Down the road to Canuckistan: Trudeau gives C$23M to Islamists

Agent 6 has recommended [more than once! Ed.] that I follow Tarek Fatah in Canada's Sun newspapers. I don't do so religiously [because the Sun has a paywall? Ed.], but I have a look occasionally to read some uncommon common sense from a follower of the Prophet. And Mr Fatah often picks up a story which is neglected or censored by the lamestream media for reasons of political correctness or... wait for it... M-103. Case in point: "Islamic Relief and other Islamist groups to receive $23M", in the Toronto Sun, 3/7/18.

Motion 103 (M-103), it will be remembered [If not, use the search tool to find previous references on WWW. Ed.] was a supposedly non-binding motion in the 42nd Parliament of Canuckistan, stating that the members of the House of Commons called on the Government of Canada (Just In Trudeau, Prop.) to condemn Islamophobia in Canada. It also called on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, pictured with her Dear Leader. Ms Khalid, an immigrant from south Asia, was elected in a riding where the majority of voters hail from... wait for it... south Asia.

Mr Fatah reports that on the afternoon of June 27th, while most of Canada was at work or dozing in the sun, Ms Khalid called a sparsely-attended presser in her constituency office (Parliament being conveniently taking a summer break) to announce that Junior's alleged government was going to pour an additional C$23,000,000 (over $17 million in real money) down the rathole that passes for its multiculturalism program.

With no (((controlled media))) among the two dozen or so Pakistani-Canadians in attendance to ask any questions, Ms Khalid boasted that her "hard work has resulted into tangible action." And, she said, among the groups who will receive yet more Canuck taxpayers' dollars are:
- The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a former branch of the US-based Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that was named in 2008 as an unindicted co-conspirator connected to the largest terror-funding trial in American history.
- Islamic Relief, a worldwide charity accused by Middle East Forum, Israel and even the United Arab Emirates of links to Islamist extremism.

Mr Fatah admits there is no solid record that the Canadian arms of these two organizations have contributed to current "problematic behaviour" (read: terrorism). All the same, Mr Fatah and his Sun colleague Farzana Hassan, as well as other Muslim critics of Islamism, have been warning ever since the motion was introduced that M-103 was much more than the victimhood culture of guilt being forced onto ordinary Canadians.

On June 27th, Mr Fatah writes, the anti-Islamists [Notice he didn't say "Islamophobes"! Ed.] saw their fears come true. While Islamists will receive millions to conduct their Sharia agenda in Canada, Muslim critics of jihad, polygamy, FGM and Sharia have been left on their own to fight global Islamofascism.

Dear reader, you can follow the link above to find out what Ms Khalid had to say in response to questions from Mr Fatah. [Spoiler alert! Nothing! Ed.] I leave you with this excellent meme which I scraped from a blog I do read regularly: Blazing Cat Fur.

A modest suggestion: the Christian Republic of America!

Since the rise of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the beginning of the Gulf Wars, American presidents have routinely told the sheeple that the jihadis are trying to kill us because they hate us. Why so? Democratic presidents say it's because the USA has freedom and democracy and equal rights for wimmin and gays and vizmins, yada yada yada. Republicans say it's because the camel jockeys are jealous of America's wealth, high standard of living, freedom and democracy, yada yada yada.

There is some truth in all of that, but the real reason why the Islamic terrorists are so devout, so strong in their Muslim faith that they're willing to die for it -- never mind about the 72 virgins -- goes deeper than that. It has to do with Islamic values, in which they believe, as contrasted with Christian values, which we say we believe, but really don't.

I was thinking about that on Sunday when Father Duffy was preaching a good Lenten homily about turning away from sin and turning back to the Gospel. (That's what priests in the mainstream Church say nowadays when they make the Sign of the Cross on your forehead with ashes. What ever happened to "Remember man ["person"? Ed.] that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return!" But I digress...)

I confess that my mind wandered a bit from what the good Father was saying to a passage I read in The State of Africa, by Martin Meredith (rev. 2011, Simon & Schuster), a worthwhile analysis of how the Dark Continent (including, in this case, the Arab north) came to be in its present parlous state. In Chapter 25 [It's not a short book. Ed.], "In the Name of the Prophet", the author introduces readers to Sayyid Qutb, "an Egyptian intellectual-activist whose writings influenced generations of radical Islamists.

"Once an admirer of the West and Western literature, he...turned into a formidable critic as a result of a two-year stay in the United States in the late 1940s, appalled by what he saw as its moral decadence, its materialism, racism and sexual depravity. Returning to Egypt in 1951, he became a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood...."

"Moral decadence, materialism, racism and sexual depravity." Indeed. And that was in the 1940s! Before the hippy-dippy `60s, when, IMHO, our Western society really began to fall apart. Those things -- particularly moral decadence and sexual depravity -- are all contrary to the values and principles of life taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ and enjoined by His Church. Yet today, those are hallmarks of our so-called Christian society.

Sayyid Qutb became one of the leading voices of the Islamic revolution, calling for the establishment, by force if necessary, of a pan-Arab theocratic state -- an Islamic republic -- in which the evils of Western society would be rejected and a society established which would be run according to the strict Islamic principles of Sharia law.

A theocratic state, like today's Islamic Republic of Iran, in which the Seven Deadly Sins are punished not just in the next world but here on earth. What would it be like, I thought, if the Ten Commandments were strictly followed in Western society. If, say, people had their  hands cut off for stealing or were stoned to death for adultery, as they sometimes are under Sharia Law.

The thought made me cringe. Here in the "Christian West" we can do what we want. We can make all the graven images we want. Or commit "serial monogamy", which is really just adultery licensed by the state. Or kill millions of innocent children and be paid by the state for doing it. Or perform every kind of what used to be called "unnatural acts".

The state doesn't care. The mainstream Church herself has pretty much stopped preaching against these sins, because... well... "everybody's doing it". Those bemoaning the fact that our Western society has "lost its moral compass" might well consider the alternative presented by Islam -- a theocracy, a confessional state with a state religion and strict laws against all those things which we know are wrong but tolerate in ourselves and others because we don't want to appear old-fashioned and (horror of horrors) religious!

How about establishing "the Christian Republic of America"? That's my brilliant idea for a better society:"One nation under God." Oh... wait... Really??? But I didn't think it would look like this!

Recommended reading: Freedom Under God, by Ven. Fulton J. Sheen, republished 2013 by Economic Justice Media. For "Communism", against which Msgr. Sheen was arguing, substitute "Islamism". Click here to read the Goodreads review. Key thought: Individual life as well as marriage and the family are also in grave danger as the State continues to expand its power to fill the vacuum left by the growing powerlessness of ordinary people.

Hug-a-Muslim Day: Pope reaches out to Islamic leaders

Since it's National Hug-a-Muslim Day (in Canada, at least) -- see previous post -- Walt thinks it's appropriate to republish a cartoon commentary from the latest issue of The Remnant.

Click here to preview the January 31st issue of The Remnant, from which this was taken. The Remnant is the oldest Traditional Catholic newspaper in the world, and is available in hard copy and electronic formats. Tell them Walt sent ya!

Don't let the liberals scare you into silence about radical Islam!

Unlike their prime minister, Just-in-from-Davos Trudeau, not all Canadians are rabid Islamophiles. [An "Islamophile" is someone who likes or even loves Islam and all the believers in the so-called Religion of Peace, even those who cut off other people's heads to prove how peaceful and tolerant they are. Ed.] One Canuck who thinks Islamic extremists pose a clear and present threat to North America, not to mention the rest of the world, is Candice Malcolm, a nationally syndicated columnist with Post Media and the best-selling author of Losing True North: Justin Trudeau's Assault on Canadian Citizenship.

Ms Malcolm has master's degrees in international law and international relations, and splits her time between Toronto, Vancouver, and northern California. She is a fellow [Eh? Ed.] of the Center for a Secure Free Society, a Washington-based think tank, and the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. She also contributes to TheRebel.media, and yes, it hasn't been silenced yet!

Here, in its entirety, is an op-ed piece she wrote recently for the Post newspapers [not WaPo, another Post! Ed.], headlined "Don't let them tell you it's wrong to criticize radical Islam". Walt congratulates the Post people for publishing it, in spite of Canada's infamous Motion M-103, in the name of which most of the (((controlled media))) are already practising the loathsome self-censorship which very soon will make thoughts like these unspeakable and unprintable.

In 2011, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "Islamicism" posed the greatest threat to Canada's national security. In the seven years since, we've experienced a tidal wave of unpredictable and grossly inhumane jihadist terrorist attacks across the West, including here at home. Harper was right about the rising threat of jihadists armies and emboldened Islamists.

And yet, Harper's comment was met with scorn and ridicule by Canadian elites – particularly Liberal Party politicians and leftist members of the mainstream media. The Toronto Star said Harper "systematically mined anti-Muslim prejudices", while Justin Trudeau drew an absurd equivalency between Harper's treatment of Muslims in Canada and Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

The Left wants to paint mainstream Canadians as bigots – and worse, they want to scare us into thinking that criticizing Islamists and discussing the threat of jihadists terrorism is a form of racism. It's a scare tactic, employed to silence critics. This Leftist strategy has been repeated so often, the words are losing their meaning.

Last year, I wrote a column about a man who was found guilty of beating his wife with a hockey stick for half an hour. This wasn't my opinion, it was a fact. A Syrian refugee was the victim of a horrific beating by her angry and abusive husband. I was shining a light on the well-documented problem of spousal abuse within the Syrian refugee community, and yet, my report made me the subject of a Leftist witch-hunt.

Liberal strategist Bruce Anderson said I should be fired from my job, a Canadaland host said I had written a "racist screed", and a Buzzfeed blogger accused me of "smearing all Syrian refugees." This hysteria is part of a troubling trend.

The former Conservative government was also accused of bigotry after they changed the Citizenship Guide given to all newcomers to include the following warning: "In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings', female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws."

This statement is both true and important, and yet Trudeau opposed it, insisting it was pejorative and overly judgmental. Trudeau is drunk off the Kool-Aid of official multiculturalism, he believes we should never criticize other cultures – even when their practices are cruel and barbaric. Likewise, last month Trudeau accused Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer of "Islamophobia" because Scheer asked a legitimate question about national security and returned ISIS fighters.

If asking a question about terrorism makes someone "Islamophobic", how can we ever address the issue of Islamist extremism and terrorism? Trudeau's pitiful tactics are meant to smear his critics and scare others in to silence. [Note from Walt: That is also the purpose of M-103. For more on this devilish quasi-legislation, see "AfD parliamentarian's account blocked for anti-Muslim Tweet", WWW 2/1/18.]

The term "useful idiot" was coined during the Cold War to describe Marxists living in the West who defended Communism and spread Soviet propaganda. These apologists hid the ghastly crimes committed by Communist regimes because they believed in the same ideology. Just as useful idiots once apologized for Communism and overlooked its fatal flaws, today's useful idiots insist that those who criticize the ideas and actions of Islamists are racists, bigots and "Islamophobic".

Under their dogma of multiculturalism, Leftists have twisted themselves into a moral pretzel. They insist it's wrong to criticize other cultures, and have thus aligned themselves with a deeply illiberal cause: defending any and all Muslims – including violent wife-beaters and Islamist extremists.

This is part of a series Ms Malcolm is putting together. Under the working title Creeping Caliphate, the articles examine the threat to North America posed by radical Islamists. Click here to sign up for your free copy. Tell Candice that Walt sent ya!

Canadian Islamophiles plan National Hug-a-Muslim Day

The timing of hijab hoax girl's bathetic [There is such a word.* Ed.] little stunt last Friday seems to have been a little off, as it has cast something of a cloud over plans for a "National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia", to be held across Canuckistan on January 29th.

That's right, folks. Canadian Islamists (read: the National Council of Canadian Muslims), aided and abetted by well-meaning politicians and friends like (((Shari Schwartz-Maltz))) in government, the (((controlled media))) and the human rights industry, intended to cap off "Islamic Heritage Month" (read: hug-a-Muslim month) with a day of action in Ottawa and Toronto to "memorialize Islamophobia".

January 29th is the first anniversary of an attack on a Québec City mosque that left six dead and several others injured. This is what the NCCM wants "memorialized", while certain other events, like the October 2014 killings of two Canadian soldiers -- Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent -- by two "radicalized Muslims" or "homegrown jihadis", are forgotten.

In "Canadians don't need a 'National Day' scolding us for being Islamophobic", (National Post, 17/1/18), Barbara Kay writes, "We deplore the horrific Quebec City mosque murders. Nevertheless, an annual day of national atonement sends the wrong message." She points out that Alexandre Bissonnette, the alleged perpetrator, had no known ties to violence-promoting groups, nor was he ever charged with terrorism. His motive remains unclear to this day. But, Ms Kay argues "an official Day of Remembrance focused on Muslim victimhood would receive funding to perpetuate in schools and other institutions the notion that Muslims are systemically targeted for hatred."

And that, dear readers, is the whole point of the hijab hoax girl's publicity stunt and the NCCM proposal. Ms Kay reminds us that the NCCM pushed for the inclusion in the Toronto District School Board [Again with the TDSB! Ed.] guidebook to Islamic Heritage Month of this definition of Islamophobia: "Islamophobia refers to fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture." Once the telling phrase "Islamic politics or culture" came to public attention, attracting forceful criticism that embarrassed the TDSB (Hello again, Shari Schwartz-Maltz!), the definition was narrowed.

Does the NCCM really want to talk about Islamic culture -- the culture that includes honour killings like those of Aqsa Parvez and four female members of the Shafia family? How about we have a memorial day for those victims of Islamic culture?

The highlight of National Be Nice to Muslims Day is supposed to be the tabling in Canada's House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Heritage report on Motion M-103. M-103 isn't a law and never will be. It's only a motion. Here, copied from the web page of Iqra Khalid, MP (and a Muslim, in case you didn't guess), is the text of the motion.

M103 - Systemic racism and religious discrimination
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Buried in all that jargon and verbiage is some pretty dangerous stuff, e.g. "collect data to contextualize hate crime reports". How would such data be collected? Why, through "social media surveillance", of course! Canucks, better watch what you write on FB or in the comments section of news websites -- the few that still allow commenting... sometimes... as long as you don't offend Muslims. And how about "conduct needs assessments for impacted communities"? Don't be surprised if the "impacted community" (read: Muslims) needs money for its mosques and schools where young Canadians can be taught how barbaric cultural practices like female genital mutilation, honour crimes and the killing of infidels are all right and good for followers of the Religion of Peace.

The most objectionable feature, though, of M-103 is its singling out of the Muslim community as the one minority group most in need of protection from "system racism" and "Islamophobia". What about the (((Jews))), asks Barbara Kay. What about indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women who keep being found dead along roadsides and river banks? What about the "black community"? Never mind BLM; don't all lives matter? Errr, no, not according to M-103 -- just the lives of Muslims.

Even though it has not yet been officially approved by Canada's Parliament, M-103 is already being used as the basis for self-censorship remarkable even for the politically correct Canuck lamestream media. Some people have asked by the CBC and other major networks didn't call BS on the hijab hoax even as the girl was speaking at the TDSB-arranged presser. The answer is simple. No-one wanted to be the first to cast doubt on the story told by a young, female member of the oppressed Muslim minority. Even the Toronto police were guarded in describing the false report, saying only that "it didn't happen."

Contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, M-103 is already being used to curtail freedom of speech. The term "Islamophobia", with its multiple and sinister meanings is, in itself, an example of "fake news", and should not be recognized as a "thing"... because it isn't! To state that there is systemic hatred and racial discrimination in Canada, is bogus and to single out one religious group for special treatment is divisive. If there's going to be some sort of "day of action" in the Great No-longer-white North on January 29th, Walt suggests something along the lines of the demonstration pictured here.

Canadians! Stand up for free speech! Write or e-mail your Member of Parliament! (Click here to find out who's supposed to be representing you.) Or e-mail Justin Trudeau Himself. Tell them what you think... while you still can!

Poisoned fruits of American meddling in the Muslim civil wars

Before we get to Esteban Santiago and yesterday's "incident" in Fort Lauderdale, let me tell you (since the American lamestream media can't be bothered with this little story) about the late Lionel Desmond, pictured below with his late wife and late daughter.

Mr Desmond was an "African-Canadian" who served with the Canadian Army in the American-led invasion of Afghanistan. On Tuesday night he shot his wife, daughter and mother in their home in rural Nova Scotia, before turning his gun on himself.

The Mounties refused to give specifics about the two guns seized at the home or Mr Desmond's mental health. "Those are details that we're not able to release at this time and, of course, a person's medical condition is protected information," said Cpl. Jennifer Clarke. However, family members and friends have said he suffered from PTSD.

PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder. In a rant about the sanitization of English, George Carlin said PTSD is what we called "combat fatigue" in World War II and "shell shock" in World War I. Putting it another way, something that happened to Mr Desmond in Afghanistan -- something he saw or heard or did -- made him crazy.

Lionel Desmond had no business being in Afghanistan. He was sent there by the Canadian government to assure the US government that Canada was standing shoulder to shoulder with America in their quest to defeat terrorism and bring democracy and the American way of life Army to the benighted Muslims. The invasion of Afghanistan was ill-conceived and ill-executed. The price of intervention is still being paid not just by "the natives" but by 1000s of American, British and Canadian servicemen (or "servicepersons", if you like) and their families. The Desmonds are four more casualties of the Muslim civil war.

Now we come to Esteban Santiago, who yesterday added another five dead and eight wounded to the list of casualties. We know how that turned out. Mr Santiago is a Hispanic American, and, the authorities say, a decorated veteran of the American invasion of Iraq. He served from 2007 to 2016 in the Puerto Rico National Guard and Alaska National Guard including a deployment to Iraq from 2010 to 2011. He received half a dozen medals before being transferred to the inactive ready reserve in August of 2015.

Since returning from Iraq, Mr Santiago served in the Army Reserves and the Alaska National Guard in Anchorage. He was serving as a combat engineer in the Guard before his discharge for "unsatisfactory performance," according to spokesthingy Lt. Col. Candis Olmstead. His military rank upon discharge was E3 (Private First Class), and he worked one weekend a month with an additional 15 days of training yearly. Lt. Col. Olmstead would not elaborate on his discharge, but the Pentagon said he went AWOL several times and was demoted and discharged.

Last November, Mr Santiago turned up at an FBI office in Anchorage, behaving erratically. He told the Feds the government was controlling his mind and telling him to go and fight for ISIS. Did this alarm them? Apparently not, for they turned him over to local police, who took him to a medical facility for a mental health evaluation. His brother, Bryan Santiago, told AP that his brother's girlfriend had recently called the family to alert them to his treatment.

Bryan Santiago said his brother never spoke to him directly about his medical issues. "We haven't talked for the past three weeks," he said. "That's a bit unusual... I'm in shock. He was a serious person... He was a normal person." Esteban Santiago's aunt in Union City New Jersey didn't see it that way. Maria Ruiz Rivera told the press the suspect in the Fort Lauderdale massacre had recently become a father and was "struggling" after a tour of duty in Iraq. "It was like he lost his mind," Ms Ruiz said in Spanish. "He said he saw things."

Esteban Santiago is in custody in Fort Lauderdale, helping authorities with their investigation, as the saying goes. Walt assumes they're asking him why he packed an assault rifle -- literally -- unpacked it in the baggage claim area of FLL, calmly loaded it and fired randomly into a crowd of travellers. What happened to him in Iraq? What things did he see that unhinged him so? What did the voices he heard say to him? Was he "radicalized"... or just plain crazy?

Whatever happened to Mr Santiago, the fact remains that there was no reason for him to be in Iraq other than the total and utter failure of American foreign policy through the administrations four (4) presidents. Can we expect any change when Donald Trump takes office in less than two weeks? Let's hope so... but don't count on it. (Lifetime pct .987.)

Who really "founded" ISIS?

The Donald made headlines last week by saying that Barack Hussein Obama founded ISIS, and his one-time Secretary of State, Hellery Clinton, was its co-founder. He said he meant it. Then he said he was speaking sarcastically, "but not too sarcastically". Perhaps that was going a bit far, but one can certainly make a good case that the IS "caliphate" has benefitted greatly from President 0's weak [non-existent? Ed.] foreign policy, and the ineptitude and general mismanagement of his administration in general, and Ms Clinton in particular.

Who knows why they've bungled the Middle East file so badly? Maybe the Prez really is a Muslim, as many people believe. Still, it's a bit much to give him credit for "founding" ISIS. At the beginning of the Obama-Clinton years, ISIS (or "ISIL", as they keep calling it) didn't really exist. All we had to worry about, the first eight years of this century, was Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But it cannot be denied that ISIS sprang from Al-Qaeda, and from the mess the Paranoid States of America created in Iraq.

Who was responsible for the Iraq debacle? It wasn't Mr Obama, but a Republican. No, not Dubya -- except in the sense that he, as Supreme Commander, must bear the ultimate reponsibility -- but one his appointees, named and shamed by Gwynne Dyer in After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007). That would be... wait for it... Lewis Paul Bremer III, a former Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates. (Yes, that Kissinger.) Mr Bremer was appointed by President Bush II as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on 9 May 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He led the American occupation of Iraq from 11 May 11 2003 until 28 June 2004. Here's what Gwynne Dyer says, with Walt's emphasis.

[Bremer] disbanded the entire Iraqi army and police force and banned all senior Ba'ath Party members -- and anybody in the top three management layers of government ministries, government-run corporations, universities and hospitals who was a Party member at all -- from future government employment. Bremer paid no need to arguments that, until his arrival, conversations had been underway with Iraqi generals for the reconstitution of the army, purged of its Saddam loyalists, and that in all the former ruling parties of post-Communist states in the early 1990s the majority of the "senior" members had been innocent professionals who had been compelled to join in order to do their jobs.

So far as it can be discerned these were Bremer's own decisions, not imposed on him by the White House, and they had catastrophic effects. With a couple of decrees he effectively gutted the Iraqi state apparatus and abolished the only other national institutions, the army and police, that at least in theory rose above mere sectarian, ethnic, and local concerns. He also abruptly three half a million people, most of them with weapons training, serious organizational abilities, or both, onto the street in the most humiliating way.

The Sunni insurgency began at once, led initially by ex-army officers and Ba'ath officials and public justified by incidents like the killings [by US soldiers of unarmed demonstrators] at Fallujah. These "dead-enders", as they were explained away in Washington, were soon joined in the insurgency by homegrown Islamist extremists who had previously been terrorized into submission by Saddam's regime, and by some foreign Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who made themselves useful by offering to carry out suicide attacks.

By the autumn of 2004, only a year and a half after the invasion, the US authorities wwere recording between two thousand and three thousand insurgent attacks per month. The shocking pictures taken by the American torturers at Abu Ghraib had a big impact elsewhere in the Muslim world, but in Iraq they caused no particular upsurge in the violence: most people had already chosen their side.

Walt doesn't always agree with Gwynne Dyer's politics, but reads his columns in the international (non-American) media regularly, and often quotes him here. Mr Dyer earned a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London, served in three navies and holds acade3mic appointments at the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst) and Oxford University. I think he knows what he's talking about.

In the Introduction to After Iraq, Mr Dyer argues -- as Ron Paul has for lo these many years -- that the USA has no skin in what is essentially a Muslim civil war, and should get out of the Middle East immediately, before things get any worse. (Maybe things couldn't get any worse. Mr Dyer was writing in 2007, before ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria.) Here's what he says.

What should the rest of the world do about this? Nothing. Just stand back and let it happen. Outsiders to the region have no solutions left to peddle any more (nor any credibility even if they did have solutions), and they no longer have the power or the will to impose their ideas. For the first time in a century, the region is going to choose its future for itself -- and it may, of course, make a dreadful mess of it. Even then, outsiders should not intervene, because foreign intervention generally makes things worse -- but also because it's none of their business.

Further reading: "Just How Much Should Paul Bremer Be Blamed for the Rise of the Islamic State?", in Foreign Policy in Focus, 18/3/16.

VIDEO: Dom the Conservative tells the terrible truth about Islam

There is so much on the Internet -- on YouTube alone -- that it's virtually impossible to search for something without stumbling onto something else. The surfeit of material -- some of which is immaterial [Geddit? Ed.] -- means, sadly, that some good stuff gets lost in the shuffle.

A Kardashian says something stupid, and millions of people bust their index fingers clicking on the video. But when an astoundingly beautiful woman tells the plain truth about the dangers of radical Islam, does anyone pay attention? Judging by the number of likes and dislikes for this one, apparently not. Mind you, it's only been on YouTube since June 27th, so maybe it just hasn't been much noticed.

Walt will help that out by directing your attention to Dom the Conservative, who has something to say that the liberals and "moderate Muslims" -- an oxymoron if ever there was one -- won't like. Excuse the crappy sound, please, and listen up!

France: Setback for le Front National; what if Islamists take over?

Walt admits to being not a little dismayed by the results of the runoff in France's regional elections, this past Sunday. Only a week before, I rejoiced -- a bit prematurely perhaps -- in the standings after the first round, which showed Marine Le Pen's Front National topping the polls, with as much as 40% of the popular vote. The remainder was split between the President François Hollande's socialists and the centre-right(ish) Union de la Droite, led by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Under the French system, where no-one gets a majority (50% + 1) in the first round of voting, another round is held, dropping off lesser candidates, until someone emerges a clear (majority) winner. It was widely believed -- or hoped, in some quarters including this one -- that Mme Le Pen had a good chance of winning the run-off in Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, her region in the northeast of France, as did her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who had won the first round in the southeastern region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.

Alas, it was not to be. What happened, in a nutshell, was that the socialists tanked, going so far as to actually withdraw their candidates in Mme Le Pen's region, telling their adherents to vote for the Union to stop the Front. Simple... and stupid... as that. So, the FN was defeated in all six regions where it had led the polls in the first round, and France is safe for democracy and multiculturalism. For now.

Let me draw an analogy here. Suppose Hellery Clinton gets the Democratic nomination -- hardly a long shot -- and Jeb beats out the Donald for the GOP nod, leaving Mr Trump to run as an Independent. And suppose Mr. Trump finishes first, with 40% of the vote, with Bush III second and Mrs. Bill third. What happened in France is like unto what would happen in the USA if there were a second round of voting and Queen Hillary told all the Democrats to get behind Jeb to stop Trump (thus to keep America democratic if not Democratic, etc). Got it?

For the French, there's always 2017, when it will be time once again for a presidential election. It may well come down to Hollande vs Sarkozy vs Le Pen. Then we'll see.

As long as we're supposing things about France, here's a thought. What if, by the time 2017 rolls around, enough Islamists are French citizens (or vice versa) that they can make or break one of the candidates. Maybe they could even form their own party and, supported by all those who denounce racism and celebrate diversity, win the election.

An Islamist government in France! What would that be like? In "What if the Islamists took France?", the National Post's Ian Hunter writes about Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, set in France in 2022 (the year of the next presidential election after that of 2017). "The message I took from the novel Submission", he says, "is that it is already too late. Western civilization has lost its core beliefs, and its will to survive."

Hm. Maybe Submission should be on Walt's required reading list. Or maybe not. After all, it's possible to imagine an Islamist takeover of France, but not, surely, Britain... or Canada... or the United States of America.

Are Muslims taking over your kids' school? Beware the "Trojan Horse"!

Today's online edition of The Telegraph reports the announcement by British Education Secretary Michael Gove that, beginning in September, all of England’s 20,000 primary and secondary schools will be required to teach "British values of tolerance and fairness". Imagine that!

Why do you suppose Her Britannic Majesty's Government feels it necessary to institute this campaign? Errr... well... it may have something to do with a report by a number of head teachers [= school principals, for Walt's North American readers] revealing an organized campaign to impose a "narrow, faith-based ideology" at some schools in Birmingham.

Which "faith-based ideology" would that be? Why, Islamic fundamentalism, of course. No prizes for guessing!

A report by Ofsted, the toothless watchdog of English education, recommended placing five Birmingham schools in "special measures" after "deeply worrying" findings that the schools had been taken over by Islamists.

One of the schools was funding a Madrassa -- a school for the study of Islam -- from its own budget, while at another Muslim children had been taken on trips to Saudi Arabia. A third school regularly broadcast a call to Muslim prayer over the school’s loudspeaker in the playground while another school taught in biology that "evolution is not what we believe".

Mr. Gove said that this would change. He told Parliament, "We already require independent schools, academies and free schools to respect British values. Now we will consult on strengthening this standard further, so that all schools actively promote British values." Mr. Gove did not include the word "Christian" in his speech, nor did he explain exactly what values should be considered "British".

However, current guidance asks schools to "enable pupils to distinguish right from wrong and to respect the civil and criminal law" and "provide pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England". Pupils are also encouraged "to respect the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs".

How that last part squares with letting Muslims drive their "Trojan Horse" into Britain's schools is similarly unclear.

And, dear reader, lest you think the Islamic fundamentalists are only taking over British schools, be aware that the camel's nose is already inside the tent flap in every Western country, particularly places which are determined to "celebrate diversity" at the expense of European Christian culture and values, such as Ontario (see below).

Have you checked your kids' school lately to see what's going on there? Do they, for example, have a prayer room for the Muslim kids, but not for the Christians? (Could be...even in a so-called Catholic school. See below.) Take a look. Take a good look!

Further reading (lots of it!) on WWW:
"US schools turning kids into Muslim fanatics, says ACT! founder"
"Islamization of Ontario schools still part of government agenda" - Ontario residents! Please keep this in mind as you vote on Thursday!
"Muslim camel's nose inside door of 'Catholic' school"
"Geert Wilders warns USA: Muslims taking over Europe -- you're next!"

How long will we stay in Afrighanistan?

So it has begun. The French have invaded Mali, the Americans are supporting them (kind of) and the Canadians are helping (a bit). Here's a roundup of facts and opinions as of this morning.

First, the Canadians. As reported in WWW a few days ago, the Canucks generously sent one (1) C-17 Globemaster to do a bit of the heavy lifting, literally. They committed the jumbo transport for one (1) week, which was to have ended Wednesday. (Canadians take loooong weekends.)

The usual gang of "progressive thinkers", led by ex-diplomat and former al-Qaeda hostage Robert Fowler, suggested that a week wasn't enough time to flatten even a bunch of sand naggers.

Canadian PM Steve Harper and his bumboys, Nancy Baird and Peter Machackey, are always ready for a scrap, as long as it's in defence of Israel. But defending the government of Mali is something else. Or at least it was until French President François Hollande cried "Shame, shame, al-Qaeda knows your name."

That moved Mr. Harpoon to extend the mission, not by sending another plane but by saying the C-17 would stay another three weeks. French applause was reportedly muted.

We turn now to today's opinion piece by Walt's old chum, Gwynne Dyer. Mr. Dyer know a lot about international politics, and has the courage to write the truth as he sees it, even when it goes against conventional wisdom and the party line. His peace-mongering political incorrectness has gotten him banned from a slew of papers in America and, err, Israel, but Google his name and you'll find lots of links to his columns.

Today, Mr. Dyer suggests the "Mali war could end up like [the] Afghan conflict"  . Indeed.

Mr. Dyer tells us that the French prefer to draw analogies with Libya, rather than Afghanistan, since Libya was something of a success. The term is relative. What about the Benghazi "incident", still being downplayed by Hellery Clinton? And what about the British, just this week, ordering their nationals to leave Libya because of a "real and imminent" threat? But I digress...

The journalist points out the serious dissimilarities between Libya and Mali. First, in Libya, the French and British and their less-than-willing allies were supporting the rebels. In Mali, they are propping up a military government which came to power in a coup just last year. That government, composed as it is of black people from the southern part of the country, is like most other sub-Saharan African governments -- ignorant, incompetent and corrupt.

Moreover, the rebels -- mostly Tuaregs and other quasi-Arabic people from the north -- are, if not better organized than the Libyan rebels, certainly better armed. That's because a large chunk of the military aid sent to the Libyan rebels by stupid Westerners mysteriously vanished into the sands of the Sahara, only to reappear this winter in Mali.They're fighting us with our own weapons!

To make matters worse -- if that's possible -- the presence of Mali's army at the front is usually counter-productive (Dyer writes) as it is brutal, militarily incompetent, and prone to panic flight. The other African armies are of variable quality, but it is obviously French troops, and especially French air power, that will decide the outcome of the war.

What we have, then, is a Western-run war in a Muslim country, pretty much the same as what we had in Iraq and still have in Afghanistan.

And who is responsible for the sad state of the so-called Malian army? Step forward, the United States of America! It's not just Gwynne Dyer or Walt who says so. The BBC quotes the US military commander in Africa, General Carter Ham -- previously mentioned in WWW in connection with the Libyan affair -- as saying the Pentagon made mistakes in its training of Malian troops now trying to oust Islamists from the north.

Gen. Ham said American "trainers" had failed to teach Malian troops values and ethics, and had failed to inculcate "a military ethos". "We gave them plenty of tactical training," said the general, "but not enough ethics training."

The general was responding to reports of "abuses" -- meaning rape and pillage -- by Mali government troops taking part in the French-led counter-offensive. Murder too. Human rights groups have accused Malian troops of killing Arabs and ethnic Tuaregs as they advance north.

The reports have caused alarm and no little embarrassment in the West, not to mention the reluctance of Canada and other NATO countries to not involve themselves further in what is -- or should be -- another nasty and dirty little African affair. I haven't heard Ron Paul say "I told you so" yet, but well he might.

Mal y soit qui Mali pense

You remember Mali, don't you? The Not-so-inevitable Mitt mentioned it twice during one of the debates. No-one knew, including the Prez, knew what he was talking about. But now we know.

Turns out Mali is a landlocked "nation" in part of the former French West Africa, a half-vast expanse of sand and not much else, shared rather grudgingly by Tuareg Arabs to the north and blacker people to the southwest.

For the last few months, militant Islamists -- part of the African arm of al Qaeda -- have been pushing southward, aiming to overthrow the black(ish) government and take over the country. Their success this month attracted the attention of the former colonial masters, who decided to send in the Foreign Legion. [Really? Does the Foreign Legion still exist? Ed.]

Well, maybe not, but the French Air Force certainly exists and last week started bombing the shit out of rebel-held villages and other "military targets". The governments of Britain and the USA have offered to hold the French coats, so to speak. Calls have gone out for African forces to intervene, but your typical African dictator is loth to send troops he needs at home to protect him from a coup.

And that is why the president of Gabon, who also heads up the so-called African Union, went to Canada earlier this month. Canada should do something, he told Prime Minister Harpoon, because Canadians speak French [Maybe. Ed.] besides which Defence Minister Mackay had already said Canada would send in the Mounties... Or something.

What the Gabonese president didn't know is that even as his plane was landing, Harper had yanked Machackey's chain, telling him to cover up not just his mouth but also his ears lest Canadians realize there's nothing in between them. Said the organ-grinder said to the monkey, "Remember Afghanistan? We won't be doing that again!"

Enter Robert Fowler, a Canadian dip who managed to get himself and a "colleague" kidnapped by those damn Islamists a couple of years ago, and was only ransomed at the cost of several barrels of maple syrup which the Arabs mistook for sweet oil. Fowler thought it disgraceful that Canada should abandon its commitment to international peacekeeping, the poor and downtrodden Africans, and so forth.

So... This weekend Harper agreed that at least a token effort should be made, in the name of peace, democracy, the war on terror, and so forth. The Canucks are sending 1 (one, une, uno) C-17 transport to help the French with a bit of the (literal) heavy lifting. It left CFB Trenton just minutes ago, and Agent 3 reports that he just saw it fly over his house, which means it's going the wrong way.

Machackey, ever eager to curry favour with the boss, will announce this afternoon that the Royal Canadian Navy will send three ships -- HMCS Nina, HMCS Pinta and HMCS Santa Maria -- to provide further support. Has the minister forgotten that Mali is landlocked? (See above). Well, no. That's where the C-17 comes in. It will be used to carry the frigits [check spelling please] from the Atlantic to wherever Mali is.

Watch WWW for more stories of French-Canadian co-operation and derring-do.

CORRECTION! Agent 3 has just advised that it was not the RCAF C-17 that he saw overhead. The plane destined for Mali is apparently stuck on the runway at CFB Trenton. Mr. Harper, did you get that? God is trying to tell you something!

Why be president when you can be pharaoh?

A regular reader asks why Walt hasn't said anything about the unrest in Egypt. "It looks as if the Egyptians are still revolting," is the way he put it. Dear reader, does this come as a surprise to you? Did you think the "Arab Spring" would bring democracy, peace and stability to Egypt? [Or Libya, Tunisia or Yemen? Ed.] Don't let's be silly!

And please pay attention to Walt's predictions! On December 1st -- of 2011, that is -- Walt predicted Islamist parties would win big in Egypt's first-ever "free and fair" elections, which were about to be held. And so they did. (Lifetime pct .981.)

The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won the largest number of seats. The hardline Salafist Nour party came second. Liberal parties including New Wafd and the secular Egyptian Bloc coalition weren't even close. So Egypt was left with a democractically elected hardline Islamist president. And that should satisfy the Egyptian people and be good for relations between Egypt and the West. Right?

At least, that was the thinking of the US State Department. As Walt explained in "'Be my guest', says Obama to Egyptian Islamist leader" Barack Hussein Obama hastened to invite the new president, Mohammed Morsi, to visit the United States in September. Why then? It seemed a bit strange, considering that the folks at Foggy Bottom had until then been wary of Islamists. And of course the USA was a strong supporter of former dictator ["president", surely! Ed.] Hosni Mubarak.

But in September 2012 the Prez would be campaigning hard for re-election, and of course he had this grand plan to improve relations with the terrorists ["Islamists", surely! Ed.], who would thus become America's new friends.

Ah yes, the fruits of democracy would be tasted by all the liberal and progressive Egyptian people, and all would be well in that corner of the world. Bears would stop shitting in the woods and probably the Pope would convert to Islam as well.

A concise [not really. Ed.] history of Egypt
What Obama forgot or misunderstood or ignored -- like the nature of the September 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi -- was that democracy does not come naturally to the Arabs, particularly the militant Islamists. Egyptians were ruled by the pharaohs for nearly three millenia until the conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 BC.

After that came several emperors (Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab and Turkish), and then the decadent and dissolute native Egyptian dynasty of Muhammad Ali [Seriously. You can look it up. Ed.] propped up by the British, French and Americans in the interests of keeping open the Suez Canal.

By 1952, monarchy had become unfashionable, and Egyptians voted -- freely and democratically of course -- to set up a people's democractic republic under Gamal Abdul Nasser. To the surprise of no-one except Western diplomats, Nasser turned out to be a Communist dictator.

After Nasser's death in 1970, Anwar Sadat became president ["dictator", surely! Ed.]. He was welcomed warmly by the Western powers because it seemed as if he could hardly be worse than Nasser. Does any of this sound familiar?

Fast forward through the autocratic regimes of Sadat and Hosni Mubarak to the "Arab Spring" of 2012, which is where we came in.

A slap in the fez for Morsi
Now we are witnessing the entirely predictable spectacle of President Morsi peeling off the thin gauze of democracy with which he clothed himself, to reveal the army-supported strongman underneath. Call it the Dance of the Seven Islamic Veils.

The transition from president to pharaoh began a couple of weeks ago, when Morsi issued presidential decrees giving himself near-absolute power, beyond review or censure even by Egypt's highest court. This is all a "temporary measure" of course, to ensure that the Egyptian people -- or the Muslim Egyptians at least -- could continue to enjoy the benefits of peace and the rule of Sharia law.

And just in case anyone might think Morsi's arrogating all this power unto himself a tad, errr, undemocractic, he rushed through Egypt's Islamist-dominated parliament the draft of a new constitution, which, on December 15th, will be put to the people for approval in a referendum -- a fair and democractic referendum, to be sure.

That's what this week's demonstrations in Tahrir Square and other parts of Cairo are about. The Egyptians -- or some of them, at least -- have realized they've been had. (The Coptic Christians knew it all along. That's why they've all come to the USA and Canada to run your local pharmacy.) They are in the streets to demand that Morsi reverse the decrees and cancel the referendum.

Now we are witnessing running street battles between protesters opposing and supporting President Morsi. Yesterday another decree was issued, this one banning protests outside any of the nation's presidential palaces. (Note the plural there. How can the USA get along with only one presidential palace?!)

This morning, the Republican Guard deployed tanks outside the main palace. General Mohammed Zaki said the tanks were deployed to separate warring protesters, and pledged that the military would not be an instrument of oppression against protesters -- at least not the pro-Morsi protesters. A few hundred of them remained outside the palace after the opposition left.

The opposition has said it would organise further marches to the palace as a top presidential aide accused them of co-ordinating with loyalists of deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak. The senior fart-catcher told Agence France Press that Mr. Morsi was expected to make a speech later in the day to "reach out to the opposition". No time was announced for the address, nor was it clear whether whips or chains would be part of the reaching out.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hellery Clinton has called for... wait for it... "an open and democratic dialogue". In a statement echoed by the UK and the EU, she said, "The upheaval we are seeing ... indicates that dialogue is urgently needed. It needs to be two-way." As opposed, Walt imagines, to a "one-way dialogue", more correctly called a "monologue".

Despite the protests, Vice-President Mohammed Mekki said the referendum on the draft constitution "will go ahead on time". The opposition would be allowed to put any objections to articles in the draft constitution in writing, to be discussed by a parliament, once a new one is elected -- fairly and democractically.

Prominent opposition leader Mohammed Al Baradei said President Morsi bore "full responsibility" for the violence. He said the opposition was ready for dialogue but would use "any means necessary" to scupper the charter, stressing, however, that they would be peaceful -- and fair and democractic.

Will there be a dialogue between the new pharaoh and those who oppose him? Will fairness and democracy triumph in Egypt? Stay tuned. Or not...

There goes the neighbourhood

You may have heard that there's been a little unpleasantness in the Sinai peninsula recently. Nominally, it's part of Egypt, but the Egyptians haven't shown a lot of interest in the vast expanse of scrub and desert since their "army" was chased out of it in 1967. Suddenly, though, the Egyptian forces have been asserting themselves, ostensibly to deal with nests of Islamic militants, smugglers, terrorists and other undesirables.

An AP report from Cairo today suggests there's a bit more to the story. Seems the undesirables include 1000s of Africans, and it now appears that what the Egyptians are doing is driving them in a northeasterly direction, into Israel.

You might think that Israel, the homeland of the oppressed and dispossessed, would welcome these newcomers with open arms, much as it "welcomed" the black Jews of Ethiopia back in the 90s. You would be wrong.

Instead of giving refugees houses and cars [as the Canadians would do. Ed.], the Israeli government is sending its own troops into the Sinai to stop the migrants before they reach the ill-defined and ill-defended border. About 60,000 Africans -- most come from Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea -- have already got through, probably at night when, if they don't smile, they can't be seen.

AP says the chosen people are worried that the influx could harm the Jewish character of their state. The Israelis didn't put it quite that way themselves. In a statement released today, the military spokesthingy's office said Israeli forces are working "to prevent the infiltration of both hostile terror elements as well as criminal smuggling."

The statement went on to say that Israeli soldiers have stopped groups several times and held them "until the arrival of Egyptian forces that took the infiltrators." They had no comment on where this took place, but Walt is guessing it wasn't Dade County.

Walt is also guessing that this news from the Sinai will not put even a temporary stop to American Jews' yammering about how African-Americans (and themselves, of course) are the victims of decades of discrimination and racism, and must be compensated. After all, America is not Israel. Why, there's no comparison!

"Be my guest", says Obama to Egyptian Islamist leader

William "Montgomery" Burns, Deputy Secretary of State of the US of A, had a little facetime yesterday with Mohamed Mursi, newly (and democratically) elected president of Egypt. At the news conference which followed, Mr. Burns made the usual motherhood-and-apple-pie statements about improving relations with America's longtime friend, yada yada yada. No news there.

But hold on. Reuters reports that Burns omitted a small detail of his interview with the new leader. We are indebted to one of Mursi's aides, Yasser Ali, for letting us know that during their little talk, Mr. Burns conveyed to Mr. Mursi a personal invitation from none other than Barack Hussein Obama to visit the United States in September.

"Yes sir," said Yasser, "Washington is cultivating stronger ties with the Islamists. Yes sir..." Until recently the folks at Foggy Bottom had been wary of Islamists. And of course the USA was a strong supporter of former president Hosni Mubarak. But with the election of a (purported) American president, who may himself be a Muslim, the wind has shifted, and now the Islamists are America's friends. Right?

None more so than the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind Mursi's win. Mursi formally resigned from the group when he won the presidency. Whether Obama is still a member is unknown.

So Mursi is coming in September, when he'll be in the neighbourhood to address the General Assembly of the Useless Nations. That an election campaign will be in full swing at that time is just a coincidence. Don't let his visit influence your vote.

Muslim immigration top issue in French election

Last week Walt predicted that the killings by -- and subsequent "judicial execution" of -- Mohamed Merah would make the Islamization of France a major issue in that country's presidential election. This week, Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National -- a nationalist party diametrically opposed to immigration -- asked, "How many Mohammed Merahs are arriving on boats and planes each day, filling France with immigrants? How many Mohammed Merahs are among the children of our immigrants?"

You have to give Mlle Le Pen full marks for the courage to ask such questions, in the face of daily vilification by the liberal press. But she is not the only one addressing the issue. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, fighting for re-election, has called for restrictions on legal immigration. He also wants laws to make it illegal to browse Islamist websites or visit Islamist training camps, and tougher policing and more deportations. Indeed, on the day of Merah’s first killing, Sarkozy said there were "too many foreigners" in France.

How is it, Walt wants to know, that the Europeans -- regarded here in North America as being a bunch of decadent, effete, liberal wimps -- have the guts to at least debate issues of immigration and culture, while our oh-so-PC "leaders" won't even acknowledge the Muslim elephant in the room?

Immigration has been a thorny issue ever since the invention of the wheel. The Chinese built a Great Wall to keep the hordes of foreigners out. And every country has a set of rules for dealing with new immigrants. Historically, newcomers had no help integrating into the host culture. They had to live with discrimination, adopt the culture and ways of their chosen land, and make the best of it.

Following the demise of the great colonial empires, Europe opened its doors to its black and brown ex-subjects, doing more than what was reasonable to deal with these ancient issues, in spite of the warnings of such seers as Enoch Powell. But now a new problem has arrived.

Never before has the world had to deal with a group that have a faith that tells them they must dominate all the others, that it is OK to lie to do that, and if that is not enough, it would be a good idea to blow yourself up if you have a chance of taking a few infidels with you. The old responses to a question as old as humanity simply don't work.

In the last decade or so, the French have come to realize that their country, their culture and their way of life is threatened by immigrants who refuse to adapt. It took centuries to build that country and culture and they want to keep it the way it is...or was. Who can blame them?

Meanwhile, in Canada and the USA, the do-gooders, "progressive thinkers", liberals and lamestream media keep feeding us the utter bullshit that immigration is good for our economy and for our country, that the majority of Muslims are good people who really share our values, and that the proliferation of mosques and Islamic cultural centres in our cities can be safely ignored. Anyone who disagrees must be an Islamophobe and a racist!

When will our politicians -- or even one of them -- grow a set and propose policies to protect our culture and our society from the Islamist menace.

US schools turning kids into Muslim fanatics, says ACT! founder

Brigitte Gabriel is the pseudonym of Nour Saman, a Lebanese-American journalist, author, and activist. She frequently speaks at meetings of American conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation.

Ms Gabriel says flatly (and loudly) that Islam keeps countries backward and teaches terrorism. And radical Islamists are subverting the US education system by brainwashing students about the true nature and intentions of Islam. That's the message of this video.



Brigitte Gabriel is the founder of American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. This link will take you to the ACT! for America Education website. If you've got kids in the US educational system [Is dis a system?! Ed.] you need to check this out.

Related story: Colorado student quits high school choir over Islamic song praising Allah

"The Jew is a satan in human form", sez Sheikh

In his quest to promote fairness and peace on earth, as well as bring some balance to the debate about Obama's support for Israel, Walt is pleased to present a short clip of remarks by Sheik Bassam Al-Kayed, Head of the Palestinian Islamic Scholars Association in Lebanon.

Oops! Looks like Big Brother is watching! If you have trouble getting the embedded video to load, try clicking here.

Winston Churchill's views on Islam

Walt's attention has just been drawn to a passage from The River War, the second book authored by Winston Churchill. It was an account of the British reconquest of the Sudan, written in 1899 while Churchill was still an officer in the British army.

The book provides a history of the British involvement in the Sudan and the conflict between the British forces led by Lord Kitchener and Islamic Jihadists led by Muhammad Ahmad, a self-proclaimed second prophet of Islam. Ahmad had embarked on a campaign to conquer Egypt, to drive out the non-Muslim infidels and make way for the second coming of the Islamic Mahdi. Not unlike the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood which has just now come into power in Egypt, thanks to the "Arab spring".

Here's what Churchill had to say about "Mohammedanism", which is what Islam was called, back in the day.

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law [= Sharia law. Walt] every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Churchill wrote his book in 1899. But as you read this, do you not think it could have been written today? Well, maybe not. In this era of political correctness, what publisher would put those "racist" thoughts into print? And if they were printed, how long would it be before Churchill was summoned to appear in front of a "human rights" tribunal. About eight seconds, would be Walt's guess.

Click here to read more about Islamofascism on the Hyscience website.

Nabisco launches new and improved junk food

America is losing the war against obesity. Proportionally, the USA has more overweight, fat, obese and morbidly obese people than any country on earth. [What about Samoa? Ed.] Those, of course, are round figures.

The Prez and Imelda would like to see their subjects [fellow citizens, surely! Ed.] slim down a few sizes, and are asking food manufacturers and retailers to reduce calories, provide healthier alternatives, blah blah blah. Ever eager to help, the friendly folks at Nabisco, have introduced a new product, even more appealing to the piggy public than the ever-popular Chips Ahoy!

Yes, it's Chips Ahoy Middles! Nabisco listens to its customers, and what it heard was that the classic Chips Ahoy -- something like a chocolate chip cookie -- had too much cookie, not enough chocolate. So the obvious solution was to hollow out all that cookie dough and replace it with a soft, gooey centre of fat, sugar, salt and chocolate flavouring.

What you have now is pretty much a chocolate bar wrapped in a crust of cookie dough, not unlike that famous Glaswegian delicacy, the Deep-fried Mars Bar. Just what the customers (if not their doctors) ordered.

My Fitness Pal reports that a serving (two cookies) of Chips Ahoy Middles, total weight 31 grams, has 7 grams of fat (of which 4 grams saturated) and 13 grams of sugar. Total carbs, 21 grams. Yes, there's salt too, 110 mg. Any vitamins? Errr, no.

Want to see what you'll look like on a steady diet of Chips Ahoy Middles and similar junk? Check out "Showers for those who can't see their toes". I wouldn't be surprised if it's all part of an Islamist plot to make us eat ourselves to death.