The authorities are still "investigating" Mr Diagne's motives for the shooting -- apparently the slogan on his T-shirt isn't conclusive -- but haven't been able to suppress the truth about his identity and background.
Monday, March 2, 2026
UPDATED: Who allowed this jihadi wannabe into the USA?
The authorities are still "investigating" Mr Diagne's motives for the shooting -- apparently the slogan on his T-shirt isn't conclusive -- but haven't been able to suppress the truth about his identity and background.
Friday, February 6, 2026
The Obamas as apes - We don't have the full video but we do have the story and a screen grab
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
VIDEO: "Never Die" - AGENT 047 discovers who's behind SPECTRE
Monday, July 28, 2025
"We won't treat you badly..."
Saturday, July 12, 2025
Spot the difference
Monday, March 3, 2025
Book Review: "Listen. Liberal!" by Thomas Franks
Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Put your baseball bat back beside the door
Monday, November 20, 2023
"Pull the strings! Pull the strings!"
Sunday, November 12, 2023
Wednesday, November 8, 2023
Sitting on the fence in the Hamas-Israeli war
Sunday, November 6, 2022
Waiting for the 8th - Looking for GOP wins in Arizona
As I said on Friday, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to prevent electoral disaster -- the loss of both the state house and a Senate seat -- in Arizona. They can see that the Republicans have momentum [catchword of the year. Ed.]. But don't take my word for it. Consider this report which appeared on Friday on the Clinton News Network.
Republican momentum in Arizona deepens Democratic worries over Senate
Nowhere in the country has the struggle between election denialists and democracy defenders [The phrase "election denialists and democracy defenders" perfectly encapsulates the Dumbocrat party line. Only they are the champions of democracy while those who think they stole the 2020 election are in denial. Walt] played out in more vivid detail than in Arizona, where Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s ability to hold off late momentum from Trump-backed GOP nominee Blake Masters will be key to Democrats’ hopes of defending their narrow Senate majority.
Now running for a full six-year term, Kelly – a retired astronaut and the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords – entered the race in an enviable position as a formidable fundraiser with a personal brand that lent him bipartisan appeal in Arizona, where a third of the electorate are independents. But the economic headwinds facing Democrats, as well as President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings, [!!! Walt] have complicated his political fortunes.
Republicans need a net gain of just one seat to pick up control of the Senate on Tuesday, and Democrats are already on defense in Nevada, Georgia and New Hampshire. Arizona has emerged as one of the most important battleground states in the nation – not only for Senate and governor this year and likely the next presidential contest – but also because it is the fulcrum of key demographic changes that are testing the reach of both parties.
As I said, the Dumbocrats are shit-scared. So they brought out the big guns, not just the Prez, obviously annoyed to be awoken from his retirement slumber, but Hellery Clinton. How desperate do you have to be to think that adding their shrill voice to the democracy-is-doomed chorus will save the furniture for Mr Kelly and their gubernatorial candidate, Katie Hobbs. Listen to what Ms Lake and Mr Masters had to say, in conversation with Sean Hannity.
Walt predicts a win for Kari Lake. As for the state house, you pick `em. Lifetime pct .988. I'll see you on the beach.
Saturday, November 5, 2022
Waiting for the 8th - Who's REALLY running America?
The administration has re-crafted an enormous number of laws and regulations — often illegally — to push the hard-left, woke, LGBT agendas throughout business, government, education, and society in general. U.S. foreign policy, including the hideous abandonment in Afghanistan and unhinged Ukrainian response, has clearly been coordinated to weaken America and strengthen our enemies. Our military is being emasculated — and proselytized to consider patriotic Americans as the enemy.
The Biden administration ignores our immigration laws and welcomes millions of illegal aliens to swarm across our southern border, and then methodically ships them to cities across the country (and even gives them cell phones to use).
The administration's aggressive "green new deal" is paralyzing our transportation system and causing crippling inflation never seen in this country before. Federal agencies, spearheaded by the Justice Department and FBI, have viciously become weaponized against conservatives, at the same time allowing "Antifa" and other left-wing hoodlum groups to terrorize citizens at will.
As many have observed, it's a controlled demolition of America.
All of this destruction is being attributed by our political establishment to a man with obvious dementia who can barely read through a single sentence on a teleprompter, can't remember names, and cannot discuss anything of substance.
Republicans and conservatives love to beat up on Joe Biden. It makes great campaign fundraising rhetoric. But nobody can possibly believe that Biden in his perpetual mental fog actually planned any of this, wrote any of it, ordered it, or even knows any details about it.
And let's not forget that Biden became president not by actually campaigning, but through a massively coordinated effort involving billions of dollars and the most powerful corporations and political organizers in America to subvert the U.S. election process.
No prominent Republican politician is willing to publicly ask — and demand answers to — the obvious question: who is really doing all of this, using Biden as a mindless front man?
And why should they? Biden is a great political punching bag. Bringing up the hard question could have uncomfortable consequences — especially in this political climate.
This is not conjecture. A friend of mine who is involved in D.C. political circles had the opportunity this past year to ask that question — who is really running the country? — to a Republican congressman and a U.S. senator, both prominent conservatives. Both of them nervously dodged the question and insisted that "taking on Joe Biden" is what the GOP needs to do.
So who is the power behind the curtain? A lot of people say it's Barack Obama, or maybe Susan Rice. But the truth is that neither of them is capable of orchestrating something on this scale. Obama never really got anywhere on his own, and Susan Rice is a middleweight at best.
This has all the fingerprints of the Soros organization. The people there are extremely intelligent and proficient, they passionately hate America, they've been leading up to this for several decades, and they have access to untold wealth and influence. Everything mentioned above is something they are more than capable of organizing and carrying out.
But most of this couldn't have been accomplished during Biden's first two years without the cooperation of the 50 Democrat U.S. senators and the Democrat majority in the House. And then there are the cowardly Republicans in both houses, including the leadership, who consistently put up a "gentlemanly" fight that is destined to lose.
Right now, job number one is openly exposing the "shadow government" that is really running America, and doing everything possible to drive them completely out. Seeing what is happening now (and learning from the past), it is not an exaggeration to say that we are all on a freight train headed to hell. If we don't derail it soon, there will eventually be no turning back.
Comment from Walt: The latest Rasmussen generic poll shows Republicans with a 5-point lead over the Soroscrats. Please don't be lulled into complacency. Every single American who wants to bring sanity, order and prosperity back to the country needs to get out and vote on Tuesday! I'll see you on the beach.
Friday, September 17, 2021
American interference in Canadian election
It never fails. Every time I announce that I'm going to be off for a couple of days, something happens to change my plans. Murphy's law. But I would be remiss if I unplugged the computer without pointing out the hypocrisy of American politicans, Democrat politicians, who whined endlessly about "foreign interference" in the Presidential elections of 2016 and 2020, but don't hesitate to tell Canadians who to vote for.
Here is the list of last-minute, desperate-measures-called-for endorsements, published yesterday and today.
Barack Hussain Obama (aka the Prez) has endorsed his "friend" Justin Trudeau. That's the second time. He did that in the last week of the 2019 campaign and it had the desired effect of reassuring "progressives" that Mr Socks was more than the shallow puppet he seemed to be.
Hellery Clinton, former US Secretary of State and twice-failed presidential candidate, has endorsed her "friend" Justin Trudeau. That's because he's a champion of "reproductive rights" (i.e. baby-killing), affordable child care and other issues of importance to wimmin. And...
(((Bernie Sanders))), another failed presidential candidate, has endorsed... wait for it... Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada's Few Democrats. Mr Sanders sits in the US senate as an Independent, so maybe we shouldn't call him a Democrat. How about "Social Democrat" or "Demoratic Socialist"?
One thing these three have in common with Mr Trudeau is that they are all part of the Soros plan for One World Government.
Just today, another tool of the New World Order, Filippo Grandi [= "Philip the Great"? Ed.], the United Nations Commissar for Refugees, reminded Canucks that their new government "must" [sic] honour the Liberals' promise to accommodate 20,000 Afghan refugees!
Dear Canadian friends, how do you like the prospect of the United Nations and the Democratic rulers of the Entitled States of America telling you (no matter which variety of liberals you elect) what to do? Not thrilled about it?
Monday, August 30, 2021
VIDEO: "A Dunkirk moment", "a Saigon moment" - Obama/Biden officials speak the truth about the Afghanistan debacle
Tuesday, August 3, 2021
Leaked! Report into the sanity of President Biden
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
VIDEOS: Joe Biden's 47 years of lies
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Barack Obama talks about absentee black fathers
This happened yesterday. Even as the Rev prated in front of the Lincoln Memorial about how whites just love putting their knees on black throats, a reader e-mailed me to complain about my statement, yesterday, of the fact that both ex-President Obama and Veep-wannabe Kamala Harris were raised by their mothers with little or no help from their absent fathers.She (are you surprised?) accused me of perpetuating the negative stereotype of -- my words now -- irresponsible black dudes who impregnate baby mamas (of all races) and then bail out, leaving the mothers to do the best they can, on their own. Just as Barack Obama's mother did. Just as Kamala Harris's other did.
Dear reader. The "missing black father" is not a mythological creature. He is real, and watching from afar as his kids riot, loot, and shoot or get shot. How many reports have you seen on your local newscast in which the mother of a young black(ish) man who is either the perp or the victim weeps and tells the meeja that "he was a good boy, trying to turn his life around" etc etc, with the father nowhere in sight.
Before resting my case, I wish to put in evidence the chart at left, compiled by the National Center for Fathering. Click here to read "The Extent of Fatherlessness", which explains the issue in detail.
Let me leave you with the words of Barack Hussein Obama himself. On 15 June 2008 (a Father's Day), he addressed a black church in Chicago. According to Dr Randall Kennedy (in The Persistence of the Color Line, recommended yesterday), Senator Obama (as he then was)
"stated that 'in the African American community...more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,' and that 'too many fathers [are] missing from too many lives and too many homes.' Continuing, Obama declared that 'these absent black fathers have abandoned their responsibilities, acting more like boys instead of men.'"
Dr Kennedy (who is black) does not say that Mr Obama was wrong in what he said, nor wrong to say it, although he does suggest that there may have been an ulterior motive. Like what? Like preaching family values to black people to prove to white people that he was not the sort of trashy black who would leave his wife and children... or the country... in the lurch.
The facts about incomplete families in the black community are what they are. So are the facts of the lives of ex-President Obama and Senator Harris. I make no apology for pointing out the facts... just the facts.
Friday, August 28, 2020
Parsing the blackness of Kamala Harris
Make no mistake. The 2020 election, more than any election since the Glorious War of the Secession, is going to be about race. Nothing else. The notion that the US of A somehow became "postracial" with the election of Barack Hussein Obama is an illusion, or should I say delusion of the guilt-ridden liberals who are wilfully oblivious to the onset of a racialized civil war.I have been thinking about the imminence of an us-vs-them war while reading Dr Randall Kennedy's The Persistence of the Color Line (Vintage Books 2011), a critical examination of racial politics and the Obama presidency. Dr Kennedy was Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the American Philosophical Association. He is no "Uncle Tom", nor is he an African-American incapable of seeing any fault in any Black politician. His book, which I recommend, "offers an incisive view of Obama's triumphs and travails, his strengths and weaknesses, as they pertain to the troubled historyof race in America."
Dr Kennedy begins with an examination of Mr Obama's self-identification as "black" and "African-American" -- a claim from which (the author says) he rarely wavered in spite of the "birther" controversy and a life story far removed from the typical black "lived experience" (to use the current buzzphrase). The more I read about the ex-President's life history, the more parallels I saw with the back story of Kamala Harris, who is now being touted as the first "woman of colour" to run for the nomination of a major American party.*
Two weeks ago, in "What kind of 'American' is Kamala Harris", I questioned the Dem nominee's self-identification as "African-American". Even then, the (((controlled media))) and others fearful of Ms Harris being thought too black were pointing out that she could also be called an "Asian American", or, better, just a "woman of colour". Not really black, y'understand, just, errr, non-white. So let's do a comparison between the Veep wannabe and the Prez.Like Kamala Harris, Barack Hussein Obama had a black father. Neither father was American. Obama père was African, from Kenya. Ms Harris's father was Jamaican. Both black fathers bailed out on their non-black partners when their progeny were just kids, leaving the baby mamas to raise the kids alone.
Thanks to the efforts of their mothers, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris spent some of their formative years outside of the USA, going to elite private schools where the majority of their classmates and friends were non-black. Unlike the majority of African-Americans, both went on to university and earned degrees in law. Arguably, neither of them had what talk-show host Tavis Smiley, quoted by Dr Kennedy, called "the quintessential black experience in America." Their "lived experiences" were unlike those of the majority of minorities who voted for them.
And yet, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris claim, with pride, to be "African-American". But here, according to Dr Kennedy, is the acid test, or rather the litmus test, which the Prez passes and Ms Harris... does not. Barack Hussein Obama married Michelle Robinson, a black woman. Ms Harris married Douglas Emhoff, an attorney who happens to be, errr, white.Why is this important? The author of The Persistence of the Color Line (who, let us remember, is black) writes:
Given the dismal state of the marriage market for black women, the shrinking number of black married couples, and the perception that successful black men often marry outside their race, Barack Obama's marriage has won for him large amounts of goodwill among blacks.
Lawrence Otis Graham, another African-American Harvard Law School alumnus, memorably highlights the importance he attaches to the marital choices of fellow blacks. Nothing that he and his friends regularly engage in "race checking", Graham confides:
We flip through glowing profiles in People, Ebony, or Business Week quietly praising the latest black trailblazer or role model. Then we look for what we consider the final determinant of this person's black identity -- that thing that will allow us to bestow our unqualified appreciation. We look for the litmus test of lyalty to the race: the photo of the person's spouse or significant other"
For some blacks, nothing was more important as a clue to Obamas's racial loyalty than his demonstrated commitment to "a sister". For them, few political images packed more of an emotional wallop than seeingr Obama onstage in the affectionate emgrace of his beautiful black wife and their two adorable children.
In a footnote (p. 81), Dr Kennedy asks us to "Consider the following observation: 'Why do black people love Obama? In large part it's because of the dark-skinned woman on his arm.... Had Barack married a white woman, hiw candidacy would've never gotten off the ground with black people." ... "He may only be half black but he is married to a black woman and his children are black. That says a lot to me because he could have married a white woman...."
Ed. had to search a bit to get information about Ms Harris's spouse. The Dumbocrats aren't exactly putting him out front and centre. It will be interesting to see how often he appears with their V-P nominee, and how his non-blackness... and her black(ish)ness... play out on the campaign trail.
* This is not true. Dr Kennedy points out (pp. 57-58) that Shirley Anita Chisholm, the first really black woman elected to Congress, presented herself as a presidential candidate in 1972. She never posed a real threat to the Democratic Party front-runners and figured only marginally at the convention that nominated George McGovern, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon.
Friday, August 7, 2020
White antifa anarchists have taken over the BLM "protests"
Meanwhile, it falls to me [and Poor Len! Len.] to fill this space, and not with irrelevant funny stuff, as Walt made clear in a rather scathing message two days ago. Today I've chosen "How white radicals hijacked Portland's protests", by Michael Tracey, on the UnHerd blogsite, 4/8/20. As before, space doesn't allow us to repost the whole article, so I've selected a few trenchant excerpts. If you wish to read the whole thing, click on the link above.
The overwhelmingly white, anarchist activists who populate the ongoing protests in Portland...[have] discovered a work-around to arrogate moral cover for whatever insurrectionary upheaval they would have been ideologically committed to fomenting anyway. The Left/liberal political and media class is deeply invested in preserving the untouchable sanctity of "BLM". So by fusing themselves in the public mind with this ambiguously-defined protest movement, or even putting themselves at the vanguard, the anarchist whites insulate themselves from the type of scrutiny that might ordinarily be prompted by activists whose ultimate goal is the overthrow of the state....To characterise what's gone on in Portland as a traditional "protest" is a misnomer, however. Pay a visit to the area around the Federal Courthouse in Downtown after midnight and you are greeted by brigades of black-clad "Antifa" foot soldiers — geared up in full body armour, complete with industrial-grade gas masks, shields and even customised radio systems. Being overwhelmingly white, they are strategic about public presentation: the speakers appointed to address the nightly "rallies" are almost exclusively black, as "amplifying black voices" to whom whites must dutifully "listen" is a central tenet of the Summer 2020 protest ethos.
If there is any foundational idea operative in Portland, it's to keep a frenetic confrontation with the state going for as long as possible, so as to maximise the chances that an incendiary incident might occur and catalyse a larger insurrectionary uproar — similar to the killing of George Floyd in May, which sparked nationwide riots. One fateful tear gas canister fired into the temple of a "protester" could reverberate rapidly across the country; "Portland solidarity" actions have already sprouted up as far away as Richmond, Virginia....
When protesters chant "NO GOOD COPS IN A RACIST SYSTEM", the "system" to which they are referring is the foundational system of governance of the United States — again, deemed inherently "fascist" and "white supremacist", and therefore impossible to reform. As one sign wielded by a protester declared: "The Revolution will not come by asking or voting"....
A strange feature of this protest movement is that one would barely know Barack Obama, a black man elected president in a majority white nation, ever existed. Not that Obama's mere election was supposed to have eradicated every last trace of racial inequities in the United States: of course it wasn't. But you'd think it would at least inform popular conceptions of the role of race within the nation's elite power structure. Instead, Obama seems to have been simply "erased" — the significance of his tenure not even worth mentioning. Are we to believe that a country so intractably defined by "white supremacy" — a totally uncontested truism among protesters and their media allies — nonetheless elected a black man not once, but twice? Apparently....
Further reading: "Riotous BLM Protesters Suddenly Realize They're All White People", Babylon Bee, 5/8/20. Don't forget, folks, that the BB is "Christian satire", to be taken cum grano salis... but not too large a grain. Truth is stranger than fiction!
Sunday, July 5, 2020
A few well-chosen words about immigration
Immigration, of course, will not be a major issue this time because everyone can see that the President's attempt to close the border is xenophobic and racist, while the Democrats' position on the issue is sensible, progressive and humane. Here's a sample."We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States. But those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country."**
Wait a minute. Isn't that something that President Trump said? Nope. It was then-Senator Obama, back in 2005, before he became the Prez. Didn't he change his mind later? Nope. Here's what he said in his 2013 State of the Union address.
"Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made -- putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in forty years.
"Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying texes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally."**
This is a bit hard to believe. Anyway, Obama's not President any more. Real liberals like Chuch Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are the leaders now. Funny you should mention them. Here's what Mr Schumer said in a speech at Georgetown University in 2009.
"The American people are fundamentallyu pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. We will only pass comprehensive reform when we recognize this dunamental concept.
"First, illegal immigration is wrong. A primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dreamatically curtail future illegal immigration."**
As Ms Pelosi said, "We all agree we need to secure our borders, while honoring our values."**
So that's the Democratic position now? To me it sounds the same as what President Trump has been saying. My dear, that's exactly the problem. If Trump says it, it's wrong! Therefore, the position of the Democratic Party now is the polar opposite of what it was back in the day.
Recognizing that anti-immigrant backlash contributed greatly to the election of the Donald, the Dems now advocate open borders, amnesty for the illegals ["undocumented", shurely. Ed.] and more welfare for all. Can you say "hypocrisy", boys and girls? No? How about "flip-flop"? I knew you could.
* See "From the inside: Matt Taibbi explains why the media want to keep Americans perpetually at war...", WWW 28/6/20.
** Quoted by Dave Rubin in Don't Burn This Book, Penguin Random House, 2020.















