"Impeachment, far from nailing Donald Trump, will be a disaster for the Democrats!" So says James Morrow, the host of Sky News Australia's Outsiders. Why? Because the impeachment hearings may allow Still-President Trump to run as an "outsider" candidate despite being holding the Oval Office. Check it out.
Further reading: "Democrats have fallen into Trump's impeachment trap, his supporters say", by Kim Brunhuber, CBC News (!!!), 30/9/19.
Monday, September 30, 2019
VIDEO: Antifa thugs assault elderly PPC supporters at Hamilton rally
What was supposed to be a "peaceful protest" outside last night's "Uncensored: Free Speech in Canada" roundtable -- featuring libertarian YouTuber (((David Rubin))) and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada -- in Hamilton ON turned violent Sunday evening as supporters of the PPC were attacked by Antifa/Communist protesters as they tried to enter the venue at Mohawk College. The leftist terrorists -- you can see a Communist banner in the video -- went so far as to push an elderly lady using a walker!
There were a number of other confrontations and scuffles. Two men from opposing sides of the protests were led away in handcuffs by Hamilton police. Inspector Knacker said there were a total of four arrests for "breach of the peace", but all those detained were later released without conditions. Free speech, perhaps? Hamilton police are continuing their investigations.
Inside the McIntyre Arts Centre, When the event got underway, Maxime Bernier emerged on stage while "Eye of the Tiger" played. He received multiple standing ovations throughout the night for pledging to increase "personal freedoms" for all Canadians. He was joined onstage by American YouTuber and political commentator Dave Rubin, and two PPC candidates -- Prof. David Haskell (Cambridge-North Dumfries) and Frank Vaughan (Northumberland-Peterborough South), who acted as moderator. "Mad Max" praised all of his candidates, saying "[They] are not real politicians, and that's great! People don't trust politicians anymore."
The four chatted at length about preserving freedom from censorship in Canada, their doubts about climate change science, keeping government small and the PPC's plan to repeal the Multiculturalism Act. They also talked about immigration, with M Bernier saying the party's plan is "not racist, not anti-immigration and not pro-mass-immigration." The party would drastically reduce immigration to Canada, he said, and focus resources on those citizens already in the country.
When asked if he'd be willing to engage in a debate with protesters outside the venue, Mr Rubin said "I'd be happy to talk to them if they're not in my face and screaming at me and calling me a Nazi." He found that not just offensive but funny, considering that he's Jewish (also gay!) and that last night was the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.
"If I could sit down with any of those people and chat about it, I would try to do exactly what I did tonight", he said, "which is really try to get them to understand what are your rights, where do your rights come from and how special it is to live in a place like Canada or the U.S."
There were a number of other confrontations and scuffles. Two men from opposing sides of the protests were led away in handcuffs by Hamilton police. Inspector Knacker said there were a total of four arrests for "breach of the peace", but all those detained were later released without conditions. Free speech, perhaps? Hamilton police are continuing their investigations.
Inside the McIntyre Arts Centre, When the event got underway, Maxime Bernier emerged on stage while "Eye of the Tiger" played. He received multiple standing ovations throughout the night for pledging to increase "personal freedoms" for all Canadians. He was joined onstage by American YouTuber and political commentator Dave Rubin, and two PPC candidates -- Prof. David Haskell (Cambridge-North Dumfries) and Frank Vaughan (Northumberland-Peterborough South), who acted as moderator. "Mad Max" praised all of his candidates, saying "[They] are not real politicians, and that's great! People don't trust politicians anymore."
The four chatted at length about preserving freedom from censorship in Canada, their doubts about climate change science, keeping government small and the PPC's plan to repeal the Multiculturalism Act. They also talked about immigration, with M Bernier saying the party's plan is "not racist, not anti-immigration and not pro-mass-immigration." The party would drastically reduce immigration to Canada, he said, and focus resources on those citizens already in the country.
When asked if he'd be willing to engage in a debate with protesters outside the venue, Mr Rubin said "I'd be happy to talk to them if they're not in my face and screaming at me and calling me a Nazi." He found that not just offensive but funny, considering that he's Jewish (also gay!) and that last night was the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.
"If I could sit down with any of those people and chat about it, I would try to do exactly what I did tonight", he said, "which is really try to get them to understand what are your rights, where do your rights come from and how special it is to live in a place like Canada or the U.S."
Sunday, September 29, 2019
VIDEO: Mike's Canadian Federal Leaders' Debate, 2019
How did you like "Mike from Simcoe-Grey County-Clearview Township", the guy who found (and introduced) the hidden video of "Mad Max" Bernier's debate with the editorial board of the Toronto Star, posted on WWW yesterday? Canadians owe Mike a real debt of gratitude for putting that video on YouTube. If it were up to the Red Star, you frostbacks would never get to see it!
A couple of readers have asked: who is that guy?! He's not one of Walt's agents, but (hint to Mike) Ed. would surely waive him through our rigorous vetting process! Nor is he the People's Party of Canada candidate for the Simcoe-Grey riding, although he's obviously a strong supporter of the PPC.
It appears as well that Mike is an adept video editor. Yesterday afternoon he posted his latest opus. The official Leaders' Debate, to be moderated by a panel of five liberal-minded wimmin, is likely to be kind of one-sided, since all the leaders except M Bernier are singing from the same hymn sheet. To save you the trouble and boredom of watching, Mike has put together the first ever internet debate, using clips of Justin Trudeau, neocon leader Andrew Scheer, and the Gliberal leader, Just In Trudeau, talking about the subjects that truly matter to Canadians... all in back-and-forth debate style, including heckling and cutting in on each other. It's well worth watching!
Note from Ed.: This is a "faux debate" only in the sense that it's a montage of clips, not an actual real-time confrontation. But the clips are real and unmanipulated. What you hear is what MM Trudeau, Scheer and Bernier have actually said.
A couple of readers have asked: who is that guy?! He's not one of Walt's agents, but (hint to Mike) Ed. would surely waive him through our rigorous vetting process! Nor is he the People's Party of Canada candidate for the Simcoe-Grey riding, although he's obviously a strong supporter of the PPC.
It appears as well that Mike is an adept video editor. Yesterday afternoon he posted his latest opus. The official Leaders' Debate, to be moderated by a panel of five liberal-minded wimmin, is likely to be kind of one-sided, since all the leaders except M Bernier are singing from the same hymn sheet. To save you the trouble and boredom of watching, Mike has put together the first ever internet debate, using clips of Justin Trudeau, neocon leader Andrew Scheer, and the Gliberal leader, Just In Trudeau, talking about the subjects that truly matter to Canadians... all in back-and-forth debate style, including heckling and cutting in on each other. It's well worth watching!
Note from Ed.: This is a "faux debate" only in the sense that it's a montage of clips, not an actual real-time confrontation. But the clips are real and unmanipulated. What you hear is what MM Trudeau, Scheer and Bernier have actually said.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
VIDEO: The interview with Max Bernier the Toronto Star is hiding
The Toronto Star -- aka the Toronto RED Star -- is Canuckistan's most liberal major newspaper. They keep drumming away at the one-world, pro-queer, pro-Islam, pro-"diversity", anti-Trump, anti-populism agenda, as dictated their (((masters)) in Canada and overseas. Here are the headlines from some of the items on the Star's website today.
"Why aren’t we talking about how to keep Canada safe from Trumpism?" by Susan Delacourt (one of the "unbiased moderators" on the all-female panel chosen to throw softballs to Just In Trudeau on the English-language Leaders' Debate)
"It's time for Fox News to dump the cult of Trump" by Vinay Menon
"Giving Maxime Bernier a platform legitimizes his dangerous ideas", by Shree Paradkar
No white males in that trio. Where's the diversity?
"Liberal MPP urges Ford to recall the legislature immediately in the public interest" (the Liberals don't even have party status in the Ontario legislature)
"Educators are right to support students striking for climate justice" (unsigned editorial)
"Cutting out the Trump cancer won’t be easy or painless" (another unsigned editorial)
And the list goes on... and on...
The last two items are important to note because every now and then the Star, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, attempts to put a facade of fairness on top of its leftist editorial policies. One way they do that, during the election campaigns, is to invite all the party leaders to sit down with their editorial board to be grilled on their policies (etc) before the board makes up its mind to endorse the Liberal.
The Star's editorial board initially decided that only four of the leaders of parties represented in Canada's Parliament should be invited. They were: Just In Trudeau (Liberal), Andrew Scheer ("Conservative", at least in name), Jagmeet Singh (NDP, read: socialist) and Elizabeth May (Green Party, even farther left than the NDP). Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Québécois, was not invited because his party is not fielding candidates outside of Québec. And Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, was not invited because... errr... the Leaders' Debate Commission decided he wasn't the leader of a "real party". See "Canada's 'independent' Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier", WWW 12/8/19.
But then, to the consternation of people like the Star's Vinay Menon (see above), the Commission changed its mind! See "Conspiracy to silence Max Bernier fails! He'll be at the debates", WWW 16/9/19. So now the Star -- doubtless after some debate in its boardroom -- felt they should extend an invitation to M Bernier, which they did. "Mad Max" accepted and spent nearly an hour in the lion's den, giving the Star's lefty editors and writers ample opportunity to expose their biases.
The board must have been shocked and embarrassed by the way Max Bernier defended himself and the PPC's policies against their mischaracterizations, fake news and outright lies. So much so that they buried the interview in the "unlisted" part of their website -- not to be seen by the Canadian public! You can search the website -- see for yourself! -- and you can find the interviews with the other four leaders, but not this one, which has been posted on YouTube by "Mike from Simcoe-Grey County-Clearview Township", a PPC supporter for sure, on his "The Forgotten Canadians" channel. Here it is.
"Why aren’t we talking about how to keep Canada safe from Trumpism?" by Susan Delacourt (one of the "unbiased moderators" on the all-female panel chosen to throw softballs to Just In Trudeau on the English-language Leaders' Debate)
"It's time for Fox News to dump the cult of Trump" by Vinay Menon
"Giving Maxime Bernier a platform legitimizes his dangerous ideas", by Shree Paradkar
No white males in that trio. Where's the diversity?
"Liberal MPP urges Ford to recall the legislature immediately in the public interest" (the Liberals don't even have party status in the Ontario legislature)
"Educators are right to support students striking for climate justice" (unsigned editorial)
"Cutting out the Trump cancer won’t be easy or painless" (another unsigned editorial)
And the list goes on... and on...
The last two items are important to note because every now and then the Star, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, attempts to put a facade of fairness on top of its leftist editorial policies. One way they do that, during the election campaigns, is to invite all the party leaders to sit down with their editorial board to be grilled on their policies (etc) before the board makes up its mind to endorse the Liberal.
The Star's editorial board initially decided that only four of the leaders of parties represented in Canada's Parliament should be invited. They were: Just In Trudeau (Liberal), Andrew Scheer ("Conservative", at least in name), Jagmeet Singh (NDP, read: socialist) and Elizabeth May (Green Party, even farther left than the NDP). Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Québécois, was not invited because his party is not fielding candidates outside of Québec. And Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, was not invited because... errr... the Leaders' Debate Commission decided he wasn't the leader of a "real party". See "Canada's 'independent' Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier", WWW 12/8/19.
But then, to the consternation of people like the Star's Vinay Menon (see above), the Commission changed its mind! See "Conspiracy to silence Max Bernier fails! He'll be at the debates", WWW 16/9/19. So now the Star -- doubtless after some debate in its boardroom -- felt they should extend an invitation to M Bernier, which they did. "Mad Max" accepted and spent nearly an hour in the lion's den, giving the Star's lefty editors and writers ample opportunity to expose their biases.
The board must have been shocked and embarrassed by the way Max Bernier defended himself and the PPC's policies against their mischaracterizations, fake news and outright lies. So much so that they buried the interview in the "unlisted" part of their website -- not to be seen by the Canadian public! You can search the website -- see for yourself! -- and you can find the interviews with the other four leaders, but not this one, which has been posted on YouTube by "Mike from Simcoe-Grey County-Clearview Township", a PPC supporter for sure, on his "The Forgotten Canadians" channel. Here it is.
Friday, September 27, 2019
What 's in the "Ukrainian phone calls" that warrants impeachment?
Short answer: Nothing!
Walt's longer answer begings with this quote from "How the impeachment process is supposed to work" (WWW 24/9/19): In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.
Q. What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do the Dumbocrats now say Still-President Trump has committed?
A. Well, he had a telephone conversation (or two or three) with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in which he "solicited interference" in the 2020 election.
Q. What kind of interference?
A. Well, he wanted Mr Zelensky to investigate the business dealings in Ukraine of Old Joe Biden's sprog, Hunter.
Q. And that would be a crime in what way?
A. Well... errr... that would have been for the President's personal gain.
Q. In what way?
A. Well... errrrr....
The key word there is "personal gain". I think what the Founding Fathers had in mind, when they wrote the Constitution, was personal pecuniary gain, of the sort that resulted in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the successor to President U.S. Grant. How President Trump would have gained from an investigation into the affairs of Hunter Biden is less than clear to me, unless they mean that such investigation would have somehow led to Mr Trump's re-election to a second term, which would have earned him another four years making a salary considerably less than he could have earned in speaking fees alone had he not been re-elected.
Ed. I think that is what they mean.
Q. I see. Anything else?
A. Well, yes. He tried to cover up the phone call(s) by "locking down" records of the call(s) in a security system designed to protect state secrets. Doing so posed a serious threat to the security of the Paranoid States of America, and we would never have known about it had a so-far-anonymous whistleblower not made a complaint which Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence [sic], sat on for a couple of days before sending it to the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the White House.
Q. Where are those records now?
A. Well... errr... they've been declassified and released to the public.
Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Intelligence [sic] Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), grilled Mr Maguire on why he (Maguire) initially withheld a copy of the complaint from lawmakers, choosing to notify the DoJ and White House first. This was wrong, the Dems say, because the President was the subject of the complaint and Attorney General William Barr was mentioned by Mr Trump during the controversial phone call.
Mr Maguire insisted he is "not partisan" and "not political," reminding the panel that he served under eight presidents and has taken the oath of office 11 times. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he and Mr Barr are part of "the cover-up of the cover-up".
Q. Seriously?
A. Very seriously. That's what she told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, when he asked if she was concerned that the country's institutions could fail due to Barr's behaviour.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Looks to me like a clear case of the Dumbocrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. No. More like trying to make something out of nothing. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told America's Newsroom, "Washington is always a circus, but this is three rings with all the clowns and it's nuts right now."
Further reading: "Andrew Cuomo says 'leftist' Dems pressured Pelosi on impeachment, warns it will go 'nowhere'", by Andrew Shaw, Fox News, 28/9/19.
Walt's longer answer begings with this quote from "How the impeachment process is supposed to work" (WWW 24/9/19): In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.
Q. What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do the Dumbocrats now say Still-President Trump has committed?
A. Well, he had a telephone conversation (or two or three) with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in which he "solicited interference" in the 2020 election.
Q. What kind of interference?
A. Well, he wanted Mr Zelensky to investigate the business dealings in Ukraine of Old Joe Biden's sprog, Hunter.
Q. And that would be a crime in what way?
A. Well... errr... that would have been for the President's personal gain.
Q. In what way?
A. Well... errrrr....
The key word there is "personal gain". I think what the Founding Fathers had in mind, when they wrote the Constitution, was personal pecuniary gain, of the sort that resulted in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the successor to President U.S. Grant. How President Trump would have gained from an investigation into the affairs of Hunter Biden is less than clear to me, unless they mean that such investigation would have somehow led to Mr Trump's re-election to a second term, which would have earned him another four years making a salary considerably less than he could have earned in speaking fees alone had he not been re-elected.
Ed. I think that is what they mean.
Q. I see. Anything else?
A. Well, yes. He tried to cover up the phone call(s) by "locking down" records of the call(s) in a security system designed to protect state secrets. Doing so posed a serious threat to the security of the Paranoid States of America, and we would never have known about it had a so-far-anonymous whistleblower not made a complaint which Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence [sic], sat on for a couple of days before sending it to the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the White House.
Q. Where are those records now?
A. Well... errr... they've been declassified and released to the public.
Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Intelligence [sic] Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), grilled Mr Maguire on why he (Maguire) initially withheld a copy of the complaint from lawmakers, choosing to notify the DoJ and White House first. This was wrong, the Dems say, because the President was the subject of the complaint and Attorney General William Barr was mentioned by Mr Trump during the controversial phone call.
Mr Maguire insisted he is "not partisan" and "not political," reminding the panel that he served under eight presidents and has taken the oath of office 11 times. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he and Mr Barr are part of "the cover-up of the cover-up".
Q. Seriously?
A. Very seriously. That's what she told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, when he asked if she was concerned that the country's institutions could fail due to Barr's behaviour.
You couldn't make this stuff up. Looks to me like a clear case of the Dumbocrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. No. More like trying to make something out of nothing. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told America's Newsroom, "Washington is always a circus, but this is three rings with all the clowns and it's nuts right now."
Further reading: "Andrew Cuomo says 'leftist' Dems pressured Pelosi on impeachment, warns it will go 'nowhere'", by Andrew Shaw, Fox News, 28/9/19.
2020 re-enactment of battle of Gettysburg CANCELLED... why???
Agent 78 has just sent us a disturbing report from WGAL-TV, Channel 8, "covering Gettysburg like the dew". They reported on September 4th that the committee that organizes the annual Battle of Gettysburg reenactment says the re-enactment of the key battle of the Civil War won't be done again next year. Here's a clip from last year's event.
Too bad if you missed last year's re-enactment, because it may turn out to be the last of its kind. A leader of the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee, which staged the events for the past quarter-century, said the cancellation was due to a combination of factors, including:
- Aging re-enactors, causing a decrease in participation.
- Changing interests from Gettysburg visitors.
- The weather-dependent event creates risky economic dynamics.
And, he told the TV station, the hobby is moving toward smaller, living history types of events.
You have to wonder if the reasons given for the cancellation are the real reasons. Surely the decision has nothing to do with political correctness! Surely no-one would have objected to see a reenactor playing General Lee astride "Traveller", or Confederate battle flags waving bravely in the breeze. How could I think such a thing? Well, which flag did you see displayed in the clip?!
But who knows... Maybe it's just as well that the re-enactment has been cancelled. Anything "divisive" in an election year would be unthinkable, wouldn't it?
Too bad if you missed last year's re-enactment, because it may turn out to be the last of its kind. A leader of the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee, which staged the events for the past quarter-century, said the cancellation was due to a combination of factors, including:
- Aging re-enactors, causing a decrease in participation.
- Changing interests from Gettysburg visitors.
- The weather-dependent event creates risky economic dynamics.
And, he told the TV station, the hobby is moving toward smaller, living history types of events.
You have to wonder if the reasons given for the cancellation are the real reasons. Surely the decision has nothing to do with political correctness! Surely no-one would have objected to see a reenactor playing General Lee astride "Traveller", or Confederate battle flags waving bravely in the breeze. How could I think such a thing? Well, which flag did you see displayed in the clip?!
But who knows... Maybe it's just as well that the re-enactment has been cancelled. Anything "divisive" in an election year would be unthinkable, wouldn't it?
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Impeachment proceedings: stay tuned!
Ed. here with a note to our Amereican readers. Yes, we know that the majority of our readers are in the Excited States of America. Yes, we know that the last three posts dealt with Canadian politics and Max Bernier's People's Party of Canada. And yes, we know that the Dumbocrats have begun to build their case for impreachment of Still-President Trump. The foundation looks pretty shaky so far, but the lengthy process has begun. See "After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...", WWW 24/9/19.
For a clear and concise explanation of what happens next, see "How the impeachment process is supposed to work", WWW 24/9/19. This morning we'll witness the next tiny step. At 0900 EDT the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold a hearing on the Ukraine "whistleblower" complaint. The witness will be Joseph Maguire, the Acting Director of National Intelligence. Mr Maguire told the meeja yesterday that he will say whatever he feels like saying, without fear or favour, yada yada yada. We'll see, and Walt will comment on whatever happens. Stay tuned.
For a clear and concise explanation of what happens next, see "How the impeachment process is supposed to work", WWW 24/9/19. This morning we'll witness the next tiny step. At 0900 EDT the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold a hearing on the Ukraine "whistleblower" complaint. The witness will be Joseph Maguire, the Acting Director of National Intelligence. Mr Maguire told the meeja yesterday that he will say whatever he feels like saying, without fear or favour, yada yada yada. We'll see, and Walt will comment on whatever happens. Stay tuned.
VIDEO: Latest interview with Max Bernier: border fences, supply management and the Indian Act
Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada talks with the Financial Post's Larysa Harapyn, about abolishing supply management, building a fence along the border with the USA, and repealing the discriminatory Indian Act. Also appearing is Renata Ford, the widow of the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford, now PPC candidate in Etobicoke North.
Note from Ed.: This is not a campaign ad, but an interview by one of Canada's largest newspapers -- the only one that is giving fair coverage to Max Bernier and his party. The others, particularly the Canadian Broadcorping Castration, are studiously ignoring the PPC, as are the pollsters. According to Walt's agents in Canuckistan, when M Bernier says he doesn't believe support for his party is only 2 or 3 percent, he is quite right!
Note from Ed.: This is not a campaign ad, but an interview by one of Canada's largest newspapers -- the only one that is giving fair coverage to Max Bernier and his party. The others, particularly the Canadian Broadcorping Castration, are studiously ignoring the PPC, as are the pollsters. According to Walt's agents in Canuckistan, when M Bernier says he doesn't believe support for his party is only 2 or 3 percent, he is quite right!
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Maxime Bernier talks about multiculturalism, Canadian identity
Official multiculturalism, as mandated by the Liberal Trudeaus (father and son... no holy ghost... yet) is based on the idea that there is no unified Canadian society and no distinct Canadian identity to integrate into, and that Canadians are just a collection of ethnic and religious tribes who happen to be living side by side. In this short (2:20) video, Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, says this is wrong, and tells what the PPC proposes to do about it.
Note from Ed.: We regret most sincerely that this video is no longer available, removed from You Tube in the Masters of the Universe continuing campaign to silence Max. But other videos are still up. Click on the "Maxime Bernier" tag below for a complete list of posts about M Bernier.
Note from Ed.: We regret most sincerely that this video is no longer available, removed from You Tube in the Masters of the Universe continuing campaign to silence Max. But other videos are still up. Click on the "Maxime Bernier" tag below for a complete list of posts about M Bernier.
VIDEO: Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson talks about abortion
Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, who has been featured on WWW before, is the People's Party of Canada candidate for Member of Parliament for the Alberta riding of Red Deer-Lacombe. In this short (5:31) video she offers some thoughts on abortion. Canada is the only country in the Western world that has no laws whatsoever restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Ms Tyler Thompson thinks that the wisdom of allowing the indiscriminate killing of unborn babies, at any time and for any reason, should at least be open to debate.
The People's Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party allowing for open debate. All others will block and oppose any discussion of this topic, as well as any and all measures for the protection of the unborn. Click here to visit Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson's website, to learn more about her and the PPC platform.
BONUS VIDEO: Click here to watch Max Bernier interviewed in November 2018 by Vassy Kapelos on CBC-TV's Power and Politics. "Mad Max" (he doesn't mind the nickname) calls policies aimed at gender parity a "kind of discrimination". He also discusses climate change and his efforts to build his fledgling party.
The People's Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party allowing for open debate. All others will block and oppose any discussion of this topic, as well as any and all measures for the protection of the unborn. Click here to visit Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson's website, to learn more about her and the PPC platform.
BONUS VIDEO: Click here to watch Max Bernier interviewed in November 2018 by Vassy Kapelos on CBC-TV's Power and Politics. "Mad Max" (he doesn't mind the nickname) calls policies aimed at gender parity a "kind of discrimination". He also discusses climate change and his efforts to build his fledgling party.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
How the impeachment process is supposed to work
Ed. here. We no sooner posted "After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...", in which Walt intimated that his understanding of the impeachment process was less than perfect, when Agent 3 passed along a guide to how the process works, by Alexandra Mae Jones, on the CTV News website. We trust Ms Jones and CTV will not mind our reposting the main part of her concise and lucid explanation.
What is impeachment?
Impeachment is the process to remove an official, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It can happen at the state or federal level. In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.
There is no specific definition of a “high crime” included in the Constitution, but the concept is essentially aimed at preventing corruption by high-level officials. Although impeachment involves a trial, it’s not a criminal process, merely one to remove an official from office. Criminal charges being brought against an individual is a separate matter.
How does it happen?
An individual member of the House could simply introduce an impeachment resolution like any other bill, which would then be reviewed by a committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee. Or the House Judiciary Committee can first hold their own investigation and bring articles of impeachment against the president, and present that evidence to the House. (“Articles of impeachment” simply refers to the charges against a president).
The next step would be for the evidence to be presented before the House for a vote. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has declared previously that his committee has already been conducting impeachment hearings, but the panel has been unable to get many key witnesses and documents from the Trump administration.
Ultimately, the full House votes on whether or not to impeach. A majority vote is needed for the impeachment to pass. If the House passes a vote to impeach, it doesn’t mean the president gets removed immediately. The case then moves to the Senate, where a trial is held.
The House appoints members to act as prosecutors in the Senate. The president would have defense lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Senate trial. It comes down to a final Senate vote. At least two thirds of the Senate needs to vote to impeach in order for the motion to pass.
If impeachment is successful, the president would be immediately removed from office, and the vice president would take over until an election.
How often has impeachment been successful?
No sitting president has been removed from office due to impeachment so far, although impeachment proceedings have been brought against three different presidents.
Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 both were ultimately acquitted and allowed to complete their presidential terms. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when impeachment proceedings were brought against him for his role in the Watergate scandal, preventing the House from impeaching him.
What is impeachment?
Impeachment is the process to remove an official, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It can happen at the state or federal level. In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.There is no specific definition of a “high crime” included in the Constitution, but the concept is essentially aimed at preventing corruption by high-level officials. Although impeachment involves a trial, it’s not a criminal process, merely one to remove an official from office. Criminal charges being brought against an individual is a separate matter.
How does it happen?
An individual member of the House could simply introduce an impeachment resolution like any other bill, which would then be reviewed by a committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee. Or the House Judiciary Committee can first hold their own investigation and bring articles of impeachment against the president, and present that evidence to the House. (“Articles of impeachment” simply refers to the charges against a president).
The next step would be for the evidence to be presented before the House for a vote. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has declared previously that his committee has already been conducting impeachment hearings, but the panel has been unable to get many key witnesses and documents from the Trump administration.
Ultimately, the full House votes on whether or not to impeach. A majority vote is needed for the impeachment to pass. If the House passes a vote to impeach, it doesn’t mean the president gets removed immediately. The case then moves to the Senate, where a trial is held.
The House appoints members to act as prosecutors in the Senate. The president would have defense lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Senate trial. It comes down to a final Senate vote. At least two thirds of the Senate needs to vote to impeach in order for the motion to pass.
If impeachment is successful, the president would be immediately removed from office, and the vice president would take over until an election.
How often has impeachment been successful?
No sitting president has been removed from office due to impeachment so far, although impeachment proceedings have been brought against three different presidents.
Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 both were ultimately acquitted and allowed to complete their presidential terms. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when impeachment proceedings were brought against him for his role in the Watergate scandal, preventing the House from impeaching him.
UPDATED: After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...
Ed. made me leave the headline unfinished, but you know what I mean. After some 30 months of pissing and moaning about how Still-President Trump ought to be impeached, the Democrats have finally taken the first small step on what will be a very long journey towards their goal getting Mr Trump out of office without any test of the opinion of the American people.
Mere minutes ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump in the wake of his reported interest in the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. The announcement resulted from a spike in the number of House Dumbocrats arguing for impreachment. More than two-thirds of them said yesterday that they support impeachment, after the President confirmed that, during a congratulatory telephone call in July, he suggested to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Hunter Biden be investigated for possible breaches of both Ukrainian and American laws.
The Dems accused Mr Trump of holding over Mr Zelensky's head the threat of withholding tens of millions of dollars in military aid, if he did not order the suggested investigation. Earlier today Mr Trump said he did indeed order the withholding of aid... a week before he telephoned the new Ukrainian leader. And, he added, the aid money has now been paid as promised.
While still at the United Nations, President Trump tweeted, "I am currently at the United Nations representing our country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"
Walt notes that what Ms Pelosi announced today is her party's intention to move for an inquiry. I am not all that familiar with American Constitutional Law, but understand that there are several steps between the launch of an inquiry and the putting to the House of a formal motion to impeach. And even if that passes, it would then have to go to the Senate, where the Republican majority would defeat it.
It looks to me as if today's announcement is nothing more than a sop to the Squad and the other radicals and never-Trumper's who have been baying for the President's head since the morning after the election. It is now less than 14 months until the 2020 election. I predict that the effluxion of time will prevent anything coming of these very preliminary impeachment proceedings before the end of the Congressional term. (Lifetime pct .989.) Then it will be up to the American people to judge. Selah.
UPDATE ADDED 25/9/19 at 0600: According to WaPo (always a cheerleader for anything anti-Trump), a Qunnipiac University poll released this morning shows 37% of voters in favour of impeaching Still-President Trump and removing him from office, while 57% say he should not be impeached. Food for thought for the Dumbocrats?
Mere minutes ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump in the wake of his reported interest in the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. The announcement resulted from a spike in the number of House Dumbocrats arguing for impreachment. More than two-thirds of them said yesterday that they support impeachment, after the President confirmed that, during a congratulatory telephone call in July, he suggested to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Hunter Biden be investigated for possible breaches of both Ukrainian and American laws.
The Dems accused Mr Trump of holding over Mr Zelensky's head the threat of withholding tens of millions of dollars in military aid, if he did not order the suggested investigation. Earlier today Mr Trump said he did indeed order the withholding of aid... a week before he telephoned the new Ukrainian leader. And, he added, the aid money has now been paid as promised.
While still at the United Nations, President Trump tweeted, "I am currently at the United Nations representing our country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"
Walt notes that what Ms Pelosi announced today is her party's intention to move for an inquiry. I am not all that familiar with American Constitutional Law, but understand that there are several steps between the launch of an inquiry and the putting to the House of a formal motion to impeach. And even if that passes, it would then have to go to the Senate, where the Republican majority would defeat it.
It looks to me as if today's announcement is nothing more than a sop to the Squad and the other radicals and never-Trumper's who have been baying for the President's head since the morning after the election. It is now less than 14 months until the 2020 election. I predict that the effluxion of time will prevent anything coming of these very preliminary impeachment proceedings before the end of the Congressional term. (Lifetime pct .989.) Then it will be up to the American people to judge. Selah.
UPDATE ADDED 25/9/19 at 0600: According to WaPo (always a cheerleader for anything anti-Trump), a Qunnipiac University poll released this morning shows 37% of voters in favour of impeaching Still-President Trump and removing him from office, while 57% say he should not be impeached. Food for thought for the Dumbocrats?
Saint Greta Thunberg calls out world leaders in UN speech
Saint Greta Thunberg, the international mascot for climate alarmism, appeared at the Disunited Nations yesterday to excoriate world leaders for their lack of interest in keeping the sky from falling, which could happen any day now!
"People are suffering, people are dying," she told those who bothered to attend the Climate Action Summit [sic]. "Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.... You are failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you."
The dear child didn't mention Still-President Trump by name. He had already walked out of the Summit after enduring about 14 minutes of that kind of drivel. But he heard or read at least some of her remarks, and responded on Twitter, where he called her
Michael Knowles, of Fox News, was not so kind. He referred to Ms Thunberg as "a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left", then doubled down and called her "mentally ill" a second time. The network, obviously tiring of being accused of political incorrectness, subsequently apologized for Mr Knowles' remarks.
Footnote for Canadian readers: Chasseur Dephoques, from Saint-Louis-du-Ha!Ha! QC (you can look it up), wants to know who represented his country at the great Summit. Well, Hunter, Climate Barbie (aka Catherine McKenna), the Minister of the Environment, was too busy campaigning to save her seat in Parliament. And her boss, Just In Trudeau, was seen (in whiteface, mind you) in Niagara Falls, chucking a baby under the bus [chin, shurely! Ed.] So it feel to a low-level minion to hold aloft the red maple leaf. We didn't get the minion's name. Sorry.
Further reading: "500 Scientists Write UN: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'", by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., in Breitbart News, 24/9/19. Lead paragraph: "More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change."
"People are suffering, people are dying," she told those who bothered to attend the Climate Action Summit [sic]. "Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.... You are failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you."
The dear child didn't mention Still-President Trump by name. He had already walked out of the Summit after enduring about 14 minutes of that kind of drivel. But he heard or read at least some of her remarks, and responded on Twitter, where he called her
Michael Knowles, of Fox News, was not so kind. He referred to Ms Thunberg as "a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left", then doubled down and called her "mentally ill" a second time. The network, obviously tiring of being accused of political incorrectness, subsequently apologized for Mr Knowles' remarks.
Footnote for Canadian readers: Chasseur Dephoques, from Saint-Louis-du-Ha!Ha! QC (you can look it up), wants to know who represented his country at the great Summit. Well, Hunter, Climate Barbie (aka Catherine McKenna), the Minister of the Environment, was too busy campaigning to save her seat in Parliament. And her boss, Just In Trudeau, was seen (in whiteface, mind you) in Niagara Falls, chucking a baby under the bus [chin, shurely! Ed.] So it feel to a low-level minion to hold aloft the red maple leaf. We didn't get the minion's name. Sorry.
Further reading: "500 Scientists Write UN: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'", by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., in Breitbart News, 24/9/19. Lead paragraph: "More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change."
Monday, September 23, 2019
MUSIC VIDEO: Latest from Tuba Skinny - "Forget Me Not Blues"
Had a nice rest this weekend from things political, on either side of the World's Longest Undefended Border. [Lotsa Canadians wondering if it will ever be defended! Ed.] Let's begin a new week... and a new season... with the latest offering from my absolute favourite New Orleans-style jazz band, Tuba Skinny. It's called "Forget Me Not Blues".
Publishing this in B&W [sepia-tone? Ed.] rather than colour is a nice touch, gives it kind of an olde-tymey look to go with the olde-tymey sound.
Publishing this in B&W [sepia-tone? Ed.] rather than colour is a nice touch, gives it kind of an olde-tymey look to go with the olde-tymey sound.
Friday, September 20, 2019
Here we go again? US forces on way to Saudi Arabia
As reported on Al Jazeera (and every other news site) this afternoon...
The Pentagon said on Friday that the US will deploy additional troops and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to beef up security, as President Donald Trump has at least for now decided against any immediate military strikes in response to attacks on the Saudi oil industry.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said this is a first step, and he is not ruling out additional moves down the road. He said it's a response to requests from the Saudis and the UAE to help improve their air and missile defences.
The article goes on to say that US troop deployment will involve a moderate number of forces -- hundreds, not 1000s -- and will be primarily defensive in nature. All the same, it looks to me as if we're headed for another in the continuing series of Gulf Wars. Walt's market tip: Buy oil stocks, including companies that operate pipelines.
The Pentagon said on Friday that the US will deploy additional troops and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to beef up security, as President Donald Trump has at least for now decided against any immediate military strikes in response to attacks on the Saudi oil industry.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said this is a first step, and he is not ruling out additional moves down the road. He said it's a response to requests from the Saudis and the UAE to help improve their air and missile defences.
The article goes on to say that US troop deployment will involve a moderate number of forces -- hundreds, not 1000s -- and will be primarily defensive in nature. All the same, it looks to me as if we're headed for another in the continuing series of Gulf Wars. Walt's market tip: Buy oil stocks, including companies that operate pipelines.
And WaPo sez...
From "Canada's left should just dump Justin Trudeau", an op-ed piece by Henry Olsen, in today's Washington Post, the official organ of America's left.
"Trudeau, who apologized for his behavior and told reporters he 'should have known better,' has long used his preening moral superiority as rationale for political leadership. He had been in politics less than five years when he became Liberal Party leader in April 2013. Without his veneer of being a champion for racial and gender equality, he would have been nothing more than what conservatives claimed he was: an untested, immature man whose only rationale for power was the fact he was the son of a former Liberal prime minister....
"When asked Wednesday if more brownface or blackface photos could emerge, Trudeau replied there might be, saying he has 'been more enthusiastic about costumes than is sometimes appropriate.' Trudeau’s public display of racial and gender equality has now been shown to be yet another fancy costume. Canadians must have the courage to stand up and say it's unacceptable."
And to close, a little something scraped from Blazing Cat Fur.
"Trudeau, who apologized for his behavior and told reporters he 'should have known better,' has long used his preening moral superiority as rationale for political leadership. He had been in politics less than five years when he became Liberal Party leader in April 2013. Without his veneer of being a champion for racial and gender equality, he would have been nothing more than what conservatives claimed he was: an untested, immature man whose only rationale for power was the fact he was the son of a former Liberal prime minister....
"When asked Wednesday if more brownface or blackface photos could emerge, Trudeau replied there might be, saying he has 'been more enthusiastic about costumes than is sometimes appropriate.' Trudeau’s public display of racial and gender equality has now been shown to be yet another fancy costume. Canadians must have the courage to stand up and say it's unacceptable."
And to close, a little something scraped from Blazing Cat Fur.
Op-ed from the Voice of Truth: The embarrassment that is Trudeau
Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others.
The wishes of Rosie Barton and her never-Trumper colleagues at the Canadian Broadcorping Castration notwithstanding, the bombshell story of Canadian Liberal Party leader Just In Trudeau being exposed as an incurable narcissist is not going to go away any time soon. In the aftermath of the shocking revelations (via photos and video) of his penchant for dressing up in fancy costumes that include brownface and blackface makeup, Mr Socks has been called many things, including a hypocrite (Donna Friesen, Global TV national news anchor, and Stephen LeDrew, National Post). Walt is surprised that no-one has yet used the term "narcissist". IMHO, the definition above describes M Trudeau perfectly.
Perhaps no-one noticed that the once and (he hopes) future Prime Minister of Canuckistan lacks empathy for others -- a flaw that would encompass "racial insensitivity" -- because Just In is so good at projecting the opposite image. He's the master of apology, including the shedding of crocodile tears, to everyone (especially "marginalized communities") for every sin, real or imagined, or everyone but himself. Hey, he was a drama teacher, remember?
He has worn for so long the mask and costume of the post-modern, metrosexual champion of feminism, diversity and "wokeness" that I suspect he believes his own stuff! But today many Canucks are saying that there is some truth to the Cuckservatives' campaign message that the very white (except sometimes) knight in shining armor is "not as advertised".
This theme is taken up today by Melissa J. Gismondi, a writer and journalist who holds a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times (aka the Voice of Truth and Political Correctness) entitled "The Downfall of Canada’s Dreamy Boyfriend". The article is too long to reprint in its entirety (besides which the failing Times might sue us), so I'll just recommend it as "further reading".
And in conclusion, I'll just excerpt the last two paragraphs.
"For Canadians, though, the story is different. It also has bigger stakes, coming as it does in the middle of a federal election that has seen the Liberals and Conservatives neck-and-neck in the polls. It's the latest in a series of scandals that have led many liberals to grow disillusioned and, yes, even flat out embarrassed by Mr. Trudeau.
"Sorry, Americans. As Canadians living in the United States, we tried to tell you: That dude you thought was your dreamy boyfriend? He's not all he's cracked up to be. And like you, we're wondering, as Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and the first person of color to lead a major party, put it: 'Who is the real Mr. Trudeau?'"
Further viewing: "Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite — it's that simple", short video by Stephen LeDrew in the National Post, 20/9/19.
The wishes of Rosie Barton and her never-Trumper colleagues at the Canadian Broadcorping Castration notwithstanding, the bombshell story of Canadian Liberal Party leader Just In Trudeau being exposed as an incurable narcissist is not going to go away any time soon. In the aftermath of the shocking revelations (via photos and video) of his penchant for dressing up in fancy costumes that include brownface and blackface makeup, Mr Socks has been called many things, including a hypocrite (Donna Friesen, Global TV national news anchor, and Stephen LeDrew, National Post). Walt is surprised that no-one has yet used the term "narcissist". IMHO, the definition above describes M Trudeau perfectly.
Perhaps no-one noticed that the once and (he hopes) future Prime Minister of Canuckistan lacks empathy for others -- a flaw that would encompass "racial insensitivity" -- because Just In is so good at projecting the opposite image. He's the master of apology, including the shedding of crocodile tears, to everyone (especially "marginalized communities") for every sin, real or imagined, or everyone but himself. Hey, he was a drama teacher, remember?
He has worn for so long the mask and costume of the post-modern, metrosexual champion of feminism, diversity and "wokeness" that I suspect he believes his own stuff! But today many Canucks are saying that there is some truth to the Cuckservatives' campaign message that the very white (except sometimes) knight in shining armor is "not as advertised".
This theme is taken up today by Melissa J. Gismondi, a writer and journalist who holds a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times (aka the Voice of Truth and Political Correctness) entitled "The Downfall of Canada’s Dreamy Boyfriend". The article is too long to reprint in its entirety (besides which the failing Times might sue us), so I'll just recommend it as "further reading".
And in conclusion, I'll just excerpt the last two paragraphs.
"For Canadians, though, the story is different. It also has bigger stakes, coming as it does in the middle of a federal election that has seen the Liberals and Conservatives neck-and-neck in the polls. It's the latest in a series of scandals that have led many liberals to grow disillusioned and, yes, even flat out embarrassed by Mr. Trudeau.
"Sorry, Americans. As Canadians living in the United States, we tried to tell you: That dude you thought was your dreamy boyfriend? He's not all he's cracked up to be. And like you, we're wondering, as Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and the first person of color to lead a major party, put it: 'Who is the real Mr. Trudeau?'"
Further viewing: "Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite — it's that simple", short video by Stephen LeDrew in the National Post, 20/9/19.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
UPDATED: "Boy, is my face red! Errr... OK, it's brown! Black?!"
These pix push the bullshit meter well into the red. The excrement first interfaced with the air-conditioning device yesterday afternoon, when Time ran the picture at right, taken in 2001, of the 29-year-old Mister T exercising his penchant for playing Mr Dress-up by appearing as Aladdin [or is it the genie? Ed.] at an entertainment at West Point Grey Academy, a private school in Vancouver, where the young(ish) Trudeau was a drama teacher.
That was the pic that hit the news... and the Trudeau campaign... like a bombshell yesterday evening. But in his fulsome apology -- and I use the word correctly -- Mr Socks revealed that, errr, there were other pictures. Here's an even better one.
Looks like the same costume, so let's be charitable and assume it was taken at the same event, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be M Trudeau showing ethnic solidarity with a couple of his candidates in Brampton and Mississauga. (By the way, former Liberal MP Raj Grewal, the one with the gambling problem, announced yesterday that he wouldn't be running again this time. Surprised?)
On CBC's The National last night, a clearly crestfallen (and unbiased LOL) Rosemary Barton, described the makeup M Trudeau is wearing (not just on his face, but on his hands too) as "brownface", as if that made it... you know... not quite as bad as wearing blackface, which is something only racist Americans do. (Imagine if Donald Trump was photographed in blackface! Cazart!)Rosie must be even more dismayed today, looking at this picture of an even younger Justin Trudeau singing "Day-O" in a talent show at Le collège Jean-de-Brébeuf. Looks like blackface to me, and if you look closely you can see the enormous Afro which completed the image. Harry Belafonte he's not, but "racist", errr...
And that's the point. The other party leaders, the (((controlled media))) and every "progressive" in Canuckistan has pounced on poor Just In, whose face, as he spoke to the press on the campaign plane last night, was not red but ashen.
The Cuckservative, Andrew Scheer, and the NDP (Socialist) leader Jagmeet Singh (a brown-faced man in a turban!) were just about beside themselves with glee, all the while trying to look and sound deeply offended, accusing Just In of racial insensitivity, "wearing ethnicity as a costume", and, of course, racism.
The feminist champion of diversity and multiculturalism is truly hoist on his own petard. Ya gotta love it!
There are, to be sure, a few sane individuals who say that you shouldn't hold a "youthful indiscretion" against someone, especially if he apologizes sincerely (with tears, if possible) and has "matured and evolved" so that he realizes and takes responsibility for his political incorrectness. That's what Andy Sheer said just a few days ago, while standing up for a couple of his candidates who'd been somewhat compromised by past "errors of judgment".
The hyuge KA-BOOM is still reverberating through the newsrooms, corridors of power, Tim Hortons and other places where people discuss such things. It will be some time before people stop talking about Just In Trudeau's bad hair day... make that bad face day. Stay tuned!
Further reading: What's wrong with wearing blackface or brownface? The leftist ideology explained: "Why wearing blackface or brownface is considered 'reprehensible'", by (((Mark Gollom))), on the CBC News website... of course. [And let that be an end to the accusations that we never link to the CBC! Ed.]
UPDATE ADDED 0800: Canada's Global TV has obtained video of another incident -- not the high school "Day-O" incident but something more recent -- in which Mr Dressup wears blackface. Not "brownface" but blackface. Note the comment about resignation. Could it happen?
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
John Robson: Questions that will get you booted off the leaders' planes
What follows is really for those of our Canadian readers who wish their political leaders would give clear answers to their questions about the issues of the day. American readers (as well as Brits, Aussies, anyone and everyone) will also find it useful to clip, save and adapt to their own countries' politics for the next go-round.
This is copied, almost verbatim, from "Here are the questions that would get me kicked off the federal leaders' planes", by John Robson, in today's National Post, the only major Canuck news outlet that even tries to provide unbiased coverage of the election campaign. Mr Robson writes:
"...thoughtful eloquence isn't as useless as most politicians seem to think. And too many journalists, including those who accept, as the price of admission to the campaign plane, that instead of pressing the candidates they will report their hideous verbiage as actual speech. They make themselves complicit. And for what?
Before insulting anyone else let me congratulate debate organizers for finally inviting Maxime Bernier. And not only because I think he's the only one even trying to talk sense, though I do.... Bernier's a serious presence, especially because on a remarkable number of issues he's on one side and the four "major" parties busy hacking one another to rhetorical shreds are grouped tightly together on the other. (Five if you count the Bloc [Québécois].)
If you doubt me, imagine what their leaders would mumble, if cornered, on the following questions that I'd insist on asking firmly and repeatedly with zero patience for evasions, bait-and-switch, impenetrable syntax or pre-chewed talking points:
Bravo, Mr Robson. Bravo! Let's see how many (if any) of these questions are addressed seriously in the Leaders' Debates.
Footnote: For those who didn't buy the programme, the political leaders pictured are: Top row, L-R: Andrew Scheer (Conservative), Maxime Bernier (People's Party of Canada), Justin Trudeau (Liberal); bottom row, L-R: Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois, which runs candidates only in la Belle Province), Elizabeth May (Green) and Jagmeet Singh (NDP).
This is copied, almost verbatim, from "Here are the questions that would get me kicked off the federal leaders' planes", by John Robson, in today's National Post, the only major Canuck news outlet that even tries to provide unbiased coverage of the election campaign. Mr Robson writes:
"...thoughtful eloquence isn't as useless as most politicians seem to think. And too many journalists, including those who accept, as the price of admission to the campaign plane, that instead of pressing the candidates they will report their hideous verbiage as actual speech. They make themselves complicit. And for what?
Before insulting anyone else let me congratulate debate organizers for finally inviting Maxime Bernier. And not only because I think he's the only one even trying to talk sense, though I do.... Bernier's a serious presence, especially because on a remarkable number of issues he's on one side and the four "major" parties busy hacking one another to rhetorical shreds are grouped tightly together on the other. (Five if you count the Bloc [Québécois].)
If you doubt me, imagine what their leaders would mumble, if cornered, on the following questions that I'd insist on asking firmly and repeatedly with zero patience for evasions, bait-and-switch, impenetrable syntax or pre-chewed talking points:
- Is government in Canada too big? If so, what would you get rid of? If not, how would you pay for it?
- Why can't we do health care the way the French or Swedes do instead of the way Cuba does? (Anyone who drags in "American-style health care" immediately has their mic cut off.)
- Is China friend, foe or simply a foreign entity pursuing its own national interest?
- Does Canada need capable armed forces? If so, what do we need and how much are you ready to spend? If not, how do we deal with a dangerous world?
- Is the world dangerous? If not, how do you explain the entire course of human history? If so, why aren’t you more worried?
- Why do we deliberately raise the price of food for the poor through supply management? (Maxime Bernier can just sit and smirk during this one. Andrew Scheer can't.)
- Why is Canada the only democracy without any sort of abortion law (Vietnam also has none but even Cuba regulates late-term ones) when most Canadians want some restrictions?
- Does man-made climate change threaten civilization within the next decade or three? If so, how are we going to get rid of fossil fuels pronto and what will we replace them with? If not, why won’t you call global warming alarmism baloney?
- How should Canada's national interest factor into our immigration policies? Is there a level of immigration that you believe would be beyond our capability to absorb?
- Do you really think Canadian Indigenous bands are separate nations? If so, when will you explicitly legislate that Canadian law does not apply on their territories and open embassies? If not, why do you pretend to? Won’t they be annoyed when they realize you’re lying again?
- Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? If "the Catholic church", why aren't your policies remotely consistent with Church doctrine? If "from within", how do you know you're right? If "there’s no such thing as right and wrong," how can we trust you to do what’s right?
- How large, of all that human hearts endure, is that part that laws and governments can cure?
Bravo, Mr Robson. Bravo! Let's see how many (if any) of these questions are addressed seriously in the Leaders' Debates.
Footnote: For those who didn't buy the programme, the political leaders pictured are: Top row, L-R: Andrew Scheer (Conservative), Maxime Bernier (People's Party of Canada), Justin Trudeau (Liberal); bottom row, L-R: Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois, which runs candidates only in la Belle Province), Elizabeth May (Green) and Jagmeet Singh (NDP).
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Poor Len Canayen's first look at the 2019-20 Montréal Canadiens
Ed. here, welcoming our hockey-lovin' buddy, Poor Len Canayen, back from his summer hibernation. (He burrows into the sand around the 29th of June and pokes his head out on Labour Day to see if there's ice in the Bell Centre yet, in which case he puts on his hockey sweater.) He watched the Montréal Canadiens first pre-season game at the Bell Centre last night and send this report.
Tank youse, Ed. Last night's game -- New Jersey Devils @ Montréal Canadiens -- wasn't good hockey, but you wouldn't expect that for the very first game, eh. Both teams looked as if they'd just met during the warm-up.
There was a noticeable lack of cohesion, loads of errant passes and turnovers, plus a certain lack of physicality. More like a scrimmage than a game. But hey, no-one wants to get hurt right out of the gate, and everyone wants to impress the coach and GM to avoid getting sent down to the farm. Click here to see the TSN/NHL video highlights.
Going by shots on goal, the Devils had the better of the play, especially in the second half of the game, but Les Glorieux emerged victorious, with 4 goals to the Devils' 2. Carey Price allowed one goal on 9 shots in 30:08, and rookie goalie Cayden Primeau, who played college hockey in the USA last year, looked good in stopping 16 of 17, including a spectacular save on NJ's Nico Hirschier just a minute or so after he took over from Price in the 2nd period. Keith Kinkaid is slotted to be the regular backup to Price once the season starts, but Primeau will make it a three-way fight for the starting position with the Laval Rocket farm team.
Habs' scoring came from Arturri Lehkonen, Nate Thompson, Jake Evans and an empty-netter from Nick Cousins. I cross my fingers that Lehkonen's late-season improvement of last year will carry over into this year. Thompson is a solid player (take that two ways) and should be a fixture on the third or fourth line. Cousins looks like a good bet to stay with the big team. About Evans, I'm not so sure, need to see more of him.
I'm betting on Charles Hudon to be sent down to Laval, again. Poor guy just can't finish. In the first period he had a glorious opportunity, standing unmarked about two feet to the left front of the NJ goalie, and fanned on the shot. Story of his life. Joining him on the bus will be Dale Weise, who just doesn't have the speed or finesse for the young and speedy Habs. Rookie Nick Suzuki, up from the juniors, has finesse and puck smarts, but needs to work on his skating, and -- let's face it -- is a bit on the small side. Maybe a season in the AHL, rather than with the big team, would do him good.
It was good to see Shea "Dad" Weber healthy and solid on the blue line, playing over 21 minutes without breaking a sweat. He got the assist on Lehkonen's tip-in. Brett Kulak looked out of shape, and should know that there's a rookie, Cale Fleury, who will be a contender for a regular start. So will another rookie, Josh Brook, and old(er)-timer Xavier Ouellet, who I like a lot.
All in all, I'm mildly encouraged. I don't see any glaring deficiencies at any position, and I do see some promising youngsters. No predictions yet, but good performances by a couple of talented rookies, backstopped by Weber and Price, could be all it takes to get the Canadiens into the playoffs.
BONUS VIDEO: By popular request, here, once again, is the excellent story of "The Hockey Sweater", written and narrated for the National Film Board video by Roch Carrier. No subtitles. If you gonna come on top da country `ere you better learn to talk like we do!
Cliquez ici pour voir la version française.
Tank youse, Ed. Last night's game -- New Jersey Devils @ Montréal Canadiens -- wasn't good hockey, but you wouldn't expect that for the very first game, eh. Both teams looked as if they'd just met during the warm-up.There was a noticeable lack of cohesion, loads of errant passes and turnovers, plus a certain lack of physicality. More like a scrimmage than a game. But hey, no-one wants to get hurt right out of the gate, and everyone wants to impress the coach and GM to avoid getting sent down to the farm. Click here to see the TSN/NHL video highlights.
Going by shots on goal, the Devils had the better of the play, especially in the second half of the game, but Les Glorieux emerged victorious, with 4 goals to the Devils' 2. Carey Price allowed one goal on 9 shots in 30:08, and rookie goalie Cayden Primeau, who played college hockey in the USA last year, looked good in stopping 16 of 17, including a spectacular save on NJ's Nico Hirschier just a minute or so after he took over from Price in the 2nd period. Keith Kinkaid is slotted to be the regular backup to Price once the season starts, but Primeau will make it a three-way fight for the starting position with the Laval Rocket farm team.
Habs' scoring came from Arturri Lehkonen, Nate Thompson, Jake Evans and an empty-netter from Nick Cousins. I cross my fingers that Lehkonen's late-season improvement of last year will carry over into this year. Thompson is a solid player (take that two ways) and should be a fixture on the third or fourth line. Cousins looks like a good bet to stay with the big team. About Evans, I'm not so sure, need to see more of him.
I'm betting on Charles Hudon to be sent down to Laval, again. Poor guy just can't finish. In the first period he had a glorious opportunity, standing unmarked about two feet to the left front of the NJ goalie, and fanned on the shot. Story of his life. Joining him on the bus will be Dale Weise, who just doesn't have the speed or finesse for the young and speedy Habs. Rookie Nick Suzuki, up from the juniors, has finesse and puck smarts, but needs to work on his skating, and -- let's face it -- is a bit on the small side. Maybe a season in the AHL, rather than with the big team, would do him good.
It was good to see Shea "Dad" Weber healthy and solid on the blue line, playing over 21 minutes without breaking a sweat. He got the assist on Lehkonen's tip-in. Brett Kulak looked out of shape, and should know that there's a rookie, Cale Fleury, who will be a contender for a regular start. So will another rookie, Josh Brook, and old(er)-timer Xavier Ouellet, who I like a lot.
All in all, I'm mildly encouraged. I don't see any glaring deficiencies at any position, and I do see some promising youngsters. No predictions yet, but good performances by a couple of talented rookies, backstopped by Weber and Price, could be all it takes to get the Canadiens into the playoffs.
BONUS VIDEO: By popular request, here, once again, is the excellent story of "The Hockey Sweater", written and narrated for the National Film Board video by Roch Carrier. No subtitles. If you gonna come on top da country `ere you better learn to talk like we do!
Cliquez ici pour voir la version française.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Conspiracy to silence Max Bernier fails! He'll be at the debates
It took a month, but the conspiracy to keep Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, off the platform at the Canadian Leaders' Debates has been not just exposed but defeated. "Mad Max" will join the leaders of the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens in the two "official" debates, in English on October 7th an in French on October 10th.The Right Honourable David Johnston, formerly the Governor-General of Canuckistan and now chairman of the "independent" Leaders' Debates Commission announced the hyuge climb-down today, saying that he is now persuaded that, given "new evidence", the Commission is persuaded that the PPC does in fact have a "reasonable chance" at winning multiple seats in the federal election to be held on October 21st. Mr Johnston said his decision was based in part on the party's membership count, its strong media presence and recent polling numbers.
What other "new evidence" did the Commission see? For one thing, an online petition signed by tens of 1000s of people, including some of Walt's agents, who believe that the interests of fairness, if nothing else, demanded the inclusion of the leader of a party with a nearly-full slate of candidates, tens of 1000s of members, and the support of hundreds of 1000s "from coast to coast to coast", as Canucks like to say. The Commission simply could no longer pretend (like the CBC) that the People's Party no longer exists.
The Leaders' Debates will be much more interesting, now that some dissent from the prevailing liberal orthodoxy will be heard. I'll make the popcorn.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Left vs far left - Bill Maher & Michael Moore discuss Democrats
A week ago, Walt posted "'No time for moderation, no time for Biden' sez Michael Moore" (WWW 7/9/19), in which I reported on the noted film-maker's warning to the Democrats that if they chose the soft liberal option and put Old Joe Biden at the top of their 2020 ticket, they would lose to President Trump.
Yesterday, Mr Moore appeared on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher and repeated that warning to the eponymous host. This time, though, he took aim at Fauxcahontas, who he accused of not being far enough to the left, compared with such super-progressive Democrats as the wimmin of The Squad. He asserted that The Squad are viewed favorably by the majority of the American electorate. [Seriously?! Ed.]
Bill Maher, who lamented the leftward drift of the Dems' 2020 presidential wannabes on MSNBC's Morning Joe, was skeptical, to put it mildly. He said he did not think the country was "there" on most issues, including "Medicare for All", a policy supported by some of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Mr Moore said that if the presidential election were held right now, Still-President Donald Trump would emerge as the winner. That's pretty much what Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said a few days ago, except that Mr Ryan predicted a Trump landslide. See "Tim Ryan (D-OH) predicts Dems could lose 48 states in 2020", WWW 29/8/19 (includes video). BUT, Mr Moore says, the Democrats can win in 2020 if only they choose a candidate who will appeal to the wimmin, coloured people ["people of colour", please. Ed.] and young people who, he claims, make up 70% of the electorate.
ED. HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN BLOCKED DUE TO COPYRIGHT ISSUES. GUESS HBO DOESN'T LIKE YOU TO BE ABLE TO WATCH WITHOUT PAYING.
Walt hopes that the Dumbocrats listen to Messrs Moore and Ryan. Never mind a champagne liberal like Fauxcahontas. Put AOC or Ilhan Omar on top of the ticket, and let's see what happens. I'll make the popcorn.
Yesterday, Mr Moore appeared on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher and repeated that warning to the eponymous host. This time, though, he took aim at Fauxcahontas, who he accused of not being far enough to the left, compared with such super-progressive Democrats as the wimmin of The Squad. He asserted that The Squad are viewed favorably by the majority of the American electorate. [Seriously?! Ed.]
Bill Maher, who lamented the leftward drift of the Dems' 2020 presidential wannabes on MSNBC's Morning Joe, was skeptical, to put it mildly. He said he did not think the country was "there" on most issues, including "Medicare for All", a policy supported by some of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Mr Moore said that if the presidential election were held right now, Still-President Donald Trump would emerge as the winner. That's pretty much what Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said a few days ago, except that Mr Ryan predicted a Trump landslide. See "Tim Ryan (D-OH) predicts Dems could lose 48 states in 2020", WWW 29/8/19 (includes video). BUT, Mr Moore says, the Democrats can win in 2020 if only they choose a candidate who will appeal to the wimmin, coloured people ["people of colour", please. Ed.] and young people who, he claims, make up 70% of the electorate.
ED. HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN BLOCKED DUE TO COPYRIGHT ISSUES. GUESS HBO DOESN'T LIKE YOU TO BE ABLE TO WATCH WITHOUT PAYING.
Walt hopes that the Dumbocrats listen to Messrs Moore and Ryan. Never mind a champagne liberal like Fauxcahontas. Put AOC or Ilhan Omar on top of the ticket, and let's see what happens. I'll make the popcorn.
Friday, September 13, 2019
What is Jagmeet Singh saying?
Jagmeet Singh is fighting his first general election as leader of Canada's Not-so-new Democratic Party. The socialists (for that's what they are) are struggling to hold onto third place in the polls, facing a serious challenge [seriously? Ed.] from the loonier left Green Party.
Mr Singh was in Toronto this morning, where he promised to put a cap on the amount telecoms could charge long-suffering Canucks for cellphone and internet service. Not that it matters, because the NDP has two chances of forming the next government -- slim and none. Anyhoo, following his speech, the turbanned tribune fielded some questions from the press. Adrian Wyld, of Canadian Press, snapped this photo.
Said photo appeared with the story on the CTV News website, around lunchtime (EDT). It also appeared on the CBC News website, where it remained for about 40 seconds before being taken down and replaced with a stock shot. Maybe the picture has a hidden meaning that Walt didn't get? What does that emoticon mean anyway? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please, to the usual address.
Mr Singh was in Toronto this morning, where he promised to put a cap on the amount telecoms could charge long-suffering Canucks for cellphone and internet service. Not that it matters, because the NDP has two chances of forming the next government -- slim and none. Anyhoo, following his speech, the turbanned tribune fielded some questions from the press. Adrian Wyld, of Canadian Press, snapped this photo.
Said photo appeared with the story on the CTV News website, around lunchtime (EDT). It also appeared on the CBC News website, where it remained for about 40 seconds before being taken down and replaced with a stock shot. Maybe the picture has a hidden meaning that Walt didn't get? What does that emoticon mean anyway? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please, to the usual address.
Crisis in the Catholic Church coming to a head... as in Head (= Pope)
I am no prophet [We leave that to Poor Len Canayen. Ed.] but, dear Catholic readers, it looks to me as if we may be mere months, or even weeks away, from a revolution in the Roman Catholic Church -- a revolt of the faithful against the leadership into perdition of Pope Francis. By "the faithful", I mean not just traditional Catholics like Michael Matt, but all those who cling to what's left of the True Faith after what Mr Matt rightly calls "universal dumpster fire" that was Vatican II.The Unholy Father calls those of us who cling to the Faith of Our Fathers, "orthodox Catholics". I'm just as proud to be an "orthodox Catholic" as I am to be a "deplorable". The appellation reminds me of a school cheer I learned in my university daze.
We are the salt of the earth, so give ear to us
No new ideas shall ever come near to us
Orthodox, Catholic, crammed with divinity
Damn the dissenters, hurrah for the Trinity.
But I digress... The news... the sad news... is that, according to a transcript published in the National Catholic Register September 11th, Francis told a plane-full of international reporters on a flight from Madagascar to Rome that if you're an "orthodox" Catholic, he doesn't want you in his church! The Pope (if such he is) is obviously smarting from criticisms from many quarters that he is a heretic and a schismatic, even that is not a valid pope. These denunciations have come from his own Cardinals and bishops, the Curia, the religious press, and devout Catholic laymen like Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara, not to mention lesser-known traditional Catholics like Yr Obdt Servant.
Francis called such attacks "the criticism of arsenic pills...throwing the stone but hiding the hand." Then he rambled on, denouncing his critics -- he mentioned the late Archbishop Lefebvre by name -- as being "schismatics". Yet it is Francis himself who is not only a heretic, but the true schismatic. The great Jesuit theologian Francisco Suarez wrote (translated): ...the pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in union and association with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both [Cardinal-Theologians] Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church established in Apostolic Tradition. (De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1)
Yet that is exactly what Francis has done, in rejecting (along with every pope since Vatican II) the traditional Latin Mass and substituting for it an invalid and heretical Protestant service. Francis is the man who has destroyed the Catholic liturgy, Catholic doctrine, and Catholic morality! The "orthodox" Catholics, those who preach and practise correct doctrine (that's what "orthodox" means -- "correct doctrine") are the true Catholics. Those who don't, like the Unholy Father and his followers, are the true schismatics.
Two of the prelates who Pope Francis would judge to be "orthodox" are Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, both mentioned on WWW before. The National Catholic Register reports their call for a Crusade of Prayer and Fasting, from September 17th to October 26th, for the welfare of the Church. Their plea cites the dangers of "implicit pantheism" in the working document for the upcoming Amazon Synod, and argues against tailoring Catholic ordained ministries to the ancestral customs of the aboriginal people."
Faithful Cardinals, Bishops, priests and laypeople -- 1000s of them -- are righteously indignant over the direction in which Pope Francis is leading Holy Mother Church. He is not the good shepherd, but a false prophet leading us to the edge of the cliff at the bottom of which lies heresy, apostasy and the punishment of eternal separation from a just God.
How much longer can Francis' perversion of the Faith and destruction of the Church continue? It is not easy to "impeach" a pope, but it is possible. The opposition of the "orthodox" seems about to reach the tipping point. God bless those who stand up for the True Faith, and confound the enemies of Holy Mother Church, both without and within... even those at the very top!
Further reading: "Pope Francis: 'Need some more nails?'", WWW 1/7/19.
Further viewing: "Vatican II a "'universal dumpster fire'", video with Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper, WWW 7/9/19.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
9/11: Let's not forget who did this
"Some people did something" -- the infamous words of Ilhan Omar (Democrat - MN) downplaying the atrocity committed 18 years ago, when over 3000 innocent people died at the hands of... lest we forget... Islamic terrorists. On this day, 9/11, 18 years ago, 19 Islamic terrorists, members of Al-Qaeda, in addition to killing thousands of people in just a couple of hours, caused billions in dollars of economic damage. In the words of Nicholas Haros Jr., speaking at today's memorial service in New York, "Your relatives and friends were attacked. Our constitutional freedoms were attacked, and our nation's founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That's what some people did!" The speaker went on to call on Rep. Omar and the other members of the "Squad" to show some respect in honouring those who lost their lives.
The conspirators behind the dastardly attack have kept their lives. The death penalty trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, and his four partners in orchestrating the deadliest attack ever carried out on American soil, is still pending. Pre-trial hearings resumed this past Monday. And it's all to ensure that Mr Mohammed and his co-conspirators -- Walid Muhammad Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi -- fanatical Muslims, the lot of them -- will receive "justice".
What justice is there, Walt asks, for the 3000+ dead and the families and friends left to mourn them. Is it just that the public revulsion over the 9/11 atrocity, and the great public anger at Islamic terrorists should be used by Ilhan Omar and her fellow Democrats and sympathizers with Islamism, to justify the foundation of the Council on American–Islamic Relations, "a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group", and the sanitization of 9/11? "Some people did something..." Let us not forget who did what, and why. It was Islamic terrorists, of whom 1000s are still out there -- not just in the Middle East and Europe but in America -- and they did it because they want to kill us. Let us not forget.
Further reading: "DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 9/11? Or are we still sleeping?", by (((Dan Greenfield))), on FrontPageMag, 11/9/19.
VIDEO: "Mad Max" Bernier says he doesn't mind his nickname
Agent 3, who pays attention to the politics of Canuckistan, has just e-mailed me to say that at this very moment, Justin "Mr Socks" Trudeau has emerged from his little tête-à-tête with the Governor-General, holding in his hand the writ which officially begins the federal election. Polling day will be October 21st, and the campaign is expected to be nasty, perhaps even approaching the nastiness level of an American campaign. [Impossible! Ed.]
The Leaders' Debate Commission, the creature of the Liberal government and dominated by the (((controlled media))) -- especially the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration -- have conspired to keep Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, off the platform for the main debates scheduled for October 7th and 10th. See "Canada's 'independent' Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier", WWW 12/8/19.
This interview was recorded in early July in Alberta. At that time, M Bernier assumed that he would be included in the leaders' debates, so he speaks about being confident that once Canadians here what he has to say and what the PPC stands for, many will support them. And why not. Every poll done in the last year shows that the majority of Canucks are in favour of reducing immigration levels, a major plank in the PPC platform.
Now the lefties -- all the other parties are to the left of the PPC -- have dropped a cone of silence over Max, so, in the interest of fairness, Walt is reposting Mad Max's interview with Community TV, Medicine Hat's web-based broadcaster. I know M Bernier will not mind my calling him "Mad Max". Listen to his answer to the very first question. And hear what he says about Just In Trudeau, at the 56 second mark. LOL
Further reading: People's Party of Canada 2019 Electoral Platform. Don't listen to the lies of the lamestream media about what Mad Max and PPC are proposing for Canada's future. Check it out for yourself.
The Leaders' Debate Commission, the creature of the Liberal government and dominated by the (((controlled media))) -- especially the state-owned Canadian Broadcorping Castration -- have conspired to keep Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, off the platform for the main debates scheduled for October 7th and 10th. See "Canada's 'independent' Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier", WWW 12/8/19.
This interview was recorded in early July in Alberta. At that time, M Bernier assumed that he would be included in the leaders' debates, so he speaks about being confident that once Canadians here what he has to say and what the PPC stands for, many will support them. And why not. Every poll done in the last year shows that the majority of Canucks are in favour of reducing immigration levels, a major plank in the PPC platform.
Now the lefties -- all the other parties are to the left of the PPC -- have dropped a cone of silence over Max, so, in the interest of fairness, Walt is reposting Mad Max's interview with Community TV, Medicine Hat's web-based broadcaster. I know M Bernier will not mind my calling him "Mad Max". Listen to his answer to the very first question. And hear what he says about Just In Trudeau, at the 56 second mark. LOL
Further reading: People's Party of Canada 2019 Electoral Platform. Don't listen to the lies of the lamestream media about what Mad Max and PPC are proposing for Canada's future. Check it out for yourself.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
VIDEO: Vatican II a "universal dumpster fire": Michael Matt
C'mon, Michael. Don't sugar-coat it! Tell it like it is!
"The Shamazon synod", LOL. The clips from the ultra-modern "masses" are horrifying, simply horrifying. What is wrong with these people (especially the priests) that they think there's anything Catholic about what they're doing?
"The Shamazon synod", LOL. The clips from the ultra-modern "masses" are horrifying, simply horrifying. What is wrong with these people (especially the priests) that they think there's anything Catholic about what they're doing?
"No time for moderation, no time for Biden" sez Michael Moore
It would be easy to dismiss obese American film-maker Michael Moore as a left-wingnut who is completely out of touch with the political sentiments of the majority of the American people. But you can't, because every now and then Mr Moore demonstrates remarkable insight into the mood of the public.When it comes to Democratic party politics, he has given more than one fairly accurate prognosis of events to come. Remember his wise words in Trumpland, a one-man stage show he created to endorse Hellerey Clinton, which turned out to explain perfectly why average Americans (especially those in states like Michigan) voted for Donald Trump.
A couple of days ago, Michael Moore tweeted a dire warning to Democrats: Nominate former Veep Old Joe Biden and risk alienating progressive voters come 2020. The first sin for which he chastises Mr Biden was his attendance at a fundraiser hosted by (((Andrew Goldman))), the founder of the natural gas company Western LNG. As is well known, taking petrodollars is a no-no for all right-thinking [Don't you mean "left-thinking"? Ed.] persons. Here's the Tweet.
"Last night on CNN, a student asked Biden, who had pledged to take NO fossil fuel money, why he was having an NYC fundraiser tonight hosted by Andrew Goldman, the founder of the natural gas co Western LNG. Biden denied it. Then CNN said it was true & that Biden is attending. Wow. We can NOT go through this again, my friends. As with Hillary taking Goldman Sachs $$, then trying to pretend nothing happened, we can NOT risk this again."
The leading light of the commentariat opined that Still-President Trump's issues and supposed divisiveness, by themselves, would not be enough to compel progressives into punching the 2020 Democritic ticket if Mr Biden were at the head of it. "Our base will stay home once more if Biden is the candidate. If they see he's in cahoots w/ fossil fuel, that he has lied. They will not say, 'So what -- Trump's a bigger liar!' They will just give up. Trust me on this."
Mr Moore says that the only antidote to Trump is an "anti-Trump" who is not afraid to fight the incumbent hard in his/her bid for the White House. "We need a completely honest and authentic candidate, the Anti-Trump, a street fighter, and someone who when they say they'll take NO fossil fuel $$, they not only keep their promise, they go after tooth-and-nail and put somebody like Andrew Goldman out of business. They don’t attend a fundraiser of his fat cats!"
Michael Moore's last words for Creepy Uncle Joe? Apologize to the American people and step down to make room for an authentic candidate. "Joe -- you’re driving there right now. For God's sake, turn your limousine around immediately and apologize to the American people. You think [you] can beat Trump. So what! Hillary beat him! Didn’t matter! We need a candidate who will CRUSH him because that candidate has INSPIRED a tsunami of voters with her or his INTEGRITY; his/her progressive vision of what the 21st century should be. That, Joe, isn't you.
"Finally, last night [you] said that we are only 15% of the climate change problem. 85% of it is the rest of the world’s (fault). Are you serious? Wall Street, Corporate America, the poor everywhere who make our goods [for] us, our exploitation of the entire planet — please, Joe, stop!"
While Michael Moore indeed hates Still-President Trump and wants to see him lose, in recent months he (Moore) has been chiding the Democritic establishment for pushing Joe Biden while trying to belittle the progressive base. In a February interview on MSNBC, he told the Dems, "If you’re being moderate, stop being moderate. Take a position. There's no middle ground anymore. There's no halfway point to should somebody be paid a living wage. You know, on the issue of choice, there is no halfway there. You're either for it or you're against it. Do you believe in equal rights for women? Do you believe we should have an Equal Rights Amendment? There's no middle ground. There's no time for moderation."
Indeed. Walt hopes... and I say this sincerely... that the Dems take Michael Moore seriously and nominate a real progressive -- AOC, say, or Pete Buttgeig -- someone that all right-thinking Americans [Don't you mean "left-thinking"? Ed.] can't help but love and vote for.
Friday, September 6, 2019
New poll shows nativist, anti-immigrant sentiments growing in Canada
The Canadian elites -- the liberal politicians of the mainstream parties, the lamestream media and the commentariat (Hello, Andrew Coyne, Paul Wells, Rosie Barton, Chantal Hébert -- all of whom appear on CBC's At Issue to tell Canucks what to think) -- have been trying for weeks now to assure the gullible that mass immigration is a non-issue in the upcoming federal election, that all Canadians agree the country needs more immigrants, and that (as Mr Socks used to say) "diversity is our strength."
That, they say, is why it's not necessary to include Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, in the Leaders' Debates scheduled for October 7th and 10th. "Don't listen to him," they say. "He only represents the opinions of a tiny minority of racists, Islamophobes, and white supremacists."
WRONG! A new Ipsos poll, published today by Canada's Global TV, reveals that the majority of Canadians think politicians aren't concerned with people like them and experts (Hello, Andrew Coyne et al.) don't understand them. They say Canadian society is "broken" and the economy is rigged in favour of elites. Worse yet for the multiculti, pro-immigrant crowd, the poll shows that populist attitudes -- as well as nativist, anti-immigrant sentiments -- have gained new ground across Canada.
Global quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos, as ssaying that the general sentiments "create a series of difficulties for all the parties." With respect to Mr Bricker, he should have said "all the parties except the People's Party of Canada". Maxime Bernier and his party have been excoriataed by the commentariat for daring to suggest that Canada needs fewer immigrants, not more. (See "'No mass immigration' signs torn down, censorship complete", WWW 27/8/19.) Only the PPC has a real alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy on questions of immigration and the cult of diversity which is tearing Canada apart.
According to the survey, conducted at the end of March and early April, 61% of respondents agreed traditional political parties don't care about people like them. That's an increase of 5 percentage points over the result of a poll done in 2016, the first year of Prime Minister Just In Trudeau's mandate. Two-thirds of respondents believe the economy is rigged to benefit the rich (Well, duh!). That's up eight points since 2016. But there's an even more disturbing finding.
The majority of respondents (52%) agreed that society is "broken" -- an increase of 15 points over three years ago. Only 19% disagreed, while 28% said they were neutral [the default Canadian answer? Ed.] and 1% said they don't know. But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more!
The poll also found that 41% cent of respondents believed immigrants are taking away crucial social services (such as health care) from "real Canadians" -- a 6-point increase from 2016. Just over a third said they disagree, while more than fifth chose the default answer.
Global asked Mr Bricker what's fuelling what they called "the shift toward populism". The Ipsos CEO answered that Canadian politics has become more "tribal". Imagine that, in a country whose leader preaches incessantly that "diversity is our strength!" Could it be that that's a lie? That strength comes from unity, not diversity?
Mr Bricker added that the distribution of political support has changed in Canada. "You have a lot of stuff here where it's the downtown Laurentian elite versus everybody else," he said. "If I broke this out and took at look at where these feelings are the strongest, they would be outside of the downtowns of the cities, so that cleavage has been created. Also when you get to Western Canada, the feelings are much stronger."
What does all this portend for the October election, and especially for the future of Mr Socks' gliberal government? All the polls and pundits (named and shamed above) keep saying that the People's Party has only 2% support, and that Max Bernier will be lucky to win his own seat, let alone any others. Walt says -- you read it here first -- that the polls and pundits are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Just as a lot of Americans would not disclose to pollsters and reporters from the lamestream media their preference for Donald Trump -- a leader who stood up for the ordinary people -- so a great many of those "neutral" and "don't know" Canadians will choose the PPC in the only poll that counts, making it a very big and vfery real factor. Should be interesting...
Further reading and viewing: "Max Bernier talks about immigration, refugees, hate speech", WWW 3/9/19. Short (6:50) video. More Canucks agree with "Mad Max" than the commentariat would have you believe.
That, they say, is why it's not necessary to include Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, in the Leaders' Debates scheduled for October 7th and 10th. "Don't listen to him," they say. "He only represents the opinions of a tiny minority of racists, Islamophobes, and white supremacists."
WRONG! A new Ipsos poll, published today by Canada's Global TV, reveals that the majority of Canadians think politicians aren't concerned with people like them and experts (Hello, Andrew Coyne et al.) don't understand them. They say Canadian society is "broken" and the economy is rigged in favour of elites. Worse yet for the multiculti, pro-immigrant crowd, the poll shows that populist attitudes -- as well as nativist, anti-immigrant sentiments -- have gained new ground across Canada.
Global quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos, as ssaying that the general sentiments "create a series of difficulties for all the parties." With respect to Mr Bricker, he should have said "all the parties except the People's Party of Canada". Maxime Bernier and his party have been excoriataed by the commentariat for daring to suggest that Canada needs fewer immigrants, not more. (See "'No mass immigration' signs torn down, censorship complete", WWW 27/8/19.) Only the PPC has a real alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy on questions of immigration and the cult of diversity which is tearing Canada apart.
According to the survey, conducted at the end of March and early April, 61% of respondents agreed traditional political parties don't care about people like them. That's an increase of 5 percentage points over the result of a poll done in 2016, the first year of Prime Minister Just In Trudeau's mandate. Two-thirds of respondents believe the economy is rigged to benefit the rich (Well, duh!). That's up eight points since 2016. But there's an even more disturbing finding.
The majority of respondents (52%) agreed that society is "broken" -- an increase of 15 points over three years ago. Only 19% disagreed, while 28% said they were neutral [the default Canadian answer? Ed.] and 1% said they don't know. But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more!
The poll also found that 41% cent of respondents believed immigrants are taking away crucial social services (such as health care) from "real Canadians" -- a 6-point increase from 2016. Just over a third said they disagree, while more than fifth chose the default answer.
Global asked Mr Bricker what's fuelling what they called "the shift toward populism". The Ipsos CEO answered that Canadian politics has become more "tribal". Imagine that, in a country whose leader preaches incessantly that "diversity is our strength!" Could it be that that's a lie? That strength comes from unity, not diversity?
Mr Bricker added that the distribution of political support has changed in Canada. "You have a lot of stuff here where it's the downtown Laurentian elite versus everybody else," he said. "If I broke this out and took at look at where these feelings are the strongest, they would be outside of the downtowns of the cities, so that cleavage has been created. Also when you get to Western Canada, the feelings are much stronger."
What does all this portend for the October election, and especially for the future of Mr Socks' gliberal government? All the polls and pundits (named and shamed above) keep saying that the People's Party has only 2% support, and that Max Bernier will be lucky to win his own seat, let alone any others. Walt says -- you read it here first -- that the polls and pundits are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Just as a lot of Americans would not disclose to pollsters and reporters from the lamestream media their preference for Donald Trump -- a leader who stood up for the ordinary people -- so a great many of those "neutral" and "don't know" Canadians will choose the PPC in the only poll that counts, making it a very big and vfery real factor. Should be interesting...
Further reading and viewing: "Max Bernier talks about immigration, refugees, hate speech", WWW 3/9/19. Short (6:50) video. More Canucks agree with "Mad Max" than the commentariat would have you believe.
Zimbabwe: Bob's not your uncle any more
So, farewell at last, Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe, former tinpot dictator of what he turned into a shithole country. "Uncle Bob" (as no-one called him, ever) died early today in Singapore at the age of 95. Most Zimbabweans would say (in whispers, if not out loud) that his death did not come soon enough to save his country from its precipitous descent into chaos and bankruptcy. Your Obdt Servant laboured in Zimbabwe during the late 1990s, trying to help its businesspeople learn modern, Western management techniques. But they couldn't adopt or adapt the things they learned, because they were stymied at every turn by Comrade Bob's Marxist policies, which turned the once-prosperous Rhodesia into an economic basket case.
"Things will be better once Bob goes," people said. But Bob replied, "Handiende!" It means "I will not go!" And he didn't, ruling the country with the proverbial iron fist from its independence in 1980 until, late in 2017, he was finally deposed by Comrade ED [No relation! Ed.] Mnangagwa (pictured below) in a bloodless coup. Since then, things have gotten no better, proving yet again that there is not one country in Africa who leaders -- black or brown -- are capable of managing an economy.
Instead, they rely on massive injections of foreign aid supplied by us chumps in the West, and latterly the Chinese, who still have a lot to learn about Africa, the land of bambazonke. Incompetence and corruption come naturally to African leaders. When mismanagement and kleptomania become too much for even the Swedes and the Brits to stomach (see "Reform or no support, UK tells ED", Zimbabwe Newsday, 6/9/19), the aid money stops flowing and the people starve.
Comrade Bob, who took power after the perfidious Brits sold out their Rhodesian kith and kin in 1980, said more than once that he wanted to rule for life. In that he was typical of the African "Big Man" syndrome, in which the people of shithole countries acquiesced in one-man rule by the likes of Hastings Banda (Malawi), Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (Congo/Zaïre/Congo), Jean-Bédel Bokassa aka Emperor Bokassa I (Central African Republic) and Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi (Libya - not all the Big Men were black Africans). But growing discontent about his government's maladministrationd a military intervention, impeachment proceedings by the parliament and large street demonstrations for his removal.The November 2017 announcement of Comrade Mugabe's resignation (after he initially ignored escalating calls to quit, and take his lovely and fragrant wife Grace with him) triggered wild celebrations in the streets of the Ha-ha-harare, the fun capital of Africa. Well into the night, cars honked and people danced and sang in a spectacle of free expression that would have been impossible during his years in power and reflected hopes for a better future. But there has been no change for the povo (= poor people) of Zimbabwe, only more of the same, with an even Bigger Man ruling the roost. Prognosis? Dim and getting dimmer. Don't bother to stay tuned.
Further reading: The picture above was scraped from the Associated Press article "A look at the shattered Zimbabwe that Mugabe left behind", as posted on the CTV News site, 6/9/19. Quote from one of the povo: "Life was not that good [under Mugabe], but it was never this bad."
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Official Australian government warning to "refugees"
While we're on the subject (see previous post) of how racist and backward the Australians are [Walt is being sarcastic. Ed.] when it comes to welcoming the tired, the poor and the huddled masses, take a look at this poster, printed and distributed by the Aussie government to discourage refugee wannabes from even thinking about getting on a boat bound for Australia.
They will not be welcomed. That's government policy. Only in Australia, you say? Pity.
They will not be welcomed. That's government policy. Only in Australia, you say? Pity.
Immigration drops to lowest level in ten years... where???
Where, oh where, has the government cut the number of immigrant visas handed out to the lowest level in a decade? America? Britain? Canada? Surely you jest, especially about Canada, where immigration levels are at an all-time high! No, dear reader, it's Australia, the only country where the politicians have listened to the people who have demanded that the welcome mat be rolled up, especially as regards bogus refuees, asylum-seekers, and the old, sick and halt of the "family class".
Polling done in January by the Australian National University showed soaring house prices and crowded cities have combined to convince a clear majority of Australians that the country's immigration push must end. (The USA, UK and Canada do not have such problems, of course.) Less than a third (30.4%) of Aussies polled said they believed Oz needs more people. More than two-thirds (69.6%) felt Australia did not need more people, almost a 180-degree turn from the results of a similar poll done in 2010.
Apparently the Australian government (unlike those of the UK and Canada... especially Canada) has taken note of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the country's citizens. SBS News reports that tough qualification rules and a preference for skilled workers has seen the number of migrants granted permanent residency in Australia fall dramatically.
Figures released today show just over 160,300 individuals were given permanent resident visas in 2018-19, slightly down from 162,417 the previous year. The number is nearly 30,000 fewer than the annual migration cap of 190,000. By comparison, the three major political parties are all for "welcoming" over 300,000 immigrants, while only Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada has called for a cap of less than half that number.
Another big difference between the Australian and Canadian policies on immigration is that the bulk of those admitted to Australia were skilled workers, with 109,713 immigrant visas -- about 70% -- granted under the skilled stream. And Aussie Immigration Minister David Coleman boasted of a 44% percent increase in visas granted to those willing to move outside big cities into regional centres. "Our population plan will ease the pressure on the big capitals," he said, "while supporting the growth of those smaller cities and regions that want more people."
The Australian government's reduced cap on annual permanent migration to 160,000 comes into effect this financial year, as it tries to address concerns about high numbers of foreign entries to the country. "NO to mass immigration", say the people of Australia. (OK, the signs pictured, which have sprung up across Oz, put it a little more bluntly!) Put up a sign saying the same thing in Canada and it gets torn down.
Further reading: "Poll: Increasing Immigration, Giving Illegals Right to Vote Most Unpopular 2020 Political Positions", Breitbart News, 5/9/19. I suspect that if a poll were taken in Canada, with a general election just six weeks away, the result would be the same.
Polling done in January by the Australian National University showed soaring house prices and crowded cities have combined to convince a clear majority of Australians that the country's immigration push must end. (The USA, UK and Canada do not have such problems, of course.) Less than a third (30.4%) of Aussies polled said they believed Oz needs more people. More than two-thirds (69.6%) felt Australia did not need more people, almost a 180-degree turn from the results of a similar poll done in 2010.
Apparently the Australian government (unlike those of the UK and Canada... especially Canada) has taken note of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the country's citizens. SBS News reports that tough qualification rules and a preference for skilled workers has seen the number of migrants granted permanent residency in Australia fall dramatically.Figures released today show just over 160,300 individuals were given permanent resident visas in 2018-19, slightly down from 162,417 the previous year. The number is nearly 30,000 fewer than the annual migration cap of 190,000. By comparison, the three major political parties are all for "welcoming" over 300,000 immigrants, while only Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada has called for a cap of less than half that number.
Another big difference between the Australian and Canadian policies on immigration is that the bulk of those admitted to Australia were skilled workers, with 109,713 immigrant visas -- about 70% -- granted under the skilled stream. And Aussie Immigration Minister David Coleman boasted of a 44% percent increase in visas granted to those willing to move outside big cities into regional centres. "Our population plan will ease the pressure on the big capitals," he said, "while supporting the growth of those smaller cities and regions that want more people."
The Australian government's reduced cap on annual permanent migration to 160,000 comes into effect this financial year, as it tries to address concerns about high numbers of foreign entries to the country. "NO to mass immigration", say the people of Australia. (OK, the signs pictured, which have sprung up across Oz, put it a little more bluntly!) Put up a sign saying the same thing in Canada and it gets torn down.
Further reading: "Poll: Increasing Immigration, Giving Illegals Right to Vote Most Unpopular 2020 Political Positions", Breitbart News, 5/9/19. I suspect that if a poll were taken in Canada, with a general election just six weeks away, the result would be the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)