Who killed Captain Humayun Khan?

You've seen the videos. The Democrats found a righteous Pakistani-American, Khizr Khan, to make a very righteous speech to their convention, attacking Donald Trump for his "anti-Muslim" views and speeches. Flanked by his wife, Ghazala, Mr. Khan said they had made a great sacrifice for their adopted country, in that their son, US Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 by a car bomb while on duty in Iraq.

Why it took Mr and Mrs Khan 12 years to voice their grief and outrage publicly was not explained. Nor did the Gold Star parents have anything to say about US foreign policy, which led to their son's presence in the armpit of the world. Nor did they talk about the likelihood that, if elected, Hellery Clinton would change that policy, possibly because the chances of that change are slim and none.

Nooooo... The way Mr Khan talked, you'd think it was somehow Mr Trump's fault that their son died 12 years earlier. Mr Trump wants to discriminate against "Muslim-Americans", he said. He added that discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited by the American Constitution, and wondered aloud if Mr Trump had even read the Constitution. If not, he said, he would gladly lend his copy for the candidate's perusal.

Mr Trump understandably felt insulted, and launched his own counter-attack, which has been roundly condemned by the lamestream media, the Prez, the Democratic presidential wannabe, and several Republicans, notably Senator John McCain. How, they ask, could Mr Trump show such disrespect to the family of a "Muslim-American hero"? Presumably they keep calling him "Muslim-American" to distinguish his from the thousands of "Catholic-Americans", "Jewish-Americans", "Baptist-Americans" etc who died needlessly getting into the middle of what is really a Muslim civil war.

And that -- as Mr Trump finally said this afternoon -- is the real point. Capt. Khan died in Iraq, and he died in the line of duty, right enough. But, Walt asks, who killed him? Could it have been some fellow Muslims? Errr... could be!

Will the Big Blow win it for Obama?

There's an old joke [Here it comes. Ed.] About two Jewish clothiers lying in the sun at Miami Beach talking about how they got the money to have a vacation during the busiest season of the year. The first says his trip is paid for out of the proceeds of an insurance claim for a fire. The second says he got insurance money too, but for a flood. The first asks, "How to you start a flood?!"

I was thinking about that as I watched the TV coverage of the "October Surprise" -- that would be Sandy -- and the lamestream pundits' comments (echoed by the Donald) that the hurricane would tip the electoral balance in favour of Obama. That, they say, is because it gave him the chance to "look presidential", show that he was in charge of things and appear strong and decisive. Rather the opposite, then, of the image he projected during what I call the "September Surprise", meaning the Benghazi bumble.

In the aftermath of the Big Blow, two other big blows -- NJ governor Christie and NYC mayor Bloomberg -- announced their support for the Prez. Why? Because, Hizzoner said, he'll be better than Mitt at dealing with "global warming". Walt says, hold on a minute... Or several minutes!

There's something besides the weather and the streets of New York and Newark that needs clearing up. PuhLEEZE, gentle readers... "Global warming" (if there is such a thing) did not cause Hurricane Sandy!

According to Scott Sutherland, writing in Geekquinox, a Yahoo! news blog, global warming may have been a minor contributing factor, but "to corner weather and climate experts every time some weather event happens, and force them to answer the question 'did climate change cause this?' is, at best, naive, and at worst, manipulative."

Here, Sutherland says, is what we know for sure. The Gulf Stream was warmer this year than last. And sea surface temperatures have increased along the coast of the US Northeast, by about half a degree Celsius on average over the longer trend, and by a degree or more on the shorter trend. These higher sea surface temperatures would have provided more energy to Sandy, allowing the storm to maintain its strength further north than normal and possibly contributing to its overall size and extent.

Also, the sea level around New York City has risen by roughly 30 cm in the past 100 years. Sea level rise is linked to climate change, as ocean temperatures rise (causing the water to expand) and more polar ice melts (adding more water to the oceans). This rise in sea level would have contributed to the storm surge from Sandy.

And guess what, folks! No matter what the politicians say, the sea level is going to continue to rise, by about 3 mm per year, no matter who is president! Anyone who thinks that Al O'Bama is going to be able to hold back the waves, like a latter-day King Canute, is crazy!

Now then, about the terrorist attack on Benghazi... The "unfortunate incident" on 9/11 was not a misguided popular demonstration against a small and amateurish video which was perceived to be anti-Muslim. It was a terrorist attack, planned in advance, of which the Obama administration had prior warning.

In all the fuss about who scored the better debating points, the President's evasiveness on this point has not received due attention and examination. Senior Republicans are rightly accusing the President and the White House of covering up their wilful ignorance or at least incompetence in dealing with anti-American terrorism. And that's a fact.

Senator John McCain and other top Republicans have repeatedly accused the White House of evasion for refusing to answer questions about events at the US consulate in Benghazi that led to the deaths of four Americans. That's a fact too.

Here's what Mr. McCain told CBS recently. "This tragedy turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or massive incompetence in Libya is having an impact on the voters because of their view of the commander-in-chief.... It is now the worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life. Somebody the other day said to me, 'Well, this is as bad as Watergate.' [But] nobody died in Watergate."

So, the big question this weekend is, will the average voter's ignorance of the facts, and the distortion of the facts by the Democrats and the lamestream media, save Obama's bacon on Tuesday?

Faithful readers of WWW are doubtless waiting for Walt to hazard a guess. (Lifetime pct .990.) I'm afraid you'll have to wait until Monday. Who knows? There could be a "November surprise" in the offing.

"White House accused of leaking national intelligence"

Now there is a headline to conjure with. Walt is tempted to ask if the leak is worse now than it was in Dubya's time. And how much has leaked? Are we down a quart... or more???

The headline appeared on Yahoo! this afternoon, and it turns out to be a teaser for an interview John McCain gave to Fox News. Senator McCain is understandably critical of Al O'Bama and his entire administration. He calls his present role "doing the Lord's work in the city of Satan". Indeed.

Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part II

In "Wildrose wilts: a cautionary tale for conservatives - Part I" we saw how Alison Redford's GOP (Great Oxymoronical Party) -- otherwise known as Progressive Conservatives -- defeated the Even More Conservatives -- otherwise known as the Wildrose Party -- in spite of its leader's obvious charms. Now Walt will tell you why.

As nearly as I could see from my vantage point up the road from Robert E. Lee's boyhood home, two factors led to the defeat of Wildrose and the perpetuation of the Alberta Tory dynasty. The inevitable Mitt will have to keep both in mind if he is to have any hope at all of defeating Hussein come November.

First, the bozo factor. 130 years ago, W.S. Gilbert wrote:
When in that House [of Commons] MPs divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell `em to.

Canadian politicians, when they accept a party's nomination, are expected to free themselves entirely of independent thought, toe the party line and stay totally "on message", lest their personal beliefs, if made public, scare the citizenry. Gilbert, again:
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull MPs in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.

Unfortunately, as Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have found out at various times, it's hard to get an assortment of libertarians, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists and gold standard-bearers to march in close order. So it was with the Wildrose Party, whose candidates included more than one who could be described as teetering on the brink of extremism.

One Wildrose MLA wannabe said he had no doubt that since Indians and other minorities tend to vote for their own, he had an advantage, being Caucasian. That would be true only if white folks voted en bloc, but they don't. Anyway, it's not the kind of thing you say in public.

Another Wildroser, an evangelical Protestant pastor, said homosexuals were going to hell -- all of them -- for violating God's law if not the state's. Again, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but speaking your mind doesn't help you get elected. A Wildrose insider called that little remark "a Bozo moment".

The other factor to be kept in sight at all times is the economic factor. It may be OK to have social Bozos in office [When are you going to run? Ed.] but in uncertain economic times, it won't do to have your province or state or country governed by economic and financial Bozos.

The Wildrose party suffered from a serious deficit of governmental experience. What with the ongoing oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline controversies, and serious negotiations with the federal government on the horizon, Albertans found themselves unable to hand the reins of power over to a bunch of right-wing loonies who just fell off the turnip truck. Wildrose may have had support amongst the "real people", but it didn't have big business -- particularly oil and the banks -- on its side.

What lessons do we learn from this? First, economic issues trump social issues every time. This is true for Canadians, at least, and Walt believes that Americans too will vote with their pocketbooks in November. If Romney can maintain his image as a sound and successful business manager who can turn the economy around, he may yet have a shot. Picking a running mate cut from the same cloth -- perhaps Senator Rob Portman -- would help.

Secondly, while people with strong views may be noisy and visible, they are outnumbered by a large majority of quiet voters who tend to congregate in the middle of the political spectrum, even on social issues. For every vocal pro-lifer and pro-abortionist, there are three or four people who think abortion might be OK, in some circumstances. And there are another two who simply don't care, either way. Do the math.

Let me put this one another way. Extreme views, publicly expressed, don't get you votes. This is the lesson Ron Paul -- God love him -- can't learn because his principles won't let him. If you speak out strongly on something you believe in -- like isolationism or abolishing the Fed -- which the majority finds outlandish or extreme -- you will lose.

Which brings us back to Canada and its Prime Minister, "Call me Steve" Harper, the arch-control freak. Mr. Harper is an evangelical Protestant, but he keeps quiet about it. He is accused by the Gliberals and Kneedippers of having a "hidden agenda", but they can never make the charge stick precisely because Harper is so close-mouthed about his intentions.

So, if Romney can continue to talk as little as possible about policy and his precise plans for the future of America, he won't get boxed into an extreme position or (even) accused of flip-flopping. Let him learn from Mr. Harpoon, who, when asked yesterday if Canada would commit to keeping troops in Afghanistan past 2014 (yes, they're still there!) said, "We will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interests of this country...and not an ideological knee-jerk response." Hey, it worked for Reagan!

But... if any prominent Republicans go off the deep end, or if Romney chooses a loose cannon for a running mate, he's doomed. The HBO docudrama "Game Change" features a line from a member of John McCain's campaign team, as the reality of Sarah Palin dawns on them: "Oh my god, what have we done?"

Pawlenty of nuttin'

In all the excitement over the Canadian election [eh? Ed.] we must not lose sight of the fact that the Excited States of America will elect its own head cheese in about 20 months. Given the lameness of the present duck, one would think that dozens of Republicans would be lined up at haberdasheries across the land to buy hats to throw into the ring. One would be wrong.

Whether it's Hussein's improved ratings or the distracting events overseas, the fight for the GOP nomination seems to be a long way from the opening bell. So far only one (1) candidate wannabe has pitched his fedora in the direction of the squared circle. That would be Tim "Timmy" Pawlenty, former governor of that staunchly Republic state, Minnesota.

All you need to know about Timmy is that he was touted for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket last time around, but was rejected by John McCain in favour of, errr, former Python Michael Palin. [Are you sure about this? Ed.]

In Walt's estimation (lifetime pct: .974), Mr Pawlenty has two chances of seeing his name at the top of the ticket. Possibly he is just promoting his book, Courage to Stand: An American Story. Amazon has it at 45% off the cover price. [Memo to Amazon: Send cheques, please. No more book tokens!]

If I had to put my money down with Jimmy the Greek this early in the game, I'dgo with Mitt Romney. Why? Because he's the one putative candidate we can be sure isn't Muslim! I'll give you the early line in September.