VIDEO: Victor Davis Hanson talks with Walt's favorite senator

Why would you be surprised? Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is the most insightful, acerbic and entertaining members of the chamber of sober second thought. 

A lot of people, when they first hear him speak, think, oh, there's another cracker, a relic from the ante-bellum South. In fact he has earned two degrees in law (the second one from Oxford, no less!) and clearly knows his stuff when it comes to how laws are made, how courts work, and the consequences of not following the law. 

In this video, our old friend Victor Davis Hanson interviews Senator Kennedy about his new book How to Test Negative for Stupid: And Why Washington Never Will. They discuss early Biden cognitive trouble, scared and tone-deaf Democrats, federal and state juridication and more. Worth listening to!

Wisdom for today from legal decisions of the Dirty Thirties

Americans and Canadians are going through hard times. The slowdown of business and other activity caused by the Wuhan flu pandemic sent our economies into a tailspin, from which we have not yet recovered, no matter what President Brandon and Prime Minister McBlackface tell you. Not only have we not recovered, but we are teetering on the brink of recession. 

More people are working than was the case two years ago, but more people are not working, too. Some folks, having discovered that our liberal governments will pay them not to work, have simply dropped out of the work force. Thus the same liberal governments are now telling us we need to import hundreds of thousands of third-world migrants to meet "staffing challenges".

Bidenflation has pushed prices up to the point where a lot "working poor" can barely afford to drive to work. The federal governments of both countries desperately need more revenue to cover the deficits they incur by shovelling money out to the special interest groups they rely on to keep them in power. But they are afraid to raise taxes, so the liberal cry today is "Make the rich pay their share...and more!"

And there is civil unrest, notably in Canada where Mr Socks invoked the Emergencies Act (aka Police State Act, aka Son of War Measures Act) to quash last winter's Freedom Convoy by, among other draconian measures, freezing dissenters' bank accounts without notice! That'll teach them to cling to their "unacceptable views"!

The United States went through a similar bad patch during the Great Recession of the 1930s. The Presidents of those days were mile aheads of both Demented Joe and the Emperor of Canuckistan in arrogating to their governments unprecedented powers of taxation and repression of dissent. 

Walt wonders if M Trudeau's handlers studied President Herbert Hoover's response to the 1932 march on Washington of the Bonus Army -- 1000s of war veterans demanding the bonuses which they had been promised at the end of WWI, which had never been paid. This is how it went down.

On 28 July 1932, Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the "Bonus Expeditionary Force" removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors. Two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

Such heavy-handed tactics became the norm under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who used whatever means he could to force Americans -- particularly rich Americans and their businesses, large and small -- to submit to his New Deal. Those who dissented had the G-men sicced on them. After all, Roosevelt declaimed, this is an emergency!

One business which FDR's Treasury Dept. tried to coerce was a firm owned by three Jewish brothers who butchered chickens. They balked at Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to develop codes of conduct among business groups and boards in those industries -- i.e.to control private businesses. The Schecters fought the feds all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favour. (A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)) 

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the unanimous Court exercised a check on the Legislative and Executive branches of government, declaring the Act and actions of the President an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. 

SCOTUS ruled that the President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal. Justice Hughes wrote: "Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers." 

Here's another piece of wisdom from a famous judge, which may give some comfort to President Trump as he fights to avoid a too-public audit of his tax returns. In Helvering v. Gregory, 293 U.S. 465 (1935).69 F.2d 809 (2d Cir. 1934), Judge Billings Learned Hand, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruled that: "Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.... To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

The emphasis is mine. For some 65 years, beginning with the Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren too long (1953-1969), the Supreme Court was dominated by judicial activists intent on rewriting the laws of the USA, including the Constitution itself, to bring about "social justice" and equality of result, as opposed to the equality of opportunity which was the aim of the founding fathers. That is still the mindset of the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, the times they are a-changin'. Ordinary people, real people on both sides of the World's Longest Open Border are waking up to the fact that the liberal democratic state of Roosevelt-Johnson-Clinton-Biden and King-Pearson-Trudeau (Senior and Junior) is not their friend, but their enemy. Walt says: be like the Schecter brothers -- fight back! You can fight and beat city hall!

VIDEO: President Trump's keynote speech at Amelia FL (FULL)

"We reject the discrimination and oppression of so-called 'equity' and we embrace the eternal principle of equality under the law!" So said President Donald Trump, in a keynote speech to the Heritage Foundation, at Amerlia FL, on April 21st.

Former Mr Trump spoke up for American constitutional principles, not the distorted values pushed by the "new" Democrats. He spoke fervently in support of the Constitution, America's founding documents, and the principle of equality. He rejected equity as defined by the "social Democrats" and emphasized the first duty of government -- to defend and protect America First. Here's the full 80-minute speech.

   

It is now less than seven months until Americans get the opportunity to judge the Brandon-Harris administration. President Trump's speech is full of things patriots should keep in mind when they go to the polls. Please feel free [Geddit? Ed.] to share this video with your friends and neighbours.

Impeachment trial: the VIDEO the MSM don't want you to see

There's four hours of my life I won't get back! Yesterday I watched the first afternoon of the Senate trial of former President Trump -- "former" being the key word here because, as Mr Trump's lawyers pointed out, he is out of office now, and the Constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a private citizen.

I thought they made a pretty good argument on that point, but in spite of the trial being (on an objective reading of the text of the United States Constitution) contrary to the founding document of the republic, six Republic Senators (including the inevitable Mitt Romney) voted to go ahead with it. Final tally: ayes 56 - nays 44. 

That was pretty much what I expected, but what I found interesting were the videos presented to the solons by the House managers and Mr Trump's lawyers. Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who previously objected to results from Donald Trump's 2016 victory, showed a dramatic and selectively edited video that spliced together President Trump's statements with images of the mostly peaceful protesters (TM) who "attacked" the Capitol on January 6th. 

I'm sure you've seen that video 1000 times since it was all over the boob tube, from the live feed through every damn "newscast" on every damn station until... well, for all I know it's still being shown this morning. Did you notice, though, that the video edited out (for example) President Trump's appeal to his supporters to "peacefully make their voices heard." The video was the veriest hatchet job, carefully constructed by master manipulators to lay everything at Mr Trump's feet. 

Of course the lickspittle lamestream media swallowed it -- hook, line and sinker -- and expect Americans to do the same. How could viewers do otherwise otherwise, since they saw only the anti-Trump video. But the Senators (whose minds were already made up) saw another one, a montage put together by former Mr Trump's team, which makes clear in just two minutes that this whole show trial is the culmination of the campaign to unseat President Trump which began even before he was sworn in. You be the judge!  

 

The impeachment show trial, the executive orders issued by Sleep Joe to countermand those issued by President Trump, the drive to silence not just Mr Trump but his 74 million supporters (see cartoon above)... these things have nothing to do with reconciliation, and everything to do with retribution. What you have seen over the last three weeks is only the beginning! 

SCOTUS lets Trump... and America... down

Let it not be said that Walt ignores or tries to cover up bad news. 

The Supreme Court dismissed a prominent legal challenge Friday to the 2020 election results filed Monday by the State of Texas. "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," said SCOTUS. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a case directly to the Supreme Court, challenging the election results from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The suit argued that the four states illegally made changes to the voting rules through the courts instead of through state legislatures, violating the Electors Clause.

It also argues the differences in voting rules in different counties violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and cites claims of voting irregularities in the states. Seventeen states joined the lawsuit as well as over 120 House Republicans.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement with the dismissal that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, arguing that the Supreme Court should take up the case. "In my view," he wrote, "we do not have the discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction," saying that he would grant the motion to file the bill of complaint. 

But Justice Alito signalled he would not have granted the state of Texas the ability to halt the election certification as the challenge requested. "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue." 

It seemed to me that a good argument could be made that the court had a duty to consider inconsistencies between the voting rules in different states. If one state, like Texas, has strict rules, and another, like Pennsylvania, has loosey-goosey that allow anyone to vote, early or late (and often too!), doesn't that diminish the value of a Texan's vote? Where's the equal protection promised by the Constitution if you can vote once by mail and once in person, and I can only vote once? 

President Trump described the Texas case, on Wednesday, as "The big one" and repeatedly urged the Supreme Court justices to have the "wisdom" and the "courage" take up the case. He must be mightily disappointed -- and angry too -- that SCOTUS refused to do so. Me too.

Ron Paul: End the shutdown; it’s time for resurrection!

The following article, by Dr Ron Paul, appeared today on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

For many millions of Christians, Easter is a time to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Others may celebrate the arrival of spring and the promise of new life. Whatever one’s beliefs, after several weeks of mandatory “stay at home” orders and the complete shutdown of the US economy over the coronavirus, this self-destructive hysteria must end and we must reclaim the freedom and liberty that has provided us so much opportunity as Americans.

To do that we should first understand that much of the hysteria is being generated by a mainstream media that has long prioritized sensationalism over investigating and reporting the truth. Government bureaucrats are also exaggerating the threat of this virus and appear to be enjoying the power and control that fearful people are willingly handing over to them. One “coronavirus” bureaucrat even told us that we can no longer go to the grocery store! So we should just starve?

It is certainly possible to believe that this virus can be dangerous while at the same time pointing out that radical steps are being taken in our society – stay-at-home orders, introduction of de facto martial law, etc. – with very little knowledge of just how deadly is this disease.

On March 24th, the CDC issued an alert stating that doctors should classify “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19” as Covid-19 deaths. Perhaps that explains the seeming drop-off of pneumonia deaths this year and the simultaneous spike in Covid-19 deaths as some researchers have reported.

The BBC reported last week that, “At present in the US, any death of a Covid-19 patient, no matter what the physician believes to be the direct cause, is counted for public reporting as a Covid-19 death.”

Does that sound like a scientifically sound way of determining how deadly Covid-19 really is?

What is most dangerous is that although this virus will eventually disappear, the assault on our civil liberties is not likely to be reversed. From this point on, whenever local officials, county officials, state governors, or federal bureaucrats decide there is sufficient reason to suspend the Constitution they will not hesitate to do so. Anyone who challenges the suspension of the Constitution “for our own good” will be labeled “unpatriotic” and perhaps even reported to the authorities. We have already seen hotlines springing up across the country for Americans to report other Americans who dare venture outside to enjoy the sun and build up their vitamin D protection against the coronavirus.

The government is justified in cancelling the Constitution, we are told, because we are in an emergency situation caused by the Covid-19 virus. But do people forget that the Constitution itself was written and adopted while we were in an “emergency situation”?

Did the framers of the Constitution fail to add an 11th Amendment to the Bill of Rights saying, “oh by the way, none of this counts if we get sick”? Of course not! Those who wrote our Constitution understood that these rights are not granted by the government, but rather by our Creator. Thus it was never a question as to when or under what conditions they could be suspended: the government had no authority to suspend them at all because it did not grant them in the first place.

Our country is far less at risk from the coronavirus than it is from the thousands of small and large authoritarians who have suddenly flexed their muscles across the country. President Trump would do well to end this ridiculous shutdown so that Americans can get on with their lives and get back to work.

Americans should remember the tyrants who locked them down next time they go to the ballot box. Let’s demand an end to the shutdown so we can resurrect our economy, our lives, and our liberties!

What if no-one wins the Canadian election?

Suppose a country holds an election and no-one wins. What happens then? Because of the nature of the parliamentary democracy which it inherited from Britain, Canada may, this coming Monday, become a case in point.

Public opinion polls (which Americans know are always reliable) show Justin Trudeau's Gliberals in a virtual dead heat with Andrew Scheer's Cuckservatives, each with just under 32% support. In Canada, as in the USA, having more votes than the other guy doesn't guarantee that you'll become head of state. What counts is how many seats your party wins in the 338-seat House of Commons.

If the polls are accurate [as they always are in the USA. Ed.], neither of the two main parties can hope for a majority. Today's morning line has the Liberals emerging with 4 to 8 more seats than the Tories. But suppose it's the other way `round. Will Mr Socks resign and hand the reins of power over to Mr Bland? Time for The King-Byng Thing, a lesson in Canadian history and constitutional law from Agent 3.

The man on the left was a King. The man on the right was a Lord.

Julian Hedworth George Byng came from a noble English family, and commanded the Canadian Corps of the British Army at Vimy Ridge, in World War I. The Canucks won the battle but Byng won the honours, becoming the 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy. In 1921 he was sent to Canada to become the country's Governor-General, the representative of King George V.

William Lyon Mackenzie King (not "king" as in sovereign) was Prime Minister of Canada for most of the period from 1921 to 1948. He lost his grip on power, though, in a general election in the fall of 1925. Then, as may be the case now, no party got a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Mr King's Liberals came second, a few seats behind the Conservatives. But (and this is where the constitutional point comes in), Mr King was the incumbent Prime Minister, and as such felt he had the right to meet the House and seek its confidence.

Lord Byng thought the Conservatives should have been called on to form the government, since they had more seats, but acceded to Mr King's request on condition that if the Liberals lost the vote of confidence, Mr King would not seek a dissolution of Parliament and a new election. Sure enough, the government fell and "Mackenzie King" went back to Lord Byng to ask that the election writ be dropped. Lord Byng refused and, in 1926, called on the Conservatives to form a government. They did, and almost immediately lost the next vote of confidence. Whereupon a new election was called, which the King Liberals won.

Lord Byne was duly recalled and a new Governor-General placed on the vice-regal throne. Upon returning to power, Mr King's government sought at an imperial conference to redefine the role of the Governor-General as a personal representative of the sovereign in his Canadian council and not of the British government (the king in his British council). The change was agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1926 and came to be official as a result of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and Statute of Westminster 1931.

It is therefore settled that the Governor-General of Canada may not refuse a request of the Prime Minister. The last time that possibility was raised, when Prime Minister Harper sought to prorogue Parliament to avoid a vote of confidence, Mr Harpoon threatened to go directly to the Queen to get what he wanted. It wasn't necessary, as the G-G caved.

What that means for Canadians is that even if, on Monday, Just In Trudeau's Liberals elect fewer Members of Parliament than Andrew Scheer's Conservatives, M Trudeau can make a good case for remaining in office. He could meet the House and, with the support of the socialist NDP and/or the separatist Bloc Québécois, could continue his misrule until such time as enough MPs desert him.

It is true, as Mr Scheer says, that no Prime Minister has done that in modern times. The convention for the last half-century or so is that a Prime Minister whose party finishes with fewer seats than another party should resign, and that the Governor-General should then call on the leader of that other party to form the government. It doesn't matter that the other party didn't get a majority of the seats. A plurality would do. So it will be up to M Trudeau, if he loses, to the right thing. But will he? Stay tuned.

What 's in the "Ukrainian phone calls" that warrants impeachment?

Short answer: Nothing!

Walt's longer answer begings with this quote from "How the impeachment process is supposed to work" (WWW 24/9/19): In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.

Q. What kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" do the Dumbocrats now say Still-President Trump has committed?
A. Well, he had a telephone conversation (or two or three) with Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, in which he "solicited interference" in the 2020 election.
Q. What kind of interference?
A. Well, he wanted Mr Zelensky to investigate the business dealings in Ukraine of Old Joe Biden's sprog, Hunter.
Q. And that would be a crime in what way?
A. Well... errr... that would have been for the President's personal gain.
Q. In what way?
A. Well... errrrr....

The key word there is "personal gain". I think what the Founding Fathers had in mind, when they wrote the Constitution, was personal pecuniary gain, of the sort that resulted in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the successor to President U.S. Grant. How President Trump would have gained from an investigation into the affairs of Hunter Biden is less than clear to me, unless they mean that such investigation would have somehow led to Mr Trump's re-election to a second term, which would have earned him another four years making a salary considerably less than he could have earned in speaking fees alone had he not been re-elected.

Ed. I think that is what they mean.
Q. I see. Anything else?
A. Well, yes. He tried to cover up the phone call(s) by "locking down" records of the call(s) in a security system designed to protect state secrets. Doing so posed a serious threat to the security of the Paranoid States of America, and we would never have known about it had a so-far-anonymous whistleblower not made a complaint which Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence [sic], sat on for a couple of days before sending it to the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the White House.
Q. Where are those records now?
A. Well... errr... they've been declassified and released to the public.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Intelligence [sic] Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), grilled Mr Maguire on why he (Maguire) initially withheld a copy of the complaint from lawmakers, choosing to notify the DoJ and White House first. This was wrong, the Dems say, because the President was the subject of the complaint and Attorney General William Barr was mentioned by Mr Trump during the controversial phone call.

Mr Maguire insisted he is "not partisan" and "not political," reminding the panel that he served under eight presidents and has taken the oath of office 11 times. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), says he and Mr Barr are part of "the cover-up of the cover-up".
Q. Seriously?
A. Very seriously. That's what she told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe today, when he asked if she was concerned that the country's institutions could fail due to Barr's behaviour.

You couldn't make this stuff up. Looks to me like a clear case of the Dumbocrats trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. No. More like trying to make something out of nothing. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told America's Newsroom, "Washington is always a circus, but this is three rings with all the clowns and it's nuts right now."

Further reading: "Andrew Cuomo says 'leftist' Dems pressured Pelosi on impeachment, warns it will go 'nowhere'", by Andrew Shaw, Fox News, 28/9/19.

How the impeachment process is supposed to work

Ed. here. We no sooner posted "After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...", in which Walt intimated that his understanding of the impeachment process was less than perfect, when Agent 3 passed along a guide to how the process works, by Alexandra Mae Jones, on the CTV News website. We trust Ms Jones and CTV will not mind our reposting the main part of her concise and lucid explanation.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment is the process to remove an official, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It can happen at the state or federal level. In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.

There is no specific definition of a “high crime” included in the Constitution, but the concept is essentially aimed at preventing corruption by high-level officials. Although impeachment involves a trial, it’s not a criminal process, merely one to remove an official from office. Criminal charges being brought against an individual is a separate matter.

How does it happen?

An individual member of the House could simply introduce an impeachment resolution like any other bill, which would then be reviewed by a committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee. Or the House Judiciary Committee can first hold their own investigation and bring articles of impeachment against the president, and present that evidence to the House. (“Articles of impeachment” simply refers to the charges against a president).

The next step would be for the evidence to be presented before the House for a vote. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has declared previously that his committee has already been conducting impeachment hearings, but the panel has been unable to get many key witnesses and documents from the Trump administration.

Ultimately, the full House votes on whether or not to impeach. A majority vote is needed for the impeachment to pass. If the House passes a vote to impeach, it doesn’t mean the president gets removed immediately. The case then moves to the Senate, where a trial is held.

The House appoints members to act as prosecutors in the Senate. The president would have defense lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Senate trial. It comes down to a final Senate vote. At least two thirds of the Senate needs to vote to impeach in order for the motion to pass.

If impeachment is successful, the president would be immediately removed from office, and the vice president would take over until an election.

How often has impeachment been successful?

No sitting president has been removed from office due to impeachment so far, although impeachment proceedings have been brought against three different presidents.

Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 both were ultimately acquitted and allowed to complete their presidential terms. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when impeachment proceedings were brought against him for his role in the Watergate scandal, preventing the House from impeaching him.

VIDEO: Jordan Peterson: "What could possibly go wrong?"

Dr Jordan Peterson, "the only extant right-wing psychologist" (his own little joke on himself) answers a question posed by a Canadian student following his address to the Oxford Union in June of 2018. To Canadian Prime Minister Just In Trudeau and other well-meaning liberals, he poses the question: Have you considered the possibility that your well-meaning intervention might have unforeseen negative consequences? Under 7 minutes and well worth every second.

Hyuge victory for POTUS: SCOTUS upholds "Muslim ban"... AGAIN

The anti-Trump coalition of snowflakes, SJWs, eco-wienies, lawyers, gliberal activists and Democratic politicians didn't give up easily. When President Trump kept his election promise in January of 2017 by issuing an executive order banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries, they followed the grand old American traditions of (a) yapping on The View, (b) demonstrating and (c) suing. See "Trump keeps his promises; panic ensues", WWW 29/1/17.

At first they enjoyed some success with (c), as various judges -- Democratic appointees all -- signalled their virtue by striking down the order on whatever grounds they could think of. Injunctions followed, requiring the administration to stop being Islamophobic and open the doors to nationals of such peaceful and stable shitholes as Iran, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Imagine the anti-Trumpers' consternation, then, when in December the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the injunctions and ruled that the principal case, Hawaii v. Trump, should be heard on its merits. See "Winning bigly: SCOTUS upholds POTUS travel ban", WWW 5/12/17.

In an unusual burst of energy and speed, SCOTUS proceeded immediately to hear argument in that case, and today handed down its verdict, ruling in favour of President Trump in a 5-4 decision. The Supremes said that permanent entry restrictions on citizens of various terror-prone (read: Islamic) nations (read: shitholes) codified in Presidential Proclamation 9645 are fully consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Citing an earlier case, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control", and that the President has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes it is in the nation’s best interest so to do.

As for the argument that Presidential Proclamation 9645 is racist, Islamophobic, yada yada, and therefore contrary to the equal rights provisions of the Constitution and other equal rights legislation, SCOTUS ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution permits POTUS' policy, because the Proclamation gives a "religion-neutral" explanation -- the policy is intended to better secure America's border and therefore the American people -- which, on its face, is legitimate. If you come from Iran, it doesn't matter if you're a Muslim or a Christian or a Zoroastrian (look it up). You're out!

The sounds you hear on The View and in places like Dearborn MI and Burbank CA (see "Where's Mohammed?" map below) are weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over an indisputable (literally) Trump victory, plus the frying of brains trying to think up ways of smuggling more followers of the Prophet -- all of them peace-loving, of course -- into the US of A. The Supreme Court has ruled, but the Islamic jihad against America is far from over.

"Gay triumph now complete" - African journo mocks US Protestants' acceptance of Supreme Court gay "marriage" decision

African-born journalist Ken Mufuka writes a "Letter From America" every week in the Financial Gazette, one of Zimbabwe's courageously independent newspapers. This week his topic is Obergefell v. Hodges, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in which the dishonourable court, by a vote of 5-4, tortured the "equal protection" provisions of the Constitution into a finding that homosexuals (gays, lesbians, transexuals, bisexuals and queers in general) have the same rights as straight folk to marry and have their nuptials celebrated by society.

Gay "marriage" maybe be against God's law, but it's now the law of the USA. God save the United States of America!

Well, that's Walt's view. In "Gay Triumph Now Complete", Mr. Mufuka [pronounced with a long "U". Ed.] takes an even dimmer view of the decision, but he takes much longer to say so. Walt has excerpted some of the more acidic bits of his column. The words are Mr. Mufuka's; the emphasis is mine.

July 4, or Independence Day, commemorates the overthrow of the British imperialists by American patriots in the war of independence. It is big deal, as they say here. Citizens use this day to blow off steam, dance in public and generally engage in good-natured goofy behaviour, even disgracing themselves. It is all done in good faith. The police look the other way.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) “community” had the best July 4th celebrations ever. They say that such a joyous time as this comes only once in a millennium. Their celebrations started June 27, when the US supreme court announced two rulings.

A pro-gay reprobate judge, Anthony Kennedy, announced the judgment. The issue was whether same sex marriages were protected in the US constitution. To cut a long story short, marriage is not mentioned because it was assumed, supported by immemorial custom that a man shall leave his home to find a damsel and marry her.

Having failed to find a constitutional clause, the reprobate judge strained all sensibilities to create one out of thin air, calling it equal protection under law. Same sex partners, wrote the pro-gay judge, bring with them the hope that in their marriages they are not “condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, who disagreed with the decree, nevertheless, saw the earth shattering impact it had on the future of the world. The decision cannot be justified on moral or historical grounds.
The fact remains that United States is an exceptional, confirmed in its own righteousness. As such arrangements have been put in place for the advancement of the gay agenda to the world.

Protestant denominations...had foreseen the gay decision, they were unprepared for the onslaught within their own organizations.... Infiltrated by earthly philosophies over the years, they were left wondering in the wilderness, as gay forces outflanked and swiftly destroyed all opposition. South Carolina Methodists barely survived a gay resolution, but it was very close, 752 votes against 550. The pro-gay lobby promised that “they will be back, the fight is not over.”

The 3.8 million members Lutheran Church (USA) which split into two denominations over the issue revisited it with wisdom gained from experience. Each individual denomination will, after prayer, instruct their pastor whether they will permit gay weddings in their church.

The Anglicans, meeting in Utah, the home of the polygamous Mormon Christians, suffered resounding defeat, 173 delegates in favour, against last-stand motley of 27 resisters. There is another juicy change among Anglicans. Gays can now be married in the full communion of the church, and church wedding bells are allowed. Little boys and girls can walk in the isle to present flowers to a gay couple.

When the deputies took on another position on gender neutral religion, they suffered a worse defeat, 184 supporting the change against miserable 23. In this second resolution, God is no longer “Our Father in Heaven” but the Creator of the Universe. It is, however, alright to say: “God our Mother in Heaven” or to say: “The faith of our mothers.”

It's tempting for us Catholics -- especially traditional Catholics -- to sneer at the Protestants' capitulation to the homonazis, but Holy Mother Church is not immune from the cancers of moral rot and political correctness. The pro-queer agenda, along with weakening of the Church's laws on divorce and remarriage is being pushed relentlessly by the gay lobby in the Vatican and in the liberal churches of Germany and the low countries. This fall will see another Synod on the Family, at which same sex "marriage" will be back on the table. Stay tuned.

Note from Ed.: No, we don't know if Mr. Mufuka is a Catholic. Why don't you ask him? mufukaken@gmail.com.

Thinking about Charlie Hebdo: Kurt Vonnegut's views on freedom of speech and the role of the artist in society

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., was an American writer -- one of Walt's favourite novelists. His works, such as Cat's Cradle (1963), Slaughterhouse-Five (1969), and Breakfast of Champions (1973), blended satire, gallows humor, and science fiction. In spite of, or perhaps because of, his stint in the United States Army during World War II, he was until his death a committed pacifist. He was also a supporter of the ACLU and a crusader for not only freedom of speech but freedom of thought.

Kurt Vonnegut was born on 11 November 1922, eight years exactly after the Armistice that ended World War I. He dies on 11 April 2007, having lived through the Vietnam War and the first years of the Oil Wars or Gulf Wars or Wars Against Terrorism -- whatever you want to call them. I don't know if, prior to his death, he had ever read or even heard of Charlie Hebdo, but I imagine he would have applauded their lampooning of organized religion and secular sacred cows.

Back in 1973, Mr. Vonnegut was interviewed by Frank McLaughlin, for Media & Methods and by David Standish in Playboy, the magazine that men of my generation pretended to read. Perhaps we should have paid more attention when thinkers such as he cast pearls before us such as these comments about the role of artists -- writers, cartoonists and the like -- in our society.

From the Media & Methods interview:

I agree with Hitler and Stalin about a lot of things. Basic agreement with them and with...almost every dictator is that an artist should serve his society, and I would not be interested in writing if I didn't feel that what I wrote was an act of good citizenship or an attempt, at any rate, to be a good citizen.

What brought my ancestors over here from Germany was not oppression over there, but simply the attractiveness of the United States Constitution.... I was raised to be bughouse about the Constitution, and to be very excited about the United States of America as a Utopia. It still seems utterly workable to me, and I keep thinking of ways to fix it, to see what the hell went wrong, to see if we can get the thing to really run right.

[Now] I am heartbroken and confused.... I finally understand that I am not protected by the U.S. Constitution. I have never been protected by it, and it's only a piece of paper that we in America have always been dependent upon. The goodwill of those who govern us...that's all that has ever protected us....

We have entered a period now when our government doesn't really seem to like us much. I find this oppressive, and realize that the Constitution can't help much, can't help at all, really, if our leaders come to dislike us -- which they apparently do.

From the Playboy interview:

I agree with Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini that the writer should serve his society. I differ with dictators as to how a writer should serve. Mainly, I think they should be...agents of change. For the better, we hope....
We [writers] are expressions of the entire society.... And when a society is in great danger, we're likely to sound the alarms.

I have the canary-bird-in-the-coal-mine theory of the arts. You know coal miners used to take birds down into the mines with them to detect gas before the men got sick. The artists certainly did that in the case of Vietnam. They chirped and keeled over. But it made no difference whatsoever. Nobody important cared. But I continue to think that artists -- all artists -- should be treasured as alarm systems.

Walt suggests that, now that a dozen canaries have been killed by fanatics of a "deviant form of religion" (to use the Pope's words), perhaps the "leaders" of the Western world will hear the alarm and take some action beyond mouthing platitudes about peaceful coexistence and the brotherhood of man. Or perhaps not....

Source for these quotes: Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut, edited by  William Rodney Allen (University Press of Mississippi, 1988).

Religious persecution rampant in 15 countries. Guess which ones...

Earlier today I wrote about the increasing persecution of Christians -- and Muslims and Buddhists -- in Communist China. See "Religious freedom guaranteed by Communist China's constitution? LMAO!" But China is not the only country whose government is out to get believers.

In its newly released annual report for 1914, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) urges the State Department to designate (or redesignate) 15 nations as “countries of particular concern” (CPCs) because they are places “where particularly severe violations of religious freedom are tolerated or perpetrated.”

Here's the USCIRF list, in alphabetical order, with notes from Walt on who's persecuting whom.

CPCs -- Countries of Particular Concern
Burma - Buddhist majority would like to drive Muslim and Hindu minorities out of the country entirely.
China - No discrimination, persecutes all religions. Follow the link above.
Egypt - Cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood at the moment, but Coptic Christians are a much persecuted minority.
Eritrea - The Eritrean government tolerates Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans and Muslims, but has cracked down in the last decade on evangelical Protestants. "In Eritrea, 'Persecution greater than ever and getting worse'"
Iran - The Ayatollahs are still in charge. No infidels allowed.
Iraq - Like Iran except that the Muslims are killing each other, with Christians caught in the middle. See "'We are a ruined church': Patriarch Sako talks about Christianity in Iraq"
Nigeria - "Boko haram". Virtual civil war between the militant Islamists in the north and the somewhat Christian south.
North Korea - Worse than China.
Pakistan - Kill anyone who dares to blaspheme against the Prophet.
Saudi Arabia - Worse than Iran.
Sudan - Another Islamic state. Christians should refugee to strife-torn South Sudan PDQ.
Syria - Worse than Iraq, even without the "help" of America.
Tajikistan - No. 44 (only) on the OpenDoors watch list of countries that persecute Christians.
Turkmenistan - See Tajikistan (above) or Uzbekistan (below). All the "Stans" are the same -- no place for infidels.
Uzbekistan - Human Rights Watch said in its 2013 World Report authorities "persecute religious believers who worship outside strict state controls". Yes, even Muslims.
Vietnam - Like China, only smaller, and with no to worry about. Like Cuba in struggling to suppress the Catholic Church.

"Governments that engage in or tolerate violations that are serious, but which are not CPC-level violators"
Afghanistan - No comment necessary.
Azerbaijan - Another state where all citizens are theoretically free to choose their religion. In practice the government -- like those of China and Eritrea -- maintains many Soviet-era controls over religion. 90% of the people are non-observant Muslims.
Cuba - Communist government hasn't been able to extinguish the deep Catholic Faith of the people, but the Church is far from free.
India - Supposedly a secular state, but violence by Hindu extremists against Muslims and (especially) Christians goes unpunished.
Indonesia - World's biggest Muslim nation (by population), with Sharia law being promoted in some places (like Aceh province) and ongoing violence against Christians.
Kazakhstan - Another "Stan"; see Pakistan, Tajikistan, etc.
Laos - Majority Buddhist population. Government doesn't mind Catholics, but seeks to control incursions by Protestant missionaries. Malaysia - Very Muslim, but Christians aren't killed so much as locked up if they don't follow Islamic laws and customs. For instance, a Christian who dares to say "Allah" could do some jail time.
Russia - Probably on the list because the USA doesn't like the Putin government. Orthodox Christianity is the established religion -- antagonism to Catholicism lurks below the surface -- but it's really the Protestants who are targeted.
Turkey - Officially a secular state, becoming more and more Islamic in practice.

Countries which persecute religious minorities but somehow got left off the USCIRF list
Israel - Even John Kerry knows it's a de facto "apartheid state".
United States of America - Where the secular humanists who run the media and the so-called administration of President Hussein Obama are trying harder than ever to restrict or eliminate entirely the freedom of Christians -- especially Catholics and evangelical Protestants -- to live their lives in accordance with their religious convictions. Or, we might say, to obey God rather than the godless.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the United States constitution. Just like that of Communist China.

The last Christian nation in Europe?

If a country's identity can be seen in its declared faith and morals, and if that identity is to be found in its constitution, there are virtually no nations on earth which self-identify as Christian. Phrases like "one nation under God" have been deleted from most supreme laws in the name of secularism and political correctness.

One or two European countries -- Britain and Sweden -- have "established" (official) churches. But overt expressions of a nation's belief in Christianity are discouraged by the European Union, lest people of other religious persuasions should feel excluded. Case in point: Slovakia, which last June was told by the EU to take the images of Sts Cyril and Methodius off its coins.

Happily there is one prominent exception. Italian journalist Alessandra Nucci, writing in Catholic World Report, characterizes the constitution and guiding principles of Hungary as "everything the EU has labored to abolish".

In sharp contrast to current EU policies, Sr Nucci writes, Hungary’s fundamental law includes:
* the recognition of Christianity as the religion of Hungary’s people
* the protection of the right to life from conception
* the definition of the family as a unit based on male-female marriage
* the acknowledgment of parents’ rights
* the duty of legislators before God
* the ban on eugenics, and
* the definition of the nation in ethnic terms (albeit with protection for minorities).

According to the article, Hungary’s new constitution begins, "God bless the Hungarians". It acknowledges St. Stephen as the founder of the Hungarian, or Magyar, state as “a part of Christian Europe.” The preamble further celebrates "the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood".

Good for the Hungarians, I say! And shame on all the European politicans who disregarded Pope John Paul II’s reiterated call to fight, for a mention of Europe’s Christian heritage in the European Constitution.

Had Europe’s historical Christian roots been acknowledged in the EU’s founding documents, there would now be a solid foundation on which to base resist media and political pressure to adopt laws that fly in the face of Europe’s identity and tradition.

"Born in Kenya"? Different story 17 years later

Chances are you've already seen this -- it's gone viral, as they say -- but just in case you didn't, here's proof that the Prez hisself was telling the world, back in 1991, that he was not born in the USA.

And -- get this -- it's not just a question of being born in a territory that had not then been admitted to statehood. The booklet pictured says Obama was born in Kenya.

Did da man hisself write that? No. It was written by a literary agent, plugging a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review. But where would the agent have got that information, if not from the author himself?

But, you may well ask, why would Obama say that of himself? What was he thinking? Obviously running for the presidensity wouldn't have been at the top of his agenda. Either that or he hadn't read the Constitution very carefully. Perhaps he -- or his agent -- thought that it sounded more cool and worldly to be born in colonial Kenya than in Honolulu. Citizen of the world and all that.

For clarification, let's ask the agent! That would be Miriam Goderich, now a partner at Dystel & Goderich, an agency which has among its clients... wait for it... one Barack Hussein Obama. Anyway, here's what the totally unbiased Ms Goderich told Yahoo News:
"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."

Of course! A simple mistake! Why would we think anything else? But, errr, would Mr. Obama not have checked the blurb written by Ms Goderich before it appeared in print? Would it be churlish to suggest that he could have corrected Miriam's error, had he wished to do so?

If that be the case, then ABC News is leading the pack of churls. They call the publication of the blurb "evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times."

And, Walt would add, for different purposes. Just like his "principles".

Freedom of religion: who could be against that?

We all believe in freedom to worship -- or not -- the God or gods of your choice. Right? Wrong!

Here in the so-called "Christian" countries, we have the militant secular humanists, who rant against organized religion and the mere mention of God or His Son in everyday life. Don't mention God in the Constitution, they tell us. Don't say "Merry Christmas" because it's "divisive". And don't dare to suggest that a Divine Power had anything to do with the making of the universe.

That's in our post-secular western society. But in other parts of the world, things are even worse. What "other parts of the world" are we talking about? In "Targeting the World's Worst Religious Persecutors", in Forbes, Doug Bandow lists the nations regarded by the US State Department as the most flagrant violators of religious freedom.

With the exception of Buddhist Myanmar (the country formerly known as Burma), the worst offenders are either Islamic nations or countries that were -- and in some cases still are -- governed by Communist régimes. Just as Our Lady of Fatima warned nearly a century ago, the errors of Russia -- Her metaphor for godless Communism -- are rife in the world today. As for the Muslims, they are not godless. They are infidels, militant and dangerous in their jihad against God and His Holy Church.

The last two paragraphs of Mr. Bandow's excellent article are worth reading and thinking about carefully.

The freedom to believe, or not believe, in God and respond accordingly—as individuals, families, and communities—is precious. Sadly, much of humankind is denied this most fundamental right.

While Washington cannot make the world free, Americans can reach out and help their oppressed brothers and sisters around the globe. Persecution should be highlighted and denounced; victims of intolerance, hate, and violence should be comforted and supported. Finally, if America is to remain free, Americans must tenaciously defend religious liberty at home.

What are you doing to stand up for the religious freedom for which millions have fought and died? You don't have to be a Catholic or even a Christian. But you should oppose in whatever way you can the attacks of the atheists and the heathens on the right of believers to worship God in public and in peace.