now have only 18 hours to live. Could we please do it one more time?"
Of course, the wife agrees, and they do it again.

Later, as the man gets into bed, he looks at his watch and realizes that he now has only 8 hours left.
He touches his wife's shoulder and asks, "Honey, please... just one more time before I die."
She says, "Of course, dear," and they make love for the third time.

After this session, the wife rolls over and falls asleep. Morris, however, worried about his impending death, tosses and turns until he's down to 4 more hours. He taps his wife, who awakens. "Honey, I have only 4 more hours. Do you think we could..."

At this point the wife sits up and says, "Listen Morris, enough is enough... I have to get up in the morning, you don't!"

VIDEO: A gonzo binge: the burning of the HST Christmas tree

Agent 17, like Walt and all thinking people, was/is a big fan of Hunter S. Thompson, and misses him terribly. He (Agent 17) has located and sent us this fine video, showing Dr. Thompson shoving the burning tree into the fireplace while the dark room fills with smoke. TIME magazine writer Sam Allis witnessed the incident, in January 1990.



Now I know what I'm going to do with my tree...

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Planned Parenthood using sex ed to promote abortion, boost profits

Note from Ed.: The information in this post was sent to us by Parents As First Educators (PAFE).

Earlier this month, Huffington Post published "Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards Discusses Sex Education", in which Ms Richards answers two questions of interest to parents of children being forced to study sex education in "public" (taxpayer-funded) schools. Here are the questions:

1. Should sex education classes be taught in elementary (Grades 1 through 8) schools?
2. What would the ideal sex education system look like?

The answers given by Ms Richards seem harmless, at first, with the words "age appropriate" being thrown around. And there's a quote that seems to include parents: "It's important for parents to talk with their kids and teens about healthy relationships with friends and intimate partners, body boundaries, and healthy communication. Children and teens need to hear about their parents' values and experiences, and we want to help parents address these issues with their children."

But this is Planned Parenthood we are talking about -- the same organization that backs the "new and improved" sex education curriculum mandated by Ontario's proudly lesbian premier, Kathleen Wynne.

Here is the very next quote from the interview with Ms Richards. "Ideally, sex education would be taught each year in schools from kindergarten through 12th grade -- it would be medically accurate, nonjudgmental, LGBTQ-inclusive, and -- like all school subjects -- would teach information and skills that are age-appropriate, reflect best educational practices, and build on students' learning each year."

Just like Kathleen Wynne and her Education Minister, Lez Sandals, Planned Parenthood is pushing sex education early in a child's physical and emotional development. Why would they do this? Because teaching little kids about sex is part of a strategy to get more teens pregnant and increase a demand for abortion, so as to make more money for the abotionists. And who is the largest provider of abortions in the world? Planned Parenthood!


Former abortion clinic owner Carol Everett, is quoted in the Lifesite News article "'We created demand for abortion by pushing sex ed on kids': former abortion clinic owner" as saying, "How do you sell an abortion? In the US it's very simple. You do it through sex education.

"We started in kindergarten. In kindergarten you put the children in a circle and you go around the room and you ask them all the same question: 'What do your parents call your private parts?' This was done to show, by the children giving different answers, that the parents didn't know what they were talking about and create confusion for the child.
From there everything else that's taught leads to increasing the odds of them getting pregnant in their teens.

"We had a goal of 3 to 5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18, because we all work on a straight commission inside the abortion industry."

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Political correctness trumps free speech at Toronto Star

News from Toronto of an interesting coincidence. Over the last week or so, Canada has welcomed hundreds -- soon to be thousands -- of "refugees" supposedly fleeing the Muslim civil wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. The first planeload, welcomed by Prime Minister Himself Jr. and Ontario's proudly lesbian Premier Wynne at an off-limits terminal at Toronto airport, turned out to be mostly Armenians, but never mind.

Canada's lamestream media claim -- falsely -- that the "welcome refugee" programme enjoys widespread popular support. No media outlet, not even the state-owned CBC, says so louder than Toronto's most-read newspaper, the Toronto Star. Which figures. The Star is known to many as "The Red Star" for its unfailing support of all that's politically correct: Trudeau, Wynne, all other Liberals, all other liberals, the LGBTQ "community", the "community of colour", etc, etc and so forth.

Yes indeed. If you want to know what the liberal elites, "progressive thinkers" and chattering classes think, read The Toronto Star. But if you wanted to know what the real people think about, say, black crime or refugees or pro-queer sex education, you would have done better to check out the comments sections of the Star's online edition. Until today.

Today, the Red Star announced that there would be no more comments online, no more freedom to reply to the PC editorials disguised as news reporting.

The Star's lame excuse for abrogating the right of its readers to speak their minds is that they want to "highlight [in some other space] the most thoughtful, insightful and provocative comments from readers", by which Walt thinks they mean comments that have been thoroughly vetted to ensure that they agree with the paper's liberal editorial policy. What a load...

Footnote: The comments feature of Walt Whiteman's World is still operational. If you're on the home/landing page and want to leave a comment on a post, just click on the headline and the article will open up as a new tab or window, complete with a box in which you can write what's on your mind.
Note from Ed.: I do moderate those comments! That doesn't mean we never show opposing opinions. It just means that if you call Walt a "racist bastard", I won't publish your insult... even though you may be right!

Memos from Poor Len Canayen re: le CH

Note from Ed.: I thought you readers might be tired of seeing the little drawing of our contributor, Poor Len Canayen, which I usually insert into his posts, so have decided to substitute a real photo. I have intercepted a couple of angry e-mails which he sent to the named addressees last night following the Habs' 3-1 loss to the Sharks.

To Dave Stubbs, Montreal Gazoo: How do you like your boy Subban now? On the ice for all three Sharks goals and lucky to finish at only -2. All-star defenceman... hah!

To Michel Therrien, head coach: Hé copain! Would you please read or reread "Poor Len explains what ails the Habs (and it's not just Subban)", posted just last week! Everybody's a Sunday-morning coach, but I have to admit that I diagnosed the team's problems, 3 out of 3. (Lifetime pct .990)

What were you thinking, putting Dustin Tokarski between the pipes for a third straight game? The kid was hung out to dry by Subban and Markov, for sure, but why take the chance. He had a loss and a win in the previous two games. You should've let it go at that and started Condon. Any confidence which Tokarski might have had is gone now.

And what are you going to do about Subban and Markov? Following a couple of sloppy and half-hearted games, you made Nathan Beaulieu watch from the press box for a couple of games, and he came back strong against Ottawa and again last night. Why can't you do that to the Nine-million-dollar Man? I know, I know... Management won't let you. Either that or you're afraid of being called a racist (probably by Dave Stubbs)! As for Markov, maybe he's just worn out guessing what Subban's going to do next. Give both of them a rest for a game.

Finally, what about offence? I admit that's a hard one to fix. Until Brendan Gallagher returns -- possibly for the New Year's Winter Classic? -- I can only suggest that you stop juggling the lines, so the guys know with some certainty who's on the ice with them at any given time.

Michel... don't listen to those other guys! Listen to me!

Multiculturalism a lie, sez Germany's Merkel (again)

"Obey our laws, values and traditions!" That (believe it or not) is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told immigrants in a speech on Monday in Karlsruhe, a city near the French border which has been overrun by non-European refugees.

Frau Merkel has recently been given a good deal of credit for opening Germany's doors to the flotsam and jetsam of the Middle East. For pushing "Willkommenskultur", she was named Time's Man of the Year ["Person", surely! Ed.] But since a million Muslims have entered the Fatherland this year alone, Frau Merkel admits that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. "The challenge is immense," she told her audience. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably."

But wait (as Vince Offer would say), there's more! Frau Merkel made it clear that she and the German people expect the aliens to assimilate into mainstream German society. Her message to immigrants is: check your foreign ways and values at the door! "Multiculturalism", she said "leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a 'life lie'!"

The lamestream media and multicultists, in Germany and overseas, just about wet themselves, accusing Chancellor Merkel of contradicting herself. But she didn't! She merely reiterated a sentiment she expressed over five years ago, which I told you about in "Multiculturalism 'utter failure': German Chancellor" (WWW 17/10/10)

Yes, way back in 2010, Frau Merkel said "Of course the tendency had been to say, 'Let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.' But this concept has failed, and failed utterly."

The intent of Monday's speech appears to have been to calm the vast majority of Germans, who have grown increasingly weary of the influx of refugees and of the "Willkommenskultur" urged on them by the liberals and celebrators of diversity. Newcomers, Frau Merkel stressed, should assimilate to German values and culture, and respect the country's laws. Walt asks how come she can say things like that, and Donald Trump can't?!

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Carson calls for US troops to patrol border with Canada

The campaign for the GOP presidential nomination gets stranger and stranger, as the also-rans view to trump Trump. Today, presidential wannabe Johnny Carson [Are you sure of the name? Ed.] called for the deployment of soldiers along parts of the world's longest undefended (until now) border.

Carson, who is currently moving to the back of the bus ["pack", surely! Ed.] in the polls, made the proposal as part of his "Seven Steps to a Safer America" plan. It was originally supposed to be "Twelve Steps" but that number seemed a bit sketchy, somehow, besides which seven was all they could come up with.

The sixth step of the Carson Plan is this: "President Barack Obama and Congress should immediately deploy the National Guard and military troops to patrol the US southern border as well as designated spots along the northern border."

Which spots Mr. Carson has in his alleged mind was not made clear, nor was the reason he believes current security measures along the Canadian border are inadequate. Perhaps Mr. Carson is unaware that the US Border Patrol, or whatever those thugs call themselves, are already armed and surly.

Mr. Carson is not the first putative Republican candidate to suggest new defensive measures up north. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, now out of the race, was widely and rightly ridiculed for musing about the possibility of a wall along the Canadian border.

It may be that Mr. Carson's is trying to counter the perception that he is weak on foreign policy, weaker even than the incumbent president and his predecessor, Bush II. His plan includes a formal declaration of war against the Islamic State, the formation of a stronger coalition to fight the extremist group, and the creation of a "refugee safe zone" in northeast Syria.

Along with most state governors and the majority of Americans, Mr. Carson does not want the US to accept any more tired and Muslim masses. That may be where Canada comes in, since the Canucks are opening their arms and their wallets to followers of the Prophet. Another couple of hundred "refugees" will arrive in Toronto later today. Once landed, with "Maple Leaf Cards" safely in hand, some of them may well head south. But don't worry. If Mr. Carson has his way, the US Army will be there to repel them.

VIDEO: American airliner downed by Islamic terrorists?

WHOA! Hold `er Newt! This is not a new story. Rather, it's a look at something that happened 30 years and 3 days ago -- the biggest airplane crash (by number of casualties) ever to occur on Canadian soil. Walt presents it to make the point that radical Islamic terrorism -- the phrase the Prez can't say -- is not a new thing. The jihadists have been waging war on us for decades.

Just yesterday Egyptian authorities released their report into the crash of Metrojet flight 7K9268, which disintegrated over the Sinai at the beginning of November. The Egyptians persist in their assertion that the Russian plane was not brought down by Islamic terrorists. However, the Russians and the American military believe that an ISIS affiliate did it. And it wouldn't be the first time.

Rewind to 12 December 1985. A DC8-63F operating as Flight 1285 by Arrow Air, under contract to the US Army, takes off just before dawn from Gander, Newfoundland, after a refuelling stop of about 90 minutes. It is carrying a crew of 8 and 248 pax -- US servicemen going home to the 101st Airborne base at Fort Campbell KY after a tour of duty in Lebanon.

The weather is misty and cool, close to the freezing point. The flight engineer does a walk-around but apparently sees nothing that would make him call for de-icing. The plane taxis down Runway 04, lifts off but fails to gain altitude. Seconds later it crashes into the forest and burns, about half a mile from the end of the runway, killing all aboard.

Initial reports from the scene include eyewitness accounts of an explosion and fire before the plane hit the trees. Not a day later, all mention of fire has disappeared from news reports, and the probable cause is put down to icing.

The crucial evidence that could have pointed to the cause should have been found in the so-called "black boxes" which were recovered intact. However, investigators said, the Cockpit Voice Recorder was defective and failed to record anything. And, unfortunately, the Flight Data Recorder was an older model that only recorded four parameters. It was scheduled for replacement a few weeks later.

The accident (???) was investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, which found that on Flight 1285's approach to Gander -- no more than two hours before the crash -- precipitation conditions were favourable for the formation of ice on the aircraft's wings. After landing, the CASB said, it continued to be exposed to "freezing and frozen precipitation capable of producing roughening on the wing upper surface" in addition to the freezing temperature. They also found that prior to takeoff the aircraft had not been de-iced.

Five out of nine members of the CASB signed the final report. In the Probable Cause section, they wrote:
The Canadian Aviation Safety Board was unable to determine the exact sequence of events which led to this accident. The Board believes, however, that the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that, shortly after lift-off, the aircraft experienced an increase in drag and reduction in lift which resulted in a stall at low altitude from which recovery was not possible. The most probable cause of the stall was determined to be ice contamination on the leading edge and upper surface of the wing. Other possible factors such as a loss of thrust from the number four engine and inappropriate take-off reference speeds may have compounded the effects of the contamination.

No fewer than four members of the CASB disagreed. In an unusual and controversial move, they issued a minority opinion asserting that there was no evidence presented proving that ice had been present on leading edges such as the wings. And, they speculated, "An in-flight fire that may have resulted from detonations of undetermined origin brought about catastrophic system failures."

The five-to-four opinion caused so much debate that the Canadian government appointed Willard Estey, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, to review the findings. Nearly four years later, he ruled that the available evidence did not support either conclusion.

Two years after that, in 1991, Les Filotas, one of the four CASB board members who dissented in the final report, published Improbable Cause, an exhaustive argument for the opinion that a possible in-flight explosion doomed the aircraft.

Mr. Filotas demanded that attention be paid to a call made on the day of the crash to a French news agency in Beirut -- the point of origin of the Flight 1285. According to United Press International, "Hours after the crash the Islamic Jihad – a Shiite Muslim extremist group – claimed it destroyed the plane to prove [its] ability to strike at the Americans anywhere." As noted above, the jihadists' claim was dismissed by both the American and Canadian governments within 24 hours.

20/20 revisited the story in April 2014. Here's the video, running time 30 minutes.



If you need more, click here to see "Arrow Air Flight 1285: unanswered questions", CBC-TV's report featuring interviews with Les Filotas and others, aired last night.

America's Founding Fathers opposed unrestricted immigration

Ed. discourages me from "retweeting" entire columns or articles by other writers. He calls me lazy and asks, if readers can find the original elsewhere, what good does it do to post it here? I agree, and normally will select a few sentences or paragraphs, add a couple of comments, and provide a link to the original piece. Sometimes, though, nothing less than the entire column or article will do. So it is with "Immigration and our Founding Fathers’ values", by Michelle Malkin. I am a regular reader of her blog.

President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is “offensive and contrary to American values.” No-limits liberals have attacked common-sense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling or immigration slowdowns as “un-American.”

America’s Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

He predicted, correctly, that “The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” He asserted, “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions “as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders’ intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: “It is well settled that applicants don’t have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. … As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the Public Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest.”

Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn’t value its own citizens and sovereignty first won’t endure as a country for long.

Monday, December 14, 2015

France: Setback for le Front National; what if Islamists take over?

Walt admits to being not a little dismayed by the results of the runoff in France's regional elections, this past Sunday. Only a week before, I rejoiced -- a bit prematurely perhaps -- in the standings after the first round, which showed Marine Le Pen's Front National topping the polls, with as much as 40% of the popular vote. The remainder was split between the President François Hollande's socialists and the centre-right(ish) Union de la Droite, led by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Under the French system, where no-one gets a majority (50% + 1) in the first round of voting, another round is held, dropping off lesser candidates, until someone emerges a clear (majority) winner. It was widely believed -- or hoped, in some quarters including this one -- that Mme Le Pen had a good chance of winning the run-off in Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, her region in the northeast of France, as did her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who had won the first round in the southeastern region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.

Alas, it was not to be. What happened, in a nutshell, was that the socialists tanked, going so far as to actually withdraw their candidates in Mme Le Pen's region, telling their adherents to vote for the Union to stop the Front. Simple... and stupid... as that. So, the FN was defeated in all six regions where it had led the polls in the first round, and France is safe for democracy and multiculturalism. For now.

Let me draw an analogy here. Suppose Hellery Clinton gets the Democratic nomination -- hardly a long shot -- and Jeb beats out the Donald for the GOP nod, leaving Mr Trump to run as an Independent. And suppose Mr. Trump finishes first, with 40% of the vote, with Bush III second and Mrs. Bill third. What happened in France is like unto what would happen in the USA if there were a second round of voting and Queen Hillary told all the Democrats to get behind Jeb to stop Trump (thus to keep America democratic if not Democratic, etc). Got it?

For the French, there's always 2017, when it will be time once again for a presidential election. It may well come down to Hollande vs Sarkozy vs Le Pen. Then we'll see.

As long as we're supposing things about France, here's a thought. What if, by the time 2017 rolls around, enough Islamists are French citizens (or vice versa) that they can make or break one of the candidates. Maybe they could even form their own party and, supported by all those who denounce racism and celebrate diversity, win the election.

An Islamist government in France! What would that be like? In "What if the Islamists took France?", the National Post's Ian Hunter writes about Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, set in France in 2022 (the year of the next presidential election after that of 2017). "The message I took from the novel Submission", he says, "is that it is already too late. Western civilization has lost its core beliefs, and its will to survive."

Hm. Maybe Submission should be on Walt's required reading list. Or maybe not. After all, it's possible to imagine an Islamist takeover of France, but not, surely, Britain... or Canada... or the United States of America.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Rogers hockey ratings tank, Poor Len gloats

Poor Len, again. Forgive me for indulging in a bit of schadenfreude, but I can't help saying "I told you so" after reading "Rogers’ early-season TV ratings down sharply for NHL, Maple Leafs" in today's Groan & Wail.

A couple of years ago, Rogers outbid the Canadian Broadcasting Corpse for the Canadian broadcast rights for all NHL games, for 12 years. It then "leased" some of the games to CBC, RDS and other networks, but retained control of which games would be shown on Hockey Night in Canada, which it now owns, and SportsNet, its ridiculously expensive pay channel.

Then, because Toronto is Canada's biggest TV market, Robbers decided to foist games featuring the Maple Laffs on the entire nation, relegating Canada's team -- the Montréal Canadiens -- to "regional markets", i.e. the French-language networks (TVA and RDS) and (sometimes) English broadcasts in Québec and Atlantic Canada. I have complained before about the blackouts of Habs games from the Québec-Ontario border westward, and predicted Robbers would rue its, Conn-Symthian, francophobic bias.

And so it has come to pass. (Lifetime pct .990.) The Glob reports that NHL TV ratings are down across the board on average for Rogers for the first seven weeks this season. According to Numeris, Canada's only broadcast ratings service, combined ratings for the Leafs on all the Rogers-connected networks that carry them -- CBC, Sportsnet and City -- are down 30 per cent from October 7th through November 21st.

The Eastern games on Saturday’s Hockey Night in Canada, which usually feature the Leafs (on CBC) and some other team, not the Habs, on City, are down 19% from the same period last year. From October 7th through November 21st, an average of 1,771,500 viewers saw the prime-time Hockey Night Eastern game, a drop of 412,500 from last year’s 2,184,000.

Dontcha love it? I do. I hope Robbers lose their blue-and-white shirts.

Poor Len explains what ails the Habs (and it's not just Subban)

Poor Len here, fighting depression after watching last night's game between the Montréal Canadiens and the Detroit Redwings. At the end of the second period, les Glorieux were leading 2-1. Then came a swift and terrible third-period let-down, with the Wings scoring two goals in just over a minute, to prevail 3-2.

3-2 is becoming a depressingly familiar score. Here are the results for the Habs' last four games:
3/12 - Washington 3 - Montréal 2
5/12 - Carolina 3 - Montréal 2
9/12 - Boston 3 - Montréal 1 (only)
10/12 - Detroit 3 - Montréal 2
That makes four straight losses for la Sainte Flanelle, in which they allowed three goals while scoring, errr, not so many. It's not a good trend, eh. Let me tell you what the team's problems are.

First, defensive mistakes. Contrary to my prediction of December 1st, P.K. Subban did not learn to play defence, as he needs to in the absence of Carey Price. Instead, he has gone back to his old, risky, puck-hogging ways, getting trapped far too often deep in the other team's zone, leading to odd-man rushes, leading to goals against. Last night, with less than two minutes to play, and the Habs pressing for the equalizer, P.K. shot the puck over the glass, leading him to the sin-bin and the team to defeat. Bah.

But let me not point the finger at Subban alone. Also weak, in his last three games -- he watched from the press box last night -- was Nathan Beaulieu. I have never been impressed with his defensive play, but he made up for it with speed on the transition, contributing to the team's offence. That's fine if you have Carey Price to bail you out when you turn the puck over, but now Price is not right, which brings us to

Problems between the pipes. Carey Price is not expected back for another four weeks. That means Montréal's second- and third-string goalies have to take up the slack. They're trying. Dustin Tokarski (No. 3), who never had my confidence, couldn't be faulted on last night's three goals, and Mike Condon (No. 2) has played well enough to win. But, unlike Carey Price, Condon and Tokarski are mere mortals, and can't be counted on to allow no more than two goals per game. That means the team in front of them must score more than one or two goals a game. Which brings us to

Sputtering offence. This was the Habs' greatest problem last year, manifesting itself particularly in the playoffs, when they just couldn't buy a goal. Starting this season with 9 straight wins and leading the league in +/-, lack of offence seemed to be a thing of the past. Everybody (except Tom Gilbert) was scoring and the team's goals-for average in October was well over 3. But now a scoring drought has set in.

It's hard to pinpoint the scoring problems. What I've been seeing is too many passes, a lot of too-fancy plays, and too many shots from the blue line with no-one in front of the opposing goalie to pick up the garbage. The team misses wee Brendan Gallagher. Without him, and with injuries to two or three other starting forwards, coach Michel Therrien has had to call up reserves from the AHL St. John's Icecaps.

Last night saw no fewer than four Icecaps players filling in. They try hard, and in the last week guys like Sven Andrighetto and Paul Byron have contributed to the scoring, so the real problem lies with the old, established guys like Max Pacioretty, Tomas Plekanec and David Desharnais. Their hands/sticks/whatever have gone cold, possibly because Therrien keeps juggling the lines, so they never know who they're playing with, from one shift to the next.

How would I fix the problems? Errr... I don't know. Let us pray for the return, ASAP, of Price and Gallagher [Don't forget Torrey Mitchell. Ed.] and, in the meantime, hope that all the guys, especially the defencemen, will concentrate, focus on winning, give 110%, yada yada yada. Let us hope...

Thursday, December 10, 2015

"Sharia police" patrol German streets, with court approval

My first post this morning foresaw some headlines which might appear in Canadian newspapers 15 years hence. One of them read: Brampton schoolgirl expelled for not wearing a burqa: Sharia law to be strictly enforced. So that's Canada's future? Maybe, but in Germany it's the present!

Don't believe me? Check out this report on the BBC News website. A German court has ruled that Islamists who patrolled the streets of Wuppertal wearing vests identifying them as "Shariah police" didn't break the law and won't be prosecuted.

Nine Salafists -- Islamic extremists -- were arrested in September 2014 after patrolling streets in the western German city, telling passers-by not to frequent discos, casinos or bars. The group also carried notices proclaiming in English a "Sharia Controlled Zone". The notices spelled out prohibitions like those in force in some Arab countries, outlawing alcohol, drugs, gambling, music and concerts, pornography and prostitution.

The "Wuppertal Nine" (as the lamestream media will surely start calling them) included Sven Lau, a convert to Islam and preacher, whose passport was seized this year after he visited Syria and a photo surfaced, showing him posing on a tank, with a Kalashnikov rifle slung around his neck.

Herr Lau, who has already spent some time in prison, is suspected of trying to recruit Muslims to join jihadists fighting in Syria/Iraq. He told the court he had gone to war-torn Syria in 2013 on a humanitarian mission. [Possibly to identify "refugees" suitable for importation to Canada? Ed.]

The appearance of the Salafists at night in Wuppertal triggered sharp criticism in Germany, after a film of their "patrol" appeared on YouTube. [Ed., have you found this?] [Not yet. Ed.] However, the court said they had not violated laws on the wearing of uniforms and public gatherings that were enacted after the fall of the Third Reich to protect the public from just this sort of intimidation.

A vision of Canada's future -- headlines from the year 2030

From the Great No-longer-white North, one of Walt's Agents has sent some headlines which, using his crystal ball, he has seen in Canadian newspapers from the year 2030.

* Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions

* White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Canada's third language

* Children from two-parent, married, heterosexual families bullied in schools for being "different". Tolerance urged

* Brampton schoolgirl expelled for not wearing a burqa: Sharia law to be strictly enforced

* Japan announces that Japanese will no longer consume whale meat as whales are now extinct and workers in the scientific research fleet are unemployed. Canadian government tells Japanese squirrels taste like whalemeat.

* Canada now has ten Universities of Political Correctness. Professor Goldman of U of T says there is still a long way to go in the fight to stop people "saying what they think"

* Canada's deficit $20 trillion and rising. Government declares return to surplus in 100 years -- 300 years ahead of time. Prime Minister Mohammed Yousuf calls increased growth through more immigration the secret to success.

* Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped!

* Iran still quarantined. Physicists estimate ten more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels

* France pleads for global help after being taken over by Islamic countries. No other country volunteers to help the beleaguered nation

* Jose Manuel Rodriguez Bush says he will run for second term as US President in 2032.

* Canada Post raises price of stamps to $28 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

* Average weight of Canadian males drops to 252 lbs

* Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil and human rights. Victims to be held partly responsible for crime

* Average height of professional basketball players is now nine feet, seven inches

* New Liberal government law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2035 as lethal weapons

* Revenue Canada sets lowest tax rate in decades at 75 per cent.

American newspapers will likely feature similar headlines... only sooner!

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Ontario kids in care of social agencies disproportionately black

In Ontario, Canada [not to be confused with Ontario CA. Ed.], child protection services are provided independent, non-profit organizations called Children's Aid Societies. They are regulated and (in theory) supervised by the provincial government under the Child and Family Services Act.

Across Ontario, there are 47 Children's Aid Societies. Nine of them are race-based, to assist the First Nations (= aboriginal people, or Indians as we called them in the un-PC days). Three are "faith-based" (= for children of specific religions), two Catholic and one Jewish.

According to the Ontario government's website, the functions of the CAS are to:
* investigate reports or evidence of abuse or neglect of children under the age of 16 or in the society's care or supervision and, where necessary, take steps to protect the children
* care for and supervise children who come under their care or supervision
* counsel and support families for the protection of children or to prevent circumstances requiring the protection of children
* place children for adoption

The left-leaning Toronto (Red) Star, which always has space for articles about how the white Christian community mistreats minorities, has an article today on a new group of black activists in Brampton (a suburb of Toronto in which white people are a minority) which is calling for the formation of an "African-Canadian" (= segregated) children’s aid society.

The Star decided to take a look at the racial mix of families and children being assisted by the CAS. Predictably, they found that "poverty and issues of neglect were driving factors" for all children who come into care. That's especially so, they say, with black families, with "racial bias and cultural misunderstanding on the part society workers and those doing the referring — schools and police being two of the largest — [being] part of equation.

Yas, yas, it's all the fault of the cops and the teachers, systemic racism, yada yada yada. Heard that before. What's interesting, though, about the Star's article is a "by the numbers" section, which Walt has copied below, with no further comment.

42% The proportion of children in the care of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto in 2013 who were black or have one parent who is black.

8% The proportion of people under 18 in Toronto who are black.

47% The proportion of black children in the care of the Toronto society with parents born in Caribbean countries.

20% The proportion of black children in the care of the Toronto society with parents born in Africa.

45% The proportion of black children who spent more than 12 months in the care of the Toronto society in the 2008 fiscal year.

20% The proportion of white children who spent more than 12 months in the Toronto society’s care.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Dumb burglar gets eaten by alligator

Meet Matthew Riggins. Or, I should say, the late Matthew Riggins, deceased at the ripe young age of 22 while fleeing Brevard County (FL) sheriff's deputies.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Mr. Riggins -- already known to police, as they say -- and another man were in Barefoot Bay to commit house burglaries during the night of November 12th-13th.

A sleepless resident called the cops around 2 AM to report that two men, dressed in black, were walking behind houses near Tequesta Drive. The two were spotted minutes later on Royal Palm Boulevard, but fled. With K-9 and helicopter units in hot(ish) pursuit, Mr. Riggins stopped long enough to call his girlfriend to say he was being chased, then dove into a lake just north of Ocean Avenue Way.

Mr. Riggins unwisely disregarded the old diver's maxim "Look before you leap." If he had looked, he might have spotted an 11-foot alligator having a snooze near the shore. Mr. Riggins didn't see the alligator, but the alligator saw him, and did what alligators do.

Mr. Riggins was reported missing by his girlfriend when he failed to come home on November 13th. What was left of him was discovered on the 23rd. He was missing his lower extremities and part of an arm, according to deputies. While recovering the body, the sheriff's dive team were "approached aggressively" by a large gator, which was trapped by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and euthanized. Deputies told the paper, "A forensic examination of the alligator located remains consistent with the injuries to Riggins inside the alligator's stomach."

The man who was with Mr. Riggins on his little escapade has been identified, but is not cooperating with the investigation. If he doesn't talk, the Sheriff has threatened to throw him in the lake.

Note from Ed.: We haven't checked our e-mail yet today, but am all but certain that Agent 17 will have sent us this item, so thanks in advance!

Muslim refugees being "welcomed" into Canada in dark of night

The story so far... During the Canadian election campaign of this fall, Justin Trudeau ("the Hair Apparent"), in a classic example of pandering to the ethnic vote, pledged, if elected, to bring 25,000 Syrian "refugees" to Canada by the end of the year. That would be on the Canuck taxpayers' dime (value US$0.07) of course. Himself Jr. was probably as surprised as anyone when he did get elected, and was immediately called on to make good on his promise.

Much humming and hawing ensued, with the chief hummer being old Liberal Party hack John McCallum, awakened from his slumber on the opposition benches and dubbed Minister of Immigration and Refugees (sic). As October turned into November turned into December, the Hon. Mr. McCallum backed away as best he could from the original date and numbers. Now it's supposed to be only 10,000 refugees by December 31st, with a goodly percentage of those being privately sponsored, with government (Canuck taxpayers) picking up only part of the massive cost.

More embarrassment for the Gliberals as it turned out that a lot of "refugees" to whom Canada's gilt-edged invitation was extended preferred to languish in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. No prizes for guessing why. See "Middle East refugees refuse to live in cold places" (WWW 29/10/15)

But some refugees decided they could live with the ice and snow -- they haven't experienced it yet -- and probably couldn't get more money out of the German or Swedish governments, so now have Canadian visas stuck in their passports, and tickets clutched in their hands. The first wavelet -- not enough to call a "wave" -- are due to arrive tomorrow, or the next day, or certainly by the weekend.

Can you imagine the scenes at Pierre Eliot Trudeau Airport (named for Himself Sr.) in Montreal, and Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto as the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, are welcomed by their Canadian sponsor, friends and relatives? Errr, maybe not, because the refugees are going to smuggled in kinda secretly.

When they arrive at YYZ (= Toronto Airport; don't know about YUL) they will not deplane at either of the regular terminals, but at a temporary facility in the infield between the runways. It was built back in the 90s when a new Terminal 1 was being constructed, and is still there. The last time it was used was for security purposes when the Prime Minister of India visited.

No members of the public will be admitted to that distant terminal, not even sponsors, friends and relatives. The only greeters who will meet the incoming Muslims -- for that's what most of them are -- will be officials from the Ministry of Immigration [Don't forget "and Refugees". Ed.] who will "process" them for a few hours.

And after that, will they be taken to one of the regular terminals to be welcomed? Errr, no. They will be bussed [or "bused"? One of them means kissed, the other means being transported by bus. Ed.] to a secret location -- seriously -- to which sponsor etc will also be taken for the final meet and greet.

Why all the secrecy? Why all the security? Could it be because the Canuck government's claim that the majority of Canadians, unlike the majority of Trump supporters, are happy to welcome all these Muslims into the Great No-longer-white North is untrue? Errr, could be!

Further reading: "Canada's welcome of 25,000 Muslim refugees "madness": Marine Le Pen" (WWW 28/11/15)

VIDEO: Ron Paul: Is Islam about to engulf Western civilization?

Yesterday Walt told you about a report recommending the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England and Wales. The headline Ed. wrote -- ahem! -- was "Islamization of UK complete, England to disestablish Anglican Church?" The rationale for the proposition was that the reality of modern-day Britain needs to be recognized. The reality is not that Islam is strong, and has overthrown a "Christian" nation, but that Christianity (represented by the established church) and Christian values are weak, and has been supplanted by secularism, fundamentalist Christianity, and (to be sure) Islam.

My posts on the clash of civilizations should not be misinterpreted as war propaganda. I am all for defending North America and Europe, by force of arms if necessary, from the Muslim invaders. And I agree with the Donald that there should be no more Muslim immigrants -- not any!

However, I am totally opposed to making war on the Islamic terrorists in their own land. I have written dozens in which I argue that "the coalition of the willing" has no business in the Middle East and Africa. [What about the oil business? Ed.] I believe that all the trouble in those reasons stemmed from the misguided and demonstrably failed foreign policy of the Paranoid States of America, beginning with Bush I's First Gulf War.

Instead of invading the sandpit, and raining death from the skies on 1000 innocent civilians for every jihadist, we should be defending our homelands by stopping the immigration of aliens who cannot and will not assimilate. Leave the Islamic extremists to fight their own Muslim civil war. Our task should be to rebuild our own economy and society.

Here's a new video from Ron Paul, making the same point more eloquently.



Recommended reading: A War Against Truth: An Intimate Account of the Invasion of Iraq, by Paul William Roberts. Raincoast Books, 2004

Monday, December 7, 2015

Front National tops French polls; liberals, Muslims, Jews panic

Another country heard from! Another strong vote for stopping the Islamization of Europe! Results from regional elections held throughout France on the weekend show Marine Le Pen's Front National within reach of taking over four regional councils in France, after winning 28% of the vote -- a result that has shocked liberal elites across Europe.

As Walt predicted following the Islamic terrorist bombings in Paris in November, the anti-immigration FN racked up its best result since its founding in 1972, finishing in first place in six of France's 13 regions.

Mme Le Pen stood for her party in France’s northern region, and won the first round with 40% of the vote. In the southeast of France, her niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, headed the field, also getting more than 40% of the vote in the her region. Mme Le Pen described the result as "magnificent", adding that it showed that the FN was now “without contest the first party of France”.

Why is the Front National so popular?
[Do you really have to ask? Ed.] We have a short video clip, from the Financial Times.



The result has caused much soiling of shorts by the usual gang of "progressive thinkers", diversity advocates, and other bleeding-heart liberals. Typical of the pissing and moaning about Islamophobia and the "threat to democracy" is a statement by German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, leader of the Social Democrats, calling it a "wake-up call for all democrats in Europe.... It is of course a shock when rightwing extremists achieve such a result and become the strongest political force in the first round of voting in France -- one of the founding members of the EU in the heart of Europe."

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi commented on FB that European institutions needed to change or they risked becoming the "best allies of Marine Le Pen and those who try to imitate her.... Without a strategic design, particularly on the economy and on growth, populist movements will sooner or later prevail also in general elections."

The Democratic "leader" of the USA -- Barack Hussein Obama -- made no mention of the French elections in his little fireside chat Sunday night. He was too busy telling Americans not to be afraid of Muslims, be tolerant, yada yada yada. As if nothing like what happened in Paris could ever happen in the Land of the Free (etc). Oh... wait....

Further reading (added 9/12/15): "World Jews: 'Stop the Front National'" (New Observer 8/12/15)

Islamization of UK complete, England to disestablish Anglican Church?

Here's a news flash from Old Blighty! Walt's man on the Clapham omnibus [Seems to be a legal joke. Ed.] has sent us this article from today's Telegraph:
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge"

It's not really news, izzit. Everyone knows that only a small minority of Brits who call themselves Anglicans actually go to church except for "hatched, matched and dispatched" occasions -- baptisms, weddings and funerals -- and even those rituals are being skipped by Gen Y and the Millennials.

Are there any religious people left in England? Sure. Plenty of them. Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, some Jews, and... wait for it... hundreds of thousands of followers of the Prophet Mohammed. Yes, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in England, so a two-year commission into the place of religion in British society has called for public life to be systematically de-Christianized to reflect the reality of modern Britain.

The Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life, chaired by the former senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss and involving leading religious leaders, has discovered that secular humanism is the prevailing "belief system" in Britain. It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" for religion is needed in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths.

The Telegraph says that the report has provoked a furious row, being condemned by Cabinet ministers as "seriously misguided". The Church of England -- "The official church of Cool Britannia" -- said the commission appeared to have been "hijacked" by humanists. That is wrong. It's not the commission that has been hijacked, but the C of E itself!

The report has several controversial things to say, including a claim that faith schools are "socially divisive". So that will probably mean the end of Anglican and Catholic schools, and says that the selection of children on the basis of their beliefs should be phased out. It also accuses those who devise some "Religious Education" syllabi of "sanitizing" negative aspects of religion in lessons. And, it suggests, the compulsory daily act of worship in school assemblies should be abolished and replaced with a "time for reflection".

The report backs moves to cut the number of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords and give their places to imams, rabbis and other other non-Christian clerics as well as evangelical pastors.

As if that weren't enough, the Commission also calls for a rethink of anti-terror policy, including (get this!) ensuring students can voice radical views on campus without fear of being reported to the security services. Yessir, freedom of speech is a great thing, especially when it protects hate speech. Right? Oh... only for non-Christians, you say. Got it. Welcome to the new, diverse, multicultural, not-so-Great Britain.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Mark Twain's War Prayer

Now that the FBI (etc) is "investigating" the San Bernardino massacre as "an act of [adjective deleted] terrorism", Walt guesses some folks in San Berdoo (and Washington, Arlington and surrounds) are thinking about what degree of revenge would be sufficient to appease the Americans who think the Prez has been soft on Muslim fanatics.

It's all a bit like South Park: The Movie, isn't it? Let's see... Who should we attack? The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- were Pakistanis. OK, he was born here -- a Paki-American -- and she was in the USA on a K1 (fiancée) visa. So should we bomb Pakistan?

And how many should we kill? It is a time-honoured principle that 1 American life is worth at least 100 foreigners' lives, and usually more like 1000 or even 10,000, as in the First Iraq War. The Muslim fanatics killed 14 Americans, so...

While we wait for details of the coming retribution, let us all bow our heads and repeat the following War Prayer, composed by Mark Twain.

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writing in pain; help us to lay waste to their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst. Amen.

Source: Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race, ed. Janet Smith (Hill & Wang 1994)

Friday, December 4, 2015

UPDATED: Obama's speech impediment to be tested tonight!

Yesterday I was listening (albeit with just one ear) to the Prez as he tried to soften the hard news about the perpetrators of the San Bernardino massacre. Mr. 0 said the FBI (etc) thought maybe it was an act of terrorism -- well, DUH! -- "but we're not sure"!

Seriously. That's what the Prez said. I guess that makes me a better candidate for POTUS then, because I was sure as early as Wednesday afternoon. See "Don't tell us the San Bernardino massacre isn't the work of terrorists!"

As I was pondering the significance of Mr. Obama's refusal to identify as Muslims the couple who slaughtered 14 innocent civilians and wounded 21 (the latest count), Ed. handed me a brown envelope which had been slipped under the door of our cabin in the pines that morning. It contains a confidential report from a n'anga (= "traditional healer" = witch doctor) the Prez consulted on the QT during his July visit to the land of his ancestors, Kenya.

According to the good doctor, Mr. Obama's paternal grandmother was scared by a drawing of the Prophet, like the one shown here. The mental trauma affected the child in her womb, the father of Barack Hussein Obama, and his son, congenitally incapable of saying the words "Muslim" or "Islam", or any variation thereof, in the same sentence as the word "terrorism" or "terrorist(s)".

So now you know why the Prez just can't say who's responsible for what was clearly (not "maybe") an act of terrorism. You're welcome.

UPDATED SUNDAY MORNING: Walt will be watching and listening carefully to POTUS's fireside address to a worried nation, to be televised coast-to-coast tonight. The advertised topic is the terrorist threat. Can he overcome his speech impediment? Will he utter the word "Muslim" even once? Don't miss it!!!

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Don't tell us the San Bernardino massacre isn't the work of terrorists!

I started writing this about 1 PM yesterday, watching (on CBS-TV) the live coverage of the "incident" in San Bernardino CA. 14 innocent civilians killed, 17 wounded. By whom? By one crazy "lone wolf" with some kind of hatred for "developmentally disabled" people or civil servants? Or???

One eyewitness said that from her office window she saw three (3) attackers, dressed from head to toe in black, carrying "long guns" (the police chief's description) and extra ammunition. She wasn't sure, but had the impression the shooters were white, athletically built, and though that, while two were men, one might have been a man or a woman -- hard to tell, in the heat of the moment.

In the first presser, shortly after 2 PM, the San Berdoo police chief carefully avoided the use of words like "terrorists" or "terrorism" or "Muslims", In response to questions, he would only say that the authorities had no idea of what the motive might have been, and "weren't ruling out" terrorism.

Before we lift the veil from the identity of the two "suspects" (out of three) who have now been killed, let's consider the attacks on innocent civilians perpetrated in Paris not so long ago.

On 7 January 2015, two men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles and other weapons, forced their way into the Paris office of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo They killed 11 people and injured 11 others in the building, then killed a French police officer outside the building as they fled, shouting "Allahu akbar!" Another 5 people were killed and 11 wounded in related attacks in the Île-de-France region around Paris. The gunmen, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.

On the 13th of last month, masked men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles, IEDs and other weapons, staged a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and its northern suburbs. Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis. Cries of "Allahu akbar!" were heard again, as this attack was followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and the Bataclan music hall in Paris proper.

The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. There were 368 injuries, almost 100 of them serious. Seven of the jihadists also died. The ringleader is still at large, believed to be with ISIS in Syria.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying it was in retaliation for the French airstrikes on IS targets in Syria and Iraq. French President François Hollande said the attacks were an act of war, and called for swift and terrible retaliation. See "War begets terrorism begets war begets terrorism... etc" (WWW 3/12/15)

Now, let's examine again the mass shooting perpetrated in San Bernardino yesterday. Three attackers, dressed in black, carrying "long guns" (= assault rifles), burst into a crowded conference hall where the San Bernardino County Public Health Department was holding its annual Christmas party. According to witnesses, they didn't say or yell anything, just opened fire on all and sundry, killing 14, wounding 17.

Who could or would do such a thing? Would it be
(a) crazy people
(b) a disgruntled civil servant who "went postal"
(c) Muslims
(d) terrorists
(e) some of the above
(e) all of the above
While Ed. is tabulating your response, Walt will tell you what we now know.

Around 4 PM yesterday, two bodies were pulled out of a black SUV which had been riddled with gunfire in a scene reminiscent of the finale to Bonnie and Clyde. They were clothed in black, and were wearing body armor. They were Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The late Mr. Farook was born in Illinois, of parents who had immigrated from Pakistan.

According to Canadian Press, Mr. Farook went to Saudi Arabia for about a month this past spring. About a month after he returned to the USA, he was joined by Ms Malik, whom he described as a pharmacist and introduced as his wife.

Why did Mr. Farook and his wife do it? We can't ask them because the police, in time-honoured American fashion, decided to exterminate them first and ask questions... well, not at all. All we know is that Mr. Farook joined his colleagues -- he worked for the County Public Health Dept. -- at the party, but, after staying only a short while, stormed out following some kind of dispute. He returned with his wife, both dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles. You know the rest of the story.

The level of preparation -- they brought extra ammunition and also had pipe bombs in the SUB -- is one of the factors investigators are weighing as they examine a motive for the attack. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told an evening news conference that the attack did not seem to be "a spur-of-the-moment thing". Great police work there, chief!

Also unanswered is the question of what happened to the third shooter... if there was a third shooter. If the police (and the sheriff, TSA, FBI, CIA, and dogcatcher) can identify and locate him (or her), will they kill him (or her) too? Why would they do that? Surely it wouldn't be to keep us from knowing that the attack had something to do with the jihad being waged against us. As the Prez sez, there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism... is there?

Footnote: The correct answer to our quiz is (e).

War begets terrorism begets war begets terrorism... etc

Note from Ed.: Walt began this piece around lunchtime yesterday, then got distracted by the terrorist attack -- for that's what it was -- in California. I asked him to get up early today and finish this, by which time the connection between these thoughts and the San Bernardino massacre should be clear. And so it is.

Three announcements were made today [Wednesday] in Washington, Ottawa and London, all connected more or less directly with the jihadist attacks in Paris. French President François Hollande has declared that his country is at war with ISIS, and has urged his NATO allies to do more to help.

In Washington, it was announced that the Paranoid States of America would be sending a few dozen more "advisers" to help the good guys fighting ISIS in Syria. Their problem, of course, will be identifying the good guys -- separating the sheep from the goats, as it were. Nevertheless, dozens of American troops will be on the ground in Syria within a few days. Then hundreds. Then thousands. (Walt's lifetime pct .985)

In Ottawa, Rona Ambrose, the fragrant new (interim) leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, has urged Canada's hot new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, to reverse his decision to withdraw Canada's CF-18 fighter-bombers -- all six (6) of them -- from the mission against ISIS in Syria. Ms Ambrose told her caucus that there are times when you have to "go out to meet the enemy".

In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron won (on the second try) the support of the House of Commons for Britain to join the "coalition". This was after an intense debate of over ten hours, just before which Mr. Cameron is said to have accused those who didn't support British intervention in Syria of being "terrorist sympathizers".

So... the terrorist attacks in Paris lead to an increase in the West's involvement in the Muslim civil war in the Middle East. The Arabs, unsurprisingly, aren't altogether pleased to have the "crusaders" "helping out", while dropping death from the air on thousands of innocent civilians and generally laying waste to the already barren countryside.

Some of the militant Islamists are so displeased that they decide to go and meet their enemies -- that would be US -- on their (OUR) soil -- Madrid, London, Paris... or San Bernardino. And so the wheel of death turns, becoming ever more vicious, ever more unstoppable.

In A War Against Truth: An Intimate Account of the Invasion of Iraq (Raincoast Books 2004), Paul William Roberts writes: If our response to terrorism is merely to terrorize other people in return, we are not in fact fighting terrorism at all, we are creating yet more terrorism for the future.

In 1997, the American Defense Science Board reported that "historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." Given that "involvement" is a standard euphemism for covert or overt military intervention, what you have there is the real explanation for terrorist acts.

Indeed. That brings us to what happened in San Bernardino, which is my topic for the next post.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Carey Price out for 6 weeks; P.K. Subban to learn to play defence

Poor Len Canayen here, with a report on Canada's team, the Montréal Canadiens -- first in the Atlantic Division, first in the Eastern Conference, and first overall in the National Hockey League.

Yes, the Habs have made an excellent start on the road to the Stanley Cup -- their best since 1960. 25 games played, 18 wins, only 4 (four) losses in regulation time, and 3 losses in overtime/shootouts -- total 39 points. There are two reasons for this success: superior goaltending and lots of scoring.

The difference between the team's offence this year and last has been that of night and day. In the 2014-15 season the Habs won a lot of one-goal games, only because Carey Price generally allowed about 2 goals per game, and the defence corps usually managed to pot a couple, with the forwards lucky to find the back of the net once. So far this year, the Habs' goals-for-and-against record is +32 -- they've scored 32 more goals than they've allowed -- and everyone is contributing, even such unlikely types as Dale "the Machine" Weiss and Devante Smith-Pelly.

As for goaltending, Carey Price has been his usual magnificent self... he's been able to play. Something happened to him during the warm-up when the Canadiens were in Edmonton just over a month ago, and he missed over a week's worth of games. The new backup goalie, Mike Condon, proved more than equal to the task. In fact, his goals against average was even better than Price's for awhile there.

Carey Price came back for a couple of games against the NY Islanders on Nov. 22nd and 23rd, winning both, but had to leave the game on the 25th against the NY Rangers after the second period. Condon finished that game (counts as a win for Price) and has played well in two games against the Jersey Devils this weekend (3-2 shootout win, 2-3 overtime loss).

Now the bad news. Carey Price apparently re-injured himself, or aggravated the October injury, not having been allowed enough time to heal properly. The team says only that it's a "lower-body injury", which could mean anywhere from groin to ankle. Whatever it is, they're not going to hurry Price back between the pipes this time. He will be out for six (6) weeks, during which time the Habs will have to get along without him.

That means the pressure on Mike Condon is going to be intense... INNN-TENSE! In his last two games, you could see that he has been learning from Carey Price, trying to stay calm and quiet in the net, learning to handle the puck to help out the defence when they're shorthanded. But can he keep it up until mid-January?

And what happens when they have to play back-to-back games? The usual strategy is to let the No. 1 goalie play one game and put the backup goalie in for the other. The backup is little Dustin Tokarski, who had the position last year but was relegated to the AHL farm team. IMHO, Tokarski would have trouble stopping a taxi on rue Ste-Catherine, so that's a problem, but I have a solution!

Here it is, the latest in a long string of brilliant ideas which I pass on to Marc Bergevin and Michel Therrien gratis. [Your advice is worth every penny! Ed.] I suggest someone teach the Habs' "star defenceman", P.K. Subban, how to actually play defence. They're paying him 9 million beaver-bucks a year because of his prowess on offence, which is fine if you've got a Carey Price to bail him out when he gets caught deep in the opponents' zone or coughs up the puck at his own blueline. But when you have a more mortal, it's time for to make helping the goalie Job No. 1. Selah.

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Immigration officer interviews Syrian refugee (joke?)

From a country whose Muslim population (by percentage) is just slightly below that of France, Agent 69 sends the following.

Immigration: Do you speak English?
Syrian refugee: Yes
Immigration: Name?
Syrian refugee: Abdul Al-Rhasib
Immigration: Sex?
Syrian refugee: Three to five times a week
Immigration: No, no. I mean male or female?
Syrian refugee: Yes, male, female, sometimes camel!
Immigration: Holy cow!
Syrian refugee: Yes, cow, sheep, animals in general.
Immigration: But isn't it hostile?
Syrian refugee: Horse style, doggy style, any style!
Immigration: Oh dear!
Syrian refugee: No, no! Deer runs too fast!

Canada's welcome of 25,000 Muslim refugees "madness": Le Pen

Ujjal Dosanjh wasn't the only one to express concern over the plan of Canada's New Liberal Government (STARRING!!! Justin TRUUUUUDEAU!!!) to welcome into the Great No-longer-white North 25,000 Muslim "refugees". See "Rex Murphy on Kathleen Wynne", posted here earlier today.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France's Front National (and very possibly next president of La République!)Front, calls the project "madness".


"There," she said, in an interview with CBC-TV's fifth estate, "I've said it. Madness!" She went on to say, "There are other ways to do it," adding that the "danger is real -- false passports [or] real passports given to Islamic fundamentalists in the influx of immigrants to enter the country with the intent to commit terrorist attacks. It's a danger. And that's what happened in Paris."

As Walt mentioned in a footnote to "Paris jihadist attacks result of suicidal stupidity" Mme Le Pen's political star is in the ascendant, in the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. Even before the events of Friday the 13th, she was doing well in French public opinion polls, particularly in two regions in the southeast and the depressed north, where she is vying to be president of Nord-Pas de Calais in regional elections set for early December.

France already has the largest Muslim population of any west European country, in percentage terms. Revulsion at the Islamization of France -- once known as "the eldest daughter of the Church" -- runs high. Mme Le Pen told fifth estate her solution to the migrant crisis is to kick them out and seal the borders. "The influx of migrants must be stopped," she said. "We know Islamic fundamentalists have infiltrated this flux of migrants to slip by unnoticed."

Rex Murphy on Kathleen Wynne

I hope no-one will be misled by the headline. Rex Murphy is not literally "on" -- as in "on top of" -- Kathleen Wynne. The very thought boggles the mind. But buddy dere has been talking about Ontario's openly lesbian (and proud of it!) Premier, as has the openly heterosexual man she replaced. See "Ontario's lesbian Premier thrown under school bus by former boss" (WWW 26/11/15).

Ms/Mr Wynne has a self-righteous, dogmatic approach to "conversations" about such things as "gender fluidity", sex education, diversity and any other issues on which she knows she's right. Her liberal (and Liberal) bias was made even more clear than usual earlier this week when she called the 67% of Canucks who had misgivings about the federal Liberals' plan to import 25,000 Muslim refugees "closet racists".

One of the many who advocated for a more thorough screening than the original plan allowed for was Ujjal Dosanjh, a card-carrying Liberal, former Premier of British Columbia, and former federal cabinet minister. Mr. Dosanjh is himself an immigrant to Canada, and has been a target of racists attacks, including a brutal beating by Sikh extremists. He was quite understandably miffed by Ms/Mr Wynne’s statement that critics of the latest example of Liberal pandering to vizmins were "tapping into a racist vein." Mr. Dosanjh shot back that he didn’t much like being called "a racist and a xenophobe."

In his column in Canada's National Post, Rex Murphy calls Ujjal Dosanjh "a truly admirable Canadian", and takes Mr/Ms Wynne to task for her narrow-minded attitude. He writes:

Wynne has lately shown an unseemly eagerness to mark any disagreement with her "progressive" worldview as the product of corrupt thinking or moral defect. She seems unwilling or unable to believe that others can have ideas different from those she espouses, unless they, her critics, are morally inferior to her and their ideas are the products of ugly or ignorant minds.

This stance is unworthy of any citizen in a democracy, especially a premier. Progressives share with the most regressive fundamentalists, this tendency to mark off the world into good and evil. Naturally, the progressives are on the positive side of that table. It is a nasty phenomenon. And if it results, even indirectly, in an indictment of Dosanjh as less of a moral being than those he challenges, as being in the camp of racists and xenophobes — the very forces he has faced with personal courage and resolve — then it is very easy to see how shameless and bankrupt that line of thinking really is.