Sunday, October 30, 2016

Michael Moore explains why Donald Trump won

UPDATE: On October 30th we posted the item below, an audio excerpt (no video) from Trumpland, a one-man stage show created by Michael Moore as... get this... an endorsement for Hillary Clinton. But listen to what the arch-liberal Moore is really saying! Taking him at his own words, the average American has every reason to vote for Donald Trump!

"Trump's election is going to be the biggest 'fuck you!' ever recorded in human history, and it will feel good!"

Turns out Mr Moore had it exactly right... exactly right. To those who went to the polls on November 8th to vote for an end to illegal immigration, enforced multiculturalism, unrestricted abortion, economic stagnation, open markets and open borders, etc etc and so forth, Walt addresses his heartiest congratulations!

Hellery gets it in the end

Oh I wish I had an Oscar Mayer weiner... LOL

What can't they do with PhotoShop nowadays. Thanks to Agent 34.

Worth reading: "A dangerous time for an Obama third term", by Susan Stamper Brown, Nashville Tennesseean, 30/10/16.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Weird reactions to FBI's Clinton e-mails bombshell

I've got two TVs on and six tabs open on my Internet monitor, flipping around, checking out what the boys (and girls) on the buses and in the "newsrooms" are saying about James Comey's announcement that the FBI is going to reopen the investigation into Shrillery's e-mails. Donald Trump and his supporters are predictably delighted. Mrs Bill Clinton and hers...not so much.

La Clinton's plane sat on the tarmac on arrival at Cedar Rapids IA for half an hour before the front door open and She Who Would Be President came down the airstairs. Questions were shouted at her about the bombshell announcement. Answer came there none. Does that mean that after half an hour or more of thinking, her handlers couldn't think of anything to say? Errr, no. The official excuse is that the plane didn't have wi-fi so they hadn't heard anything about it. Really.

Hellery's running mate [Ed, please insert name here.] said that he needed time to read before he could say anything. What, Walt would like to know, is he going to read? The e-mails?! That would be pretty difficult since, John Podesta says, his team doesn't know what the FBI has, wherefore they hope the FBI will reveal the details so we can all see that there's really nothing there. Yeah, right.

Is this going to make any difference to people's voting intentions, hence to the outcome of the election? One "analyst" for a lamestream TV network said he thought not. Why? Because Mrs Clinton is far ahead in the polls, and millions of Americans have already voted and can't take back their votes, so the issue has already been decided! How's that for unbiased reporting?

Paul Ryan said Crooked Hillary is the author of her own misfortune. And so she is. What Mr Ryan didn't say (but ought to be thinking) is that if The Donald wins, he and all the other rats who deserted the Good Ship GOP will almost certainly turn out to be the authors of their own misfortune. If I were Messrs Ryan, McCain et al., I would issue a statement, right sharpish, saying that much as I was disgusted by Mr Trump's youthful indiscretions, I cannot countenance the election of someone -- Clinton -- whose presidency would be irredeemably tainted right from the get-go. It's my duty as a patriotic American (I would say) to vote for the lesser of the two weevils.

Looks like the next ten days should be lots of fun. I admit I didn't see this coming. (Lifetime pct .992)

FBI reopens Clinton e-mails whitewash

Cazart! Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Attorney-General of the United States couldn't make the "nothing to see here, folks" story go down the throat of the American public. So today, in what can only be an unpleasant and huuuuuuge surprise to Hellery, the FBI announced that it will now conduct an additional investigation into e-mails from La Clinton's private email server.

FBI Director James Comey just about nailed the lid down on the case in July, when he tut-tutted at Mrs Clinton for being "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information when she was Secretary of State, but didn't think her deliberate flouting of the laws warranted any criminal charges.

Today, however, Mr Comey sent a letter to Congress -- whose subpoena Shrillery likewise disobeyed -- in which he said the FBI had discovered "in connection with an unrelated case, the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Imagine that! After all those 1000s of man-hours of meticulous police work, they must have missed something! Mr Comey said his team of dogged investigators would "review these e-mails to determine whether they contain classified information" -- whatever that means -- and "assess their importance to our investigation."

"Although the FBI cannot assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work," the FBI Director concluded, "I believe it is important to update your committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony."

What Mr Comey did not say was when the Bureau's "further investigation" would be concluded and the "update" given to Congress. If you think it will be before November 7th, Walt has some land in Michigan's Upper Peninsula he'd like to talk to you about.

BREAKING: "Donald Trump will win the U.S. election, AI system says", from PostMedia.

VIDEO: CBS, NBC play down black attacks on whites in Philadelphia

Let's start with the headline, as it appears on the CBS Philly website: "Temple Students Attacked, Officer Thrown To Ground, Police Horse Punched In Assaults". And here's the video.

OK... What's missing from that report? Walt will tell you. The TV station's very PC news team -- a black man and a white woman on the anchor desk and a Vietnamese-American woman doing the stand-up -- omitted entirely any mention of the racial aspect of the attacks shown clearly in the video. The fact is that the attackers were black, and the victims were white. If you doubt it, watch again. If you are surprised, what planet have you been living on?

The NBC outlet in Philadelphia took exactly the same PC line, even though their footage also revealed the truth that the attacks were aimed at whites.

According to CBS, the violence was planned "through social media" with a message for a "large group of teens" to meet near the campus Friday night. They said that police estimate that 200 "teenagers" were in the crowd at the movie theater at Broad and Oxford and then divided into smaller groups, attacking and robbing other "students", who all just happened to be white.

"Teens" and "juveniles" are code words for non-white, used by the controlled lamestream media when they want to avoid mentioning race. Need I add that if the "teens" had been white, we would have been spared no detail about the "racist whites". But since the attackers were black, if race is mentioned at all it's only to say that the poor, disadvantaged yoofs are angry because they've been "marginalized" and "excluded" from society.

Could there be any reason, other than political correctness, for not calling a spade a spade? Wouldn't have anything to do with the upcoming election, would it? Of course not.

Poor Len: 2016-17 Habs are the real deal -- real BIG deal!

Poor Len here, feeling the glow from the Montréal Canadiens' best start to the NHL season since... well... last year, but let's not get into that. This year's team -- and I emphasize the word "team" -- is so different from last year's as to not bear comparison. New players, new culture, and no distractions in the dressing room or on the ice. Adds up to 7 wins and 1 shootout loss in their first 8 games, good for first place in the NHL Eastern Conference and in the league overall!

Here's a great picture (scraped from the Gazette) from last night's 3-1 win against the Tampa Bay Lightning. After a tight first period, the match was very entertaining, with good chances at both ends of the ice, fine goaltending from TB's Big Ben Bishop and even finer from Habs' Carey Price. I'm happy to see him fully recovered from last year's injury and already at the top of his came. Kudos too to Al Montoya, a veteran backstop who's taken some of the load of Price's shoulders. Each has allowed a stingy 6 goals in 4 games, with Montoya's GAA 1.47 and Price's 1.51. It's going to be hard for other teams to beat goaltending like that!

This year's edition of la Sainte Flannelle can score too -- all of them! The usual suspects -- Max Pacioretty, Brendan Gallagher and Alex Galchenyuk -- are in form. Wee Brendan has had 28 shots in 8 games, 4 of which found the back of the net. With 3 assists that gives him 7 points. Some of last year's support players have come alive too. Torrey Mitchell has had 4 goals, with Paul Byron, David Desharnais and Phillip Danault potting 2 each. But the best news has come from new guys Alexander Radulov, Artturi Lehkonen and Andrew Shaw, all making solid contributions.

I've reserved the last paragraph for the defence. As the season got under way, many (but not I!) wondered if last June's blockbuster trade -- P.K. Subban to Nashville Predators for Shea Weber -- would prove to be GM Marc Bergevin's undoing or the Best Deal Ever Made. Much to the chagrin of Dr. C.K. and Dave Stubbs, Shea Weber has so excelled on both defence and offence that Habs fans have already forgotten Stubbsy's "transcendant defenceman". Weber is solid on defence, and the key man on the team's much-improved power play. He also leads the team in scoring, with 3 goals and 6 assists. With Andrei Markov, Alexei Emelin (who actually scored a goal) and Jeff Petry, the Canadiens now have a defensive corps that the goalies and forwards can count on.

All in all, 2016-17 looks like being a very good season. Better not to start planning the Stanley Cup parade down Rue Ste-Catherine just yet, but I've already got my bets down on the Habs not just making the playoffs, but winning the Atlantic Conference. Anyone who disagrees may send a cheque c/o Walt.

Click here to read complete statistics on the Canadiens website

Worth reading: Guy Lafleur speaks out on why Habs traded Subban, from the Montreal Gazette 29/10/16. (My sentiments exactly!)

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

"The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton"

You think the Canucks all love Shrillery Clinton, eh. Especially their lamestream media. Especially the Canadian Broadcorping Castration. About 95% of the time you'd be right to think that, but every once in a while a bit of sanity somehow makes it by the PC police. Check out "The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton", by Scott Gilmore, on the Maclean's website.

The subhead says something that Walt has been trying to explain for months: "The U.S. needs someone who can be trusted to bring the country together and then forward. Hillary Clinton is not that person."

What's really worth reading, though, is the lead-in, which likens the 2016 race to the bottom to a prize pig contest at a county fair. Imagine (Mr Gilmore writes) that one of the two finalist Berkshire hogs goes berserk -- examples are given -- leaving the judges so appalled that they award the prize to the other hog without knowing what the other one even looks like. Great analogy, eh!

That (the author says) is exactly what is happening right now. The Republicans’ prized Berkshire has run wild in ways that are so outlandish they defy satire.... As a result, the Democratic contender has been relatively ignored by the media, and will likely be elected simply because "she’s not Trump."

Now, the good news: Hillary Clinton has been scrutinized before, in depth. She and her husband have been the subject of official investigations almost constantly over the last 30 years: from Filegate to her current email scandal, this woman has been thoroughly weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Numerous examples are given. Read the whole article to learn why Mr Gilmore believes "Hillary Clinton is not that person."

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

VIDEOS: Blatant rigging could give election for Clinton

Here's Walt's sometime buddy, Christopher A. Ferrara, Esquire, questioning the feigned outrage of the lamestream media over Donald Trump's claims that American elections are already rigged in favour of the Democrats. A shorty (under five minutes) from Remnant TV.

Chris isn't the only one who thinks Trump is right. Here, speaking to the same point, is Ezra Levant.

Noli illegitimi te carborundum! Get out and vote!


There's a lesson for American voters in the current brouhaha between Canada and the EU over free trade. A couple of years ago, when Canada was under the dictatorship of Steve Harpoon, the Dear Leader drank the koolaid of globalization and started work on making a free trade deal with the European Union. The Canada-Europe Trade Agreement (CETA) was worked out, and endorsed by the Gliberal government of Justin Trudeau, which took power a year ago. Open trade and open borders are the kind of thing liberals love, and CETA fits their one-world agenda perfectly.

Fast forward to October of 2016, when CETA is due to be ratified by the member states of the EU, all 28 of them. 27 countries fell into line without any fuss. And then there was Belgium. That country is divided more or less in half by language and ethnicity. The southern half, Wallonia, is home to French-speaking Walloons. (Gotta love that name.) The Walloons, it turns out, think increasing globalization is not a good idea. Gives too much power to multinationals, you see. The parliament of Wallonia passed a resolution against CETA last Friday, so Belgium's federal government is unable to give its consent.

Enter Canada's International Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, who was sent to Brussels to tweak the deal a little bit and so persuade the stubborn Walloons to change their minds. As Walt pointed out in April, Ms Freeland is a certified and certifiable member of the liberal elite. She is the spoiled child of privilege, the type who feels she is entitled to her entitlements, such as spending $6000 of taxpayers' money to hire a photographer to record her presence at a trade summit in Paris, or swanning around the world -- first class, of course -- preaching the benefits of globalization, free trade agreements and helping all the poor people of the Third World.

When the Walloons failed to succumb to Ms Freeland's charm (?) offensive, she threw a hissy fit, storming out of the meeting room to tell the meeja "These people are impossible! I'm going home to my children!" Well, at least she didn't call the Walloons "deplorable", but she's the sort of liberal feminist who might have used that word. Just like... you know who!

Walt asks the MEN of America, do you want to be ruled for the next four years by the gender warriors --  WIMMIN like (((Madeleine Albright))), Elizabeth Warren, Justice (((Ruth Bader Ginsburg))) and... you know who?! NO?! Better join NO MA'AM -- the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood. When the existence of this organization was revealed on Married With Children (watch the video below), you probably thought it was just a joke. It's no joke now! Vote accordingly!

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Civil War pop quiz: what event is pictured here?

No, I'm not talking about the civil war which may break out on November 9th. I'm talking about the Glorious War of the Secession, which ended any thoughts of white supremacy and laid the foundation for the century and a half of harmonious race relations which the Excited States of America has enjoyed ever since.

Here's the question
: Which Confederate general surrendered to which Union general in the final surrender of the war, in April of 1865?

The answer is not Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant, pictured here meeting at Appomattox Courthouse VA, in the parlor of the house owned by Wilmer McLean on the afternoon of 9 April 1865. (Ironically, Mr McLean had sold the house he owned at Manassas VA, which he had tendered to Confederate General P.G.T Beauregard for his headquarters during the first battle of Manassas, in 1861.)

The last surrender of the War Between the States took place on 18 April 1865, when Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered to Union General William Tecumseh Sherman. This marked the formal end of Southern resistance to domination by Washington and the northern liberal elite.

Source: Don't Know Much About the Civil War, by Kenneth C. Davis (1997), which I do not recommend. Mr Davis' book is a compendium of misinformation, revisionism, sloppy research [sloppy proofreading too! Ed.] and white liberal bias. Better you should read Shelby Foote's monumental The Civil War: A Narrative. There are three large volumes. Take your time.

Friday, October 21, 2016

French leader calls for ban on religious headgear and symbols in all public places

Citing the need to combat Islamist extremism, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s Front National, has called for the country's ban on religious symbols and garb in schools to be extended to all public places.

She advocates the broadening of an existing law, called "the headscarf ban", that prohibits conspicuous displays of religious symbols in public schools. The banned "symbols" include religious headgear such as the hijabs, niqabs, and burqas worn by large and increasing numbers of Muslim women, not just in France but everywhere in so-called "Christian" countries. Also banned in French schools are turbans and kippahs.

Mme Le Pen added that Jewish and Christian symbols would have to be included in the ban in the name of equality and the "national interest". "I know that every French person, including Jews, can understand that if we ask for this sacrifice from them [in the framework] of the battle against the advance of Islamic extremism, they will make this effort and understand it."

In 2013 the government of Québec proposed to enact a Charter of Québec Values, which would have had provisions similar to those now advocated by Marine Le Pen. See "Multiculti types horrified as Charter of Québec Values bans religious headgear", WWW 10/9/13. They were defeated (for other reasons) in the ensuing provincial election, so the Charter was never made law. However, in June 2015, the Liberal government introduced a revised version. See "Québec reintroduces legislation to ban wearing of niqab", WWW 11/6/15. Things move slowly in Canada, and hearings on the "religious neutrality bill" started just this week.

Walt finds it interesting that it's the French -- both in Europe and North America -- who are leading the fight against Islamic extremists and the Islamization of the West. What about us "anglos"? Are we so ashamed of our Western culture and Western values that we fight for the "rights" of those who want to destroy us? I can't figure it out.

Further reading
: If you're still not sure about the difference between hijabs, niqabs and burqas, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10 -- one of our most-read posts of all time.

Trump and Clinton walk into a bakery...

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump go into a bakery. As soon as they enter the shop, Trump steals three pastries and puts them in his pocket.
He says to Hillary, "See how clever I am? The owner didn’t even see anything, and I don’t even need to lie. I will definitely win the election."

Shrillery says to The Donald, "That’s the typical dishonesty you have displayed throughout your entire life, trickery and deceit. I am going to show you an honest way to get the same 3 pastries without stealing or lying, and also prove that I am much clever than you!"

Hillary goes to the owner of the bakery and says, "How'd you like to see a magic trick? Give me a pastry and I will show you one!"

Intrigued, the owner accepts Hillary's offer and gives her a pastry. Hillary swallows it and asks for another one. The owner gives her another one. Then Hillary asks for a third pastry and eats that, too. By this time, the owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and asks, "What did you do with the pastries?"

Hillary replies, "Look in Donald’s pocket!"

Thanks and a tip of Walt's MAGA baseball cap to Agent 17.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Madame Tussaud's employee arrested for having sex with statue of Obama

Two statue stories in one day should be some kind of a record. Scroll down to read the item about the "Naked Hillary" statue which appeared in New York. But New York has other statues -- oh my, yes! -- including a whole bunch of wax ones at the famous Madame Tussaud's Museum. (OK, it's a franchise operation. The original Madame Tussaud's is in London.)

The New York Madame Tussaud's has wax figures of numerous celebrities, including Ronald Reagan, M.K. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, King Kong and E.T. They also feature a lovely pairing of the chief apologists for Hellery Clinton, President 0 and his lovely wife. Here they are.

An employee of Tussaud's, 57-year-old Robert Murphy, has a strange... let's say unnatural attraction to the statues. He was arrested on Tuesday morning -- about the same time "Naked Hillary" appeared -- for having sex with 17 of them, including all those named above, with the exception of the First Lady.

The museum’s staff had noticed that many figures had been damaged over the last few months. After checking out the footage from the various security cameras, they saw some very disturbing scenes. "The man kept drilling holes in the various sculptures' abdomen before engaging in sexual intercourse with them," an NYPD spokesthingy told reporters. "This is certainly one of the strangest and most disturbing crimes I have ever seen!"

Mr Murphy now faces several charges of criminal mischief, criminal tampering and indecent exposure, punishable by a maximum of 54 years in prison. He has a history of mental health problems and has been committed on multiple occasions to psychiatric hospitals. His attorney claims Mr Murphy was suffering from a psychosis when he committed his various deeds, and had completely lost contact with reality. He would not say who his client was planning on voting for on November 8th.

VIDEO: "Naked Hillary" statue draws ire of New York wimmin

Two- and three-dimensional "art" depicting a naked Donald Trump has been appearing here and there for a couple of months now. In August, statues of a naked Donald, complete with oversized belly, appeared in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Cleveland. They were placed there by an anarchist collective called INDECLINE. Before that, a satirical painting portraying a naked Donald Trump became so popular on the Internet that its artist, Illma Gore, placed it on her website for free download.

This week it was Mrs Bill Clinton's turn. Early Tuesday morning, a caricature in the form of a statue of an almost naked Hillary appeared in New York City, just outside the Bowling Green subway station. The life-size representation showed La Clinton with breasts bare, with the head of a Wall Street banker resting his head on one. He had one arm wrapped around her Trump-sized belly, and his lips were puckered, as if preparing to suck from the Secretary's teat. Mrs Clinton’s face was twisted into a grotesque smile -- the one she uses during debates. In addition, the statue depicted her with the legs of a goat from the knee down, complete with cloven hoof. Haven't quite got the picture yet? Here 'tis.

[Sorry about the black bar, but we do have certain standards to uphold! Ed.]

The statue wasn't up for three hours before a furious bystander named Nancy (she refused to give her last name) knocked it to the ground and yelled, "This is obscene! To put something up like this in front of my workplace... I shouldn’t have to see this!" the woman continuously stomped on the statue and at one point sat on it, as its reported creator, 27-year-old Anthony Scioli, attempted to place it upright. New York's finest arrived some time later and forced Mr Scioli to remove the statue. No-one was arrested.

Walt scores Shakespearean final debate a draw

"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." That line, from Shakespeare's Macbeth, pretty much sums up last night's final -- thank goodness! -- presidential debate. Just make that TWO idiots, who spent 90 minutes reciting the same old lines, the same old talking points, the same old bullshit. People here what they want to hear, and I'm sure partisans of both Donald Trump and Crooked Hillary will be talking up their candidate's performance, but I doubt many minds will have been changed by their performances.

The debate was (IMHO) anticlimactic, given all the hype about how we should expect fireworks, surprises and general mayhem. There was less of that last night than in the second round. Credit goes to the moderator -- Chris Wallace of Fox News -- who kept a civil tongue in his head, and politely asked the audience to be quiet on the three occasions (my count) when spontaneous applause broke out following a comment by The Donald. (Example: He called the meeting on the airport tarmac between the Attorney-General and Mr Bill "disgraceful".) Perhaps some day someone will explain why they even both having an audience if they can't ask questions or express emotions. How I wish British-style heckling were part of the American tradition!

The debate was a lot of SOSO (same-old-same-old) including another recitation by Shrillery of he laundry list of women (and others) Mr Trump supposedly insulted. The Donald, to my disappointment, did not reply with what could have been a long list of women who her husband did more to than insult. When Hellery said someone needs to stand up to Donald and stand up for women, I was itching for Mr Trump to say, "Yeah, just like you stood up to your husband when he was leaving the mess on Monica's dress!" But he didn't.

When prodded by the moderator for comment on the 1000s of damaging e-mails revealed by Wikileaks, Mrs Bill Clinton made a sharp pivot. Instead of explaining or defending what was in the e-mails, she claimed that the leaks were all the result of hacking by "the Russians" in an attempt to influence the election and undermine American democracy! "Nice pivot," said Donald, and the crowd could be heard laughing.

The debate started with a comparatively civil discussion on policy disputes ranging from gun rights to abortion to immigration. Mr Trump managed to sound more presidential without appearing subdued. But the evening ended with the candidates hurling a grab-bag of accusations and insults at each other. The Donald called La Clinton a "nasty woman". She called him the "most dangerous person to run for president in modern history".

The only new controversy came on Mr Wallace's last question, when he asked Mr Trump if he would commit to accepting the results of the presidential election if he loses. "I will look at it at the time," said the candidate, citing his concerns about voter registration fraud, the corrupt media and his opponent, who he said "shouldn't even be allowed to run" because she committed a "very serious crime" in destroying 33,000 e-mails after receiving a subpoena from Congress. Pressed again on whether he's prepared to concede if he loses, Mr Trump said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense."

The suspense is building already. Less than three weeks, folks, until we find out whether Donald Trump can defeat the dark forces of Hillary Clinton and all that she stands for. If not, what then? Will Walt and the millions of others who back Mr Trump pick up their torches and pitchforks and take to the streets? Let's see... How do you sharpen a pitchfork?!

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Hurry on down to the PRE-HILLARY SALE!

Agent 34 sent us a photo of an ad which a reputable news source says appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Ed. answers questions from the mailbag

Ed. here. It's been a long time since we answered readers' questions, so let's dig into the mailbag...

From Wynot NE, Chris P. Bacon writes: Sometimes I feel I want to comment on Walt's bloviations, but I never see a window where I can write my own astute observations. How can I cast a few pearls in Walt's direction?

Dear Crisp: Where did you get that word "bloviations"? Are you reading some other alt-right blogger, like Krauthammer? Walt is jealous. But to answer your question, if you're on the WWW home page, just click on the headline of the post you're reading. A new tab will open showing that post only, with a window at the bottom for your comment, whether a stoot or any other kind of animal.

Joe Mamma, of Superior Bottom WV, wants to know if Poor Len Canayen is our resident hockey jock's real name.

Dear Joseph: His name is just as real as Walt's. Actually his parents called him "Rich Len" (short for "Richard Leonard") but his investments (Studebaker, shale oil futures, Yahoo and pretty horses) haven't worked out so well so he changed the first part about seven years ago.

Agnes Day, from Bowlegs OK, asks for Walt's e-mail address, so she can enter the contests we hold from time to time. And why not? First prize in our most recent contest was a weekend in Buffalo. Second prize was a week in Buffalo.

Dear Angus: Nice to know folks of Scottish descent are reading our blog. Walt has about a pint of Scotch in his veins. His e-mail address is It would be Yahoo, wouldn't it. But don't worry. Your e-mails to Walt are just as secure as anything else you do on Yahoo.

And finally... Dawn Vallée of Dildo NL would like to know what's really wrong with Hillary Clinton. Why, with just three weeks to go until Election Day, has she gone into hiding?

Dear Red Dawn: Those are excellent questions, albeit somewhat off topic. My suggestion: use the search feature at the top right corner of the screen and/or the tags at the end of each post to get more information on Hellery's ill health or any other topics that interest you. Click on "health issues", for example, and you'll see all the posts in which that phrase is used.

Dear readers, I trust the foregoing has defogged your fuzzification. You're welcome. Ed.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Damning Podesta e-mail re San Bernardino massacre

Ever wondered why Hellery Clinton refuses to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" to describe the things ISIS does, such as the San Bernardino massacre? Donald Trump challenged her to do so during the second debate, but she didn't (and will not) get any closer than "radical jihadists". Why? Because to name the enemy is not politically correct. Might offend those... you know... moderate Muslims (like the Khan family) to whom the Clinton campaign is pandering.

We have a little more insight into their strategy today thanks to Wikileaks. Their latest drop -- you'll find a summary of the highlights from previous releases here -- reveals that some of La Clinton's top aides were highly upset that a Muslim man had been named as one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino massacre, in which 14 innocent people were killed and 22 injured.

According to e-mails from John Podesta's account, the Clinton campaign chairman suggested it would have been "better if a guy named (Syed Farook) was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Mr Podesta was responding to an email chain that began with campaign liaison Matt Ortega sharing a tweet from MSNBC host Chris Hayes reporting the shooter's name as Syed Farook. Campaign spokesperson Karen Kinney responded with, "Damn!"

Mrs Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to utter the word "Islamic", let alone the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Fox News reports that in a 154-page debate prep book developed two months after the attack (also released by WikiLeaks), her handlers advised Shrillery to call these types of attacks "radical jihadists". As The Donald says, how can you fight an enemy you refuse to recognize.

What's actually in the leaked Clinton e-mails?

Walt (and many others) can't under why the attention of the lamestream media is focused on stories about Donald Trump's alleged locker-room banter and slap-and-tickle which go back decades and have nothing to do with business or politics. Meanwhile, while serious political and moral lapses on the part of Shrillery Clinton and her top campaign staffers are being revealed every day through the e-mail leaked by Wikileaks, and no-one cares.

What's the reason for the media's willing participation in this massive misdirection orchestrated by the Democrats? Could it be that people bust their wrists changing channels to see stories about groping, or avoid stories about serious politics? Or could it be that the pundits who are paid to tell us what to think don't really understand the implications of the e-mails? Assuming the latter, Walt's reposting, below, a useful guide to what's in the Clinton e-mails, originally prepared and published by Canadian Press. [We do this under the "fair use" doctrine. Besides, we don't make any money on WWW. We don't even allow advertising! Ed.]

The emails are being released in batches. So far, they mention:

—President Barack Obama: Obama exchanged messages with Clinton on her private email, according to an email purportedly from a senior aide. Obama has said he only learned the same way everyone else did that Clinton never used government email — in the news. To Trump, this is damning. He alleges, without evidence, that the reason Clinton never got charged by the FBI for mishandling classified information is that the FBI’s boss, Obama, also used to email her now-notorious personal account.

—Foreign lobbyists: The Clinton campaign debated whether to accept donations from Washington lobbyists representing foreign interests. They considered making an exception for friendly countries — they cited Canada as an example. In the end, they accepted everything. An email purportedly from Clinton’s communications director says: “Take the money!!”

—Secretary of State Bloomberg? An aide to Michael Bloomberg responded, when asked by a Clinton friend whether the billionaire-ex-mayor was interested in an administration job under Clinton: “Secty of state. Which ain’t gonna happen.” The friend Neera Tanden, head of a progressive think-tank, forwarded the email to campaign chair John Podesta and said: “Something to know for down the road.”

—Qatar connection: The Persian Gulf state donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation for Bill Clinton’s birthday in 2012. A year later, Hillary Clinton told an audience at Goldman Sachs, according to leaked transcripts, that Qatar and other Gulf states were funding jihadist groups in Syrian’s civil war.

—Primary favours: Leaked emails suggest the Clinton campaign asked the Illinois state government to move back the date of the primary, to hurt Republicans. They feared an early Illinois primary would benefit moderate Republican candidates. A purported email from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says the Clintons, “won’t forget,” what friends do for them.

—Obama push poll: Outside groups endorsing Clinton’s 2008 bid conducted a whisper-campaign against Obama. In a January 2008 email, a polling-firm employee tells friends of Clinton that it added anti-Obama questions to a poll “as requested.” The questions refer to his past use of cocaine; his Muslim father; and him not wearing an American flag lapel pin.

—Media relations: A Democratic party official who occasionally comments on CNN told the campaign during the primary that she occasionally gets advance notice of questions for network town-hall events. Donna Brazile now says she never got actual questions. Also, the New York Times went back-and-forth with the Clinton campaign last year over which quotes it could use. In a piece this week, Times writer Mark Leibovich says he’d tried getting Clinton to do an on-the-record interview; she agreed to speak off-the-record; he later convinced her team to let him use some quotes from the off-the-record chat.

—'Get a life,' far left: A transcript says Clinton voiced frustration with her party’s left-wing fringe, in a private event with a union: “They come to my rallies and yell at me.... They say, ’Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know.”

—'Needy Latinos': Clinton’s campaign chair urged her to call “needy Latinos” who required some attention before endorsing her, include former cabinet secretary and governor Bill Richardson.

—Catholics: Clinton aides are being accused of disparaging Catholics. That’s because an employee at a think-tank emailed Clinton aides disparaging Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, over baptizing his kids as Catholic; he suggested rich conservatives were attracted to Catholicism’s outdated gender roles. Clinton aide Palmieri replied. She suggested the rich might deem Catholicism more socially acceptable than evangelicalism.

—Collusion: Trump says there’s proof of collusion between Clinton and the Justice Department. That’s because her aide, Brian Fallon, wrote that a department contact informed him of a court date related to a freedom-of-information case on Clinton’s records. Fallon says that doesn’t mean collusion; there were also public records and media reports about the upcoming hearing.

—TPP — policy or politics: Opponents accuse Clinton of a cynical flip-flop over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — she worked on it in government, opposed it in her primary. Clinton says she withdrew her support after seeing the final details. An email exchange among campaign staff suggests a political calculus. It shows a conversation right after the agreement was announced. Clinton would oppose it — yet they discuss whether to wait a few weeks until the final text is released, to use that as a pretext.

—Bank ties: In paid appearances at financial institutions, Clinton vaunted her good relationship with banks. She said she represented them for eight years as a New York senator. She got annoyed at campaign staff when they insisted her husband cancel a speech to Morgan Stanley, the week of her campaign launch. Transcripts also show she told bankers they needed to toughen regulations and respond to public anger after the financial crisis.

—Thoughtful exchanges: Clinton offered candid and detailed analysis of world events, in events at Goldman Sachs. According to transcripts, she discussed hearing a screaming match between Chinese and Japanese leaders; the re-emergence of Japanese nationalism; Russian distrust of the Chinese; how a Syrian no-fly zone could kill civilians; and the multiple causes of U.S. legislative paralysis.

Walt was sorely tempted to add emphasis to certain points, but there were so many of them that it seemed like overkill. Please, dear gentle reader... just read this stuff thoroughly and tell me how on earth any patriotic American concerned about the future of the US of A could possible vote for That Woman.

Footnote: Where IS Mrs Bill Clinton, anyway? The Donald is campaigning in WI today -- a hard row for him to hoe -- but Hellery, according to her staff "has nothing planned". You're running for POTUS, with three weeks to go until Election Day, and you have nothing planned??!! Could it be that La Clinton is being hidden from the people, lest her appearance give more clues as to her serious health problems? Just askin'....

Friday, October 14, 2016

Why did "Dr. C.K." pay $20,000 for this ad?

Poor Len Canayen here with the first of occasional comments on what's happening in the National Hockey League, and the progress of the Montréal Canadiens.

Canada's favourite team opened the 2016-17 season in Buffalo last night, beating the Sabres 4-1. The new-look Habs played nicely as a team, absent the showboating shenanigans of P.K. Subban, traded to the Nashville Predators (as predicted here, ahem ahem) at the end of June. For P.K., Montréal got a great all-round defenceman, Shea Weber, who contributed an assist plus solid checking to last night's victory. I understand Subban got an empty-net goal the other night in Nashville, but, IMHO, the Habs got the better of the trade.

Some Canadiens fans disagree. Just before the last pre-season game at the Bell Centre, one could hear a few of them attempting to get a "P.K.! P.K.!" chant going, but it petered out when the puck dropped, and the disgruntled fans -- Anglos, no doubt -- were silenced by a first-rate performance by Weber as les Glorieux whupped the Toronto Maple Laffs 6-1.

But there are still a few die-hards. One of them, a chap who styles himself "Dr. CK" took out a full-page ad in yesterday's Montreal Gazette to say that the trade has changed the way the "lifelong fan" feels about the team. "Now, I feel anger, disappointment and embarrassment over the treatment of P.K. Subban by team management: the same sentiments that many felt after the Patrick Roy trade," sez the good doctor.

Then comes the praise-singing. "You are an amazing and influential role model for my children," the ad goes on, "and I am going to miss not having you as a Montreal Canadien."

When I read that and the rest of the anti-French drivel -- "Dr. CK" says (in English) he cannot support Habs general manager Marc Bergevin and coach Michel Therrien, and that going to Habs games would be a vote of confidence in their leadership -- I began to wonder about the true identity of the advertiser. Who could "Dr. CK" really be?

The general tone of the loose and omnipotent rubric reminded me of the many articles written by one-time Gazoo sports scribe Dave Stubbs, the one who called P.K. Subban a "transcendant defenceman". See "Poor Len Canayen explains Habs' Subban for Weber trade", WWW 29/6/16. I had described Stubbsy previously as chief cheerleader for Subban, and wondered (in fact if not in print) if Mr Stubbs was getting backhanders from P.K.'s agent to write so effusively about He Who Must Not Be Criticized.

Turns out the author of the ad -- which cost C$20,000 ($15,200 in real money) by the way -- wasn't Dave Stubbs, but one, Dr. Charles Kowalski. Interviewed by CBC News, the man behind the ad said it wasn't just about losing Subban. ​"I think the loss of P.K. Subban from Montreal, the bigger issue than hockey is the loss of his presence in the city of Montreal and his cause of raising money for the Children's Hospital," he said. "This is more important than the game of hockey."

Replying for la Sainte Flannelle, Donald Beauchamp told CBC News, "We have very passionate fans, and everyone is entitled to their opinion." Indeed. Poor Len is one of those passionate fans -- could you tell? -- and my opinion is that the Canadiens are a much better team this year. If Dr. Kowalski thinks so highly of P.K., perhaps he could follow his idol to Nashville. And one more thing, Doctor. Your $20,000 would have made a nice contribution to the hospital, instead of being wasted on this tripe!

Footnote: Yes, I am aware that Dave Stubbs no longer works for the Gazoo. I'm sure his departure from the sports desk in the middle of the season had nothing whatever to do with his adulation of the "transcendant defenceman".

VIDEO: Jagrmajster

And now, while we wait for Poor Len Canayen's commentary on last night's Canadiens game, it's time for something completely different (as ole John Cheese used to say...)

Thanks to Agent 6 for the inspiration to work on my manual dexterity.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

VIDEO: Podesta e-mails show Clinton campaign secretly trying to start revolution in Catholic Church

There are all kinds of bombshells in the e-mail messages emanating from the Clinton campaign leaked by Wikileaks. Too bad everyone is so hung up on Donald Trump's "locker room banter" to pay any attention to the serious stuff -- Hellery's failure to see anything wrong with having private and public policies; her characterization of blacks and Muslims as "never-do-wells"; and her uncritical support of Saudi Arabia and Iran. But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more!

Today we learn that top officials of Mrs Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign are working to plant the "seeds of revolution" within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States! Source: "Catholic group demands top Clinton aide resign over leaked emails", Hill Times, 12/10/16.

And they're doing it in secret! It's a covert operation! The e-mails reveal that liberal Democrats were involved in setting up at least two organizations that have lobbied for change in the unalterable Church doctrine. And these so-called "progressive Catholic" groups have defended politicians -- including some who call themselves "Catholics" -- who have supported abortion and gay marriage, in defiance of the leaders of the Church.

Don't believe it? What if I tell you that, in answer to the suggestion that the "seeds of revolution" should be planted within the Church, to "demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship," John Podesta replied, "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. Likewise Catholics United." Both groups have consistently taken public stands that match the stated objectives of the Clinton campaign, of which Mr Podesta is Chairman.

The e-mail exchanges made public by Wikileaks also show the scorn of members of Shrillery's campaign staff. Jennifer Palmieri, the campaign’s communications director, suggested that prominent Catholics who are associated with conservative political causes choose to be Catholic only because "they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion.... Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became Evangelicals."

It just so happens that the Remnant has just today posted a new video featuring two prominent traditional Catholics -- Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara -- explaining why real Catholics (as opposed to people like Mr Podesta and Ms Palmieri) have no choice but to support Donald Trump, regardless of what one may think of his personal life. Watch "NEVER HILLARY", right here.

Catholic groups not associated with the Clinton campaign denounced the attitudes betrayed by the leaked emails, and called upon La Clinton to renounce them. As if! The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement saying that the leaked email messages "make one wonder what else Clinton’s chiefs and others associated with the campaign are saying about Catholics and Catholicism."

The President of Catholic Vote, Brian Burch, said, "Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups, she would be dismissed. Catholics will be watching Hillary Clinton to see whether she thinks our religious faith should be respected, or whether it’s fair game to mock us."

Further reading: "Clinton campaign chief helped start Catholic organisations to create 'revolution' in the Church", Catholic Herald, 12/10/16.

VIDEO: "The Time of My Life" - Donald and Hillary at the debate

This has gone viral on YouTube. Thanks to Agent 34 for sending it along. Walt would miss a lot of this stuff if it weren't for our assiduous agents. [And Ed.! Ed.]

VIDEO: A woman's challenge to Hillary's supporters

Emily Longworth, 25, grew up in the southern state of Georgia discussing politics around the dinner table with her father and grandfather, both staunch conservatives. Working as a weapons repair specialist in the US military, she had to be careful what she said about America's politicians.
But since leaving the military for an office job three years ago, she doesn't hold back -- especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

Ms Longworth has posted a number of angry videos on YouTube, calling Hellery (among other things) "a lying, manipulative, narcissistic woman who deserves nothing except to be put in jail for life." This is the latest.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Outnumbered 3-1, Trump wins rancorous 2nd debate

We hear what we want to hear. Maybe it's my anti-Clinton bias, but it seemed to me that Donald Trump won last night's Great Debate II, in spite of being attacked not just by Mrs Bill Clinton but by the supposedly non-partisan moderators, particularly ABC's (((Martha Raddatz))). Poor Len Canayen would say that if the referees are against you, you're lucky to escape with a draw. The Donald did better than that.

Right from the get-go, Hellery (and Ms Raddatz) were determined to put Mr Trump on the defensive over an 11-year-old video in which he made some raunchy comments about being able to have his way with celebrity groupies "because I'm famous". Mr Trump met the question head-on, admitting that he said "those words" and wasn't proud of it. But, he said, it was just locker-room talk, the kind of thing guys say in jest when they're shooting the shit. (No, he didn't use that phrase.) To me, that sounds about right, and I think most men will see it that way. As for harpies like Ms Raddatz, well, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Just before the debate, Mr Trump held a presser in which Trump he introduced "four courageous women", three of whom -- Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey -- have accused Slick Willy Clinton of sexual assault or sexual harassment. The fourth, Kathy Shelton, was 12 years old when Hillary Clinton was hired to represent the 41-year-old Arkansas man who raped her. Mrs Clinton got the pervert off, and tapes exist of her cackling over her great victory.

The implied threat of the press conference was that Mr Trump would counter attacks on his supposedly misogynistic attitudes with references to Bill's actions -- not just words but actions -- before, during and after his presidency. And that's what The Donald did. "There's never been anyone in the history of politics in this nation who has been so abusive to women," he said of Bill Clinton's inability to stop "dicking bimbos" (the words of Colin Powell).

Although Mr Trump held back from the most stinging personal attacks he could have used, he resurrected several names, including Paula Jones, with whom the former president settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $850,000 US. That line of attack somehow fell flat, just like Shrillery's tut-tutting over The Donald's comments on women, Muslims, the Khan family, yada yada yada. Perhaps people are starting to realize that, as Mr Trump said himself, "It's just words, folks. It's just words."

Donald Trump still needs some coaching in the fine art of debating. He has good points to make, but needs to learn that once the point is made, the smart thing to do is shut up, not go sailing around the horn on something else. Towards the end of the debate, the candidates were asked what would be their criteria for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. La Clinton said that she'd be looking for someone who'd uphold Roe v Wade and equality of marriage (read: gay "marriage"). Mr Trump said what I was waiting to hear, that he'd recommend a judge who would uphold the United States Constitution. That's when he should have stopped, but he couldn't resist adding that he wanted a judge who respected the Second Amendment. In rebuttal, Mrs Clinton took the bait on that one, saying that she supports the Second Amendment too. The real point, about whether SCOTUS judges should interpret the law or try to make new law, got lost.

Speaking of law, Mr Trump made much of the destruction by the First Lady Who Wants To Be Empress of 33,000 e-mails, after having received a subpoena from the House of Representatives to produce the same. He vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to re-investigate Clinton's violations of the law and contempt of Congress. La Clinton used the opportunity to take another shot at Trump as someone who lacks the temperament to take "charge of the law in our country."

Hillary: Good thing you are not in charge of the laws of this country
Trump: You'd be in jail!

That line was, IMHO, the best of the evening, and obviously resonated with the "town hall" audience, which burst into applause before being shushed by both CNN's Anderson Cooper and (((Martha Raddatz))), both of whom were against The Donald all night. At one point, just over an hour in, Mrs Clinton stood silently while Ms Raddatz took up the hectoring of Mr Trump on her behalf.

One more exchange stuck in my mind. The candidates were asked what they were going to do about the disaster in Aleppo, and how they would go about defeating ISIS. Donald Trump said that you couldn't hope to defeat an enemy you refused to name -- "radical Islamic terrorists". He repeated the phrase three times, challenging Mrs Clinton to use those politically incorrect words, which she did not do, will not do, perhaps cannot do.

When pressed for an answer on how to deal with The Enemy Which Cannot Be Named, La Clinton said "I hope ISIS will be gone by the time I become President in November." Wow. I so wish The Donald would hold his interruptions while his opponent make gaffes like that one, and then hit her with a zinger, like "That's your big military plan to take care of ISIS? Hope the bad people will just go away?" He badly needs a writer. My services are available for a very reasonable hourly rate.

I give Great Debate No. 2 -- the most rancorous I've ever seen, and I've been watching since 1960 -- to Donald Trump. I'm judging by the audience reaction which Cooper and Raddatz really had to work to suppress. I'm also scoring by the amount of time Mrs Clinton had that rictus smile plastered on her face -- a sure sign that the smiler feels threatened... as well she might.

Almost forgot to mention the funniest exchange of the night. When La Clinton was forced to explain her speeches to Wall Street businesspeople, in which she said that leaders "need both a public and a private position" on some issues, she explained that she had just seen a movie about Abraham Lincoln and was talking about his leadership strategy which she greatly admired. The Donald shot back, "She lied. Now she’s blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That’s one that I haven’t — okay, Honest Abe never lied. That’s the good thing. That’s the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you."

Further reading:
"Quick Debate Reactions from Switzerland", by Scott "Dilbert" Adams, today. "I just watched the debate on replay. Trump won bigly." Now there's something you're not going to read in the lamestream media!

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Something you don't see every day -- smashing pumpkins!

Walt doesn't like to be the bringer of bad tidings all the time... even though there's a lot of them around! Ed. reminds me to include, every now and then, something upbeat and, if possible, funny. Here's something.

Yes, that was a giant pumpkin -- 1046 lbs worth -- dropped from a height of about 130 feet onto a Pontiac Grand Am. [Good target. Horrible cars. Ed.] This happened during an annual fundraiser by Blue Grass Nursery and Garden Centre, near Calgary, in support of the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation. Donations are still being counted but last year's event raised nearly C$40,000 and organizers are hoping for a similar result this time around.

"Pas de migrants dans nos villages!"

Here's a little photo essay -- two pix that tell a story that politically correct politicians refuse to hear.

French villagers are protesting the arrival of migrants who are being dispersed around the country as the government shuts down the slum-like camp in Calais that has become a flashpoint in Europe's migrant crisis.

Yesterday, the mayor of Pierrefeu -- a village in southeastern France -- led several hundred people [Possibly the majority of local residents, from the looks of it! Ed.] into the street to protest a proposal of the socialist government of (((François Hollande))) to house "migrants" (read: "refugees") in an abandoned wing of a psychiatric hospital while they apply for asylum or study other options, such as figuring out how to get to Britain or Germany.

The banner reads "Pierrefeu says no to the creation of a reception centre for migrants". Another banner says simply "Pas de migrants dans nos villages!", which Walt thinks needs no translation.

Why do the good burghers of Pierrefeu (and every other village, town and city in France) feel that way? Take a look at this.

This is a picture -- not the worst one to be revealed by a simple Google search -- of the "migrant" camp in Calais, just across the English Channel from Old Blighty. President Hollande has promised that this camp will be dismantled by the end of this year. But the asylum-seekers have to go somewhere, so spread them around France like Nutella on a baguette and hope that they won't be so noticeable and so unwelcome. Unfortunately for M le Président, his people noticed!

End of photo essay.

Wikileaks reveals what Hellery REALLY thinks of blacks and Muslims

Just in time for tonight's debate, here it is... the one we've been waiting for. Back in the summer, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said that more of Mrs Bill Clinton's e-mails -- the ones she didn't erase -- would be released in the weeks leading up to the November 8th election for POTUS.

Walt has been waiting with bated breath for the "October surprise", and this e-mail from Shrillery to her campaign chairman, John Podesta, could be the game-changer. (Mr Podesta, by the way, once served as Chief of Staff to former President and First Gentleman wannabe Bill Clinton.) See for yourself what Mrs Clinton really thinks about blacks, Muslims and "Roma" (the PC term for gypsies).

In case you had trouble reading the message from this screen shot, it says, "The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances."

Hellery goes on to label blacks and Muslims "professional never-do-wells". Now, you may agree with that characterization, but that doesn't mean that you should stampede to the polls and vote for Mrs Clinton. What she says to Mr Podesta is completely at odds with what she says from the public platform as she sucks up to every minority in sight. La Clinton is not just a consummate liar, but an out-and-out hypocrite. Oh... guess that's not really the October surprise after all.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Ontario (Canada?) celebrates (?) "Islamic Heritage Month"

Agent 3 informs us that the Liberal government of the Canadian province of Ontario -- led by Premier Kathleen Wynne, a lesbian and proud of it -- has declared October "Islamic Heritage Month". This latest step in the Islamization of Canada has caused some puzzlement (surely!) outside of the joyously multicultural Toronto, since Ontario was settled in the 18th century chiefly by people from the British Isles, plus numerous "United Empire Loyalists" who migrated northward from "the Boston states" to avoid becoming, errr, Americans.

Walt was hard-pressed to find in the history or geography of Ontario any "Islamic heritage" to write about -- there's no Mecca or Baghdad or Mohammedville on the map [yet! Ed.] -- so there's nothing to do but show you a couple of pictures, courtesy of Agent 9, of sons of the Prophet showing their gratitude for being welcomed into a Christian country, and their determination to make their own contribution to Western society.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Former NATO commander admits failed Middle East policy led to ISIS

Donald Trump has been ridiculed by the usual suspects (= Democrats and lamestream media) for saying that the policies of President 0 and Secretary of State Shrillery Clinton were wrong, and contributed to the rise of ISIS. He was not wrong, but should have pointed other fingers at previous administrations, including those of Bush II and Clinton I. See "Who really 'founded' ISIS?", WWW 14/8/16.

Support for the argument that the whole Middle East mess originates in bumbling and fumbling American foreign policy comes from a surprising source -- Major-General (Ret.) Dave Fraser, who in 2006 commanded both the Canadian task force and the US-led military alliance's expanded mission to extend the authority of former Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Speaking to Canadian Press in an interview to mark the 10th anniversary of the Canadian combat deployment into Kandahar, Maj-Gen. Fraser said the West (read: the USA and its "coalition of the willing") made a mistake deposing the Taliban regime in the aftermath of 9/11 and should have simply trained its guns on al-Qaeda.

"We thought, naively, that regime change was the solution to the problem," he said. "Looking backwards, I would have actually left the Taliban government in power and said [to them]: 'Stay out of the way. We're here to find al-Qaeda. And as long as you stay out of the way, the special forces will go in there, they will do what is necessary to get al-Qaeda and we will leave. Had we done that, we wouldn't be where we are today."

At the time, Maj-Gen. Fraser added, no-one seemed to appreciate how profound the power vacuum was. The West "created for ourselves a 30- or 40-year problem" in not only Afghanistan, he said, but throughout the Middle East.

What solutions do Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton propose for the problem of ISIS? Mr Trump says we have to hit them hard(er), but doesn't specify how or where. Mrs Clinton says she will continue Obama's policies, including making nice with the Islamists and appealing to reason and the brotherhood of man. Those "answers" don't exactly inspire confidence... at least not in me! See "Why Trump and Clinton are wrong on ISIS", WWW 16/8/16. In the last sentence of that post, you'll find my eminently sensible warning to both candidates.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton honoured by NM Apache tribe

Hillary Clinton recently addressed a major gathering of the Apache Indian Nation. She spoke for almost an hour about her plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living. Though vague in detail, she spoke about her ideas for helping her "red sisters and brothers".

Afterwards, the Tribes presented her with a plaque inscribed with her new Native American name, "Walking Eagle", which she proudly accepted. [We regret not being able to find a photo of this momentous occasion. The photo below is unrelated but not irrelevant. Ed.]

Afterwards, a news reporter asked the chief how they came to select this name. He explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of shit that it can no longer fly.

Walt takes his war bonnet off to Agent 6. Thank you.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

VIDEO: St. Elias Church reopens - Cлава Богу!

Walt was pleased to be in the company of a number of his agents this past weekend for the Consecration of the newly rebuilt Saint Elias Ukrainian Catholic Church in Brampton ON, Canada. A devastating fire burned the first church to the ground just before Easter of 2015, but, as reported here, the temple has been rebuilt. Cлава Богу!

The Consecration began with a Festal Vigil on Friday evening. The Great Consecration and Divine Liturgy were celebrated on Saturday morning. The first Sunday Divine Liturgy the next day was followed by a coffee social.

Hundreds of parishioners and guests from as far away as Europe attended the ceremonies. Among those present were His Beatitude Patriarch Sviatoslav, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who flew in from Ukraine, and His Grace Bishop Stephen Chmilar, Eparch of Toronto.

75% of the cost of rebuilding the church was covered by insurance. The parish is still raising money to cover the remaining 25%. In particular, many 1000s of dollars and many years will be needed to restore the magnificent iconostasis which graced the old church. If you wish to contribute, you can send your cheque, payable to "St. Elias", to Father Roman Galadza at 10193 Heritage Rd., Brampton, ON, L7A 0A1, Canada. Or just click here to go to the Canada Helps web page. Tell them Walt sent you!

Photos by Agent 78. Thank you!

And here is a video of the highlights from the Great Consecration. Running time is 35:15. Perhaps just watch a little to hear the beautiful music and get the flavour of it.

Monday, October 3, 2016

Canadians found not so crazy about multiculturalism after all

Canada's state-owned broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (aka "Canadian Broadcorping Castration" -- look it up!) is so liberal, so politically correct, so Toronto-centric, so multiculti, that Canucks outside of Toronto have deserted its radio services in droves. Some believe that CBC's earnest programmes have better ratings when rebroadcast on PBR than they do at home.

Rumours of a "blacklash of the white flees" penetrated even the red walls of Fortress CBC in Toronto. In a rare fit of interest in what the Canadian public thinks, the limo liberals in the executive suites decided to commission a poll to find out what TROC really thinks about immigration, multiculturalism and "Canadian values and identity" -- this after pooh-poohing claims by Conservative leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch that these are issues which concern anyone other than a few rednecks in the wilds of Alberta.

Imagine the surprise and soiling of shorts in the CBC's John Street HQ when the poll conducted for them by the Angus Reid Institute confirmed that Canucks really do think differently from their "American cousins" when it comes to multiculturalism, immigration and values. But not in the way the CBC and its Liberal masters would like. Believe it or not, after half a century of having multiculturalism forced down their throats and up other orifices, Canadians are more likely than Americans to think minorities should assimilate. Here's the key finding.

To its credit, the CBC hasn't buried this story. It's the lead on the national radio news this morning and has a prominent position on the CBC News website, headlined "Canadians want minorities to do more to 'fit in'". Walt will let you read the complete poll results for yourself, but needs to draw attention to a pithy comment by Ujjal Dosangh, a Liberal former Premier of British Columbia and federal cabinet minister.

Mr Dosanjh has written and spoken extensively about the need to address concerns about equality, race and culture in the face of blind devotion to multiculturalism. He told the CBC that the poll shows Canada's political leadership needs to pay attention. "What you want is creative multiculturalism, generous multiculturalism," he said, "not unthinking or mindless multiculturalism where everything anybody brings to this country is acceptable."

"Diversity is great if we can begin to live with each other in equality, in understanding...but we also understand our collective obligations to building a better society. If we can't live together with each other properly and make concessions to each other, then this phrase that politicians use — that diversity is a strength — is nonsensical."

Further reading: "Multiculturalism: a failed experiment?", which I posted here six years (and a day) previously. Nice to see that others are starting to wake up and speak up!