Answer: "Helloo dere! I'se your new neighbuh!"

And the question? "What are the six most-feared words in the English language?"
(Thanks to Johnny Carson's alter ego, Carnac the Magnificent, for the format.)

Yesterday we talked about how Anglo-Saxon immigrants chased the Celts out of England in the 5th century A.D. It happened again of course, in the 11th century, when the Norman French came. Today there are very few "English" people of purely Anglo-Saxon descent. And it's happening again... right now...

A massive influx of aliens who cannot or will not integrate themselves into the host society challenges the host people's capacity for tolerance and goodwill. Since WWII, some countries -- America, Britain and Canada -- have managed not too badly, although patience is wearing thin. Other nations remain quite xenophobic. And they don't like foreigners either!

Recently two Swedish economists decided to study whether there is any correlation between economic (and social) development and the warmth of the welcome extended to immigrants. Putting it another way, does economic freedom make people more or less racist? 

They asked respondents in more than 80 different countries to identify kinds of people they would not want as neighbours. The more frequently that people in a given country say they don’t want neighbours from other races, the economists reasoned, the less racially tolerant you could call that society.

Max Fisher, of the Washington Post, put the results in the form of a "racial tolerance map". Here it is.

The countries most tolerant of "diversity" are the bluest ones. [Wonder if Fisher's a Democrat. Ed.] The Swedes and Norwegians are near the top of the list, of course. The AABC countries -- America, Australia, Britain and Canada -- are also OK with neighbours who are "different". So is the rainbow nation of Brazil.

The least tolerant countries are... wait for it... mostly Muslim countries! No surprises there! Jordan led the list. They don't even like Palestinian refugees. Indonesia (the world's most populous Muslim country) was right up there, along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran. Even worse was India.

The only "developed" country hauling in the welcome mat right sharpish is France. Could it be that the French think they're getting more than their share of immigrants from, errr, Muslim countries? Could be!

When the immigrants took over Britain

In recent weeks Walt has referred to [Note: not "referenced"! Ed.] dire predictions made by Charles De Gaulle, late President of France, and Enoch Powell, formerly a British Member of Parliament, to the fate of their countries should immigration by people of alien cultures not be restricted.

See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration" and "'I told you this would happen!': Enoch Powell". (The text of De Gaulle's speech is reproduced in the original French. If you can't read French, use Google's translator.)

Well, that's 20th century stuff. But it's not as if the phenomenon of one people and their culture being swamped by immigrants is new. One can go back to the 5th century A.D. for a cautionary tale.

Most Americans may not know this [Whaddya mean "may"? Ed.] but the original inhabitants of what is now England were not English. When Julius Caesar led his legions into "Britain" in 55 B.C., he found the land inhabited by Celts -- pronounced with a hard "C"; think "kilts". There were Scots (although they lived in what is now Eire), Picts, Welsh, Cornish and, errr, other Celtic people.

Julius Caesar didn't think a whole lot of Britain. No veni, vidi, vici  yet. It was like "I came; I saw; I went home again." (Walt, having lived in England for some years, understands completely.)  But he and his successors came back, to conquer but -- and this is important -- not to settle. Very few Romans took up residence in the Empire's northernmost province. Something about the climate, perhaps.

Britannia remained a Roman province until about 440 A.D. By that time, Rome itself was being invaded by Visi-, Ostro- and assorted other Goths, so when the (still mostly Celtic) inhabitants of Britain appealed for help against marauders from lands across the North Sea, they were told, "Sorry, but you're on your own."

And so invaders from Jutland (the Jutes) and Saxony (the Saxons) landed by the boatload. So did a tribe called the Angles (not "Angels", as Pope Gregory quipped). They were more aggressive and better at warfare than the Celts, who were driven to the north and west, where to this day they resist and resent domination by the Anglo-Saxons who came to rule "Angle-land". = England! Geddit?!

Pause for a moment and think what must have been the reaction of the Celts to the influx of immigrants from overseas. "There goes the neighbourhood!" would be a gross understatement of their reaction. John O'Farrell, a columnist for the Guardian, put it better in An Utterly Impartial History of 
Britain (Doubleday, 2007).

It must have been hard being a liberal in the fifth century. You'd try to talk in encouraging terms about all the positive aspects of multiculturalism, about the wonderful rainbow mix of ethnic traditions and customs, and then all the immigrants let you down by splitting everyone's head open with an axe, forcing you and your family to flee for your lives.

"Yes, well, you see, in their religion, murder and pillage is very much a matter of honour so I think it would be rather culturally elitist of us to attempt some sort of universal moral judgement based on our own ethical -- Oi! The bastard! He just nicked my ox!"

Funny? You'd be hard-pressed to find a 21st-century Anglo-Saxon Englishman (or Englishwoman) who's laughing. 

Emotional and over-refreshed, Senator Puffy denies having his snout too deep in the trough

The dishonourable senator Mike Duffy has been mentioned several times on WWW in the last couple of weeks, notably in "Moron* Mike Puffy". But the Puffster's questionable expense accounts have been the subject of derision and revulsion on Canada's Parliament Hill even before the ink was dry on Steve Harper's order awarding the swine a large place at the trough.

Back in 2010, Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer (NDP - Down East) made a fuss about the gynormous sums being charged to the Canadian taxpayer by Duffy and other senators. Just for fun, the CBC's Evan Solomon decided to bring the two of them together on his TV show. Ed. has located a video in which Duffy, perceptibly under the influence of a preprandial snort or two, shows his disdain for those who dare challenge his entitlement to his entitlements.



As of this evening, Senator Puffy is still sitting in his extra-wide seat in Canada's Senate. That august body is dithering about whether or not to have a public inquiry into the housing allowance which Duff claimed improperly and possibly illegally. The dishonourable senator says he would welcome a public airing of his dirty laundry, at which time he will tell "the whole story". Whether Prime Minister Harpoon will cave in to this implied threat remains to be seen.

Geert Wilders warns USA: Muslims taking over Europe -- you're next!

Last August, Walt posted "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration". In spite of being in French, that excerpt from a speech by Le Général in 1959 has been one of WWW's most-read posts. But is anyone in power paying attention? I wonder....

Perhaps there are some who think that what's happening in Europe can never happen here. Perhaps there are some who doubt that the occupation of Europe by Islamic fundamentalists hostile to the values of our Christian society -- and Christianity itself -- is part of a plot to take over the world, one continent at a time.

Let the doubters read the words of Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Netherlands Freedom Party. On 25 September 2008, Mr. Wilders spoke on "America as the Last Man Standing" at an event sponsored by the Hudson Institute in New York. This is a slightly edited version of what he said, as verified by Snopes. The emphasis is mine. Thanks to Agent 6 for sending this to us.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States is the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead.

The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseilles and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear 'whore, whore'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this, stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live [in Europe]. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national socialism; these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times.... 

Israel is our first line of defense. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way, [like] West Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest....


Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were...to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed.

The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.

Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks -- the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America, as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem ...

Liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom. It was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, [Allied] cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.

My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us.

We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

Footnote: Readers who follow the news from Europe will have seen reports, this past week, of rioting in normally peaceful Sweden. The media speak of unemployed  youths and even of "immigrants". What they don't say, because it's not PC, is that the rioters are Muslim "settlers" -- as wilders calls them -- who have been allowed into Sweden because, after all, we mustn't discriminate against people just because they are "different". Click here to read "Riots put Sweden's open-door immigration policy into spotlight".

What burns Walt's ring is that political leaders keep warning us about the danger to our society. De Gaulle, 1959; Enoch Powell, 1968; and Geert Wilders only five years ago. Is no-one in North America paying attention?! Why not??!! Is it because those who are giving us the heads-up are Europeans? Is it because the lamestream media tell us people who say such things are "racists"? Dear readers, Mr. Wilders et al. are not racists. They are realists! Their warnings must not be ignored!

"No more killing albinos for good luck!" warns Swazi king

Even though it's been "liberated" from the "civilization" imposed by the evil white settlers, Darkest Africa remains a continent where old and barbaric notions and practices still inform daily life. One of the most powerful is witchcraft.

Witchcraft is used throughout sub-Saharan Africa to ensure sexual satisfaction, good fortune in business, and "fix" things like the results of soccer games and elections. Yes, elections, and they do have them, even in autocratic states like the tiny kingdom of Swaziland.

In fact, elections are expected later this year, and King Mswati III has already warned politicians against committing murder and other "acts of magic" to get elected. Ritual killings are common in Swaziland, and elsewhere in Africa, with practitioners of “muti” – a catch-all for traditional medicine and witchcraft – using limbs or body parts as amulets.

The king's stern admonition has not gone far enough to satisfy Swaziland's albino community. They are calling on the government for protection fearing their body parts will be harvested by candidates seeking good luck.

The Pretoria (South Africa) Daily News quotes Skhumbuzo Mndvoti, a leader of the community in the southern town of Nhlangano as saying, "Those in authority must make sure our safety is guaranteed. I can warn adults and parents of albino children to take extra care during these election days."

In the past albinos as well as epileptics have been specifically targeted. Another community leader said such albino killings regularly took place, but in the past were masked by rumours about albino behaviour. "People were told that when an albino dies, he would go and die far away where he or she would not be found. I think they were killed.", he said.

Mr. Mndvoti blamed witchdoctors who mislead people into believing that using human body parts will help them win seats to parliament or prosper in business. But the President of the Traditional Healers of Swaziland said those who misled people to use ritual murder to win elections or wealth were witches and wizards and not traditional healers.

"A witch is born and never trained but a traditional healer undergoes intensive training to heal people through traditional means," Nhlavana Maseko told the press. "We have a problem here in Swaziland of the colonial law called the Witchcraft Act which does not make a difference between a traditional healer and a witch or wizard."

Yes, obviously the wicked British colonizers didn't understand. Or couldn't understand. It's an African thing.

Note from Ed.: I couldn't find a picture of a Swazi albino to go with this piece, so hope this photo of some other Swazis will do. And we do have a video, currently sitting at the top of the WWW list of most-watched videos.

No rivers of blood in streets of London... yet

Back in 1960, then-British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made a speech to the Parliament of South Africa, which was quickly dubbed "the Wind of Change Speech". The theme was that independence was going to come to the British colonies in Africa and the rest of the world sooner rather than later. It was idle to stand up against the wind which was blowing, he told the recalcitrant (white) South Africans, so we might as well embrace the changes to our society which would surely follow.

As part of his government's "adjustment" to the new world of equality and diversity, the doors of Great Britain were opened wide to immigrants of any colour from any British colony. If you held a British passport -- to which people born in the colonies were entitled, at that time -- you were welcome to come and live in the mother country. And to no-one's surprise (except possibly Mr. Macmillan's), that's exactly what they did.

One of those who was not surprised was Enoch Powell, like Mr. Macmillan a Conservative Member of Parliament. After watching boatloads and planeloads of immigrants arrive from places like Jamaica, Pakistan and Nigeria, Mr. Powell made a dire prediction in what came to be called "the Rivers of Blood Speech". The gist of it was, as the name suggests, that unrestricted immigration from countries and cultures so foreign to that of Britain could only lead to social unrest and worse.

Mr. Powell said that Britain would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society. His speech included the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'" He did not actually use the phrase "rivers of blood", but the prediction was well enough understood.

This week Britons saw that, even taken literally, Mr. Powell was not far wrong.



The blood of a British soldier is not exactly "much", but there's certainly enough of it -- on the pavement, and on the hands, knife and meat cleaver wielded by his killers.

The two terrorists shot by police at the scene (in Woolwich, a part of London) were identified as "born in Britain, of Nigerian heritage". Like the Boston Marathon bombers, the murderers' families came to a new country, far from their impoverished homeland, and took advantage of the education and opportunities they were generously given by a guilt-ridden white Christian society.

Their response? To convert to "the religion of peace" (the PC term for Islam) and bite the hand that fed them. No, not "bite". More like "cut off", and worse. And yet politicians and "progressive thinkers" express surprise that such a thing could happen in a country which not only accepts but encourages multiculturalism and diversity. What they can't say is that they weren't warned!

Pray tomorrow for the Church in China

Our Lady of Fatima warned us that if Her requests were not heeded, the errors of Communism would spread throughout the world. See "Why Pope Francis consecrated his Pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima", posted here yesterday.

Nowhere in the world has the truth of this prophecy been revealed than in China, whose Communist régime persecutes Holy Mother Church (and other Christians) to an extent unmatched even in Muslim countries. This is in spite of the ostpolitik carried on by three successive Vatican Secretaries of State: Cardinals Casaroli, Sodani and the disgraced Bertone. See "How the Vatican sold out to Communism".

The Communists stop short of nothing, including torture and imprisonment, to force Catholics to renounce their allegiance to the Holy See and join the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which they set up after the revolution of 1949. But the true Catholic Church, in union with Rome, persists underground. See "Cardinal Zen: Vatican appeasement hurts true Church in China".

One of the things the Communists do to discourage and intimidate true believers is to keep them away from the Marian shrine at Sheshan, near Shanghai. Chinese Catholics traditionally make a pilgrimage Sheshan on May 24th, the feast day of Our Lady of Sheshan, a day set aside by Pope Benedict XVI for prayer for the Church in China.

Last year and this, pilgrimages are forbidden! The shrine may be visited only by locals, and no special ceremonies are permitted. But that shouldn't stop us -- both Chinese and non-Chinese -- from praying for our persecuted co-religionists and the liberation of the true Church in China.

Yesterday, Pope Francis suggested the following prayer:
Our Lady of Sheshan, in their everyday struggles, sustain the commitment of all those in China, so that they may continue to believe, to hope, to love, and so they may never fear to speak of Jesus to the world and of the world to Jesus. Mary, Virgin most faithful, support Chinese Catholics. Make their commitments, which are not easy, ever more precious in the eyes of the Lord and help the affection and the participation of the Church in China to grow in the path of the universal Church. +

Even if you're not Catholic, or not even Christian, you can pray for all those behind "the Bamboo Curtain" who do not enjoy the freedom of religion that we take for granted. Please do so.

Thunder on the right! Politics and religion meet in Niagara Falls, September 9th to 13th

Is it possible to separate religion and politics -- church and state -- when you talk about saving our civilization from physical disaster and economic ruin? The godless Communists wish it were, because belief in God is antithetical to belief in an all-powerful State. The secular humanists wish it were, because faith in God implies lack of faith in mankind.

That's why, nowadays, you rarely hear politicians speak publicly about God or faith or anything vaguely religious. Most of them are afraid even to proclaim their personal beliefs, for fear of being pilloried in the lamestream media as "religious kooks".

And what of our religious leaders? Even when they do take a stand on a political issue with moral implications -- abortion, for instance -- they water the wine with disclaimers that non-believers or people of other faiths are entitled to their opinions, and Christian morality needn't be imposed on non-Christians... or even on self-styled "Christians" who choose to ignore the Church's teaching on such matters.

There is one Catholic apostolate which has never shied away from making the connection between religion and politics. That would be the Fatima Center, founded and directed by Rev. Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

For over three decades Father Gruner has been preaching the Full Message of Fatima. Very briefly, the Message is that the world can be saved from destruction and enjoy a period of peace (and the concomitant economic "peace dividend") in exchange for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. See "Why Pope Francis consecrated  his Pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima".

It is not unfair to say that Father Gruner has been a voice crying in the wilderness created by the Freemasons, one-worlders and apostates in the Vatican. Until now. In 2012, two Italian members of the European Parliament arranged for "the Fatima Priest" to speak to that body. Thus Father Gruner learned that it's not enough to preach to popes and bishops. You have to get the message out to the politicians too.

That's why the Fatima Center is convening a conference in Niagara Falls in September "to examine the condition of the world and the Church and to urge our leaders to take the only action that can avert the economic, political and military disaster that is looming". The name of the conclave? "The Path to Peace"!

Will "The Path to Peace" be just another talkfest? The Fatima Center has mounted "peace conferences" before, targeted chiefly at bishops and priests, for whom geopolitics was not always of great interest. But the prospectus Walt has just received suggests the upcoming convention should be very different. One look at the roster of speakers tells me this is going to be HUGE!

The keynote speaker is going to be... wait for it... none other than Dr. Ron Paul. The conference brochure calls him "the only voice of reason" in the US Congress. "Dr. Paul stands by the truth," it goes on to say, "in season and out. He knows that the course governments are following can only lead to greater catastrophes than those we are now suffering."

Walt would cross the falls on a tightrope -- à la Wallenda -- just to hear Dr. Paul, but there's more! Getting second billing -- a close second -- is the Hon. Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian senator, and Lieutenant-General (Ret.) of the Royal Canadian Army. It was Lt.Gen. Dallaire who commanded the hapless UN forces in the Rwanda débâcle. He saw firsthand the failure of the "international community" to stop the worst genocide of modern times. His address will focus on the ethical and moral issues of conflict resolution.

Other speakers include Peter Lance -- winner of five Emmy Awards for news and documentaries -- and G. Edward Griffin, also a successful writer and documentary film producer. Joe Schiedler, National Director of the Pro-Life Action League, is on the list, along with William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American.

As well, attenders will be able to hear talks by Father Gruner and a number of his colleagues and collaborators, including Father Paul Kramer, the author of three books on the troubles within the Church. Christopher Ferrara and John Vennari are American Catholic writers and commentators, referred to in WWW from time to time.

On the distaff side are Cornelia Ferreira, whose articles have appeared in Catholic Family News and Christian Order, and Catherine Pearson, author of Fatima's Unfinished Business. The Hon. Mario Borghezio, a member of the European Parliament, will speak, as will Roberto Fiore, leader of the Italian political party Forza Nuova.

As of today, "The Path to Peace" has confirmed 20 speakers, who will hold forth for five days, September 9th through 13th, at the new Scotiabank Convention Centre in Niagara Falls, Canada.

Walt will be there! How about you? For a brochure or further information, e-mail The Fatima Center or call toll-free 1-800-263-8160. Tell them Walt told you!

Why Pope Francis consecrated his Pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima

Just over a month ago, Walt predicted (as did many traditional and "mainstream" Catholic bloggers) that Pope Francis would finally do something concrete to honour the request of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. See "Pope Francis to move on Third Secret of Fatima?"

What the Blessed Virgin asked for is not difficult or expensive. She told the late Sister Lucia that a simple prayer for the conversion of Russia, by name, would suffice. The ceremony should take about five minutes, or ten minutes, tops. But it must be done publicly and solemnly, by the Pope, with all the other bishops joining him in their own dioceses at the same time.

You would think that would be simple enough to do, and worth doing considering the benefits promised by Our Lady -- a period of peace of prosperity and the salvation of millions who would otherwise perish. But no pope, from Pius XII through Benedict XVI has had the, errr, gumption to do it in the way Our Lady asked.

A couple of popes have come close. Pius XII and John Paul II both consecrated "the world". But they knew -- and Sister Lucia said -- that wasn't enough. All the bishops must join in, and Russia must be mentioned by name! But this runs contrary to the ostpolitik -- friendly dialogue with the Church's Communist enemies -- promoted by Cardinals Casaroli, Sodano and Bertone, former Vatican secretaries of state.

Even worse (for them), heeding the Blessed Virgin's warning in the Third Secret of Fatima would precipitate a cleansing of the Church, a dismissal from power of the Freemasons, apostates and heretics who now hold high offices in the hierarchy, and a much-needed correction of the numerous errors of Vatican II. The Message of Fatima is therefore bad news to the liberals, apostates and heretics who now hold high offices in the hierarchy.

That's why those "fallen stars" (see Chapter 12 of the Apocalypse), led by the disgraced  Bertone, have been campaigning for years to consign the Message of Fatima to the dustbin of history. They characterize Our Lady's prophecies as "old news", and Her vision of "the bishop clothed in white" as referring to the attempted assassination of John Paul II -- over and done with. But Benedict XVI, who read the Third Secret, said the Message is even more relevant now than before.

We do not know if Pope Francis has yet read the text of the Third Secret -- the words of Our Lady which the Vatican still refuses to reveal to us. But it is evident the Holy Father believes in the need for repentance and reform to which the Blessed Virgin calls us. That is why, within weeks following his election, the Pope asked the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon -- twice -- to consecrate his new papacy to Our Lady of Fatima.

And, even though Cardinal Policarpo is thought to be in the "modernist" camp of Cardinal Bertone, the prelate did what the Pope asked. Addressing the Portuguese bishops in their 181st Plenary Assembly, he announced the Pope’s request for this consecration and he expressed his own desire that “all the episcopal conference [would join] itself to the realization of this request.” The Portuguese bishops accordingly decided to make this collegial act at the conclusion of the Mass of the International Anniversary Pilgrimage on May 13th, the 96th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady of Fatima.

The international pilgrimage was presided over by Archbishop Orani Tempesta of Rio de Janeiro, and drew crowds of well over half a million during the two-day celebrations, with more than 37,000 pilgrims walking to the holy site from various places in the Iberian peninsula. 37 bishops and 290 priests also participated.

At the end of the Mass, Cardinal Policarpo led the bishops in consecrating Pope Francis' pontificate to Our Lady of Fatima.  The prayer of consecration began thus:
“Most Holy Virgin, we, the Bishops of Portugal and this crowd of pilgrims, stand at Your feet, on the 96th anniversary of Your apparition to the little shepherds, in this Cova da Iria, to fulfill the clearly expressed wish of Pope Francis to consecrate to You, Virgin of Fatima, his ministry of Bishop of Rome and Universal Shepherd.”

The Cardinal went on in this prayer of consecration (lasting about six minutes) to ask Our Lady of Fatima for all the graces of discernment and courage that the Holy Father will need to “overcome, in charity, the trials that the renovation of the Church will bring him.”

The text of the consecration prayer needs to be read carefully, with full attention to the exact words used, and to the words that were not said.

Notice that Cardinal Policarpo made no mention of the specific content of the Fatima Message and Our Lady’s requests. The impression the Cardinal gave was that Fatima was a call to prayer as a means of "conversion". But whose conversion? What sort of prayer? And why would it take an apparition of Our Lady and a spectacular public miracle -- the Miracle of the Sun -- to get only a general exhortation to pray? Surely the Blessed Virgin wants more of us, and of the leaders of the Church!

Nor did Cardinal Policarpo mention the Consecration of Russia as a condition for the conversion of that nation and the ensuing period of world peace. Russia is most assuredly not converted and world peace seems a present impossibility, barring a miracle. But it is precisely such a miracle that Our Lady has promised, if Her conditions are met.

But that's what Heaven wants. The Pope and the bishops, together, must consecrate Russia, by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Nothing less will do. Let us pray that this month's consecration of the papacy of Pope Francis is a first step in that direction.

We can be encouraged by the sense of urgency implicit in Pope Francis' having asked for the consecration of his papacy not just once, but twice. Presumably this was to ensure that Cardinal Policarpo would actually do it! And the Holy Father asked not just for consecration to Our Lady, but to Our Lady of Fatima!

What could have prompted Pope Francis to take such drastic action? (I have chosen the words carefully. the Pope's request was certainly drastic compared with the timid efforts of his predecessors.) Walt is convinced that the Holy Father must have read the Third Secret before he telephoned Cardinal Policarpo. And obviously he believes Our Lady's warning. So should we!

Further reading: “The Unsinkable Message of Fatima” by Christopher A. Ferrara, Esquire.

When pigs fly: Duffy en route to Ottawa -- stay tuned!

Today is a holiday in much of Canada. Québec is excluded because this is Victoria Day, commemorating the birthday of the late queen. Vicky was actually born on May 24th, and she died 111 years ago, but so what. That the day is still celebrated (outside of Québec) tells you all you need to know about the Great Not-so-white North.

Tomorrow Canada's Parliament resumes sitting. Both houses -- the House of Commons and the Senate. The latter august body now has four "independent" members, one former Liberal and three former Conservatives. One of those is the "honourable" Mike Duffy, erstwhile senator from Prince Edward Island... or Kanata... whatever.

When last we heard -- see "'Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!'" -- the Puffster was holed up in his sty on PEI. Not talking, is what he was doing [for a change. Ed.]. But Walt's agent on Spud Island reports that the belly that walks like a man [or two men. Ed.] was seen in Charlottetown boarding a plane destined for the world's second-coldest capital.

What does the sight of a pig about to fly portend? Could it be that His Smugness, who crawled half-way under the bus last week, will push the rest of his fat self beneath the wheels and tender his resignation not just from the Conservative caucus but from the Red Chamber itself? Stay tuned, and remember who told you. Lifetime pct .980.

Further reading: "The integrity issue is reaching critical mass", by Lawrence Martin (author of Harperland) in the Globe and Mail.
Riddle submitted by Agent 3: What do Mike Duffy and Anne of Green Gables have in common? Answer: They're both fictional residents of Prince Edward Island!

Wright was wrong! Wright is gone! But WHY?!

The Canadian Senate shitstorm increases in fury! Only yesterday -- in "Bring me the head of Senator Duffy" -- Walt gloated (yes!) over the resignation of Senator Mike Duffy from the Conservative caucus. While I wrote, Tory Senator Pam Wallin announced that she would join him under the bus.

What, Walt wondered, would it take to get the Puffster or the fragrant Ms Wallin -- or Senator Harb (ex-Liberal) or Senator Brazeau (the third ex-Conservative) -- to resign not just from their party's caucus but from the Senate itself?

Of even greater interest was (and still is) the question of why the Tories went to such great lengths to protect only the dishonourable Senator from Kanata. For what reason would Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Harper's Chief of Staff, pay over $90,000, allegedly out of his own pocket, to cover the expenses for which Puffy improperly billed the Canadian taxpayer? Was it party esprit de corps, or an outpouring of the milk of human kindness?

A further question arose as to the future of the incredibly generous Mr. Wright. A spokesthingy for Mr. Harpoon said the PM had "complete confidence" in his Chief of Staff. Was that the kiss of death?

Perhaps so, as sometime between yesterday's post and today's, Mr. Wright bailed. Admitted he was not Wright but Wrong. Tendered his resignation, which the PM quickly (and "regretfully") accepted.

Walt would love to have a man-to-man talk with Nigel Wright, but he seems to be in seclusion. The Puffster is hiding in his sty in PEI, much to the surprise of neighbours who couldn't recall ever having seen him there before.

If I could, I would like to find out what it is that Duffy knows -- and may yet tell -- about Harper, about Wright, and perhaps about others. For instance... Wright has been described as a long-time friend of Duffy's, hence his eagerness to give his old buddy 90 large. And of course Wright is a close friend of the Prime Minister's too. Does Mr. Wright have any other friends? What about John "Nancy" Baird, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs? Is there some connection there? Just asking...

"Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!"

It's been barely 48 hours since Walt assaulted your olfactory sense with the story of how the Honourable Mike Duffy, the Senator from Kanata [not PEI? Ed.] had his huge ass covered by Nigel Wright, Chief of Staff to Steve "Stephen" Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada. There's more to the story...

Senator Puffy was being audited by Deloitte (at the request of the Senate) over housing expenses he claimed and received for maintaining a residence in Kanata -- a suburb of the world's second-coldest capital -- because his principal residence was supposedly in Prince Edward Island. The amount in question was in excess of C$90,000 ($88,000 in real money.)

Trouble is, Duffy had occupied the house in Kanata for years and years, whereas the sty in PEI went largely unoccupied according to neighbours -- more of a summer cottage, if that. That spelled trouble for the Puffster because the Canadian Constitution requires senators to live in the province they represent. Calls were loud for the "honourable" senator to resign from his position and/or at least pay back the money, and after weeks of stonewalling, Duffy said in February that he would do the latter but not the former.

As reported two days ago, the 90 large was indeed repaid, not by the porcine parliamentarian but by the Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Why?! One's first guess would have to be to make the whole stinky affair go away. If that's what he was thinking, Wright was Wrong!

Embarrassing questions were asked the moment CTV broke the story. Why, Canadians wondered, was Senator Puffy given special treatment? (Two other senators -- Liberal Mac Harb and Conservative Patrick Brazeau -- also faced demands to repay ill-gotten housing allowances.) What did Duffy have on the Conservatives that they would spend so much political capital -- not to mention cash -- to protect him? Maybe he has proof of John Baird's sexual preferences? Maybe he has pictures of Harper and the Duck? 

While Canucks were mulling the possibilities, there was a further revelation! The Tories refused to provide details of exactly what improperly-claimed expenses were being repaid. Turns out that, apart from the housing allowance, Duffy had billed the Senate per diem fees for work allegedly done while he was in Florida. Images of a beached whale spring to mind!

Ditto for a number of days during the federal election campaign of 2011 during which Mr. Puffy charged the Senate for attending to his senatorial duties while at the same time stumping for his beloved Conservative Party in constituencies far removed from Ottawa. [Not in PEI, though! Ed.] As the Tories themselves had paid Duffy for those days, it would seem that the "honourable" senator was, errr, double-dipping.

All this caused considerable soiling of shorts in the corridors of power, especially the Langevin Block. [That's where the Prime Minister's Office is. Ed.] Pundits and publicans were unanimous in calling for the heads of both Duffy and Wright. But did either of them resign? Errr, no. Duffy resigned, not from the Senate but from the Conservative caucus. He will now sit in his extra-wide seat as an "independent". Wright has been neither seen nor heard, but a fart-catcher for Steve Harper says the PM still has "complete confidence" in his chief of staff. Stay tuned.

Double-dip footnote: Duffy's was not the only snout deep in the trough. Late last night, another Conservative senator decided to join the Puffster under the bus. [On the "independent" benches, surely! Ed.] Pamela Wallin -- coincidentally another former "non-partisan" broadcaster who formerly worked for CTV -- is also under investigation for improperly claiming "other travel" expenses in the neighbourhood of $321,000.

She and Duffy both say they will rejoin the Tories once these little misunderstandings are "resolved". Wallin's calls to Nigel Wright have not been returned.

Scandals in Washington and Ottawa: who's the sleaziest?

This post may be a tad incoherent. [Like that's never happened before! Ed.] It's just that the week has been so eventful that Walt finds it difficult to draw breath, let alone draw comparisons. But that's what we must consider -- the comparison between the scandals threatening to inundate the Oval Office and the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada.

First let's ask ourselves why America's Most Important Jew (pictured) is incandescent with rage. Dear reader, what you are seeing is the fury of disappointment, the shock of the realization that Barack Hussein Obama's supporters -- including Jon Stewart -- were played for fools.

Mr. Stewart (né Leibowitz) is shocked -- shocked -- to discover that the Prez, who offered Americans a change from "politics as usual", is just a politician like all the rest, intent on seizing and holding onto power... for its own sake and to advance his socialist, secular agenda.

For Jon-boy, seeing the depths to which Obama would sink to deceive the public and defeat  his enemies must have been like seeing the picture of Dorian Gray revealed as the real person.

Was Obama wrong to lie to the public -- during the election campaign, mind you -- about what really happened at Benghazi and who was responsible? Of course, but all politicians lie during elections.

Is it OK for the IRS to target conservative organizations and individuals for inquisitorial audits to deter them from expressing their opinions of Obama and his policies? Of course not, but the Prez says that he was shocked -- shocked -- to find out that this was done. Heads will roll, although not the head of the Head of State.

Is it right for Big Brother to demand details of AP's telephone calls -- or yours -- to find out who's "leaking" politically sensitive information? Certainly not, but here again the Prez has deniability.

It all adds up to "three strikes, but not out". The American system of government [Is dis a system? Ed.] is such that you have to be able to pin an impeachable offence on the President in order to force him out of office. Every once in a while -- hello, Richard Nixon! -- the people win. So far, in Obama's case, resignation or impeachment is not even on the radar.

What the Excited States of America needs is a scandal with a clear link to the President -- a scandal involving cold hard cash! And that's why, for once, Canadian politicians have surpassed Americans. Their Senate expenses scandal is waaaay sleazier. It has claimed two victims so far, threatens a third, and might even result in irreversible damage to the government of Steve "Stephen" Harper himself. Walt will give you the latest in the following post.

Moron* Mike Puffy

Speaking of pigs in parliament, Canada's Least Honourable Senator Mike Duffy was caught yesterday with his snout even deeper in the trough than was previously known... outside of the Prime Minister's Office, that is. Looks like the Puffster -- "Is that your face or are you standing beside a balloon?" -- is headed for the high jump as a result of his blatant and hypocritical disregard for the rules of the Senate and possibly the Criminal Code of Canada

The smelly story so far
As a reward for his biased, below-the-belt "reporting" of the political scene -- plus a natural propensity for arse-kissing -- "Duff" was rewarded by his good friend Steve "Stephen" Harper with appointment to the Senate of Canada as a senator from Prince Edward Island.

The Canadian constitution requires a senator to maintain his principal residence in the province which he purports to represent. Sadly for Duffy, although he was born in PEI and resembles a PEI potato -- a huge PEI potato -- he has lived for decades in Kanata, a suburb of the world's second-coldest capital. He has a large house there, with a large ($360,000) mortgage.

Nevertheless, the "honourable" senator from PEI signed a declaration that his principal residence is (what turned out to be) a summer cottage in Cavendish PEI. That would make him eligible for a housing allowance to defray the costs of maintaining the aforementioned residence in Kanata.

When this came to light in the course of enquiries into expenses claimed by Duffy and three other senators (one Liberal, two Tories), the ace reporter claimed he'd had trouble understanding the declaration he'd signed. Perhaps he failed to comprehend the implications of the word "principal", since its homonym -- "principle" -- is clearly not in his vocabulary.

Anyway, it was all a big "innocent" mistake, and a couple of weeks after the "error" was revealed, Duffy trotted out the old contrition act. Without actually using the word "sorry", he said on national TV that the whole thing had become a "distraction" from his onerous duties as senator, and he and his wife (nice touch) had decided they would repay the $90,000 or so in housing expenses which he had "mistakenly" claimed and received.

Fast forward to March, when the Senate committee looking into the matter was about to present its report. By the way, someone asked, did Senator Duffy ever give back his ill-gotten money? Oh yes, said Marjorie LeBreton (government leader in the Senate) and Steve Harper, he did the right thing -- the honourable thing -- and all the money has been repaid.

What no-one said -- not Duffy, not Harper nor his many minions -- was that it wasn't the arch-troughster who actually ponied up the funds with which to reimburse the Canadian taxpayer. The cheque was actually cut by... wait for it... one Nigel Wright.

Nigel Wright? Who he? Ed. 
Nigel Wright is a wealthy Bay Street capitalist who, as a reward for [Get on with it! Ed.] has for a couple of years been the Chief of Staff in the office of... wait for it... Prime Minister Steve "Stephen" Harper!

Wright is also an old and dear friend of Senator Puffy. When he somehow learned that Duffy, in spite of his $132,000 Senate salary and generous expense allowance, was impecunious, Wright generously offered to give the skint senator the $90,000 needed to cover his enormous fundament. That's "give", not "lend".

Looks like Wright was wrong to help out his fat old friend in this way. First of all, it's just not done to make a large payment in cash (or cheque) to a sitting legislator for no reason at all. And even if the gift itself is not illegal, the recipient would -- under the Senate's conflict of interest code -- be required to report the gift within 30 days of receiving it. In this case the deadline would have been sometime before April 25th. Need I add that no such report was ever made.

Why did Wright do it? Did the Prime Minister know? The deal, according to Duffy himself, was made in the course of "negotiations" between Duffy's lawyer and "the Prime Minister's Office". Duffy would pay back the housing allowance and the government would "go easy" on him and (presumably) not make him resign his Senate seat even though he is clearly not eligible to represent Prince Edward Island.

The way Walt sees it, the only way Prime Minister Harper could not have known about the deal to save Duffy's fat face (and that of the PM who appointed him) would be if Harper wilfully closes his eyes to the business of his own office. We know that Harper is an avid piano player... just like the piano player in the brothel who says "I don't know what goes on upstairs".

The federal Ethics Commissioner will investigate as soon as her bucket of whitewash can be refilled.

Further reading: "The only right thing left for Mike Duffy to do now is resign" by one of Walt's favourite commentators, Andrew Coyne, in today's National Post.

* The headline originally read "More on Mike Puffy" but it's funnier now. Ed.

Walt announces winner of Stanley Cup 2013

A reader has the temerity to suggest that Walt give the results of his prognostications every now and then, and admit his (very occasional) errors and inaccuracies. Very well. Here is the tally from the first round of National Hockey League playoffs.

Walt handicaps the NHL playoffs -- Western Conference
Let's be clear. The point of the exercise was to predict which teams would go through to the second round. The guesses about how many games it would take to settle each series were just for fun. Walt called three out of four correctly, the exception being the LA Kings' Quick win (geddit?) over St. Louis Blues. Pct. right .750.

Walt handicaps the NHL playoffs -- Eastern Conference
Puck pundits saw some surprises in the results here, but the only series that fooled Walt was Montréal vs Ottawa, which the Senators won in just five games. But when a team plays without half a dozen of its key players, including its ace goalie, what can you expect? And incompetent officiating doesn't help either.

The other surprise (to Walt) was Toronto stretching its series against Boston to a 7th game. The choke is on Maple Leafs fans. As in the West, Walt got three right, only one wrong. Pct. .750.

Now let's cut to the chase. Never mind the second and third playoff rounds. What you want to know -- and make money on -- is who's going to win Lord Stanley's silver chalice. Right? You can turn off the TV for a couple of weeks, and when you switch it on again in time for the Stanley Cup finals, you're going to see... Pittsburgh Penguins vs Chicago Blackhawks (formerly the Black Hawks).

Chicago was the class of the NHL Western Conference all of the Bettman-shortened season. They let Minnesota win a game in the first round just for the sport of it, and to finish the series on home ice. Pittsburgh can play much better than they did in a 4-1 win over Ottawa last night. Malkin, Iginla and Sid the Kid -- how ya gonna stop those guys?

Walt's prediction... May I have the envelope, please? ... ... ... Chicago. You read it here first. Lifetime pct .978.

Pigs outside Kenyan parliament protest pigs within

The average annual salary in Kenya is about $1700 in real (green) money. Feeling emboldened by an absence of negative reaction to the latest free and fair parliamentary election, newly-elected members of the Kenyan legislature are demanding a rather hefty increase to their stipends. They think they're worth $10,000... per month!

The 416 MPs – 349 in the National Assembly and 67 in the Senate -- say they deserve a salary 70 times greater than the national average because they work very hard. They also argue that they spend some of the money paying off the constituents who elected them.

In one of the last sessions before March's election, MPs in the previous Parliament gave themselves a $107,000 golden handshake. The package also provided them with an armed guard, a diplomatic passport and access to airport VIP lounges.

Parliament's kleptomania has not gone done well with the public. A number of civil society groups have organized ["Organized"? In Africa? Ed.] protests, including an "Occupy Parliament" demonstration, part of which can be seen in this picture from BBC.

Walt could not confirm the presence in Nairobi of Canadian Senator Mike Puffy, so must assume that the supersized swine is someone or something else.

"We have spilled the blood of the pigs to show that the MPs are greedy like pigs," said Boniface Mwangi, an organizer of the Occupy Parliament demo. Reuters reports that Mwangi and other protesters were promptly arrested by police, shown above anticipating a feast of po'k chops.

Earlier, protesters blocked MPs from entering parliament and demanded that they sign a petition rejecting the proposed salary. A BBC correspondent saw only one MP signing the petition, though she is not sure he knew what he was signing.

Kermit the Baby-Killer pro-life after all!

Turns out that Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist convicted of murdering three babies by "snipping" their spinal cords, is really pro-life... provided the life in question is his!

The "good doctor" cut a deal with Pennsylvania prosecutors yesterday to avoid a possible death sentence. In exchange for waiving his right to appeal, he accepts a sentence of life without parole. Since Gosnell is 72 years old -- and jailhouse justice being what it is -- he may not be behind bars for much longer.

The state had been seeking the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person -- and "person" is the right word! -- and his victims were especially vulnerable given their "age". But Gosnell’s own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be judicially executed before his appeals ran out.

The sentencing deal spares Gosnell’s family the humiliating task of pleading for his wretched life in court. Seems Dr. G. is no believer in abortion when it comes to his own. He has six children, the youngest of them a teenager born to his third wife, who also pled guilty in the case.

See also: "Unborn children treated like 'trash' in America" -- a sad commentary on the "values" which the Obama government tries to impose on not just American citizens but the entire world.

Click here to see more "Libtards" by Dixon Diaz.

A long time ago in a land far away

Walt has a not inconsiderable collection of old editorial cartoons. Here's one drawn some time ago by Geoff Olson, for the old Vancouver Courier. It shows an American president getting all palsy-walsy with the president of Syria.

Of course that was a very long time ago. [1991, actually. Ed.] And it has nothing to do with the situation which obtains in Syria today. Nothing whatever.

"Kermit the Baby Killer" found GUILTY as charged

There is some justice in this world after all. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who wilfully cut the spinal cords of babies born alive in botched late-term abortions, was found guilty today on three counts of murder.

To appreciate the diabolical evil of what the abortionist did, one has only to read these excerpts from the latest Associated Press report.

Former clinic employees testified that Gosnell routinely performed illegal late-term abortions past Pennsylvania’s 24-week limit, that he delivered babies who were still moving, whimpering or breathing, and that he and his assistants “snipped” [Gosnell's word] the newborns’ spines.

“Are you human?” prosecutor Ed Cameron snarled during closing arguments as Gosnell sat calmly at the defense table. “To med these women up and stick knives in the backs of babies?”

The grisly details came out more than two years ago during an investigation of prescription drug trafficking at Gosnell’s clinic in an impoverished section of West Philadelphia.

Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling “house of horrors” with bags and bottles of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.

Under the law of Pennsylvania, the "good doctor" now faces the possibility of the death penalty, although Walt doubts that the punishment would be administered in quite the same inhumane way.

We'll revisit this story when the inevitable appeal is filed. After all, the lamestream media are saying already, Gosnell was "targetted" because he's black and was just providing a service to poor disadvantaged women who were themselves victims of a white, elitist medical system. Hell, say the pro-abortion gang, they're all victims!

Gosnell did not testify, and his lawyer called no witnesses in his defence. But he argued that the doctor provided desperate young woman with “a solution to their problems,” and he branded prosecutors “elitist” and “racist” for pursuing his client, who is black and whose patients were mostly poor minorities. “We know why he was targeted,” [said the babykiller's defender].

See also: "Unborn children treated 'like trash' in America: Archbishop of Philadelphia"

Secretive, controlling, manipulative, crude, autocratic, vicious, unprincipled, untrustworthy, paranoid

Andrew Coyne is a political analyst, journalist, and member of CBC-TV's At Issue panel. He is no lover of Canadian Gliberals and Kneedippers. His politics are generally MOR, leaning perhaps to the right. One must pay attention, then, when he excoriates the Conservative government of Steve "Stephen" Harper.

This he does in "The economy is in good shape, so why is support for the Conservatives slumping?" in today's National Post. I hope Mr. Coyne and his publisher will not mind if Walt reprints a large chunk of his column -- an excellent explanation of why Harper and his party are even more reviled by Canadians than his role model, the execrable Lyin' Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Malarkey at least had a twinkle in his eye and the charm and blarney of a son of the ould sod. Harper has none of this, only the character of a self-righteous, self-satisfied bully. And that is why, unless there is a major distraction or disruption between now and 2015, the Harper-led "Nasty Party" -- Coyne's phrase -- will lose the election due in that year. (Lifetime pct .986.)

Here is Mr. Coyne's view.

If today both Mr. Harper and the party he leads are actively disliked by more than seven voters in 10, it may be because they have gone out of their way to alienate them in every conceivable way — not by their policies, or even their record, but simply by their style of governing, as over-bearing as it is under-handed, and that on a good day.

When they are not refusing to disclose what they are doing, they are giving out false information; when they allow dissenting opinions to be voiced, they smear them as unpatriotic or worse; when they open their own mouths to speak, it is to read the same moronic talking points over and over, however these may conflict with the facts, common courtesy, or their own most solemn promises.

Secretive, controlling, manipulative, crude, autocratic, vicious, unprincipled, untrustworthy, paranoid … Even by the standards of Canadian politics, it’s quite the performance. We’ve had some thuggish or dishonest governments in the past, even some corrupt ones, but never one quite so determined to arouse the public’s hostility, to so little apparent purpose. Their policy legacy may prove short-lived, but it will be hard to erase the stamp of the Nasty Party.

Perhaps, in their self-delusion, the Tories imagine this is all the fault of the Ottawa media, or the unavoidable cost of governing as Conservatives in a Liberal country. I can assure them it is not. The odium in which they are now held is well-earned, and entirely self-inflicted.

Unborn children treated "like trash" in America: Archbishop of Philadelphia

It is not difficult to anticipate or understand the reaction of the Church to the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, aka "Kermit the Babykiller". Now the Archbishop of Philadelphia, site of the atrocities, has spoken out very clearly in an interview with Vatican Radio.

Most Rev. Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said that “after a while we begin to disrespect human life in ways that are just shockingly coarse. And that’s what happened here. They were treating the babies from the womb as though they were pieces of trash.”


The horrific case “is clearly a result of cultural change in the United States, where unborn children are treated carelessly, and cruelly, and in a horribly disrespectful kind of way,” the prelate continued.

“If we can treat unborn children this way, it means we’re capable of treating born children this way, and the elderly this way,” Archbishop Chaput added. “Unless there’s a deep profound respect for human life at all levels, people will see a gradual disintegration of respect for human life at all.”

Further reading: "The Gosnell story and its lessons" on the CatholicPhilly website.

Great White North not so white anymore, eh

Not so great either...

StatsCan (aka Statistics Canada) today released the first batch of results its 2011 "voluntary" National Household Survey, which replaced the mandatory long-form census cancelled by order of Prime Minister Steve "Stephen" Harper because [Ed., please call them -- 1-800-263-1136 -- and see if you can find out the reason.]

The findings should delight the apostles of multiculturalism, secular humanism, diversity and unrestricted immigration. Why? Because what the Survey reveals, in a nutshell, is that your average Canadian no longer looks like this.

Not-so-typical Canadians

Here, in no particular order, are some highlights, although if you're a native-born Canuck you may prefer the term "lowlights".

• Canada was home to an estimated 6,775,800 immigrants in 2011, comprising 20.6% of the population — more than ever before and the highest proportion of all G8 countries.
• About 1,162,900 foreign-born people immigrated to Canada between 2006 and 2011 -- that would be on Harper's watch -- making up 17.2% of the foreign-born population and 3.5% of Canada's total population. [Ed., don't call Statscan. I've figured it out now.]
• 1,400,685 people identified themselves as aboriginal (First Nations, Innu, Indians, Eskimos or all of the above) in 2011, representing 4.3% of the Canadian population.
• Aboriginal peoples accounted for 3.8% of the population in 2006, 3.3% in 2001 and 2.8% in 1996.
• The aboriginal population grew by 20.1% -- 232,385 people -- between 2006 and 2011, compared with 5.2% for non-aboriginal people.
• Aboriginal children aged 14 and under made up 28% of Canada's total aboriginal population, while their non-aboriginal counterparts represented 16.5% of all non-aboriginals.
• Almost half (48.1%) of all children aged 14 and under in foster care in Canada in 2011 were aboriginal children.
• More than 200 different ethnic origins were reported in the 2011 survey, with 13 of them representing more than a million people each.
• Nearly 6,264,800 people identified themselves as "visible minorities" (aka "vizmins"), representing 19.1% of the population. 65% of them were born outside Canada.
• South Asians (= Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans), Chinese and blacks accounted for 61.3% of the visible minority population, followed by Filipinos, Latin Americans, Arabs, Southeast Asians, West Asians, Koreans and Japanese.
• 7.8 million people, 23.9% of the population, reported having no religious affiliation.

Don't call, write or e-mail me to tell me I'm being racist. Those are the Canadian government's figures, and we all know the Dear Leader's regime is nothing if not politically correct.

The Canadian media are making a meal of these statistics, with major dailies running two or three or even four stories each, with opinion pieces yet to come. Here are some of the headlines Walt has seen.

Immigration dramatically changing makeup of Toronto and Canada (Hardly news to Torontonians, and certainly not to CBC Radio which for years now has been giving airtime to people with unintelligble accents in order to be "sounding the way Toronto looks".)

Canada's non-Christian population growing (It's not the immigrants who are identifying themselves as having no religion.)

Aboriginal population young and growing fast (Consider the implications next time you're driving through Caledonia ON.)

Young, suburban and mostly Asian: Canada's immigrant population surges past 20% (Higher in some localities. Hello Mississauga!)

Muslim population is fastest growing religion in Canada, census shows (Ignore the dreadful grammar. But do the math. How long before Canada has an Islamist government?)

Nearly half of Canada's children in foster care are Aboriginal, new census-replacement shows (Some problem with the People?)

One in five Canadians born elsewhere (Somewhere less to their liking, presumably)

Immigrant underclass in GTA fuels simmering frustrations (Begs the question: who's simmering and who's really hot? Amazing, though, that the Toronto Red Star would actually use the word "underclass")

Canadians losing their religion, survey shows (Should read "Native-born Canadians...")

Why the census may not be entirely accurate (Eh? You mean it could be worse?)

Canucks have few answers for this year's meltdown [I think that's actually a sports headline. Ed.]

Walt has no further comment except to say to the uninitiated that the typical Canadian hosers pictured above are Bob and Doug McKenzie, hosts of the "Great White North" segment on the cult classic SCTV sketch comedy series. The "brothers" developed that bit at the urging of the CBC, which felt the show should have more Canadian content. Of course that was 30 years ago.

US military takes sexual assault seriously... you betcha!

"Sexual assault is criminal conduct. It falls well short of the standards America expects of its men and women in uniform." So says the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response website of the Yewnited States Department of Defense.

Yes indeedy, folks! The "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program reinforces the Air Force’s commitment to eliminate incidents of sexual assault through awareness and prevention training, education, victim advocacy, response, reporting and accountability."

And if you're in any doubt, look how promptly the SAPR unit moved to punish an offender, removing from his position a high-ranking officer -- Lieutenant-Colonel Jeffrey Krusinski -- after he was charged with sexual battery following an "incident" in Arlington County VA early Sunday morning.

A police spokesthingy told the press that Lt.Col. Krusinski was drunk and grabbed the breast and buttocks of a woman he didn't know, in a parking lot. She fought him off and called police. The accused was released Sunday on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond, and is scheduled to be arraigned on Thursday.

Since February of this year, Lt.Col. Krusinski had held the position of, errr, leader of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response unit. Walt guesses that's why the local police, rather than the SAPR unit was called in.

AP reports that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has spoken with Air Force Secretary Michael Donley about the matter and “expressed outrage and disgust over the troubling allegations and emphasized that this matter will be dealt with swiftly and decisively.”

Will Krusinski be drummed out of the USAF? Will this be the last sexual assault perpetrated by a serviceman? Will heads roll? Will the Pope convert to Protestantism? Answers on the back of a postage stamp to the usual address.

Oil sheikhs will make Canada pay for supporting Israel, America

John Baird is a big, beefy, square-jawed, tough-talking bully boy. At least that's the image he projects. But the word around the world's second-coldest capital is that Johnny boy is as gay as 18 balloons. Still, if you're Prime Minister Harpoon, and you want a poster child for your new get-tough-with-the-Arabs / suck-up-to-the-Jews foreign policy, John's your, errr, man.

Ohhh yeah, Canada's fighting for freedom, right there on the front lines, alongside her erstwhile best friends, the Americans. When it comes to being ready to intervene in sandpits like Afghanistan, Libya and (maybe) Syria, the Canucks will gladly hold the American coat.

As for defending Israel against its numerous enemies, Israel has no better friend than Canada, says Foreign Minister Baird. Hey, Baird and his Bully-in-Chief Harper are even more pro-Israel than the Yanks. Let's not forget that Obama's middle name is "Hussein"!

And then there's the Disunited Nations. Historically Canada has been one of the biggest contributors (proportionally) to the funding of the UN, and involved in every peacekeeping mission from Korea through, errr, Somalia and Rwanda -- and look how successful those little interventions were. But no more.

After decades of toeing the liberal line about the sanctity, value and essential unimpeachability of the UN, the Harper government has finally said -- publicly -- that it's time for the West to stop kidding itself, and recognize the UN for the feckless, wasteful and corrupt talking shop that it really is. As well, the UN is anti-American and anti-Israeli too, therefore anti-Canada because "my friend's enemies are my enemies too".

Harper and Baird are actually quite right to be fed up with the UN, and the majority of Canadians -- outside of the Volvo liberals in Rosedale -- doubtless agree with the new policy. See "Baird's icy UN approach is just what many Canadians have ordered", by Michael Den Tandt in Canada's QMI papers.

But there are bound to be consequences. If you keep yanking the end of the turban, the turban-wearer is bound to notice and seek out a means of reprisal. Like blowing up a bridge linking Canada and the USA. Or something a little more diplomatic.

Which brings us to the International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN agency which sets international rules for airplane transportation. The ICAO has been headquartered in Montréal since 1947, and is the only United Nations organization to be based in Canada. Now, because of the Canucks' pro-Israel pro-America foreign policy [Is dis a policy? Ed.], the oily sheikhs have offered to build the ICAO a nice shiny new HQ building in... wait for it... Qatar.

Under its "new Harper government", Canada lost its last campaign for one of the non-permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, which at one time was a sure thing. This year they're not even going to throw the red and white tuque in the ring. And now the ICAO may well take wings towards a sunnier and more neutral (?) site.

Well, that's the price you pay for friendship. If you lie down with dogs, you're bound to get up with fleas.

Will America never learn? The persistence of bad foreign policy

Almost 237 years ago the United States of America started life through an armed rebellion against established authority -- the British monarchy -- which established a revolutionary new model of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". That remains a great and noble goal, and the fact that it has yet to be fully realized hasn't stopped US governments from trying to impose their model on the rest of the world.

Over the course of the last two centuries, successive administrations have adopted a policy of forcing other countries to adopt the US model, sometimes by persuasion and sometimes by conquest. Walt has a little list.

In 1812 the US Congress thought Canadians could hardly wait to join the new republic. Taking Canada from the British would be "merely a matter of marching", said Jefferson. Two years later, with the White House burned and the country nearly broke, Congress changed its mind.

The Mexican Invasion of the mid-19th century succeeded in annexing to the USA a large chunk of the southwest. For some reason, people from further south keep coming into "New Mexico" and neighbouring states, wanting to keep their language, customs and religion. Some folks, especially in Arizona, think it might be better to give the territory back to the Mexicans.

Then came the War Between the States, in which some states had the temerity to assert the right to leave the Union, a right which they thought had been guaranteed by the Constitution. They learned that once you're in the Hotel America, "you can check out, but you can never leave".

Having got that nasty business out of the way, and realizing that the Hispanics were a soft target, the USA embarked in 1898 on a truly imperial war against Spain. The net gain was a handful of tropical paradises (?) --- Puerto Rico, Guam and Philippines -- but hey, America was now a colonial power, just like Britain! The economic and other benefits were, errr, dubious.

What about the World Wars, I hear you ask. [Yes, what about the World Wars? Ed.] Is Walt saying the USA should have stayed out of the War to End All Wars...and the second War to End All Wars? Didn't America save the world for democracy? Well... No matter how many John Wayne movies you watched, America didn't bail out the Allies singlehandedly. And if the USA had come into the wars at the beginning rather than during the second act, the other colonial powers might have been accomplished faster and at considerably less economic and human cost.

But, you might argue, that's precisely why the USA was so quick to jump into Korea. Sorry, wrong again. Omar Bradley called the Korean War "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy". One lesson that might have been learned (but wasn't) is that if you're going to fight, use both hands!

Douglas MacArthur wanted to cross the Yalu and invade Communist China, possibly dropping the Big One for a quick and decisive victory. But "wiser men" in the Truman administration wouldn't let him, for fear of provoking a war with the Soviet Union, for which China was merely a proxy.

Apparently they didn't consider the possibility that the USSR wasn't as strong as it appeared, and might well have been defeated, sparing the world the 40 years of cold war that followed the Korean truce. Even the willingness to call it a draw may now be regarded as a mistake, for the war, which technically never ended, threatens to go ballistic -- literally -- at any moment.

Which brings us to Vietnam, which Pentagon types will tell you is the first war the US ever lost. (This ignores the War of 1812, but Washington's memory is short.) In The Rise of the Chinese Republic (McGraw-Hill, 1989) American historian Edwin P. Hoyt says:

The Americans did not learn fast. It took them still another war in Asia [Vietnam] to learn that what American leaders had said many years ago was true. No statesman with a lick of sense will let the country get involved in a land war in Asia.

There was another lesson that the Americans May not even yet have learned: Anyone who interferes in an indigenous revolution anywhere is a fool, and such interference is bound to fail. In China and in Vietnam the Americans tried to interfere. These actions cost them billions of dollars and far too many lives, and ultimately the revolutions succeeded in the face of American interference.

Mr. Hoyt wrote that in 1989. Since then we've had the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and (sort of) Libya. These theatres of war are all in Asia, although not the part Hoyt was thinking of. And they're all part of the Muslim world. Walt predicts that 100 years from now historians will lump them all together as "the Middle Eastern War" or "the Great War Against Islam". ("Crusades" has already been used.)

And still the USA cannot or will not learn. Now the Prez -- no Muslim he? -- is making noises (again) about taking action (nature unspecified) in Syria to overthrow a tyrannical dictator, make it safe for democracy, yada yada yada. Haven't we seen this movie before? (Canadians need not feel all smug and superior. "Call me Steve" Harper and his bumboy Baird are very vocal in their willingness to hold America's coat...at least until Uncle Sam's nose bleeds.)

Edwin Hoyt again:
The United States has run out of gas politically and philosophically. Any nation that converts from a dynamic economy to a service economy...finds that it loses that precious quality of initiative. The American government is still posturing itself in the world as the defender of the status quo. It is hard to consider a less dynamic and less appealing posture for a nation that once boasted of its revolutionary spirit.