Walt explains Canadian politics: 50 shades of red

One thing Americans can be thankful for today is the two-party system which has been the norm in US politics for most of the country's 240 (give or take) years. With only two parties to choose from, you have a clear choice. You know where they stand. You know where you stand. Do what you think is right.

The downside of having just two parties -- right (ish) and left (ish) -- is that those two parties have to accommodate a wide range of right(ish) and left(ish) opinions and policies with their "big tents". The Republicans have to deal with the raving right, including (some say), the alt-right. The Democrats have to pander to the growing numbers of looney lefties, including the likes of the Squad.

The result is a lot of division, or divisiveness, or, dare we say it, polarization. There's a lot of rancor in the air these days. You can even see it. The way things are now, even the colour of your hat makes a political statement. It's no longer white hats vs black hats, like in the old westerns, but Red Hats vs Blue Hats. 

How the Republicans wound up being officially Red, and the Democrats Blue, is a mystery. In the rest of the world, blue is the colour of the right -- Britain's Conservatives, for example -- and red is the colour of the left, from Britain's Labour Party to (of course) the Communists, everywhere. 

It's the same in Canada. Blue is the official colour of the so-called Conservative Party of Canada, and red is that of the Natural Governing Party, which is what Canada's Liberals call themselves. But there are other parties -- four others, unless you work for the CBC (Canadian Propaganda Corporation), in which case you recognize only three.

The only truly conservative party in Canada is Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada. That's the one the CBC wouldn't recognize until they started to poll  higher than the Greens. Their official colour is purple, which is the colour of PPC members' faces whenever Liberal Prime Minister Just In Trudeau is mentioned.

The other five parties -- counting only those with over 2% of the popular vote in Canada's last federal election -- are all liberal. Their official colous don't disguise the fact that their policies range in hue from pale red to deep red.

Just slightly in the red (policy-wise) are the aforementioned Conservatives, who, under leader Erin O'Tool, moved well to the left of centre to attract "progressive" voters who don't care for Mr Socks. All they managed to do was alienate their conservative base, which is why they lost the election. 

All Blackie McBlackface had to do to win was to remind people he that he's the liberal Liberal. Colour him Red.

Farther to the left are Canada's "New" Democrats, founded 60 years ago, hence the quote marks around "New". Their colour is orange, to match one of their leader's turbans. Their whole campaign pitch was that their social democratic (or democratic socialist) policies would ruin the country even faster than the Trudeau Liberals. Didn't work, and having a Sikh at the helm didn't help them much outside of the "little Khalistans" of Toronto and Vancouver.

The official colour of the Bloc Québécois is powder blue. The colour of their policies is pink, but not quite as pink as those of the NDP. Most Canadians don't know what the BQ stands for, since they only field candidates in Québec, and explain themselves only in French. 

That brings us the sixth and last party, the darling of the controlled media but dead last in the hearts and minds of Canadians -- the Green Party. Their official colour is... well, you already figured that out. But their policies are the reddest of red, so much so that their last leader upset the party members who chose her by not being sufficiently anti-Israel.

The last Green leader was Enemy [Annamie, shurely! Ed.] Paul, a black Jewish woman -- ticking three boxes right there -- who finished a distant fourth in her own riding. The party managed to elect just two Members of Parliament, the same as in the last House. One of those won by default after the Liberal candidate in his riding got MeTooed.

Ms Paul resigned before she could be fired, but not without trying for a green parachute and blaming her troubles on racism and sexism... and maybe anti-Semitism too. No surprises there. Anyway, she's gone, and the Greens have now chosen an interim leader, in the person of  Amita Kuttner -- pictured at left. [Geddit? Ed.] Kuttner describes herself as a "nonbinary astrophysicist" and "an expert in black holes". Seriously. You can look it up on the CBC website.

At the tender age of 30, Kuttner will be the youngest person as well as the first trans person to lead a federal political party. In a statement, Kuttner said they were "honoured to have been selected ... during this time of transition and renewal."

What? "Kuttner said they were honoured..."? Referring to whom? Ah... pronoun problems. Since Kuttner is "trans", no-one, including the CBC knows whether to say "xim", "xe", "xer","xis" or... whatever. 

Similarly, we don't know which honorific to use. [Maybe "Mr/s" or "Ms/r"? Ed.] All the same, Kuttner, like her predecessor-but-one, the tired and over-refreshed Elizabeth May, will be the darling of the lamestream media, as if "they" were head of a real party. And "they" will be the butt of the same old joke, "Kuttner? Party of one?"

"What's a trillion"?

Too much? Let's start with "What's a million?" That's a paraphrase of comments made by C.D. Howe, the Canadian "Minister of Everything" in the post-war Liberal government. During debate over estimates for the War Appropriation Bill in 1945,  Mr Howe told an opposition member, "I daresay my honourable friend could cut a million dollars from that amount, but a million dollars from the War Appropriations Bill (of more than $1.35 billion) would not be a very important matter."

John Diefenbaker, a Conservative MP, quickly rephrased Mr Howe’s words as "What's a million?" It is used even today to portray liberal governments' arrogance and looseness with the public purse.

Three-quarters of a century ago, a million dollars was a considerable sum of money. Half a century ago politicians went from talking of "millions" to "billions". Now even 000,000,000 (nine zeros) isn't enough, and another three zeros have been added to appropriations bills in Biden's US of A.

Last month, the Senate passed an infrastructure bill backed by Sleepy Joe, costed at roughly $1,000,000,000,000 -- a million million or trillion dollars. All of the Senate Dumbocrats and 19 Republicans (?) voted for it. It now needs to be approved by the House before being sent to Mr Biden's desk.

But wait... Apparently a trillion dollars isn't enough for the "progressive Democrats" in the House of Representative, who have vowed not to advance it unless and until the Senate passes an accompanying "reconciliation" bill which will cost... wait for it... $3.5 trillion!

The “Squad,” which includes Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), have joined Burnie Sanders (I-VT), the chairman of the Senate budget committee, in refusing to budge on the linking of the two bills, as a package deal. 

They say moderate Democrats, like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kristen Sinema (D-AZ), are standing in their way by opposing the gargantuan price tag of the social safety net expansion, which includes funding for healthcare, climate change, childcare, affordable housing, and education, all for the benefit of "marginalized communities" suffereing from centuries of "systemic racism" yada yada yada.

Sen. Manchin, along with many Republicans argue that the national debt is too large for this type of spending, and that it could contribute to already higher-than-normal rates of inflation. He told the Clinton News Network today that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer "will not have my vote on $3.5 (trillion) and Chuck knows that, and we’ve talked about this."

All this talk of billions and trillions reminded me of something I read in Bill Bryson's commendable Notes From a Big Country (Doubleday, 1998). The entire national debt, at the time Mr Bryson was writing, stood at $4.5 million, the total of the two bills now proposed by the Democraps. Mr Bryson puts millions, billions and trillions in terms than even I can understand. 

Big numbers are simply beyond what we are capable of grasping.... What does $4.5 trillion actually mean?

Let's just try for a trillion. Imagine that you were in a vault with the whole of America's national debt and you were told you could keep each dollar bill you initialled. Say, too, for the sake of argument, that you could initial one dollar bill each second and that you worked straight through without stopping. How long do you think it would take to count a trillion dollars?...

If you initialled one dollar per second, you would make $1000 every 17 minutes. After twelve days of non-stop effort you would acquire your first $1 million. Thus it would take you 120 days to accumulate $10 million and 1200 days -- something over three years -- to reach $100 million.

After 31.7 years, you would become a billionaire, and after almost a thousand years you would be as wealthy as Bill Gates.... But not until after 31,709.8 years would you count your trillionth dollar, and then you would be less than one-fourth of the way through the pile of money representing America's national debt.

That is what $1 trillion is.

Babylon Bee reports AOC going to Afghanistan

Ed. here. Just saw this marvelous piece on Babylon Bee (your trusted source for Christian satire) and have to share it.

AOC Goes To Afghanistan To Warn Refugees

Not To Come To Oppressive Racist America 

In fairness to the creative folks at the Bee, we won't repost the whole article -- you should click on the link to read it for yourself, but be sure you're sitting down -- but can't resist sharing just this one delicious paragraph. 

AOC then picked up her top-secret squad phone. "Get the squad together," she said. "We have brown people to save!" 

If Kamala Harris can bug out to Vietnam, why shouldn't AOC go to Afghanistan? Makes as much sense as anything else the Dumbocrats are doing to bring peace and prosperity to a world in crisis. We here at WWW are going to take the rest of the weekend off, just like Sleepy Joe.

UPDATED: After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...

Ed. made me leave the headline unfinished, but you know what I mean. After some 30 months of pissing and moaning about how Still-President Trump ought to be impeached, the Democrats have finally taken the first small step on what will be a very long journey towards their goal getting Mr Trump out of office without any test of the opinion of the American people.

Mere minutes ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump in the wake of his reported interest in the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. The announcement resulted from a spike in the number of House Dumbocrats arguing for impreachment. More than two-thirds of them said yesterday that they support impeachment, after the President confirmed that, during a congratulatory telephone call in July, he suggested to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Hunter Biden be investigated for possible breaches of both Ukrainian and American laws.

The Dems accused Mr Trump of holding over Mr Zelensky's head the threat of withholding tens of millions of dollars in military aid, if he did not order the suggested investigation. Earlier today Mr Trump said he did indeed order the withholding of aid... a week before he telephoned the new Ukrainian leader. And, he added, the aid money has now been paid as promised.

While still at the United Nations, President Trump tweeted, "I am currently at the United Nations representing our country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

Walt notes that what Ms Pelosi announced today is her party's intention to move for an inquiry. I am not all that familiar with American Constitutional Law, but understand that there are several steps between the launch of an inquiry and the putting to the House of a formal motion to impeach. And even if that passes, it would then have to go to the Senate, where the Republican majority would defeat it.

It looks to me as if today's announcement is nothing more than a sop to the Squad and the other radicals and never-Trumper's who have been baying for the President's head since the morning after the election. It is now less than 14 months until the 2020 election. I predict that the effluxion of time will prevent anything coming of these very preliminary impeachment proceedings before the end of the Congressional term. (Lifetime pct .989.) Then it will be up to the American people to judge. Selah.

UPDATE ADDED 25/9/19 at 0600: According to WaPo (always a cheerleader for anything anti-Trump), a Qunnipiac University poll released this morning shows 37% of voters in favour of impeaching Still-President Trump and removing him from office, while 57% say he should not be impeached. Food for thought for the Dumbocrats?

Left vs far left - Bill Maher & Michael Moore discuss Democrats

A week ago, Walt posted "'No time for moderation, no time for Biden' sez Michael Moore" (WWW 7/9/19), in which I reported on the noted film-maker's warning to the Democrats that if they chose the soft liberal option and put Old Joe Biden at the top of their 2020 ticket, they would lose to President Trump.

Yesterday, Mr Moore appeared on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher and repeated that warning to the eponymous host. This time, though, he took aim at Fauxcahontas, who he accused of not being far enough to the left, compared with such super-progressive Democrats as the wimmin of The Squad. He asserted that The Squad are viewed favorably by the majority of the American electorate. [Seriously?! Ed.]

Bill Maher, who lamented the leftward drift of the Dems' 2020 presidential wannabes on MSNBC's Morning Joe, was skeptical, to put it mildly. He said he did not think the country was "there" on most issues, including "Medicare for All", a policy supported by some of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Mr Moore said that if the presidential election were held right now, Still-President Donald Trump would emerge as the winner. That's pretty much what Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said a few days ago, except that Mr Ryan predicted a Trump landslide. See "Tim Ryan (D-OH) predicts Dems could lose 48 states in 2020", WWW 29/8/19 (includes video). BUT, Mr Moore says, the Democrats can win in 2020 if only they choose a candidate who will appeal to the wimmin, coloured people ["people of colour", please. Ed.] and young people who, he claims, make up 70% of the electorate.

ED. HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN BLOCKED DUE TO COPYRIGHT ISSUES. GUESS HBO DOESN'T LIKE YOU TO BE ABLE TO WATCH WITHOUT PAYING.

Walt hopes that the Dumbocrats listen to Messrs Moore and Ryan. Never mind a champagne liberal like Fauxcahontas. Put AOC or Ilhan Omar on top of the ticket, and let's see what happens. I'll make the popcorn.

9/11: Let's not forget who did this

"Some people did something" -- the infamous words of Ilhan Omar (Democrat - MN) downplaying the atrocity committed 18 years ago, when over 3000 innocent people died at the hands of... lest we forget... Islamic terrorists.

On this day, 9/11, 18 years ago, 19 Islamic terrorists, members of Al-Qaeda, in addition to killing thousands of people in just a couple of hours, caused billions in dollars of economic damage. In the words of Nicholas Haros Jr., speaking at today's memorial service in New York, "Your relatives and friends were attacked. Our constitutional freedoms were attacked, and our nation's founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That's what some people did!" The speaker went on to call on Rep. Omar and the other members of the "Squad" to show some respect in honouring those who lost their lives.

The conspirators behind the dastardly attack have kept their lives. The death penalty trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, and his four partners in orchestrating the deadliest attack ever carried out on American soil, is still pending. Pre-trial hearings resumed this past Monday. And it's all to ensure that Mr Mohammed and his co-conspirators -- Walid Muhammad Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi -- fanatical Muslims, the lot of them -- will receive "justice".

What justice is there, Walt asks, for the 3000+ dead and the families and friends left to mourn them. Is it just that the public revulsion over the 9/11 atrocity, and the great public anger at Islamic terrorists should be used by Ilhan Omar and her fellow Democrats and sympathizers with Islamism, to justify the foundation of the Council on American–Islamic Relations, "a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group", and the sanitization of 9/11? "Some people did something..." Let us not forget who did what, and why. It was Islamic terrorists, of whom 1000s are still out there -- not just in the Middle East and Europe but in America -- and they did it because they want to kill us. Let us not forget.

Further reading: "DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 9/11? Or are we still sleeping?", by (((Dan Greenfield))), on FrontPageMag, 11/9/19.

Poster boy for liberalism accuses liberals of being illiberal

Piers Morgan, seen here kissing Peter Andre [Who he? Ed.], is one of those annoying liberals who can't decide if he's a journalist or media personality or celebrity or what -- a poster boy for "jack of all trades, master of none".

He likes to think of himself as Britain's answer to (((Jon Stewart))) [Who he? Ed.], but his act has not played well on either side of the Atlantic. The British satirical magazine Private Eye refers to him as "Piers Moron". That and this picture are all ye need to know.

But, it seems, even certified [certifiable? Ed.] liberals can only take so much political correctness, forced diversity, triumphant omnisexuality and other manifestations of the liberal ethos. Even Mr Moron has started to plead for an end to it.

In an interview with Ben Shapiro of Turning Point UK, posted yesterday on Twitter, the voice of liberal orthodoxy said, "Populism is rising because liberals have become unbearable, and I speak as a liberal. In my core, I'm probably more liberal than not, although fundamentally, I see myself as a journalist, and I'd like to see both sides of all these things, and I can argue both. But liberals have become utterly, pathetically illiberal, and it's a massive problem.

"What's the point in calling yourself a liberal if you don't allow anyone else to have a different view? This snowflake culture that we now operate in, this victimhood culture -- you know, everyone has to think a certain way, behave a certain way. Everyone has to have a bleeding heart and tell you 20 things that are wrong with them.

"I just think it's all completely skewed to an environment where everyone's offended by everything and no one's allowed to say a joke. If you said a joke ten years ago that offended somebody, you can never host the Oscars. So now there's no host for anything. The Emmys now just said they're not gonna host either. So hosts have gone, and soon every award winner will go because everyone's a human and they're all flawed.

"So no one can win award anymore because there will be no platform before they even get on the podium. So then, no hosts, no stars. Then no one can make any movies because we're all flawed. So, no actors. So suddenly, where are we? The liberals get what they want, which is a humourless void where nothing happens, where no one dared do anything, or laugh about anything to behave in any way that doesn't suit their rigid way of leading a life. No thanks.

"So, what's happening around the world? Populism is rising because people are fed up with the PC culture. They're fed up with snowflakery. They're fed up with everyone being offended by everything, and they're gravitating toward forceful personalities who go, 'This is all nonsense,' which, by the way, it is, in most cases.

"So why are we surprised? I'm not surprised. It doesn't mean that I agree with all of it, but it means I can understand it. And I understand why the liberals -- my side, if you like -- are getting it so horribly wrong. They just wanna tell people not just how to lead their lives, but, 'If you don't lead it the way I tell you to,' -- it's a kind of version of fascism -- 'If you don’t lead the life the way I'm telling you to, then I'm gonna ruin your life. I'm gonna scream abuse at you. I'm gonna get you fired from your job, I'm gonna get you hounded by your family and friends. I'm gonna make you the most disgusting human being in the world."

I lifted that lengthy quote from "Top liberal champion: 'Liberals have become unbearable'", by Joe Kovacs, writing on WND.com yesterday. Mr Kovacs adds that, in July, Mr Morgan penned an op-ed piece for the Daily Mail, in which he said if President Donald Trump gets re-elected, it would be the result of this "radical, socialist, snowflake" mindset that has recently been personified by four female Democrats in Congress.

"Who would Donald Trump most like to face as Democrat nominee in the forthcoming 2020 election?" he asked. "I'd hazard a guess it would be a young, female, screechy, super-woke, easily triggered radical socialist snowflake with a disdainful view of America. In fact, I can narrow it down more specifically to any one of the Squad -- the four newly elected firebrand Democratic congresswomen of color currently lighting up US politics: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna S. Pressley."

If I'd said that, the never-Trumpers would accuse me of being a shill for Still-President Trump [Shurely not! Ed.] and much worse. But there it is, from the mouth (or some other orifice) of a certified liberal.

Portrait of a hater

Remind you of anyone you know? Anyone you've seen on the TV news? Congresspersons, perhaps? Squaddies?

Further reading: "Here’s why Ilhan Omar's claim that 'white men' are greater threat than jihad terrorists is wrong", by Matt Walsh, Daily Wire, 25/7/19, reposted by Dr Rich Swier, 7/8/19.

VIDEO: Katie Hopkins: What Pres. Trump said about the Squad gives Americans a clear choice for 2020

We're still over 15 months away from the 2020 elections, but the "ballot question" was made clear last week when President Trump spoke about the Squad -- the socialist Democrat wimmin-of-colour who he invited to...

Well, what did he say? British journalist Katie Hopkins separates the lamestream media lies from the actual words the President used, and opines that "the @realDonaldTrump has made #2020 a bold and binary decision."



This is the quote from Ms Hopkins' Twitter account. "Are you going to choose socialists, choose ISIS, choose the Palestinian flag, choose Cair? Or are you going to choose to Make America Great Again? Choose @realDonaldTrump!"