Ed. here, with a special FREE offer for our Catholic readers and for all who are concerned about the degradation of our Christian values and society -- Western civilization itself.
A friend has sent us a pamphlet published this month by the Fatima Center entitled "Pope Benedict, 'Gender Theory' and the Threat to Civilization". Here are the two introductory paragraphs.
Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2012 Christmas address to the Roman Curia, warned against what is called "gender theory". This theory, which coincides with the rise of homosexuality in society, claims there is no such thing as a God-given masculine nature or a feminine nature. Individuals are free to choose and remake their gender.
The acceptance of such theories not only defies God and nature, but gives rise to the persecution of Christians, and of anyone who opposes the pro-homosexual program....
The section headings which follow include: Nature Defied; The Family Threatened; Normal People Bullied; and Persecution and Punishment.
The entire article is too long for us to republish here on WWW, but we are converting it to a .pdf file (less than 1 MB), which we will e-mail to you, FREE. All you have to do is e-mail us your request.
We won't save or sell your e-mail address. You won't receive any follow-up mailings, requests for money, or spam. We make this offer only because we feel this message MUST be circulated to all Christians concerned for the future of our society.
Footnote: Those who were scandalized, earlier this month, by the political correctness of school authorities in Hillsboro MO in allowing "Lila", a self-proclaimed "transgendered" girl, to use the female lockers and toilets in "her" school will find this article of great interest. It is also relevant to Ontario parents fighting the provincial government's new pro-LGBT sex education curriculum.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Mounties get their goat -- a real Canadian story
Readers occasionally ask if Walt is a Canadian making fun of Americans, or an American making fun of Canadians. Let it be remembered that no-one needs to make fun of Canadians, because they quite enjoy making fun of themselves. One has only to watch SCTV's "Great White North" segments, featuring Bob and Doug McKenzie, the quintessential hosers, or watch for the Canadian jokes included in so many episodes of The Simpsons.
One of the big differences between Americans and their northern cousins is that Canucks refuse to take themselves seriously, whereas Americans take themselves much too seriously. That's a fact... a Canadian fact... brought to you by the Canadian Ministry of Facts.
Today we have the perfect example of the Canadian sense of humour in a true story from Warman SK, a crossroads remembered none too affectionately by one of Walt's agents, who passed this along.
Early Sunday morning, two Mounties from the Warman detachment were called to a Tim Hortons in nearby Martensville for an unusual disturbance -- a goat refusing to leave the store (or "coffee and bakeshop", as Tim's is called south of the border).
The RCMP issued a press release -- really -- which confirmed that "There was a stubborn goat refusing to leave the establishment. The employees would ask him to leave and walk him outside, but he would just turn around and come back in through the automatic doors."
RCMP believe the goat was simply cold and decided to sleep in the space. Store employees said the goat ambled through the parking lot, and took a nap in the drive-through at one point. Store owner Camille Barzeele said, "One of [our employees] stayed with him to make sure he didn't get run over, and the other one called the cops."
RCMP said the goat was "arrested" and taken into their cruiser. (No, the Mounties don't ride horses any more, not even in Saskatchewan.) But, they said, "He was very unhappy with this so the members decided to take him home instead of to holding cells at the detachment."
"We are happy to report that the goat is safe and sound back with his owners after his adventurous night out on the town," the press release concluded. "Employees at the Tim Hortons in Martensville see all sorts of customers overnight. This one wasn't kidding around."
How about that, eh?! But when you think about the differences between Canadians and Americans, consider how this story might have played out had it occurred a few hundred miles due south, say in the middle of Wyoming. The errant goat would surely have been shot.
In Canada, if it remained in the store another night, it would only have been taxed. That's right... a tax on real property abutting and abounding on public lands, taxed at the rate of X dollars per front foot. [Aaaaarrrggghhh! Ed.]
One of the big differences between Americans and their northern cousins is that Canucks refuse to take themselves seriously, whereas Americans take themselves much too seriously. That's a fact... a Canadian fact... brought to you by the Canadian Ministry of Facts.
Today we have the perfect example of the Canadian sense of humour in a true story from Warman SK, a crossroads remembered none too affectionately by one of Walt's agents, who passed this along.
Early Sunday morning, two Mounties from the Warman detachment were called to a Tim Hortons in nearby Martensville for an unusual disturbance -- a goat refusing to leave the store (or "coffee and bakeshop", as Tim's is called south of the border).
The RCMP issued a press release -- really -- which confirmed that "There was a stubborn goat refusing to leave the establishment. The employees would ask him to leave and walk him outside, but he would just turn around and come back in through the automatic doors."
RCMP believe the goat was simply cold and decided to sleep in the space. Store employees said the goat ambled through the parking lot, and took a nap in the drive-through at one point. Store owner Camille Barzeele said, "One of [our employees] stayed with him to make sure he didn't get run over, and the other one called the cops."
RCMP said the goat was "arrested" and taken into their cruiser. (No, the Mounties don't ride horses any more, not even in Saskatchewan.) But, they said, "He was very unhappy with this so the members decided to take him home instead of to holding cells at the detachment."
"We are happy to report that the goat is safe and sound back with his owners after his adventurous night out on the town," the press release concluded. "Employees at the Tim Hortons in Martensville see all sorts of customers overnight. This one wasn't kidding around."
How about that, eh?! But when you think about the differences between Canadians and Americans, consider how this story might have played out had it occurred a few hundred miles due south, say in the middle of Wyoming. The errant goat would surely have been shot.
In Canada, if it remained in the store another night, it would only have been taxed. That's right... a tax on real property abutting and abounding on public lands, taxed at the rate of X dollars per front foot. [Aaaaarrrggghhh! Ed.]
Canuck pols censor selves, avoid further debate of niqab ban
Perhaps the omission is not such a surprise after all. Walt is not a believer in conspiracy theories -- except when it comes to MH370 -- but can envision a secret pre-debate meeting in which the minions of all three parties prepared 10-foot polls with which not to touch, ever again, the question of whether immigrants should be or can be required to adapt themselves to the customs and values of their new home.
As Chantal Hébert pointed out on "At Issue" -- see video in yesterday's post -- the vast majority of Canadians think the Harper government's proposal that people should show their faces when giving or receiving any public service, including taking the oath of citizenship, is reasonable. But, the powers that be in the editorial boardrooms of Toronto deem the subject politically incorrect.
The English-language Canadian media, and the politicians chasing the large immigrant vote -- particularly in Toronto, which has the largest Muslim population of any North American city -- are so afraid of offending the Muslims, or being accused of stoking the fires of Islamophobia already burning across Canada, that they have colluded to ban any further discussion of the topic. So when the Groan and Wail headlines its lead story "Federal leaders clash over Canadian values, security in lively debate", they overlook -- deliberately -- the one glaring omission.
Not so Walt's favourite Globe and Mail columnist, Margaret Wente. In today's piece, headed "Why the niqab matters, now and in future", she writes:
If there is one issue that strikes a nerve with Canadians, this is it. Public opposition to the niqab is deep, and wide. A recently released Leger poll, commissioned by the government and conducted in March, found that more than four out of five people – 82 per cent – supported the Conservatives’ position that there is no place for niqabs in citizenship court. In Quebec, the figure was 93 per cent.
As the magnificent Chantal Hébert reminded Mr. Coyne on CBC the other night, the niqab debate is anything but trivial – despite what pundits in Toronto think. The debate about accommodation and values will last far beyond this election. It will be among the biggest issues of our future.
I'm torn. I believe that Canada is strong and confident enough to tolerate a few women in face coverings. I also believe that the niqab has no place in Canada, and that women who wear them should be strongly discouraged (but not, under most circumstances, barred) from doing so. Symbols matter. And this one matters more than most.
Footnote: Another debate, in French only, is scheduled for Friday night. The Big Three leaders -- MM Trudeau, Harper and Mulcair -- will be joined by Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, who has vowed to legislate a ban on all religious head coverings in the (unlikely) event his party is elected. At the risk of repeating myself [and being wrong two days in a row. Ed.], it will be amazing if the niqab question isn't raised, politically incorrect or not.
Monday, September 28, 2015
UPDATED: VIDEO: Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue
On Thursday night, the leaders of Canada's Big Three political parties (plus the Little Two parties -- the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party) had another in what promises to be an enervating series of debates on issues which Canuck voters may care about -- or not -- come October 19th, the date set for a general election.
This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.
There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.
This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.
The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.
In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.
"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.
We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.
As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.
The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.
Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.
UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.
This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.
There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.
This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.
The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.
In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.
"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.
We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.
As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.
The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.
Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.
UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.
Muslims force Canadian private school to "accommodate" them
The following comment on a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission -- "promoting human rights for everyone except straight white Christians" -- took over five months to find its way to Walt's inbox. Many thanks to Agent 6 for sending the link.
Here's the set-up. Webber Academy is a private, independent, non-denominational school in Calgary, Alberta (Canada's version of Dallas). No-one is allowed to pray there. Or, we should say, no-one was allowed to pray there. Until, that is, the parents of two teens -- Sarmad Amir and Naman Siddique -- decided to challenge school policies which forbade praying on the grounds of the school.
The two Muslim youths were admitted to Webber Academy in late 2011. For the first few weeks, school staff accommodated their request to pray by allowing them to use an empty classroom. But in December 2011, their parents received a call from the school saying the children would now need to leave the school premises to pray.
The boys began going outside, but still on school property, when timings of some of the five Muslim daily devotions coincided with class hours. If there was a blizzard outside [When wouldn't there be? Ed.] or if it was too cold to pray [??? Ed.], the pair would use a nook or cranny inside instead.
Come February, Webber wrote the boys' parents to say that because the school’s policies were being ignored the boys would not be accepted for enrolment for the next academic year. The parents, instead of moving their children to a Muslim school as might reasonably be expected, ran to the Alberta government and cried "discrimination".
Their human rights complaint was not unexpected, nor was the response of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which, predictably, sided with the parents, even though their children were being treated exactly the same as all the other students.
Wrote the Commission, "Allowing two of 900 students to pray behind closed doors for a period of five to 10 minutes is insignificant in the context of religious identity, affiliation or influence." Any reader able to explain in clear English what that means is requested to send a postcard to Walt, with a copy to the HRC.
What it means to Webber Academy is a fine of C$26,000 ($19,250 in real money, as of this afternoon). Case closed? Perhaps not, as an appeal was planned. While we wait to see what eventuates, here are some comments from professional curmudgeon and crusader against political correctness, Ezra Levant.
OOPS! We have a problem! Ed. here. No sooner had I put this up than the URL for the video disappeared from YouTube. Can no longer be found. Gone. Censored? Probably, given that Mr. Levant is being prosecuted for making "inappropriate remarks" about the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The case is due to be heard next month. We can't get an embed code for Mr. Levant's video about this, but here's the link. "Ezra Levant: Prosecuted for calling human rights commissions 'crazy'".
If you want to help Mr. Levant with his legal bills, click here to go to his website..
Here's the set-up. Webber Academy is a private, independent, non-denominational school in Calgary, Alberta (Canada's version of Dallas). No-one is allowed to pray there. Or, we should say, no-one was allowed to pray there. Until, that is, the parents of two teens -- Sarmad Amir and Naman Siddique -- decided to challenge school policies which forbade praying on the grounds of the school.
The two Muslim youths were admitted to Webber Academy in late 2011. For the first few weeks, school staff accommodated their request to pray by allowing them to use an empty classroom. But in December 2011, their parents received a call from the school saying the children would now need to leave the school premises to pray.
The boys began going outside, but still on school property, when timings of some of the five Muslim daily devotions coincided with class hours. If there was a blizzard outside [When wouldn't there be? Ed.] or if it was too cold to pray [??? Ed.], the pair would use a nook or cranny inside instead.
Come February, Webber wrote the boys' parents to say that because the school’s policies were being ignored the boys would not be accepted for enrolment for the next academic year. The parents, instead of moving their children to a Muslim school as might reasonably be expected, ran to the Alberta government and cried "discrimination".
Their human rights complaint was not unexpected, nor was the response of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which, predictably, sided with the parents, even though their children were being treated exactly the same as all the other students.
Wrote the Commission, "Allowing two of 900 students to pray behind closed doors for a period of five to 10 minutes is insignificant in the context of religious identity, affiliation or influence." Any reader able to explain in clear English what that means is requested to send a postcard to Walt, with a copy to the HRC.
What it means to Webber Academy is a fine of C$26,000 ($19,250 in real money, as of this afternoon). Case closed? Perhaps not, as an appeal was planned. While we wait to see what eventuates, here are some comments from professional curmudgeon and crusader against political correctness, Ezra Levant.
OOPS! We have a problem! Ed. here. No sooner had I put this up than the URL for the video disappeared from YouTube. Can no longer be found. Gone. Censored? Probably, given that Mr. Levant is being prosecuted for making "inappropriate remarks" about the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The case is due to be heard next month. We can't get an embed code for Mr. Levant's video about this, but here's the link. "Ezra Levant: Prosecuted for calling human rights commissions 'crazy'".
If you want to help Mr. Levant with his legal bills, click here to go to his website..
"Culture of welcome" for refugees turns sour for Krauts
The flood of Muslim "refugees" which threatens to inundate Europe shows no signs of abating. One has to wonder what some European leaders -- hello Angela Merkel -- around the beginning of this month, when they opened the floodgates. Germany now looks on track to welcome over a million migrants this year, and the "Willkommenskultur" (culture of welcome) which Ms Merkel trumpeted is wearing a bit thin. In Germany, it seems, the milk of human kindness is starting to curdle.
One may ask why. [But does one have to ask? Ed.] Under the headline "Germany in a state of SIEGE", the UK's Daily Mail tells the story of one "refugee", Atif Zahoor by name, who wound up in the German university town of Giessen.
Mr. Giessen, his brother and his cousin, are Muslims. But they are not refugees fleeing religious persecution and/or civil war in Iraq or Syria or Yemen. No. They are from Pakistan, where they had good jobs. But they wanted to be Europeans, so, last July, seized the opportunity to slip into Germany, along with their wives [how many? Ed.] and children, using illegal documents.
"We paid a trafficking agent for false visas to fly here to Germany," Mr. Atif told the Daily Mail. "We claimed asylum and came to Giessen camp with other migrants. Three weeks ago, because we had families, they gave us a proper home." And a nice home it is, too. The three Pakistani Muslim families now live together in a five-bedroom house, courtesy of Chancellor Merkel and German taxpayers.
This week, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, warned that millions more migrants are on their way and "the policy of open doors and windows" must be scrapped. British Prime Minister David Cameron said Europe must send failed asylum claimants back to their own countries. Walt says, good luck with that!
The same sentiment was voiced by the German deputy finance minister, Jens Spahn. "Not everyone can stay in Germany, or in Europe," said Herr Spahn. "If people are coming for poverty reasons...we have to send them back."
Walt asks how, exactly, the German and other European governments would do that. The USA has over 10,000,000 illegal migrants (at a conservative estimate) and even Donald Trump has to concede that, even if the political will to deport them was there [As if! Ed.], the cost would be staggering.
Meanwhile, back in das Vaterland, there is deepening disquiet. The German volk are starting to worry that their nominally Christian country, dotted with churches, is being overrun by people of a different religion and culture.
The Daily Mail reported on a letter written by social workers and women’s groups in Giessen to the state parliament, claiming that rape and child abuse were rife in the refugee camp. According to the letter, the camp is a dangerous melting-pot, where there have been "numerous rapes and sexual assaults, and forced prostitution." It goes on to say that there are even reports of children being raped and subjected to sexual assault.
Mr. Atif says the stories are true. "The camp is dangerous," he told the paper. "Men of different nationalities fight and women are attacked. Many women have felt the need to sleep in their clothes... They won’t go to the toilet at night because rapes and assaults have taken place on their way to, or from, there. Even in daylight, a walk through the camp is fraught with fear."
Many migrant women have fled here to escape forced marriages or female genital mutilation, which are rife in African and Middle Eastern countries where Islam is the religion and Sharia law the rule. "They believe they have found safety in Germany," says the letter, "and realize it’s not the case."
Why not? Why would these poor refugees, having found a safe haven at last, treat each other so? The letter suggests that in the migrants’ Muslim culture, women are viewed differently. "It is a fact that women and children are unprotected. This situation is opportune for those men who already regard women as their inferiors and treat unaccompanied women as 'fair game'."
If you ask the residents of Giessen, the problem goes way byond the allegations of rape and civil war in the refugee camps. Locals are also increasingly worried about the effect the "refugees" are having on their everyday lives. The migrants have taken over the town, some say.
The streets of Giessen, even of Berlin, are choked with "refugees" queuing up for housing, food and, errr, cash handouts. In spite of imposing "temporary" border controls earlier this month, Germany is still receiving asylum-seekers at the rate of 100 per hour. You can't miss the new arrivals, wandering the streets in large groups. At a supermarket a few hundred yards from the camp, a well-dressed German woman packing her shopping into a Mercedes rolls her eyes at me as a group of Middle Eastern youths walk by. "What do we do?" she asks. "It has happened now and it will never be the same again."
Indeed it won't. The doors of Germany are open, and can never be closed again. Back to Giessen for words from other Pakistani "refugees". A former student named Janaid Jamshad told the Daily Mail reporter, "When I lost my job, I set out with six friends. There is every nation in the camp — a lot from Pakistan, like me. I chose Germany because they want us here."
Another, identified only as "Ali", said, "I came to Germany first in 2013 and they pushed me out again.... I came back when I heard Mrs Merkel was opening the doors. I have claimed asylum and they are processing my application. Because I am young, I hope they will take me." But, he goes on, "The camp is overflowing.... I have just been to the doctor in the shopping centre because I have a headache. Even there, there are queues of migrants waiting. The doctors at the camp will only give one pill at a time."
Last word to goes to Mr. Atif. "We think having children will help us," he says. "Our house is very big, and they give us money, too. My children deserve a better life than in Pakistan. They will grow up happy in Germany."
Germans... Europeans... this is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. When you tire of living in the Caliphate of Europe, perhaps you can get on a boat and come to North America. IF, that is, we have not ourselves been overrun because of the wussy, politically correct immigration policies of our leaders.
Footnote: The French, being smarter than the Germans, or perhaps suffering less from a national guilt complex, have been considerably less welcoming than the people on the wrong side of the Rhine. See "'Willkommenskultur' in Germany, 'non merci' in France"
Perhaps the French have belatedly remembered the counsel of Charles De Gaulle, who, more than half a century ago, warned against the Islamization of his country. See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration" (WWW 25/8/12)
Thanks to Agent 17 for sending us the link to the Daily Mail story.
One may ask why. [But does one have to ask? Ed.] Under the headline "Germany in a state of SIEGE", the UK's Daily Mail tells the story of one "refugee", Atif Zahoor by name, who wound up in the German university town of Giessen.
Mr. Giessen, his brother and his cousin, are Muslims. But they are not refugees fleeing religious persecution and/or civil war in Iraq or Syria or Yemen. No. They are from Pakistan, where they had good jobs. But they wanted to be Europeans, so, last July, seized the opportunity to slip into Germany, along with their wives [how many? Ed.] and children, using illegal documents.
"We paid a trafficking agent for false visas to fly here to Germany," Mr. Atif told the Daily Mail. "We claimed asylum and came to Giessen camp with other migrants. Three weeks ago, because we had families, they gave us a proper home." And a nice home it is, too. The three Pakistani Muslim families now live together in a five-bedroom house, courtesy of Chancellor Merkel and German taxpayers.
This week, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, warned that millions more migrants are on their way and "the policy of open doors and windows" must be scrapped. British Prime Minister David Cameron said Europe must send failed asylum claimants back to their own countries. Walt says, good luck with that!
The same sentiment was voiced by the German deputy finance minister, Jens Spahn. "Not everyone can stay in Germany, or in Europe," said Herr Spahn. "If people are coming for poverty reasons...we have to send them back."
Walt asks how, exactly, the German and other European governments would do that. The USA has over 10,000,000 illegal migrants (at a conservative estimate) and even Donald Trump has to concede that, even if the political will to deport them was there [As if! Ed.], the cost would be staggering.
Meanwhile, back in das Vaterland, there is deepening disquiet. The German volk are starting to worry that their nominally Christian country, dotted with churches, is being overrun by people of a different religion and culture.
The Daily Mail reported on a letter written by social workers and women’s groups in Giessen to the state parliament, claiming that rape and child abuse were rife in the refugee camp. According to the letter, the camp is a dangerous melting-pot, where there have been "numerous rapes and sexual assaults, and forced prostitution." It goes on to say that there are even reports of children being raped and subjected to sexual assault.
Mr. Atif says the stories are true. "The camp is dangerous," he told the paper. "Men of different nationalities fight and women are attacked. Many women have felt the need to sleep in their clothes... They won’t go to the toilet at night because rapes and assaults have taken place on their way to, or from, there. Even in daylight, a walk through the camp is fraught with fear."
Many migrant women have fled here to escape forced marriages or female genital mutilation, which are rife in African and Middle Eastern countries where Islam is the religion and Sharia law the rule. "They believe they have found safety in Germany," says the letter, "and realize it’s not the case."
Why not? Why would these poor refugees, having found a safe haven at last, treat each other so? The letter suggests that in the migrants’ Muslim culture, women are viewed differently. "It is a fact that women and children are unprotected. This situation is opportune for those men who already regard women as their inferiors and treat unaccompanied women as 'fair game'."
If you ask the residents of Giessen, the problem goes way byond the allegations of rape and civil war in the refugee camps. Locals are also increasingly worried about the effect the "refugees" are having on their everyday lives. The migrants have taken over the town, some say.
The streets of Giessen, even of Berlin, are choked with "refugees" queuing up for housing, food and, errr, cash handouts. In spite of imposing "temporary" border controls earlier this month, Germany is still receiving asylum-seekers at the rate of 100 per hour. You can't miss the new arrivals, wandering the streets in large groups. At a supermarket a few hundred yards from the camp, a well-dressed German woman packing her shopping into a Mercedes rolls her eyes at me as a group of Middle Eastern youths walk by. "What do we do?" she asks. "It has happened now and it will never be the same again."
Indeed it won't. The doors of Germany are open, and can never be closed again. Back to Giessen for words from other Pakistani "refugees". A former student named Janaid Jamshad told the Daily Mail reporter, "When I lost my job, I set out with six friends. There is every nation in the camp — a lot from Pakistan, like me. I chose Germany because they want us here."
Another, identified only as "Ali", said, "I came to Germany first in 2013 and they pushed me out again.... I came back when I heard Mrs Merkel was opening the doors. I have claimed asylum and they are processing my application. Because I am young, I hope they will take me." But, he goes on, "The camp is overflowing.... I have just been to the doctor in the shopping centre because I have a headache. Even there, there are queues of migrants waiting. The doctors at the camp will only give one pill at a time."
Last word to goes to Mr. Atif. "We think having children will help us," he says. "Our house is very big, and they give us money, too. My children deserve a better life than in Pakistan. They will grow up happy in Germany."
Germans... Europeans... this is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. When you tire of living in the Caliphate of Europe, perhaps you can get on a boat and come to North America. IF, that is, we have not ourselves been overrun because of the wussy, politically correct immigration policies of our leaders.
Footnote: The French, being smarter than the Germans, or perhaps suffering less from a national guilt complex, have been considerably less welcoming than the people on the wrong side of the Rhine. See "'Willkommenskultur' in Germany, 'non merci' in France"
Perhaps the French have belatedly remembered the counsel of Charles De Gaulle, who, more than half a century ago, warned against the Islamization of his country. See "Charles De Gaulle warns about Muslim immigration" (WWW 25/8/12)
Thanks to Agent 17 for sending us the link to the Daily Mail story.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Where's Walt(o)?
Ed. here. There's a lot going on at the moment -- political campaigns in the USA and Canada, and the visit -- (or visitation?) of Pope Francis to (on?) America. Agent 10 is in Washington DC for the great love-in, and, having eaten a tin of sardines, is waiting with baited breath to hear what the Pontiff has to say on matters political.
As for Walt, our founder has inexplicably decided to go on retreat, cutting himself off from all forms of electronic communication. A Canada goose just flew over his cabin in the pines, dropping a small brown tube which we now recognize as a coin wrapper in which was enclosed a message to the effect that he (Walt) would be back as soon as the fog clears. Whatever can he mean? Watch this space.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Stop shaming parents who balk at sex education in schools
Ed. here. Parents As First Educators (PAFE) has sent us an excellent piece by a self-described secular humanist, Luisa D'Amato, which appeared recently in the Waterloo (ON) Record. Ms D'Amato is in favour of Ontario's new "dirty" sex education curriculum, about which Walt has written before. (Enter "sex education" in the search window, and you'll see 33 previous posts.)
Ms D'Amato feels, however, that it's unfair for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her sidekick Lez Sandals to demonize those who oppose the curriculum's immoral, pro-queer agenda as religious fanatics or stick-in-the-mud prudes. Here's what Ms D'Amato has to say. We think readers all over North America will find it relevant.
We have long been proud of our multicultural Canadian society. Now we have to do the hard work to actually be good at it. Too many people, inside and outside the teaching profession, are acting in a condescending, know-it-all manner toward families who are legitimately concerned by some of the content of Ontario's new sexual education curriculum.
The religious or cultural beliefs of these families, many of them Asian or Muslim background, sets them apart from the secular, liberal mainstream in the province. And that's a problem for everyone, because the minorities risk feeling isolated when disagreements arise.
The new sex education curriculum is embedded in a variety of other topics about health, including physical movement, social inclusion and healthy eating. The sexual information children will receive is frank and explicit. Children will learn correct names for body parts, including genitalia, by the end of Grade 1. They'll learn about same-sex couples and gender identity by the end of Grade 3. Ahead lay [sic] discussions about puberty, consent, masturbation and contraception.
As a secular, liberal parent myself, I think this is a great development. But there are plenty of caring, thoughtful parents whose cultural background is different. For them, these topics are being introduced in the wrong context, or at much too early an age. That doesn't make them bad parents.
I have the greatest respect for my Record colleague Joel Rubinoff, who wrote a strong defence of the new sex-ed curriculum a few days ago. But I don't think his characterization of these parents' concerns, which he called "a new mantra of fear and paranoia" was reasonable.
Nor was his comment: "It's time for the media to stop giving a platform to a misguided vocal minority whose energy would be better spent searching for a portal back to the 14th century." That's unfair. Make no mistake: the parents who are protesting have their reasons. The sex education curriculum...is not only teaching facts, but also values. [My emphasis. Ed.]
Even the age at which some topics are introduced is a value judgment. In Grade 4, for example, the curriculum has a sample discussion on puberty that suggests students discuss their intense feelings of "liking" or "wanting to be more than just friends" with someone. That's not going to sit well with many parents who don't think their children should date until they have graduated high school.
Some parents have been adamant in their protests. One Toronto-area school is half empty as families pulled their children. [See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" Ed.] In Waterloo Region, a few families have defected to a private elementary school.
Locally, the public board has handled parental misgivings carefully and respectfully, on a case-by-case basis.
Families were encouraged to discuss concerns, first with the teacher and next with the principal. "Each conversation may be very different," said Graham Shantz, superintendent of student achievement and well-being. So far, he said, no family has moved to the next step, which would be using the board's procedure on faith and religious accommodation to have a child excused from certain classes or otherwise accommodated.
We live in strange times. Too often, highly educated liberal elites are busily telling everyone else how to think, instead of valuing dissent and tolerance. [My emphasis, again. Ed.] In a diverse, multicultural society, we have to do better than that. We must find a way to treat everyone's concerns with sensitivity and respect while also moving forward as a group. It's not easy. But it is absolutely necessary.
Ms D'Amato feels, however, that it's unfair for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her sidekick Lez Sandals to demonize those who oppose the curriculum's immoral, pro-queer agenda as religious fanatics or stick-in-the-mud prudes. Here's what Ms D'Amato has to say. We think readers all over North America will find it relevant.
We have long been proud of our multicultural Canadian society. Now we have to do the hard work to actually be good at it. Too many people, inside and outside the teaching profession, are acting in a condescending, know-it-all manner toward families who are legitimately concerned by some of the content of Ontario's new sexual education curriculum.
The religious or cultural beliefs of these families, many of them Asian or Muslim background, sets them apart from the secular, liberal mainstream in the province. And that's a problem for everyone, because the minorities risk feeling isolated when disagreements arise.
The new sex education curriculum is embedded in a variety of other topics about health, including physical movement, social inclusion and healthy eating. The sexual information children will receive is frank and explicit. Children will learn correct names for body parts, including genitalia, by the end of Grade 1. They'll learn about same-sex couples and gender identity by the end of Grade 3. Ahead lay [sic] discussions about puberty, consent, masturbation and contraception.
As a secular, liberal parent myself, I think this is a great development. But there are plenty of caring, thoughtful parents whose cultural background is different. For them, these topics are being introduced in the wrong context, or at much too early an age. That doesn't make them bad parents.
I have the greatest respect for my Record colleague Joel Rubinoff, who wrote a strong defence of the new sex-ed curriculum a few days ago. But I don't think his characterization of these parents' concerns, which he called "a new mantra of fear and paranoia" was reasonable.
Nor was his comment: "It's time for the media to stop giving a platform to a misguided vocal minority whose energy would be better spent searching for a portal back to the 14th century." That's unfair. Make no mistake: the parents who are protesting have their reasons. The sex education curriculum...is not only teaching facts, but also values. [My emphasis. Ed.]
Even the age at which some topics are introduced is a value judgment. In Grade 4, for example, the curriculum has a sample discussion on puberty that suggests students discuss their intense feelings of "liking" or "wanting to be more than just friends" with someone. That's not going to sit well with many parents who don't think their children should date until they have graduated high school.
Some parents have been adamant in their protests. One Toronto-area school is half empty as families pulled their children. [See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" Ed.] In Waterloo Region, a few families have defected to a private elementary school.
Locally, the public board has handled parental misgivings carefully and respectfully, on a case-by-case basis.
Families were encouraged to discuss concerns, first with the teacher and next with the principal. "Each conversation may be very different," said Graham Shantz, superintendent of student achievement and well-being. So far, he said, no family has moved to the next step, which would be using the board's procedure on faith and religious accommodation to have a child excused from certain classes or otherwise accommodated.
We live in strange times. Too often, highly educated liberal elites are busily telling everyone else how to think, instead of valuing dissent and tolerance. [My emphasis, again. Ed.] In a diverse, multicultural society, we have to do better than that. We must find a way to treat everyone's concerns with sensitivity and respect while also moving forward as a group. It's not easy. But it is absolutely necessary.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Butch the Rooster: a parable for the next election
Agent 9 has been contemplating the campaigns for high office currently unfolding in Canada and the Excited States of America. He has sent us the following fable, complete with moral. It's the story of Butch the Rooster.
Sarah was in the fertilized egg business. She had several hundred young pullets and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. She kept records, and any rooster not performing was replaced and consigned to the soup pot.
Keeping track of who was doing his duty and who wasn't took a lot of time, so she bought some tiny bells and attached them to her roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so she could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, she could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report just by listening to the bells.
Sarah's favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen but one morning she noticed that his bell hadn't rung at all! When she went to investigate, she saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but when the pullets heard the roosters coming, they would run for cover.
Old Butch was smarter. To Sarah's amazement, old Butch held his bell in his beak so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job, and walk on to the next one.
Sarah was so proud of old Butch that she entered him in a show, where he became an overnight sensation among the judges. They not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize", but the "Pulletsurprise" as well!
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?
Moral: Vote carefully in the next election. You can't always hear the bells!
Sarah was in the fertilized egg business. She had several hundred young pullets and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. She kept records, and any rooster not performing was replaced and consigned to the soup pot. Keeping track of who was doing his duty and who wasn't took a lot of time, so she bought some tiny bells and attached them to her roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so she could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, she could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report just by listening to the bells.
Sarah's favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen but one morning she noticed that his bell hadn't rung at all! When she went to investigate, she saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but when the pullets heard the roosters coming, they would run for cover.
Old Butch was smarter. To Sarah's amazement, old Butch held his bell in his beak so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job, and walk on to the next one.
Sarah was so proud of old Butch that she entered him in a show, where he became an overnight sensation among the judges. They not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize", but the "Pulletsurprise" as well!
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?
Moral: Vote carefully in the next election. You can't always hear the bells!
Canadian chicken tries to cross road, doesn't make it
It's a lazy, sunny September day here in Fort Mudge. Kind of a slow day, as Sundays sometimes are. Must be the same at CBC News, which ran a story about a chicken trying to cross the road in Hamilton ON. I hope CBC won't mind my republishing it, word for word. It's too good not to share, and so good that it doesn't need any embellishment.
Why did the chicken cross the road? One chicken in Hamilton tried to live out the old joke. The bird was stopping drivers as it wandered into traffic on Dundas Street in Dundas Thursday morning. Passers-by pulled over and got out of their cars as the chicken ran afoul, said one of those drivers, Andru Valpy.
Valpy called the Hamilton Police non-emergency line, who put him through to animal control services after a good laugh. "I didn't catch the joke at first," he said. "Sadly, the chicken did not make it to the other side. It was trying to go from the south side of Dundas to the north side of Dundas when I found him."
Animal Control instructed Valpy to grab the chicken from the road and look after it until they arrived. Before animal services got there, he took care of it for a half hour in the parking lot of a retirement home. "One of the neighbours gave (the chicken) some seed, made sure I was taken care of and the chicken was taken care of, more importantly," he said. The chicken is now recovering in the care of Animal Control.
So, why did the chicken attempt to cross the road? The answer is not clear. The neighbour believed the chicken could have flown from a passing truck carrying chickens, said Valpy. The chicken looked like it had been clipped. "We suspect it might have flown the coop and tried to start a new life," he said.
Animal Control told Valpy that if that were the case, the chicken would be going to a much better home now. "There's no yoking about that," Valpy said.
Why did the chicken cross the road? One chicken in Hamilton tried to live out the old joke. The bird was stopping drivers as it wandered into traffic on Dundas Street in Dundas Thursday morning. Passers-by pulled over and got out of their cars as the chicken ran afoul, said one of those drivers, Andru Valpy.
Valpy called the Hamilton Police non-emergency line, who put him through to animal control services after a good laugh. "I didn't catch the joke at first," he said. "Sadly, the chicken did not make it to the other side. It was trying to go from the south side of Dundas to the north side of Dundas when I found him."
Animal Control instructed Valpy to grab the chicken from the road and look after it until they arrived. Before animal services got there, he took care of it for a half hour in the parking lot of a retirement home. "One of the neighbours gave (the chicken) some seed, made sure I was taken care of and the chicken was taken care of, more importantly," he said. The chicken is now recovering in the care of Animal Control.
So, why did the chicken attempt to cross the road? The answer is not clear. The neighbour believed the chicken could have flown from a passing truck carrying chickens, said Valpy. The chicken looked like it had been clipped. "We suspect it might have flown the coop and tried to start a new life," he said.
Animal Control told Valpy that if that were the case, the chicken would be going to a much better home now. "There's no yoking about that," Valpy said.
Friday, September 18, 2015
"Church must include, not exclude" says chief Synod rigger
Two weeks ago, in "2014 Vatican Synod's 'Welcome gays!' moment was rigged!", Walt recommended, a new e-book by journalist Edward Pentin. In The Rigging of a Vatican Synod, Mr. Pentin lays the blame for the pro-queer "interim report" of the 2014 Synod on Family Life at the feet of the Synod's secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri.
Walt predicts that -- having failed to silence the bishops opposed to gay marriage, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and the rest of the "progressive" (read: anti-traditional) agenda -- the Prelate and those in the highest offices of the Roman Catholic Church who pull his strings, will have another go when the Synod resumes in October.
What would make me think that? Check out an address given by Cardinal Baldisseri to at a diocesan conference in Sessa Aurunca, Italy, on September 15th. As reported by L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican's version of Pravda) summarized under the rubric "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" on page 6 of today's edition, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops said emphatically that the Church must "include" rather than "exclude".
According to His Eminence, "the crisis of the family is due also to the hiddenness of the Church", which is called to "listen", "accompany", and "include" rather than "exclude", so that all may experience the "incomparable beauty of matrimony."
Walt wants to know how many times one may experience "the incomparable beauty of matrimony". Traditional Catholic teaching -- the Faith of fathers, living still (although just barely) -- is that marriage is a Sacrament which may be received only once. So divorced Catholics who want a second helping would seem to be among those who should be excluded.
And what about homosexuals? Aren't they part of "all"? The Church teaches (or taught, once upon a time) that homosexuality is a grave disorder, and homosexual acts seriously sinful. Does Cardinal Baldisseri mean that, in the name of "inclusivity" we should "accompany" the sodomites on their quest for the "incomparable beauty" etc?
Ah yes... "accompany", that's the key word. One may translate "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" as "The art of the accompaniment". Let's go along with the poor tormented sinners, to keep them company. After all, they can't help it, can they? Perhaps they don't even know that their "lifestyle choice" is contrary to the laws of God and nature.
Walt wonders if Cardinal Baldisseri (and/or his well-travelled master) has read A Man for All Seasons, the play by Robert Bolt about the life and martyrdom of Saint Thomas More. Here's a short passage which seems a propos. The Duke of Norfolk is urging Sir Thomas (as he was before he was beheaded) to join him and all the other nobles or England in swearing to the Act of Succession, which was meant to validate Henry VIII's divorce and remarriage.
NORFOLK: Frankly, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names... You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
That would be a nice question to put to Cardinal Baldisseri. Would he repeat his call for the Synod to "rediscover the art of accompaniment". I wonder...
Walt predicts that -- having failed to silence the bishops opposed to gay marriage, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and the rest of the "progressive" (read: anti-traditional) agenda -- the Prelate and those in the highest offices of the Roman Catholic Church who pull his strings, will have another go when the Synod resumes in October.
What would make me think that? Check out an address given by Cardinal Baldisseri to at a diocesan conference in Sessa Aurunca, Italy, on September 15th. As reported by L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican's version of Pravda) summarized under the rubric "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" on page 6 of today's edition, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops said emphatically that the Church must "include" rather than "exclude".
According to His Eminence, "the crisis of the family is due also to the hiddenness of the Church", which is called to "listen", "accompany", and "include" rather than "exclude", so that all may experience the "incomparable beauty of matrimony."
Walt wants to know how many times one may experience "the incomparable beauty of matrimony". Traditional Catholic teaching -- the Faith of fathers, living still (although just barely) -- is that marriage is a Sacrament which may be received only once. So divorced Catholics who want a second helping would seem to be among those who should be excluded.
And what about homosexuals? Aren't they part of "all"? The Church teaches (or taught, once upon a time) that homosexuality is a grave disorder, and homosexual acts seriously sinful. Does Cardinal Baldisseri mean that, in the name of "inclusivity" we should "accompany" the sodomites on their quest for the "incomparable beauty" etc?
Ah yes... "accompany", that's the key word. One may translate "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" as "The art of the accompaniment". Let's go along with the poor tormented sinners, to keep them company. After all, they can't help it, can they? Perhaps they don't even know that their "lifestyle choice" is contrary to the laws of God and nature.
Walt wonders if Cardinal Baldisseri (and/or his well-travelled master) has read A Man for All Seasons, the play by Robert Bolt about the life and martyrdom of Saint Thomas More. Here's a short passage which seems a propos. The Duke of Norfolk is urging Sir Thomas (as he was before he was beheaded) to join him and all the other nobles or England in swearing to the Act of Succession, which was meant to validate Henry VIII's divorce and remarriage.
NORFOLK: Frankly, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names... You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
That would be a nice question to put to Cardinal Baldisseri. Would he repeat his call for the Synod to "rediscover the art of accompaniment". I wonder...
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Strangest place name we've seen this year
Walt has a fondness for strange place names. This he shares with, among others, Bill Bryson, who has recorded a lengthy list of US names in Made in America (1994). They include Eek AK, Zyzx Springs CA, and Rabbit Hash, Bug and OK, all in Kentucky.
I have a vague recollection of a similar list in Notes from a Small Island (1996) but can't put my finger on it right now. A Google search, however, turns up the "Ultimate List of Funny and Rude British Place Names" on a website called Anglotopia. Who but the Brits could come up with cringe-worthy names as Shittington, Lickers and Crapstone? Yet people must live there.
Although it's one of the four great English-speaking countries, has relatively few funny places names, once you leave aside those of aboriginal origin, like Wooloomaloo (site of the famous university) and Wagga Wagga.
The brings us to Canada, which has its fair share and more, since some of the French place names are humorous too. Two of Walt's French favourites are St-Louis-du-Ha-Ha and Mille Vaches, both in Québec. One of Walt's agents (who is not gay) lives near Fruitland ON. Some of the funniest, though are in Newfoundland and Labrador, where you can visit Blow Me Down, Come By Chance, Bumblebee Bight, and the ever-popular Dildo.
But staid old Ontario is not to be outdone, particularly in the United Empire Loyalist region in the southeast of that province. The following story, only slightly edited here for dramatic effect, appeared in Ottawa-area papers today.
Ontario Provincial Police today charged a woman with theft of a motor vehicle, fleeing police, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 and failing to comply with conditions of an undertaking, after she allegedly fled in a stolen truck full of ice cream.
The OPP say the woman, 24, stole the refrigerated delivery truck from a Shell gas station in Perth ON, about 80 kilometres southwest of Ottawa, as the driver made deliveries on Thursday morning. After searching the area, police officers found the truck heading down Wilson Street West in Perth. It finally stopped at a quarry on Highway 7, east of Perth.
The woman was scheduled to appear for a bail hearing on Thursday. She is a resident of Bastard and South Burgess Township, located south of Perth.
Walt wonders if people who live in that township have extra-wide drivers licences to accommodate its full name. Or do they just call it "Bastard etc Twp" for short? Whatever they call it, it's bound to finish on the podium in our Funny Place Name of the Year contest. Readers are invited to submit their entries in the comment box below. Prizes TBA.
Further reading: "How about a better name for Biggar?" (WWW 24/12/13). And let's not overlook Tisdale SK, "Land of rape and honey ???" (WWW 21/4/15). Come to think of it, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan sounds pretty funny too, but those names are derived from aboriginal languages, so they don't count.
I have a vague recollection of a similar list in Notes from a Small Island (1996) but can't put my finger on it right now. A Google search, however, turns up the "Ultimate List of Funny and Rude British Place Names" on a website called Anglotopia. Who but the Brits could come up with cringe-worthy names as Shittington, Lickers and Crapstone? Yet people must live there.
Although it's one of the four great English-speaking countries, has relatively few funny places names, once you leave aside those of aboriginal origin, like Wooloomaloo (site of the famous university) and Wagga Wagga.
The brings us to Canada, which has its fair share and more, since some of the French place names are humorous too. Two of Walt's French favourites are St-Louis-du-Ha-Ha and Mille Vaches, both in Québec. One of Walt's agents (who is not gay) lives near Fruitland ON. Some of the funniest, though are in Newfoundland and Labrador, where you can visit Blow Me Down, Come By Chance, Bumblebee Bight, and the ever-popular Dildo.
But staid old Ontario is not to be outdone, particularly in the United Empire Loyalist region in the southeast of that province. The following story, only slightly edited here for dramatic effect, appeared in Ottawa-area papers today.
Ontario Provincial Police today charged a woman with theft of a motor vehicle, fleeing police, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 and failing to comply with conditions of an undertaking, after she allegedly fled in a stolen truck full of ice cream.
The OPP say the woman, 24, stole the refrigerated delivery truck from a Shell gas station in Perth ON, about 80 kilometres southwest of Ottawa, as the driver made deliveries on Thursday morning. After searching the area, police officers found the truck heading down Wilson Street West in Perth. It finally stopped at a quarry on Highway 7, east of Perth.
The woman was scheduled to appear for a bail hearing on Thursday. She is a resident of Bastard and South Burgess Township, located south of Perth.
Walt wonders if people who live in that township have extra-wide drivers licences to accommodate its full name. Or do they just call it "Bastard etc Twp" for short? Whatever they call it, it's bound to finish on the podium in our Funny Place Name of the Year contest. Readers are invited to submit their entries in the comment box below. Prizes TBA.
Further reading: "How about a better name for Biggar?" (WWW 24/12/13). And let's not overlook Tisdale SK, "Land of rape and honey ???" (WWW 21/4/15). Come to think of it, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan sounds pretty funny too, but those names are derived from aboriginal languages, so they don't count.
Poll shows most Canadians DON'T want to take more refugees
The Canadian meeja -- a generally leftish lot -- have been rabbiting on for three weeks now about the terrible plight of all those poor "refugees" from Syria (and, errr, other places) trying to make their way to Greece, Italy and on to Germany, where the streets are paved with gelt and milk, honey and money are provided by the guilt-ridden herrenvolk.
Canuck political pundits have been falling all over themselves to castigate Prime Minister Steve Harper for not doing more to assist the asylum-seekers to cross the Atlantic and settle in Canada. This is going to be the ballot issue in the upcoming federal election, they say, and Mr. Harpoon's apparent indifference will cost him his job.
That's what they say. But many Canadians, including some of Walt's agents, beg to differ. One of my minions has sent me a copy of an e-mail he wrote to John Ivison, a normally sound columnist for the Notional Pest and regular panelist on CTV's Question Period. He cautioned Mr. Ivison that the breadth and depth of support for the idea of bringing in tens of thousands of asylum-seekers whose bona fides has not been established was not so great as the PC press might think. Answer came there none.
However, our agent's suspicions are now confirmed by two major public opinion polls, reported by the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente today in "What Canadians really think about the refugee crisis". Ms Wente warns political soothsayers against paying much attention to those who say the Canadian government "is cold, callous and indifferent. Perhaps it is. But it seems that many Canadians wouldn’t have it any other way."
Ms Wente passes on the results of an Ipsos poll, taken over the weekend, which found that despite all the bad publicity, 38% of Canadians still think the Harper Conservatives would "make the best decision for Canada on the Syrian refugee situation." 32% named the NDP, and 30% the Liberals. The Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has proposed bringing in 25,000 of the new boat people by the end of the year. 61% of those polled think that's a bad idea.
The other poll cited in Ms Wente's column was taken by EKOS, on the 4th through 8th of this month. Only 36% of respondents thought Canada should be taking in more refugees. 25% said too many are already being brought in. 34% the number being admitted is about right. Do that math! Nearly 60% of Canadians don't want to take in more refugees!
Further reading:
"Conservatives’ refugee crisis response far from fatal for Harper", also in today's Globe and Mail.
"Swedish experience shows folly of welcoming unassimilable immigrants" (WWW 13/9/15)
Canuck political pundits have been falling all over themselves to castigate Prime Minister Steve Harper for not doing more to assist the asylum-seekers to cross the Atlantic and settle in Canada. This is going to be the ballot issue in the upcoming federal election, they say, and Mr. Harpoon's apparent indifference will cost him his job.
That's what they say. But many Canadians, including some of Walt's agents, beg to differ. One of my minions has sent me a copy of an e-mail he wrote to John Ivison, a normally sound columnist for the Notional Pest and regular panelist on CTV's Question Period. He cautioned Mr. Ivison that the breadth and depth of support for the idea of bringing in tens of thousands of asylum-seekers whose bona fides has not been established was not so great as the PC press might think. Answer came there none.
However, our agent's suspicions are now confirmed by two major public opinion polls, reported by the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente today in "What Canadians really think about the refugee crisis". Ms Wente warns political soothsayers against paying much attention to those who say the Canadian government "is cold, callous and indifferent. Perhaps it is. But it seems that many Canadians wouldn’t have it any other way."
Ms Wente passes on the results of an Ipsos poll, taken over the weekend, which found that despite all the bad publicity, 38% of Canadians still think the Harper Conservatives would "make the best decision for Canada on the Syrian refugee situation." 32% named the NDP, and 30% the Liberals. The Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has proposed bringing in 25,000 of the new boat people by the end of the year. 61% of those polled think that's a bad idea.
The other poll cited in Ms Wente's column was taken by EKOS, on the 4th through 8th of this month. Only 36% of respondents thought Canada should be taking in more refugees. 25% said too many are already being brought in. 34% the number being admitted is about right. Do that math! Nearly 60% of Canadians don't want to take in more refugees!
Further reading:
"Conservatives’ refugee crisis response far from fatal for Harper", also in today's Globe and Mail.
"Swedish experience shows folly of welcoming unassimilable immigrants" (WWW 13/9/15)
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
America's got the FEAR!
Walt occasionally refers to the U.S.A. as the Paranoid States of America. IMHO Americans are scared of everybody: terrorists (imported and domestic), kneegrows, Hispanics, furriners and, of course, Muslims. Especially Muslims. Like this kid.
He's Ahmed Mohamed, 14 years old, a Grade 9 student at MacArthur High School in Irving TX. And, in case the name didn't tip you off, he's a Muslim. Perhaps that explains the over-reaction of Authorities when he took the electronic clock he's holding to school to show his teacher. He made it at home, you see, all by himself, and he was proud of it.
It probably never occurred to young Ahmed that his clock might be mistaken for a bomb. But it was. Officers of the Law were dispatched in force to the school, where they promptly cuffed and arrested the boy, hustling him off to juvy so fast that his feet didn't even touch the ground.
Although they acknowledge that Ahmed had insisted to teachers, the school principal and to them that it was only a clock, they said he could face charges of making a hoax bomb. After the laughter subsided, they let the boy go, without charges being laid. But... get this... Ahmed has nevertheless been suspended from school for three days.
But (as Vince Offer sez) wait! There's more!
The Principal of MacArthur High, Dan Cummings, sent a letter to all parents of kids in his school. Here's part of what it said:
"I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing to school items that are prohibited. Also this is a good time to remind your child how important it is to immediately report any suspicious items and/or suspicious behavior they observe to any school employee so we can address it right away. We will always take necessary precautions to protect our students."
There now. Isn't that reassuring? Don't you think the good burghers of Irving will feel better knowing that their kids are under the watchful care of folks like Mr. Cummings (even if he gets only a "B" in English).
Walt feels the key word, "necessary", deserves some examination. Have the Authorities not exercised an over-abundance of precaution here? Could they not have given the "suspicious item" to the janitor to dunk in a bucket of water? Did the cops really have to slap the cuffs on the kid to prevent him -- all 100 pounds or so of him -- from overpowering them? I think -- and I am not alone -- the whole thing was ridiculous. But hey, this is the U.S.A. in the 21st century. Or, I say again, P.S.A. -- the Paranoid States of America.
He's Ahmed Mohamed, 14 years old, a Grade 9 student at MacArthur High School in Irving TX. And, in case the name didn't tip you off, he's a Muslim. Perhaps that explains the over-reaction of Authorities when he took the electronic clock he's holding to school to show his teacher. He made it at home, you see, all by himself, and he was proud of it.
It probably never occurred to young Ahmed that his clock might be mistaken for a bomb. But it was. Officers of the Law were dispatched in force to the school, where they promptly cuffed and arrested the boy, hustling him off to juvy so fast that his feet didn't even touch the ground.
Although they acknowledge that Ahmed had insisted to teachers, the school principal and to them that it was only a clock, they said he could face charges of making a hoax bomb. After the laughter subsided, they let the boy go, without charges being laid. But... get this... Ahmed has nevertheless been suspended from school for three days.
But (as Vince Offer sez) wait! There's more!
The Principal of MacArthur High, Dan Cummings, sent a letter to all parents of kids in his school. Here's part of what it said:
"I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing to school items that are prohibited. Also this is a good time to remind your child how important it is to immediately report any suspicious items and/or suspicious behavior they observe to any school employee so we can address it right away. We will always take necessary precautions to protect our students."
There now. Isn't that reassuring? Don't you think the good burghers of Irving will feel better knowing that their kids are under the watchful care of folks like Mr. Cummings (even if he gets only a "B" in English).
Walt feels the key word, "necessary", deserves some examination. Have the Authorities not exercised an over-abundance of precaution here? Could they not have given the "suspicious item" to the janitor to dunk in a bucket of water? Did the cops really have to slap the cuffs on the kid to prevent him -- all 100 pounds or so of him -- from overpowering them? I think -- and I am not alone -- the whole thing was ridiculous. But hey, this is the U.S.A. in the 21st century. Or, I say again, P.S.A. -- the Paranoid States of America.
P.K. Subban: Credit where credit is due
Poor Len Canayen here, lean and mean after a summer in hibernation, awaiting the start of hockey season. But not so mean as to ignore today's news from the Holy City of Hockey.
The Montreal Children's Hospital has received a boost from one of les Glorieux, namely P.K. Subban, sometime all-star defenceman and winner of the Norris Trophy. The hospital has named its atrium in his honour, after he (or more accurately, his foundation) gave the health-care facility C$10,000,000. The hospital described the gift as "the biggest philanthropic commitment by a sports figure in Canadian history".
Mr. Subban, who has played for the Montréal Canadiens since 2009, told the large crowd present for the presentation "Montréal has become my second home. I hope to remain here, here in Montréal, here in Québec, for a very, very long time."
10 million Canadian bucks (about 7.5 million in real money) is a huge gift, even for someone who makes nearly that much -- give or take a mil -- every year. Who amongst us could afford to give more than a year's salary to a cause, no matter how worthy?
Regular readers will know that I (Poor Len) am no fan of Mr.Subban, but I do admire his community spirit and applaud his generosity. A big tip of le chapeau to ya, P.K.!
And I will not be so churlish as to suggest that the timing of the donation has anything to do with the decision which Canadiens' management has to make within the next couple of weeks regarding the captaincy of the team. Leadership skills on and off the ice are not that closely related, and who gets to wear the "C" should not be decided through a popularity contest.
The Montreal Children's Hospital has received a boost from one of les Glorieux, namely P.K. Subban, sometime all-star defenceman and winner of the Norris Trophy. The hospital has named its atrium in his honour, after he (or more accurately, his foundation) gave the health-care facility C$10,000,000. The hospital described the gift as "the biggest philanthropic commitment by a sports figure in Canadian history".
Mr. Subban, who has played for the Montréal Canadiens since 2009, told the large crowd present for the presentation "Montréal has become my second home. I hope to remain here, here in Montréal, here in Québec, for a very, very long time."10 million Canadian bucks (about 7.5 million in real money) is a huge gift, even for someone who makes nearly that much -- give or take a mil -- every year. Who amongst us could afford to give more than a year's salary to a cause, no matter how worthy?
Regular readers will know that I (Poor Len) am no fan of Mr.Subban, but I do admire his community spirit and applaud his generosity. A big tip of le chapeau to ya, P.K.!
And I will not be so churlish as to suggest that the timing of the donation has anything to do with the decision which Canadiens' management has to make within the next couple of weeks regarding the captaincy of the team. Leadership skills on and off the ice are not that closely related, and who gets to wear the "C" should not be decided through a popularity contest.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Swedish experience shows folly of welcoming unassimilable immigrants
Today's theme is the "refugee crisis" faced by Europe, into which the USA and Canada are now being drawn by the do-good frenzy being whipped up by the usual gang of one-worlders, "progressive thinkers" and the lamestream media. Oh, those poor oppressed refugees! We have a duty to help them because we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers. Never mind that the majority of them are bogus asylum-seekers coming not just from Syria but from anywhere from Bangladesh to Nigeria to suck off European and American teats.
After posting "What happens when your city can't handle any more refugees", Walt learned that Germany is "temporarily" reinstituting border controls, which goes against the "open borders" principle of the Schengen agreement. (The agreement does, however, allow for temporary suspensions of its rules.) Why? Because they're expecting eight hundred thousand (800,000!) "refugees" before the end of 2015, and, according to Germany's Vice-Chancellor, is "at the limit of its capabilities".
Perhaps the German cabinet has heard about the problems faced by Sweden in welcoming hordes of refugees and other immigrants from the Third World who cannot or will not be assimilated into Swedish society. As the Globe and Mail's Margaret Went wrote this weekend in "Sweden’s ugly immigration problem", Sweden has the most welcoming asylum policies and most generous welfare programs in the European Union. How is that working out? Some sobering statistics are to be found in these excerpts from Ms Wente's article.
In Migrants Who Survived Shipwreck Are Grateful, but Disillusioned, a typical refugee, Natanael Haile, [tells how he] barely escaped drowning in the Mediterranean in 2013. But the folks back home in Eritrea don’t want to know about the perils of his journey.... They want to know about "his secondhand car, the government allowances he receives and his plans to find work as a welder once he finishes a two year language course." As a registered refugee, he receives a monthly living allowance of more than $700.
Sweden takes in more refugees per capita than any other European country, and immigrants – mainly from the Middle East and Africa – now make up about 16 per cent of the population. The main political parties, as well as the mainstream media, support the status quo. Questioning the consensus is regarded as xenophobic and hateful. [No kidding. Walt] Now all of Europe is being urged to be as generous as Sweden.
Ms Wente quotes at length from her interview with Tino Sanandaji, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues.
"There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees," [he told her]. "48 per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives."
In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. 42 per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. 58 per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. 45 per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. "Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD," Mr. Sanandaji said.
Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said.
Yet Sweden’s acute immigration problems scarcely feature in the mainstream media. Journalists see their mission as stopping racism, so they don’t report the bad news. Despite – or perhaps because of – this self-censorship, the gap between the opinion elites and the voters on immigration issues is now a chasm.
According to a recent opinion poll, 58 per cent of Swedes believe there is too much immigration, Mr. Sanandaji noted. The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party is now polling at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.
Sweden is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that Europe is capable of assimilating the hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants who are besieging the continent, or the millions more who are desperately poised to follow in their wake. The argument that these people are vital to boost the economy – that they will magically create economic growth and bail the Europeans out of their demographic decline – is a fantasy.
It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”
Things will get worse before they get better. As Judy Dempsey, a senior analyst at a Berlin think tank, told The Wall Street Journal, [in Migrant Wave Inspires Others to Attempt Trek to Europe. Walt] "Europe hasn’t seen anything yet in terms of the numbers or the backlash."
Politically correct footnote: Just noticed that the uber-liberal Toronto Red Star has stopped talking about the "refugee crisis". Now it's a "migrant crisis". Guess the term "refugee" has acquired a certain taint. [Duly noted. Ed.]
After posting "What happens when your city can't handle any more refugees", Walt learned that Germany is "temporarily" reinstituting border controls, which goes against the "open borders" principle of the Schengen agreement. (The agreement does, however, allow for temporary suspensions of its rules.) Why? Because they're expecting eight hundred thousand (800,000!) "refugees" before the end of 2015, and, according to Germany's Vice-Chancellor, is "at the limit of its capabilities".
Perhaps the German cabinet has heard about the problems faced by Sweden in welcoming hordes of refugees and other immigrants from the Third World who cannot or will not be assimilated into Swedish society. As the Globe and Mail's Margaret Went wrote this weekend in "Sweden’s ugly immigration problem", Sweden has the most welcoming asylum policies and most generous welfare programs in the European Union. How is that working out? Some sobering statistics are to be found in these excerpts from Ms Wente's article.
In Migrants Who Survived Shipwreck Are Grateful, but Disillusioned, a typical refugee, Natanael Haile, [tells how he] barely escaped drowning in the Mediterranean in 2013. But the folks back home in Eritrea don’t want to know about the perils of his journey.... They want to know about "his secondhand car, the government allowances he receives and his plans to find work as a welder once he finishes a two year language course." As a registered refugee, he receives a monthly living allowance of more than $700.
Sweden takes in more refugees per capita than any other European country, and immigrants – mainly from the Middle East and Africa – now make up about 16 per cent of the population. The main political parties, as well as the mainstream media, support the status quo. Questioning the consensus is regarded as xenophobic and hateful. [No kidding. Walt] Now all of Europe is being urged to be as generous as Sweden.
Ms Wente quotes at length from her interview with Tino Sanandaji, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues.
"There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees," [he told her]. "48 per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives."
In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. 42 per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. 58 per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. 45 per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. "Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD," Mr. Sanandaji said.
Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said.
Yet Sweden’s acute immigration problems scarcely feature in the mainstream media. Journalists see their mission as stopping racism, so they don’t report the bad news. Despite – or perhaps because of – this self-censorship, the gap between the opinion elites and the voters on immigration issues is now a chasm.
According to a recent opinion poll, 58 per cent of Swedes believe there is too much immigration, Mr. Sanandaji noted. The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party is now polling at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.
Sweden is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that Europe is capable of assimilating the hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants who are besieging the continent, or the millions more who are desperately poised to follow in their wake. The argument that these people are vital to boost the economy – that they will magically create economic growth and bail the Europeans out of their demographic decline – is a fantasy.
It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”
Things will get worse before they get better. As Judy Dempsey, a senior analyst at a Berlin think tank, told The Wall Street Journal, [in Migrant Wave Inspires Others to Attempt Trek to Europe. Walt] "Europe hasn’t seen anything yet in terms of the numbers or the backlash."
Politically correct footnote: Just noticed that the uber-liberal Toronto Red Star has stopped talking about the "refugee crisis". Now it's a "migrant crisis". Guess the term "refugee" has acquired a certain taint. [Duly noted. Ed.]
VIDEO: What happens when your city can't handle any more refugees
News reports from Europe this weekend focus on the refugee crisis, and that's the right word. Literally hundreds of thousands of "refugees" -- mostly Muslim, mostly Arabs and Africans, and mostly bogus (not true refugees from war, but economic migrants) -- are invading Europe in the biggest beach assault since D-Day. They're embarking from Libya and Turkey and washing up on the shores of Italy and Greece, then heading northward, ever northward, to Germany, Sweden and the UK, where (they think) they will get a warmer (i.e. more generous) welcome.
Some countries along the way -- Macedonia and Serbia, for instance -- put them on trains and buses and tell them "Keep going! It's better in Germany!" Others, notably the Slavic countries -- Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic -- tell them to not even think about stopping there. Hungary has tried, with limited success, to close its border with Serbia altogether, building a wall allegedly financed by Donald Trump. [Walt's just kidding. The Trump wall is going along the Rio Grande. Ed.]
The fact is that even in a liberal democracy like Sweden, the majority of ordinary citizens don't want to be swamped by a tide of Third-Worlders who bring to once-Christian Europe their alien religion and alien cultures, not to mention disease and crime. Even if only 1% of the million-plus expected to arrive this year and next are Islamic extremists, that's still 10,000 jihadists embedding themselves in Munich, Berlin, Stockholm, Leeds... maybe, dear European reader, in your city.
What happens when 1000s of aliens arrive in your city, expecting that you will house, clothe and feed them, for the sake of "compassion", "mercy" and "human rights", not to mention a big dose of white liberal guilt. As I watched scenes of the squalor in "the Jungle" -- a squalid camp on the outskirts of Calais created by refugees trying to get to Britain -- I was reminded of a good movie I saw back in 2009, called District 9.
Here's the synopsis of District 9:
Twenty years or so before the time of the movie, aliens arrive on Earth, not to conquer or give aid but to find refuge from their dying planet. Their huge space ship runs out of fuel over Johannesburg, where "Multi-National United" (read "United Nations") attempts to manage the influx by herding the aliens into an area called District 9, which they turn into a filthy, seething, slum. Here's a screen grab.
When the alien population passes the million mark, and public revulsion reaches the boiling point, the MNU decides to relocate the aliens to a new settlement far away from the big city. The first forty-five minutes or so of the "mocumentary" show the preparation for the exercise. Watching this footage today, you can't help but be struck by the parallel with video clips from the "temporary" refugee camps in Greece, Serbia and Hungary. Note also the opinions of the local population: "They must go!" Here's the trailer.
"
It turns out that getting rid of millions of refugees who've been squatting in your midst for two decades isn't that easy. The operation, led by MNU field agent Wikus Van der Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley), runs into trouble trying to get the aliens to sign eviction notices, because they have rights and the legal niceties must be observed. In a scuffle with one of the "prawns" -- the locals' name for the aliens, who resemble a cross between a lobster and Dr. John A. Zoidberg -- Van der Merwe gets some of their DNA mixed with his own, with horrific results.
District 9 is a great sci-fi movie -- highly recommendable -- but its real significance, six years down the road, is the depiction of what happens when you allow a horde of aliens to settle in your community. At the time of the story's ending, the population of District 9 had grown to over 2 million, and plans were under way to build a new "District 10".
Dear readers, where is the "District 9" in your community? Even here in [Walt spilled coffee on his manuscript, so I couldn't make out a couple of words here. Ed.] there are entire blocks of "community housing" occupied by vizmins, courtesy of us taxpayers and our liberal government. Now the same "progressives" are crying "in the name of humanity" for the admission of tens of thousands more, which, they tell us, are somehow our responsibility. Where will it end? Watch the movie!
Some countries along the way -- Macedonia and Serbia, for instance -- put them on trains and buses and tell them "Keep going! It's better in Germany!" Others, notably the Slavic countries -- Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic -- tell them to not even think about stopping there. Hungary has tried, with limited success, to close its border with Serbia altogether, building a wall allegedly financed by Donald Trump. [Walt's just kidding. The Trump wall is going along the Rio Grande. Ed.]
The fact is that even in a liberal democracy like Sweden, the majority of ordinary citizens don't want to be swamped by a tide of Third-Worlders who bring to once-Christian Europe their alien religion and alien cultures, not to mention disease and crime. Even if only 1% of the million-plus expected to arrive this year and next are Islamic extremists, that's still 10,000 jihadists embedding themselves in Munich, Berlin, Stockholm, Leeds... maybe, dear European reader, in your city.
What happens when 1000s of aliens arrive in your city, expecting that you will house, clothe and feed them, for the sake of "compassion", "mercy" and "human rights", not to mention a big dose of white liberal guilt. As I watched scenes of the squalor in "the Jungle" -- a squalid camp on the outskirts of Calais created by refugees trying to get to Britain -- I was reminded of a good movie I saw back in 2009, called District 9.
Here's the synopsis of District 9:
Twenty years or so before the time of the movie, aliens arrive on Earth, not to conquer or give aid but to find refuge from their dying planet. Their huge space ship runs out of fuel over Johannesburg, where "Multi-National United" (read "United Nations") attempts to manage the influx by herding the aliens into an area called District 9, which they turn into a filthy, seething, slum. Here's a screen grab.
When the alien population passes the million mark, and public revulsion reaches the boiling point, the MNU decides to relocate the aliens to a new settlement far away from the big city. The first forty-five minutes or so of the "mocumentary" show the preparation for the exercise. Watching this footage today, you can't help but be struck by the parallel with video clips from the "temporary" refugee camps in Greece, Serbia and Hungary. Note also the opinions of the local population: "They must go!" Here's the trailer.
"
It turns out that getting rid of millions of refugees who've been squatting in your midst for two decades isn't that easy. The operation, led by MNU field agent Wikus Van der Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley), runs into trouble trying to get the aliens to sign eviction notices, because they have rights and the legal niceties must be observed. In a scuffle with one of the "prawns" -- the locals' name for the aliens, who resemble a cross between a lobster and Dr. John A. Zoidberg -- Van der Merwe gets some of their DNA mixed with his own, with horrific results.
District 9 is a great sci-fi movie -- highly recommendable -- but its real significance, six years down the road, is the depiction of what happens when you allow a horde of aliens to settle in your community. At the time of the story's ending, the population of District 9 had grown to over 2 million, and plans were under way to build a new "District 10".
Dear readers, where is the "District 9" in your community? Even here in [Walt spilled coffee on his manuscript, so I couldn't make out a couple of words here. Ed.] there are entire blocks of "community housing" occupied by vizmins, courtesy of us taxpayers and our liberal government. Now the same "progressives" are crying "in the name of humanity" for the admission of tens of thousands more, which, they tell us, are somehow our responsibility. Where will it end? Watch the movie!
Friday, September 11, 2015
Synod on the Family: the question no-one wanted to answer
Last week, in "2014 Vatican Synod's 'Welcome gays!' moment was rigged!", Walt recommended the new e-book by Edward Pentin which explains how certain prelates of the Roman Catholic Church arranged for the insertion of their pro-LGBT agenda into the "Interim Report" of the 2014 Synod on the Family.
Here's the last paragraph of that post:
Mr. Pentin points the finger at Cardinal Baldisseri, but Walt (and many others) would like to know who appointed the prelate to be secretary-general of the Synod? Whose agenda was the Cardinal pushing... or following? And who's in charge of this year's Synod? Oh... wait... According to the Vatican website, it's none other than... wait for it... Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri!
Traditional Catholics have been waiting with bated breath [not "baited" Ed. -- "bated breath" means breath which is being held] to see what tricks the Church's Gay Mafia and other modernists have up their sleeves this time. The "Instrumentum Laboris" (working paper) for the Synod was released in June and has been scrutinized and found ponderous, if not incomprehensible.
This, at any rate, is the opinion of John Vennari, well-known Catholic activist and editor of Catholic Family News. Last week, Agent 10 recorded Mr. Vennari asking a tough question to the panel at a lecture on the 2015 Synod given at the Franciscan University of Steubenville OH by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
The panel consisted of 8 or 10 [Did Agent 10 lose count? Ed.] theologians and philosophers, including Cardinal Burke, at the far right in the picture. You can hear one of them, a lady, laughing after Mr. Vennari posed his question. After that comes a very awkward silence, broken finally by Dr. Michael Sirilla, who came up with the only possible answer, thus saving the moment.
If you're a Catholic, concerned with the direction in which Holy Mother Church is being led ["misled", surely! Ed.], you should attend Catholic Identity Conference, 2015, to be held September 25th-27th at the Holiday Inn in Weirton WV.
The theme of the conference is "The Three Rs of Modernism: Recognize it, Refute it, and Return to Tradition". Speakers include Pat Archbold, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, Dr. John Rao, Fr. Michael Rodríguez, Louie Verrecchio, Dr. James Vogel, and... wait for it... John Vennari and Dr. Michael Sirilla!
For more information or to register, click here. Tell `em Walt sent you!
Here's the last paragraph of that post:
Mr. Pentin points the finger at Cardinal Baldisseri, but Walt (and many others) would like to know who appointed the prelate to be secretary-general of the Synod? Whose agenda was the Cardinal pushing... or following? And who's in charge of this year's Synod? Oh... wait... According to the Vatican website, it's none other than... wait for it... Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri!
Traditional Catholics have been waiting with bated breath [not "baited" Ed. -- "bated breath" means breath which is being held] to see what tricks the Church's Gay Mafia and other modernists have up their sleeves this time. The "Instrumentum Laboris" (working paper) for the Synod was released in June and has been scrutinized and found ponderous, if not incomprehensible.
This, at any rate, is the opinion of John Vennari, well-known Catholic activist and editor of Catholic Family News. Last week, Agent 10 recorded Mr. Vennari asking a tough question to the panel at a lecture on the 2015 Synod given at the Franciscan University of Steubenville OH by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
The panel consisted of 8 or 10 [Did Agent 10 lose count? Ed.] theologians and philosophers, including Cardinal Burke, at the far right in the picture. You can hear one of them, a lady, laughing after Mr. Vennari posed his question. After that comes a very awkward silence, broken finally by Dr. Michael Sirilla, who came up with the only possible answer, thus saving the moment.
If you're a Catholic, concerned with the direction in which Holy Mother Church is being led ["misled", surely! Ed.], you should attend Catholic Identity Conference, 2015, to be held September 25th-27th at the Holiday Inn in Weirton WV.
The theme of the conference is "The Three Rs of Modernism: Recognize it, Refute it, and Return to Tradition". Speakers include Pat Archbold, Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt, Dr. John Rao, Fr. Michael Rodríguez, Louie Verrecchio, Dr. James Vogel, and... wait for it... John Vennari and Dr. Michael Sirilla!
For more information or to register, click here. Tell `em Walt sent you!
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Republican voters are suckers! MattTaibbi nails it again
Ed. here. Since I am the real power behind Walt Whiteman's World (!!!) I am thinking of borrowing a phrase from the Donald and telling Walt "You're fired!" Why? Because, while Walt may be quite sound on matters religious, his thoughtful analyses of American politics are dishwater dull compared with the writings of commentators like Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who is rapidly filling the very large shoes of the late Doctor of Gonzo Journalism.Here's a quote from Mr. Taibbi's recent evisceration of the Republican Party and those who support it.
In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. Everyone inside the Beltway knows this. The Republican voters themselves are the only ones who never saw it.
Even if you're not a conservative or cuckservative or Tea Partier, you will find it well worth your while, not to mention a great amusement to read all of "The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia".
If you like it -- and I know you will -- please send a donation to the usual address. When enough money has been received, I shall make Mr. Taibbi an offer he can't refuse.
[Wanna bet? Walt]
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
ON to allow parents to withdraw kids from pro-queer sex ed classes
News from the Pink Palace in Toronto this morning is that the LGBTQ types who (allegedly) run Ontario's government appear to have flinched in the face of stubborn resistance to their new pro-queer sex education curriculum. Lez Sandals -- Minister of Education in the government of Kathleen "Proud to be a lesbian" Wynne, has announced that parents who are still opposed to the new curriculum being taught in publicly-funded schools this year can pull their kids from class.
This flies in the face of statements made last week by officials of the Toronto and Peel Region public school boards -- the largest and second-largest in the province -- that any requests for students to opt out of learning about "gay families" or "diverse gender identities" will not be tolerated. See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" (WWW 2/9/15).
Why the sudden volte-face? [Did you learn that word in school? Ed.] Looks from here like protests orchestrated by Parents As First Educators (PAFE) and others are having an effect. At Toronto's Thorncliffe Park Public School (whose students are predominantly from Muslim families), almost half the students were kept home by their parents this morning -- the first day of the new school year. Instead, they gathered in an open space near the school to have classes under the trees, just as they would have in their countries of origin. A spokesthingy for the parents said the boycott would continue till month's end or beyond.
Complaints from parents -- not just Muslims but Hindus and Christians and even the non-religious -- have ranged from a lack of consultation, to lessons not being age-appropriate, to not wanting their kids to be taught about same-sex relationships and different "gender identities". An underlying, even more important theme of the protests is that teaching about sex and family life should be done by parents, in the home, not by teachers shackled by a pro-gay, anything goes curriculum written by a gang of secular humanists including at least one convicted pedophile.
Will allowing parents to withdraw their kids from sex ed classes be enough to stop the growing protest? Or will concerned parents keep it up until the new curriculum is "temporarily withdrawn for further study", as happened back in 2011 when Dalton McGuinty was Premier of Ontario and Kathleen Wynne was... wait for it... the Minister of Education responsible for the whole queer mess. Stay tuned.
Footnote (added 9/9/15): CTV's flagship station in Toronto took an online poll yesterday on a simple yes-no question: "Do you support the new sex education curriculum?" Of almost 4000 responders, 78% voted NO! Agent 3 reports that when they asked a similar question back in the spring, and got a similar negative answer, they didn't reveal the results on the 6 pm news. This time they did. The people of Ontario are speaking, but will Kathleen Wynne listen? Walt doubts it. Lifetime pct .951.
Further reading: "Wynne wrong about sex-ed consultation": Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun.
This flies in the face of statements made last week by officials of the Toronto and Peel Region public school boards -- the largest and second-largest in the province -- that any requests for students to opt out of learning about "gay families" or "diverse gender identities" will not be tolerated. See "Ontario's 'dirty' sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out" (WWW 2/9/15).
Why the sudden volte-face? [Did you learn that word in school? Ed.] Looks from here like protests orchestrated by Parents As First Educators (PAFE) and others are having an effect. At Toronto's Thorncliffe Park Public School (whose students are predominantly from Muslim families), almost half the students were kept home by their parents this morning -- the first day of the new school year. Instead, they gathered in an open space near the school to have classes under the trees, just as they would have in their countries of origin. A spokesthingy for the parents said the boycott would continue till month's end or beyond.
Complaints from parents -- not just Muslims but Hindus and Christians and even the non-religious -- have ranged from a lack of consultation, to lessons not being age-appropriate, to not wanting their kids to be taught about same-sex relationships and different "gender identities". An underlying, even more important theme of the protests is that teaching about sex and family life should be done by parents, in the home, not by teachers shackled by a pro-gay, anything goes curriculum written by a gang of secular humanists including at least one convicted pedophile.
Will allowing parents to withdraw their kids from sex ed classes be enough to stop the growing protest? Or will concerned parents keep it up until the new curriculum is "temporarily withdrawn for further study", as happened back in 2011 when Dalton McGuinty was Premier of Ontario and Kathleen Wynne was... wait for it... the Minister of Education responsible for the whole queer mess. Stay tuned.
Footnote (added 9/9/15): CTV's flagship station in Toronto took an online poll yesterday on a simple yes-no question: "Do you support the new sex education curriculum?" Of almost 4000 responders, 78% voted NO! Agent 3 reports that when they asked a similar question back in the spring, and got a similar negative answer, they didn't reveal the results on the 6 pm news. This time they did. The people of Ontario are speaking, but will Kathleen Wynne listen? Walt doubts it. Lifetime pct .951.
Further reading: "Wynne wrong about sex-ed consultation": Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Filmed peeing in customer's coffee mug, politico quits election race
Canadians go to the polls on October 19th to elect a new federal government. And not a moment too soon, given the urgent necessity of ending the dictatorship of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harpoon, now seeking his fourth (4th!) term in office. The number of seats in the new Parliament will be 338, so Steve's (or any other party) needs to win 170 of those to have a majority in the House of Commons.
Mr. Harper's Tories are struggling in the Greater Toronto Area. The Dear Leader himself is campaigning in the eastern part of the city area today. He will be accompanied by two Conservative candidates, but not by Jerry Bance, the candidate for Scarborough Rouge Park, who is withdrew from the race after CBC News aired a spycam video of him peeing in a customer's coffee cup while on a service call.
Former candidate Bance owns XPress Appliance Service, an appliance repair company [Duh! Ed.] in the GTA. He has been a service technician for the last 25 years. In 2012, he was caught in a sting by CBC-TV's Marketplace urinating in a homeowner's coffee mug and dumping the contents into the sink. Do we have the video, Ed.? ... ... Apparently not, but we do have a screen grab.
The original Marketplace show only named Mr. Bance as "Jerry". It did not mention that he had been a Conservative candidate in the previous elections of 2006 and 2008. When contacted by CBC News yesterday, Mr. Bance said, "I deeply regret my actions on that day. I take great pride in my work and the footage from that day does not reflect who I am as a professional or a person."
Walt is resisting stoutly the temptation to indulge in cheap shots of the "Peegate" variety. End of story.
UPDATE: Turns out it wasn't the end of the story, after all. CBC News has just reported that the Tories have been forced to drop a second GTA candidate (Tim Dutaud -- Toronto-Danforth) over embarrassing videos that surfaced on YouTube. No peeing or worse, just prank calls. Agent 3, who is a politics junkie, says it doesn't matter, because the Harperites didn't have a snowball's chance of winning either riding.
Mr. Harper's Tories are struggling in the Greater Toronto Area. The Dear Leader himself is campaigning in the eastern part of the city area today. He will be accompanied by two Conservative candidates, but not by Jerry Bance, the candidate for Scarborough Rouge Park, who is withdrew from the race after CBC News aired a spycam video of him peeing in a customer's coffee cup while on a service call.
Former candidate Bance owns XPress Appliance Service, an appliance repair company [Duh! Ed.] in the GTA. He has been a service technician for the last 25 years. In 2012, he was caught in a sting by CBC-TV's Marketplace urinating in a homeowner's coffee mug and dumping the contents into the sink. Do we have the video, Ed.? ... ... Apparently not, but we do have a screen grab.
The original Marketplace show only named Mr. Bance as "Jerry". It did not mention that he had been a Conservative candidate in the previous elections of 2006 and 2008. When contacted by CBC News yesterday, Mr. Bance said, "I deeply regret my actions on that day. I take great pride in my work and the footage from that day does not reflect who I am as a professional or a person."
Walt is resisting stoutly the temptation to indulge in cheap shots of the "Peegate" variety. End of story.
UPDATE: Turns out it wasn't the end of the story, after all. CBC News has just reported that the Tories have been forced to drop a second GTA candidate (Tim Dutaud -- Toronto-Danforth) over embarrassing videos that surfaced on YouTube. No peeing or worse, just prank calls. Agent 3, who is a politics junkie, says it doesn't matter, because the Harperites didn't have a snowball's chance of winning either riding.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
The new ranch hand
Ed. here. Since tomorrow is Labor Day (or Labour Day, depending on which side of the 49th parallel you inhabit) Walt has taken the weekend off. Fortunately, Agent 6 has stepped into the breach with a little story from the formerly wild west.
A successful rancher died and left everything to his devoted wife. She was a very good-looking woman and determined to keep the ranch, but knew very little about ranching, so she decided to place an ad in the newspaper for a ranch hand.
Two cowboys applied for the job. One was gay and the other a drunk. She thought long and hard about it, and when no one else applied she decided to hire the gay guy, figuring it would be safer to have him around the house than the drunk.
He proved to be a hard worker who put in long hours every day and knew a lot about ranching. For weeks, the two of them worked, and the ranch was doing very well. Then one day, the widow said to the hired hand, "You've done a really good job, and the ranch looks great. You should go into town and kick up your heels."
The hired hand readily agreed and went into town one Saturday night. One o'clock came, however, and he didn't return. Two o'clock and no hired hand. Around 2:30 he finally returned. Upon entering the living room, he found the rancher's widow sitting by the fireplace with a glass of wine, waiting for him.
She quietly called him over to her. "Unbutton my blouse and take it off," she said.
Trembling, he did as she directed. "Now take off my boots."
He did as she asked, ever so slowly. "Now take off my socks."
He removed each gently and placed them neatly by her boots.
"Now take off my skirt." He slowly unbuttoned it, constantly watching her eyes in the fire light.
"Now take off my bra." Again, with trembling hands, he did as he was told and dropped it to the floor.
Then she looked at him and said, "If you ever wear my clothes into town again, you're fired."
Ed. again. I didn't see it coming either.
A successful rancher died and left everything to his devoted wife. She was a very good-looking woman and determined to keep the ranch, but knew very little about ranching, so she decided to place an ad in the newspaper for a ranch hand.
Two cowboys applied for the job. One was gay and the other a drunk. She thought long and hard about it, and when no one else applied she decided to hire the gay guy, figuring it would be safer to have him around the house than the drunk.
He proved to be a hard worker who put in long hours every day and knew a lot about ranching. For weeks, the two of them worked, and the ranch was doing very well. Then one day, the widow said to the hired hand, "You've done a really good job, and the ranch looks great. You should go into town and kick up your heels."
The hired hand readily agreed and went into town one Saturday night. One o'clock came, however, and he didn't return. Two o'clock and no hired hand. Around 2:30 he finally returned. Upon entering the living room, he found the rancher's widow sitting by the fireplace with a glass of wine, waiting for him.
She quietly called him over to her. "Unbutton my blouse and take it off," she said.
Trembling, he did as she directed. "Now take off my boots."
He did as she asked, ever so slowly. "Now take off my socks."
He removed each gently and placed them neatly by her boots.
"Now take off my skirt." He slowly unbuttoned it, constantly watching her eyes in the fire light.
"Now take off my bra." Again, with trembling hands, he did as he was told and dropped it to the floor.
Then she looked at him and said, "If you ever wear my clothes into town again, you're fired."
Ed. again. I didn't see it coming either.
Friday, September 4, 2015
French experts confirm flaperon is from MH370
What with all the flap about the refugee crisis, the lamestream media didn't devote a lot of space to other stories. One that got buried was a pronouncement by French investigators examining a piece of aircraft debris found on the Indian Ocean island of Réunion in late July. They have concluded "with certainty" that the flaperon -- a wing part -- came from the Malaysia Airlines B-777 that, while operating as flight MH370, disappeared in March of 2013 while flying to Beijing.
So what have we learned? MH370 went down somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Anything else? Errr... that's all.
We do not know where it went down. We do not know how it went down. We do not even know if any of the 239 passengers and crew were still on board when it went down.
Most important, we do not know what caused it to go down. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe not. What some have called "wild conspiracy theories" -- e.g. that MH370 was shot down, accidentally or on purpose, by the US military operating out of Diego Garcia -- have not been disproved.
Further reading: "Current thinking on MH370" (WWW 31/7/15)
So what have we learned? MH370 went down somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Anything else? Errr... that's all.
We do not know where it went down. We do not know how it went down. We do not even know if any of the 239 passengers and crew were still on board when it went down.
Most important, we do not know what caused it to go down. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe not. What some have called "wild conspiracy theories" -- e.g. that MH370 was shot down, accidentally or on purpose, by the US military operating out of Diego Garcia -- have not been disproved.
Further reading: "Current thinking on MH370" (WWW 31/7/15)
Thursday, September 3, 2015
2014 Vatican Synod's "Welcome gays!" moment was rigged!
The Gay Mafia at the Vatican must think that faithful Catholics have short memories. Come October, the pro-LGBT gang in Rome -- which may/may not include Pope Francis -- will try again to push their agenda through a second "Synod on Family Life", which wags like Agent 10 have already dubbed "Vatican III".The goal of the Synod is to rectify the unimaginable political incorrectness of the Synod held in October 2014, at which a majority of cardinals and bishops had the temerity to reject an "interim report" recommending that the Church demonstrate more "openness to gays and their gifts and qualities". See "Majority of bishops reject "Welcome gays!" (WWW, 18/10/14).
The bishops failed to approve even a watered-down version of the section on ministering to gays, which stripped away the welcoming tone contained in the "interim report". Two other paragraphs concerning the other hot-button issue at the Synod -- whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive communion -- also failed to pass.
Why? Because the "updating" of the Church rules on these subjects would be contrary to God's law and nearly two millennia of Catholic teaching! See "Catholic bishops say "interim report" asking Church to welcome homosexuals grossly misrepresented by pro-LGBT media" (WWW 14/10/14).
So how did those proposals get on the table? Aha, that's the BIG question, and journalist Edward Pentin provides the answer in The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (Ignatius Press, 2015).
The book, excerpted this week by Catholic World Report, tells how the 2014 Synod of Bishops' controversial interim report came to include the paragraphs on homosexuality and cohabitation that provoked strong reactions from several prominent synod participants. See "Even a liberal Cardinal calls pro-LGBT Synod report 'worthless'" (WWW 16/10/14).
Mr. Pentin quotes Father Stephen Fawcett, a Synod staff aide who was keeping the official diary of the proceedings, as saying the interim report was not an accurate reflection of the bishops' discussions. "It just was not."
And Wilfrid Cardinal Napier of South Africa observed that the document -- prepared a small cadre of prelates organized by Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri, the secretary-general of the Synod -- was released by the Vatican Press Office even before the Synod fathers saw it.
Mr. Pentin points the finger at Cardinal Baldisseri, but Walt (and many others) would like to know who appointed the prelate to be secretary-general of the Synod? Whose agenda was the Cardinal pushing... or following? And who's in charge of this year's Synod? Oh... wait... According to the Vatican website, it's none other than... wait for it... Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri!
Click here to read The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?, as excerpted on the Catholic World Report website. You can buy the e-book from Ignatius Press, at a web sale price of only $12.32.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
UPDATED: Ontario's "dirty" sex ed curriculum going ahead. Worried parents scramble to get kids out
For Ontario students, the school year begins the day after Labour Day. Threatened strikes by teachers have been averted by the customary throwing of taxpayers' money at them, in spite of promises by Premier Kathleen Wynne and her minion, Education Minister Lez Sandals, that there'd be no raises. And the proudly lesbian premier's cherished new sex education curriculum, co-written by convicted pedophile Benjamin Levin, will be taught as planned, in spite of protests by 1000s of parents concerned about its pro-LGBTQ, anti-morality agenda.
Across the province, protesters gathered in front of the constituency offices of Liberal MPPs. Outside the Premier's office in Dawn Mills [Whatever became of Sid Barron? Ed.], a public school student, Umeema Khalil, aged only 9, declared she won't go to school this year because of the province’s "new dirty curriculum".
Under the new curriculum, students of Umeema's age will already have been exposed for three years to gender ideology propaganda -- it's cool to be gay, and "transgendered" people like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner are normal. The curriculum teaches Grade 3 students about homosexuality and Grade 6 students about masturbation and "gender expression".
Grade 7 and 8 students -- "tweenies" -- will learn about contraception, oral sex and the potential pitfalls of "sexting". Anal sex and other perversions come a bit later. But, Umemma told the Toronto Sun, "I want to be inspired by education, not forced to learn unspeakable stuff."
Unfortunately for Umeema and her parents, they're not going to have any choice in the matter. When the new curriculum was rolled out last year, parents were assured that they had the right to withdraw their children from sex ed classes if they had religious or other objections to the material being taught. Really? Err, no... not really.
Tony Pontes, Director of the Peel District School Board -- Ontario's second-largest -- told PDSB teachers and superintendents today that parents may be allowed to remove their kids from sex-ed classes for religious reasons, but any requests for students to opt out of learning about "gay families" or "diverse gender identities" will not be tolerated. Period! See "Peel board won't exempt kids from learning about gay families, gender issues".
Mr. Pontes said that if parents have a problem with such strong support for "equity and inclusion", the public system [sic] may not be right for them. "Let's be clear," he said. "Some in our community may not like this.... Some parents may choose to switch school systems. If so, that is a price we must be willing to pay."
Even as he spoke, one of the demonstrators in front of Premier Wynne's office, Mohammed Azhar, a father of two school-age children, decried the provincial government’s lack of consultation with parents. "They are imposing this sex-ed curriculum, which is against our moral and cultural values. Parents are the first educators."
Will Mr. Azhar, Miss Khalil and groups like PAFE (Parents As First Educators) succeed in stopping the lesbian premier's pro-queer juggernaut? Walt thinks they have two chances....
Further reading: Use the search tool to check WWW for "sex education" and you'll find 31 previous posts. The most recent, posted May 29th, is "Ontario sex ed curriculum called 'bad for Catholic kids, bad for all kids'".
UPDATE 3/9/15 - A growing number of parents across Greater Toronto who oppose Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum are making a desperate, last-minute attempt to get their kids out of the public system. They’re considering home-schooling their children or sending them to private schools, even if just for a short time, to show how upset they are. Click here to read the full story in the Toronto Star.
Across the province, protesters gathered in front of the constituency offices of Liberal MPPs. Outside the Premier's office in Dawn Mills [Whatever became of Sid Barron? Ed.], a public school student, Umeema Khalil, aged only 9, declared she won't go to school this year because of the province’s "new dirty curriculum".
Under the new curriculum, students of Umeema's age will already have been exposed for three years to gender ideology propaganda -- it's cool to be gay, and "transgendered" people like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner are normal. The curriculum teaches Grade 3 students about homosexuality and Grade 6 students about masturbation and "gender expression".
Grade 7 and 8 students -- "tweenies" -- will learn about contraception, oral sex and the potential pitfalls of "sexting". Anal sex and other perversions come a bit later. But, Umemma told the Toronto Sun, "I want to be inspired by education, not forced to learn unspeakable stuff."
Unfortunately for Umeema and her parents, they're not going to have any choice in the matter. When the new curriculum was rolled out last year, parents were assured that they had the right to withdraw their children from sex ed classes if they had religious or other objections to the material being taught. Really? Err, no... not really.
Tony Pontes, Director of the Peel District School Board -- Ontario's second-largest -- told PDSB teachers and superintendents today that parents may be allowed to remove their kids from sex-ed classes for religious reasons, but any requests for students to opt out of learning about "gay families" or "diverse gender identities" will not be tolerated. Period! See "Peel board won't exempt kids from learning about gay families, gender issues".
Mr. Pontes said that if parents have a problem with such strong support for "equity and inclusion", the public system [sic] may not be right for them. "Let's be clear," he said. "Some in our community may not like this.... Some parents may choose to switch school systems. If so, that is a price we must be willing to pay."
Even as he spoke, one of the demonstrators in front of Premier Wynne's office, Mohammed Azhar, a father of two school-age children, decried the provincial government’s lack of consultation with parents. "They are imposing this sex-ed curriculum, which is against our moral and cultural values. Parents are the first educators."
Will Mr. Azhar, Miss Khalil and groups like PAFE (Parents As First Educators) succeed in stopping the lesbian premier's pro-queer juggernaut? Walt thinks they have two chances....
Further reading: Use the search tool to check WWW for "sex education" and you'll find 31 previous posts. The most recent, posted May 29th, is "Ontario sex ed curriculum called 'bad for Catholic kids, bad for all kids'".
UPDATE 3/9/15 - A growing number of parents across Greater Toronto who oppose Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum are making a desperate, last-minute attempt to get their kids out of the public system. They’re considering home-schooling their children or sending them to private schools, even if just for a short time, to show how upset they are. Click here to read the full story in the Toronto Star.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
A real surprise from Pope Francis
What an amazing pope is Pope Francis! We -- not just Catholics but the entire world -- never know what's coming next. When he opens his mouth or takes pen in hand, it's impossible to know what to expect. Sometimes his pronouncements make us traditional Catholics laugh. Sometimes they make us cry. Sometimes they leave us confused. And sometimes we are left speechless in disbelief or, rarely, appreciation.Today's headline news, so surprising and important that even the lamestream media are giving it major coverage, is the Pope's letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, on the subject of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, a year of penance and prayer which begins on December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
In line with the Holy Father's emphasis on compassion and mercy, he has ruled that during the Jubilee Year, all priests will have the authority to give penitents absolution from the grave sin of abortion. For those (including most mainstream Catholics) who don't know it, having or procuring an abortion is a "reserved" sin under canon law, which can be absolved only by the diocesan bishop or priests to whom the bishop delegates that authority. In England, Scotland, Wales and some American dioceses, bishops have already delegated the authority to all their priests, but now this authority is given to all priests, worldwide, for the duration of the Year of Mercy.
The Pope said many [Walt's emphasis] women sought an abortion because they "believe that they have no other option". He said he had "met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision." But he regards compassion and mercy as virtues that outclass all others, so "I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to allow all priests for the Jubilee Year to absolve of the sin of abortion those who procure it and who also seek forgiveness."
The BBC's David Willey reports that Pope Francis is aware that the decision will not be welcomed by traditionalists. That's putting it mildly. However, there is a second part to the Pope's letter -- so far unreported by the secular media -- which will gladden the hearts of traditional Catholics, particularly those who align themselves with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the traditional Catholic order founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In an astounding volte-face, the Pope has declared that priests of the SSPX will validly and licitly absolve sins during the Jubilee Year of Mercy. "A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X," the Pontiff wrote. "This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several brother bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint.... I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity.
"In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."
Walt, who is one of "these faithful", is happy to read this, and grateful to the Holy Father for the indult. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Catholics who harbored some doubt about the validity of sacraments administered by bishops and priests of the SSPX will (or should) rejoice and give thanks to God.
However... Walt can't help but wonder what affected the Pope's "disposition". I understood the Vatican's position on the SSPX to be that its bishops were in schism and excommunicated (although the excommunication was lifted a couple of years ago), and therefore could not licitly ordain new priests. That would mean that the hundreds of SSPX ministering to the needs of the faithful worldwide aren't really priests, right? At least, that's what a lot of "regular" bishops and priests have been telling people. But now, all of a sudden, they can hear confessions and give absolution.
What does this mean? The clue may be in the line about solutions being found to "recover full communion". That could mean that the Vatican may declare the "schism" ended and accept the traditional Catholics back into the fold, allowing them to keep the pre-Vatican II Faith and practices of the Church, particularly the Latin Mass.
Or (and, sadly, more likely) it could mean that the SSPX is going to give in to the demands of the Vatican and "reform" itself, eating the poisoned fruits of the Council, in order to gain some sort of "personal prelature" or other accommodation. In very blunt language, the Pope's indult may have been made in anticipation of a sell-out. God help us and Our Lady guide us! Let it not be so!
Further reading: Full text of the letter of Pope Francis granting indulgence during the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)