VIDEO: What Democrats are required to be for... and against

In this recent episode of Rightwing101, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) had some nasty but accurate things to say about tghe leading female candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Yes, we're talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, about whom Senator Kennedy says, "If you scratch AOC, you get more AOC." 

The key part of this short (5 minutes) interview, IMHO comes at about the 2-minute mark, at which the solon gives a too-long list of things that most American people support, but Dimocrats are required by their woke, leftist ideology to oppose. 

Are moderate Democrats -- if such exist -- powerless to resist the crazy -- that's the right word, for sure -- positions and policies foisted on them by "leaders" such as AOC? Walt believes in the two-party system. Voters should have a choice between two rational political parties. When one party is advocating nihilist nonsense, as are today's Dumbocrats, the inevitable result will be a one-party state, rather than democracy.

"King or chaos!"???

Let's talk some more about the latest loony left mantra "No kings!" 

In "We are nearing the end of a natural political cycle" (WWW 16/6/25), I quoted from C. Northcote Parkinson's highly recommendable Left Luggage (Houghton Mifflin, 1967). 

The author of The Law argues very persuasively that there is a natural political order of things. A nation goes from chaos -- warring tribes from which a unified nation emerges -- to monarchy, for it is the monarch, the king, who creates the nation.

Then, as the size of the aristocracy grows, the numbers of the ruled increase as well. That's simple biology. Kings and commoners all have children! As the numbers swell, the distinction between the rulers and ruled tends to get blurred, and the lower classes eventually get to share in the power. This phase we call democracy.

Focus shifts from the individual -- whether he be king or capitalist -- to the community, who expect to share not only power but wealth. The nation moves toward the theoretical equality (or mediocrity) we call socialism. Community, the common weal, the commune. Out of that philosophy comes dictatorship, Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Then what happens? Dictatorship leads to chaos, as it did in the Soviet Union and sub-Saharan Africa. For order to be restored, out of the chaos must arise... wait for it... a new king! And so the cycle repeats itself. 

We close (for today) with another quote from Left Luggage, at pp. 190-191: 

Political progress must remain a myth. It is true that a democratic society can be made more egalitarian, but this hastening of the process merely shortens the life of the democracy, making dictatorship the more imminent. 

The theory that freedom broadens down from precedent to precedent has no basis in historical example. The pursuit of democracy does not end in perfection, but in that choas from which dictatorship offers the only means of escape. No form of government can last forever, and democracy does not even, in practice, last for long.

Footnote: About that headline... "King or chaos!" was the 1935 campaign slogan of William Lyon Mackenzie King, the longest-serving prime minister of Canada. The electorate chose Mr King, and he remained PM until finally retiring in 1948. 

The democratically elected governments that followed his have become progressively more "progressive" (read: socialist) to the point where, under Emperors Trudeau, père et fils, Canada has descended into such chaos that it is now known as Canuckistan. A king is wanted!

Message from the "Democrats"

"Major blow to democracy"

Click here to read the article. Thanks to Agent 3 for passing this along.

Colorado is safe for democracy again!

Guess we don't have to tell you where this is from. Click here to read the article from the Babylon Bee, 19/12/23.

Further reading: "Formerly 'Demented Joe', now 'DESPERATE Joe'", WWW 11/12/23. The lengths the Dumbocrats are going to to pull Joe's nuts out of the fire were amusing, at first, but weaponizing Democrat-run courts and Democrat-appointed judges is waaaaay over the top. Resist!!!

Are Dems dumb enough to bring criminal charges vs President Trump?

RealClearPolitics is an American political news website and polling data aggregator which has been publishing reasonably balanced analyses of the state of the disunion since 2000. In addition to being an editor for its sister publication, RealClearInvestigations, J. Peder Zane, contributes columns to RCP. "Are Democrats Really Going to Cross the Rubicon?", published yesterday,  is a must-read. If you haven't got time right now, the "Reader's Digest version" below answers Walt's headline question.

Little attention [has been] paid to the ineffably consequential decision by Democrats to go all-out in their assault on American democracy. 

Just as Julius Caesar invited civil war by crossing the Rubicon, the partisan House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol let it be known that it will recommend bringing two sets of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election.

Given how divided our country is, and the wide support Trump still enjoys, his indictment would be an incalculably reckless act. If Democrats had a slam dunk case against Trump, one could argue that they might have some justification for putting the nation at such risk. They do not. 

So far, their argument – which echoes the larger left-wing push to punish and erase all narratives that do not support their preferred version of reality – appears to be that there is a single truth, their truth, and that Trump’s unwillingness to embrace it is a crime. It is impossible to overstate the danger of this mindset, which is a profound assault on free speech and a dramatic escalation of the effort to criminalize political differences.

Politics in free nations is necessarily rough and tumble. It is a contest of ideas that often lack scientific precision. It makes room for debatable claims that may contain falsity as well as kernels of truth. The best evidence shows that Trump did not win as many votes as Biden in 2020, but also that it was a highly unusual contest filled with troubling irregularities. Prohibiting people from making that case is un-American. 

Once a precedent is set, it becomes the norm. Do we really want to go down this road of indicting – rather than just challenging and debunking – those whose only crime is holding problematic opinions? Why would Democrats place our republic in such peril? The answer is that they want this conflict.

As polls show their effort to transform America meeting ever wider resistance, they seem eager for a final battle that will allow them to vanquish the right once and for all. Unable to achieve their ends through democratic channels, they are intent on blowing up the system.

Democrats are convinced that only they possess the truth and that those who disagree with them are beneath contempt. They see their venomous tactics as virtuous. If you have ever confronted hard-core Democrats about these issues, you know there is no talking to them. All they have is their certainty. 

The incendiary path Democrats are heading down is unimaginably destructive, not just to the United States but to the world. As Putin continues his war in Ukraine and China’s saber-rattling regarding Taiwan intensifies, united American leadership is indispensable. Instead of bringing us together, criminal charges against Trump would burn down our house.

Further reading: Walt strongly recommends that you read every word of Mr Zane's column. Then read it again. If you know any Dumbocratic solons, you could write to them and tell them they're making a big mistake. Not that it will do any good. As Mr Zane says, there's no talking to them.

Noam Chomsky on the "Crisis of Democracy" + VIDEO

Here is an excerpt from Matt Taibbi's interview with (((Noam Chomsky))), "Appendix B" to Hate Inc., which I reviewed last the weekend.

The Crisis of Democracy, which came out in 1975 [was] the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which is a group of liberal internationalists from Europe, United States, and Japan, three main centers of capitalist democracy.

...The "Crisis of Democracy" is that in the 1960s, all kinds of sectors of the population that are supposed to be passive and apathetic begin to try to enter the political arena to press for their own interest and concerns, and that imposes too much of a burden on the state, which becomes ungovernable. So, what we need is "more moderation in democracy." That's their phrase. People should go back into their corners and leave it to us.

In fact, the American rapporteur Samuel Huntington looked back kind of nostalgically to the Truman years. He says Truman was able to govern the country politically with the aid of just a few Wall Street bankers.

Then we had democracy. But he goes after the media. he says the media have bcome too adversarial, too independent. We may even have to institute government controls to try to contain them, because of what they're doing.

That's the liberal position. The Trilateral Commission also went after what they called the de-legitimation of the universities. They said that the institutions -- and this is their phrase -- these institutions responsible for the "indoctrination of the young" -- are being de-legitimized.

We've got to have more indoctrination. Remember, that's the liberal end of the spectrum. Over to the right wing, you get much harsher things... but that's the intellectual background. We've got to stop "too much democracy," "too much freedom."

The 1960s were always called the "Time of Troubles". That was a time when all this started.

The emphasis is mine. I've been saying as much since the hippy-dippy `60s, which I remember well. Just because Prof. Chomsky is a leftie peacenik doesn't make him wrong. I'm putting Manufacturing Consent, recommended by Matt Taibbi, on my reading list. Oh... wait...



You can stop listening at 8:35 when the speaker starts talking about the Iowa primary (although it's a good example of the media manipulation under consideration.) What precedes that part pretty well sums up what both Noam Chomsky and Matt Taibbi are saying. It all has to do with money. Surprised?

Astounding! CNN writer accuses Adam Schiff of abetting Putin

Ed. here. Incredible as it may seem, the Clinton News Network has published an op-ed piece by Scott Jennings in which the writer veers from the party line that the Dumbocrats are protecting democracy, and indeed the Republic, from the evil machinations of Still-President Trump. We trust CNN won't mind us reposting here a slightly truncated (but not edited) verion of

Adam Schiff is the one helping Vladimir Putin

destabilize US democracy

On the floor of the US Senate, in full view of the American people, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff finished what Russian President Vladimir Putin started.

"The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won," Schiff thundered this week, arguing for President Donald Trump's removal.

That comment stopped me in my tracks (and rankled many in the Senate GOP conference) because the conclusion of the US intelligence community was that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was designed "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process," an assessment backed up by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

What could possibly be more fulfilling of Putin's desire to sow discord and mistrust than for a senior member of Congress to stand in the well of the Senate and declare the 2020 election is already illegitimate before a single ballot has been cast?

Putin himself couldn't have scripted a better finale for his operation.

There is something revealing -- and chilling -- in Schiff's views on Trump's retrospective and prospective illegitimacy vis-à-vis the Republicans he routinely pillories for supporting the President. Schiff argues that Trump undermines our political institutions, but what could be more undermining to the Office of the Presidency than for his opposition to seemingly never accept the legitimacy of the person who occupies it?

Despite Schiff's promises, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report flatly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." But that has never stopped Schiff from indulging the Democratic myth that the 2016 election was stolen by the Trump campaign conspiring with a foreign government.

A majority of Republicans did not support Trump in the 2016 primary. In fact, GOP leaders raged and schemed to resist him until the end, but Trump overcame the establishment to win the nomination. Respecting the will of the voters, Republicans, unlike Democrats, ultimately accepted Trump's nomination and then his ascension to the White House.

To them, Trump won fair and square. They may not have liked it, but the system produced a result, and they respected it.

Schiff's reckless statements in the runup to the Mueller report and now this week's impeachment arguments were a continuation of the Democratic emotion to never concede the 2016 election -- and to never acknowledge the legitimacy of a man they detest. Schiff is, in effect, arguing that America's political institutions have already failed and will fail again unless a singular individual is no longer allowed to exist in the system.

As Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told Tucker Carlson, if Schiff's argument is that Trump's 2016 election isn't valid -- and 2020 is likely to be no different -- "and therefore you have to protect democracy by overturning elections... it's no wonder that they [Schiff and fellow Democrats] don't actually want to have this trial."

Schiff exudes the faithlessness of Democrats who are sure that the basic pillars of American democracy, which have stood like immovable rocks in a stormy world for nearly 250 years, crumbled on the night that Trump was elected and cannot be rebuilt unless he is banished from the public square.

One man, they seem to say, is enough to destroy all of the faith in democracy that sprang from the genius of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

Schiff's passionate floor speeches essentially suggest that Democrats don't want to toss Trump over the Ukrainian matter, but rather over the larger question of his whether he was or could ever be legitimately elected.

If Schiff is right, and this Democrat-only impeachment is overwhelming and righteous, shouldn't he be supremely confident that Trump will lose in a landslide, no matter what levers the President pulls?

Americans are being told by a major political party that, effectively, our democracy no longer works. We are on the cusp of an election in which most experts agree that voter turnout will reach historic levels, and yet Democrats would have us believe that, because Trump is a candidate in that election, we may as well cancel it.

"Can you have the least bit of confidence he'll stand up and protect our national interest over his own? You know you can't, which makes him dangerous to this country," Schiff argued.

But what's more dangerous? Predicting what Trump may or may not do, or fulfilling Putin's wish to project a belief that American democracy failed four years ago and is guaranteed to fail again? Putin won't need a pittance of Facebook ads this time around; he's got Schiff.

Further reading: "Democrats Warn That American People May Tamper With Next Election", Babylon Bee, 23/1/20. Those not familiar with the Bee should take note that the publishers say that they are posting "fake news that you can trust". The photo above was scraped from the Bee article.

VIDEO: Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn on "resisters"' wishful thinking

It's been some time since we shared a Mark Steyn video. Mr Steyn hasn't been very active for the last few months, but reappeared this week on Fox News "Tucker Carlson Tonight" to give a quick (and scathing) opinion on Bob Woodward's latest and worst book, and its suggestion (repeated in the treasonous op-ed piece in the New York Times) that POTUS is verging on insanity for asking when America is going to start winning some wars. [Could you please curb those run-on sentences? How do you expect me to edit that? Ed.] Here's the 4-minute clip. (Ed., that OK? Walt.)



Further reading:
"Woodward Book, Anonymous NYTimes Op-Ed Reveal Trump's Done Nothing Wrong", by John Nolte, Breitbart News, 6/9/18.
"Trump loves to say the media treat him unfairly. In the case of the NYT op-ed, he's right", by Robyn Urback, CBC News [Seriously?! Ed.] 7/9/18.

Image scraped from Blazing Cat Fur. Love that site!

Prof. Schwab explains African elections

Zimbabwe's capital Ha-ha-harare (the Fun Capital of Africa) was calm today, hours after the government-appointed Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) declared Comrade Emmerson "ED" Mnangagwa winner of the presidential election held July 30th. See "ED wins Zimbabwe presidential election - quelle surprise!", WWW 2/8/18.

The voting itself was peaceful enough, but things got ugly when the ZEC delayed announcing the results of the presidential race for three days, while making sure that they got their numbers right, to avoid a repeat of the 2008 contest in which Comrade Bob Mugabe failed to win an outright victory on the first ballot. As reported here yesterday morning, six people were killed in the melee when the army rolled in tanks to disperse rock-throwing demonstrators who denounced "the Crocodile" and and alleged vote-rigging.

Harare's roads appeared to be free from the troops today, but water cannons and police remained present at the headquarters of the Movement for Democratic Change (the main opposition party), which police raided yesterday, making 18 arrests. Ed. has obtained for us a picture of the authorities announcing the results to obviously disappointed MDC Alliance leaders.

Opposition leader Nelson Chamisa, who received more than 44 per cent of the vote, said on Twitter that "unverified fake results" had been announced by the electoral commission. The ZEC "must release proper and verified results endorsed by parties," Mr Chamisa tweeted. "The level of opaqueness, truth deficiency, moral decay and values deficit is baffling."

Well, it's only baffling to those who expect an African election to bear some resemblance to an election in western democractice, like the US of A. [Eh? Ed.] By the sheerest coincidence, I just read Africa: A Continent Self-destructs (Palgrave, New York, 2001) by Professor Peter Schwab, of SUNY Purchase. Here's what the "authority on human rights" has to say about how the process works in the parts of Africa where they even bother to hold elections.

Within Africa, certainly, elections have taken place.... But elections are merely one indicator of the democratic process, and they are not worth very much if one leader, party, or group totally dominatees the system and if opponents are harassed, intimidated, often shot at, even arrested, and obligated to campaign fearing for their very lives. Sometimes they are even killed.

That's what happened in Zimbabwe in the presidential election of 2008, mentioned above. When early results on polling day put the MDC candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, ahead of Comrade Robert Mugabe, counting was stopped. Just stopped, that's all. More than a month later, the ZEC announced that Mr Tsvangirai won 47.9% of the vote to Uncle Bob's 43.2%, necessitating a run-off. Faced with the likelihood that his supporters would be the victims of the mayhem described by Prof Schwab, Mr Tsvangirai withdrew from the race, and the only ruler Zimbabwe had known since independence was "democratically re-elected".

Old Africa hands know the saying "MAWA" -- "Mother Africa Wins Again" -- and that's exactly what happened in Zimbabwe this week. End of lesson.

Footnote: I do not recommend Professor Schwab's book. The introductory and concluding chapters are nothing more than a rehash of the usual white liberal American apologies for the abject failure of black government. The way the prof tells it, the all-but-hopeless mess that African is in today, half a century after independence, is the result of centuries of slavery, colonialism and systemic racism, all the fault of the evil whites -- Europeans, not Americans, of course.

In between the first and last chapters is a potted history of the political and humanitarian disasters visited upon their people by the leaders of black Africa, "big men" like Comrades Mugabe and Mnangagwa. In the chapter headed "Civil Wars, Wars, and Political Collapse", Prof Schwab concedes (without once mentioning the race of "modern" Africa's leaders):

...it should be obvious that...western nations, and in particular the United States, would be foolhardy to jump into the bog that is currently Africa. [Yes, that's what he called it. Walt] Unless and until indigenous leadership arises that is intent and willing to put its nation's interests above personal aggrandizement, there is little that can be done to resolve the complex and bloody civil strife operative in so many African states....

In the final analysis, it is up to Africa and Africans to finally take the initiative to fix what is broken and to address the problems confronting their respective states. These are clearly not nations where there is public loyalty to established politically legitimate institutions.... There are many cultures, many loyalties, and few national structures that are not riddled with graft and at the mercy of wanton leaders. No conspicuous anchor is available to tie the ship of state to while exploring solutions.

To repeat... MAWA.

UPDATED + VIDEO ADDED: Washington Post reveals its true colours

The "greats" of the lamestream media, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, make a big deal out of proclaiming their neutrality when "reporting" (read: writing opinion pieces described as news reports) on American politics. Since last year's presidential election, no-one with any smarts at all believes them, but it's still good to see proof of their pro-Democrat/anti-Trump bias every now and then.

Here, for your delectation, is an excerpt from an "analysis" (read: you have to believe this because I'm smarter than you are) piece by (((Kayla Epstein))) headed "Trump’s Twitter deactivation couldn’t have come at a worse political moment for the platform", published today, 4/11/17. Except for the substitution of "Twitter" for "the platform") in the first line, I have copied it exactly as it appears online. You can look it up.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) raised the question of [Twitter]’s political neutrality during a Senate Judiciary hearing with Facebook, Twitter, and Google on Oct. 31. The purpose of the hearing was to investigate malicious Russian activity on these platforms during the 2016 election, but Cruz took the conversation further.

“Given the percentage of news and political information that Americans receive online through social media or through other online avenues, the prospect of Silicon Valley companies actively censoring the speech or the news content is troubling to anyone who cares about a Democratic process with a robust First Amendment,” Cruz told representatives from the tech giants.

Cruz cited specific controversial incidents involving Google, Facebook, and Twitter, including Facebook’s Trending news team, and a temporarily suspended Twitter ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a candidate for Senate.

Did you catch the play? I'll bet you Ted Cruz didn't mean to say "Democratic" with a capital D. More likely he meant "democratic", as in having a choice between competing ideologies or parties. Lifetime pct .993.

VIDEO ADDED 10/11/17: Chris Wallace (American television anchor and political commentator who is the host of the Fox Broadcasting Company/Fox News Channel program Fox News Sunday) admits that when he says the media are biased against him "Trump may have a point".

FURTHER READING (ADDED 24/11/17): "Washington Post reporter caught plotting liberal agenda with billionaire George Soros", Fox News 24/11/17.

The Onion explains American reaction to Brexit

I've never reposted in toto anything from the Onion [Well, hardly ever. Ed.] but couldn't resist this very witty piece, headed "Americans Confused By System Of Government In Which Leader Would Resign After Making Terrible Decision".

In the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement that he would leave office following the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the European Union, tens of millions of Americans expressed their confusion to reporters Friday about a system of government in which a leader would resign after making a terrible decision.

“Wait, so he made a really awful choice with far-reaching negative consequences and now he’s just stepping down to let someone else take over? What?” said Colorado Springs, CO resident Evan Austin, echoing the sentiments of citizens across the United States who were left struggling to understand why a democratically elected head of government would relinquish control simply because they had been shown to have made a spectacularly bad judgment call.

“So he jeopardized the future of his country, and instead of spending the next several years remaining in power while trying to paper over his mistakes, he’s just gone? Where’s the part where he denies any wrongdoing or tries to blame somebody else? This is absolutely crazy.” The American public noted, however, that they completely understood the part where voters who had made a demonstrably terrible decision continued to double down on it.

Seems the Brits themselves were confused before, during and after Thursday's vote to leave the European Union. Top question of google.uk: "What's the EU?" Ah democracy, ain't it grand? But as Churchill said -- paraphrasing here -- bad as it is, it's better than the alternatives.

Memo to the publishers of The Onion from Ed.: Don't lawyer up and threaten to sue Walt, because: (1) We gave you credit and printed the link. (2) We're not making any money out of WWW. (3) Walt doesn't have any money anyway, except maybe his UK pension, which is now worthless.

War endangers our freedoms! (Didn't you know?)

I can hardly wait to see Michael Moore's latest opus, Where to Invade Next, his first film in six years. Here's the trailer.



Where to Invade Next received much critical acclaim at TIFF and other film festivals, and is being much talked up by the lamestream media for being "funny" and not as dark and disturbing as his best earlier works. That got me thinking again about Fahrenheit 9/11, recommended here a few days ago in a message to Republican voters who might have been thinking about supporting JEB! in the primaries.

One of the main themes of Fahrenheit 9/11 is the way in which Dubya and his war-hawk cronies engineered the "War on Terror" and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to gain more and more power over the American people through the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and so on. The result is that now, more than ever before, the Paranoid States of America is a police state!

Which brings us to Democracy in America, by Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian. De La Démocratie en Amérique is a classic text, published in two volumes, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840, in which M de Tocqueville examines the democratic revolution that he believed had been occurring in Europe and then America over the preceding seven hundred years. He had something to say about the relationship between war and freedom. Here's a quote from a 1945 translation.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.... War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must also compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all t hings in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it.

I found that quote in The Ordeal of Total War, by Gordon Wright (Harper & Row, 1968). Here's Mr. Wright's commentary.

Tocqueville's dictum, appropriate enough in his own day, is even more applicable in the twentieth century. When nations must mobilize their total resources for a long struggle, the normal tensions between authority and liberty are intensified, and the trend toward dictatorship affects even the most democratic of nations. Where parliaments survive, their usual functions are sharply restricted; decision-making becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small executive group, or even in those of one man.

That was in 1968, before Americans learned the truth about Vietnam, before Nixon, before the Clintons and the Bushes. If Mr. Wright is still alive, he could justly say, "Don't say you weren't warned." Although it seems he doesn't stress the point in Where to Invade Next, Michael Moore can say the same thing.

The Middle East is NOT "another Vietnam"; it's WORSE!

I have been misunderstood. Apparently some "readers" glance at the headline and just skim the text, often getting the wrong message from the few words that stick in their alleged minds. When, in commenting on the jihadists' attacks on Paris, I wrote [WHO wrote? Ed.] "How about we fight back?!", my suggestion was NOT that the French nor the US nor anyone else step up the air strikes in Syria and "bomb them back to the Stone Age". (copied right, Curtis LeMay).

All I said was that it was suicidal stupidity to be admitting to our countries 1000s upon 1000s of "undocumented aliens" because of the wave of weepy hypocrisy stirred up by the professional handwringers in the human rights industry ("We do well by doing good!") and the lamestream media. See "Paris jihadist attacks result of suicidal stupidity" (WWW 13/11/15)

In previous posts -- for instance "ISIS atrocities worse than ever; Canada ends mission" -- I'd thought I'd made clear my view that what the USA and its allies should do is stop interfering in the Muslim civil war. Get the hell out of the Middle East / get out of the Middle East hell... and let the Sunnis and Shias duke it out until, like the gingham dog and the calico cat, they eat each other up!

In "Why American must (not?) save the world from ISIS", I suggested that American military and political leaders persist in intervening in fights in which the USA has no gingham dog (or calico cat) because of a failure to learn the lessons of history in general and the Vietnam war in particular. What seems to have been misunderstood is that I don't believe that the Bush-Obama war is analogous to the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon war, except insofar as America is fighting a losing battle far from home for the wrong reasons.

A better understanding of what the Vietnam war was really about will be gained by reading Two Cities: Hanoi and Saigon (Jonathan Cape, 1992) and A Bright Shining Lie (Random House 1988), both by Neil Sheehan, one of those chiefly responsible for obtaining the Pentagon Papers. Mr. Sheehan views Vietnam as essentially an anti-colonial war, a war fought by the Vietnamese for their independence.

Vietnam, along with Laos and Cambodia, comprised French Indochina, a part of the French empire until it was overrun by the Japanese in World War II. When the Japanese were defeated, the British, who had occupied the region, unaccountably handed it back to the French. Some Vietnamese, mostly in the south, were happy to serve their colonial masters once again. Others, mostly but not only in the north, started a guerilla war against the French.

They -- the Viet Minh -- became Communists almost by accident because the only outside powers that supported them were the USSR and its satellites (not including Marxist China). They weren't concerned with ideology so much as with getting the French to go home. After the fall of Dien Bien Phu, the Americans supplanted the French, to prevent the spread of Communism, prevent the other countries of southeast Asia from falling like dominoes, and so on -- the wrong reasons.

In Two Cities, Neil Sheehan says that for the first year or two after the Americans installed the puppet government of Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh actually expected that once they counted the cost -- in money and lives -- of propping up the South Vietnamese regime, they would pull out. He was wrong, because for the Americans, unlike the Vietnamese, the battle was ideological, not practical. Johnson and Nixon really believed (one hopes) that they could defeat Communism by winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. They were wrong.

The war being fought in Syria and Iraq (and Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc etc) is not ideological. At least, it is not a clash between political ideologies. It's not about democracy versus Communism. There isn't a single democratic government in the entire Middle East. Never has been. There are only autocracies, either secular or religious. A religious autocracy can be described as a theocracy, which describes the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled. A theocracy is what ISIS wants to establish in its "new caliphate". And that's what the war is all about.

The followers of the Prophet Mohammed are fighting each other to decide which are the better Muslims, and which version of Islam shall prevail. It's Sunni Muslims versus Shia Muslims, with non-believers and infidels (that would be us) stuck in the middle. We -- the "Christian" West -- have no business in the Middle East.

There's no way for us, as outsiders, to win what is essentially a religious civil war. If you disagree, please tell me what a victory for "our side" would look like. If we "degrade and ultimately defeat" ISIS, will Basher Assad remain in power in Syria? Is that a win for "us"? Or will there be a power vacuum, as there is already in Iraq, thanks to America's lack of an exit strategy? Or will the entire region continue to be fought over by gangs of barbaous warlords, as is the case in Afghanistan? Could any of those outcomes be described as "victory"? I rest my case... for today...

Freedom Index: Canada 6th, UK 9th, USA... errr... lower

Canada's Fraser Institute has just released its Economic Freedom of the World report for 2014. The index, compiled annually by the Fraser Institute and public policy think tanks in the USA and Germany, uses 76 indicators of personal, civil and economic freedoms.

Why do they do this? Because economic freedom has been shown in numerous peer-reviewed studies to promote prosperity and other positive outcomes. It is a necessary condition for democratic development. It liberates people from dependence on government in a planned economy, and allows them to make their own economic and political choices.

And what is economic freedom? The 1996 report defines the concept this way:
Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others. An index of economic freedom should measure the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals are engaged in voluntary transactions.

The 2014 report (see link at end of this post) puts Hong Kong at the top of the league table. This surprises me a bit, as virtually every month sees demonstrations and protests in the streets of Hong Kong against rule from Beijing and the absence of universal suffrage. However, we must remember that the EFW report concentrates on economics, not politics.

Second on the list is Switzerland, followed by Finland, Denmark and New Zealand. Canada, in spite of the virtual dictatorship of Steve Harper (now campaigning hard for his fourth term as Prime Minister) is in sixth place. The Disunited Kingdom is ninth, and Germany twelfth.

But (I hear you ask) what about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? After nearly eight years of the Obama maladministration and ever-increasing statism -- the misguided notion that the government must regulate every aspect of business and personal life -- it's not surprising to find the USA in twentieth (20th) place. Fred McMahon, the editor of the study, says the data on America shows a "significant weakening of the rule of law", an erosion of property rights and "an expansion of quasi-judicial regulations".

The least free country in the EFW index is... wait for it... Iran, with whom the USA is about to sign a treaty which will (according to Messrs Obama and Kerry) solve all the problems of the Middle East and the world. The Undemocratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Yemen round out the bottom five.

Further reading: Economic Freedom of the World -- 2014 Annual Report. The whole thing -- 282 pages in .pdf format.

Amazing news from Hong Kong: Democrats win one!

In a result that no-one (not even Walt) predicted, the members of Hong Kong's Communist-dominated Legislative Council voted yesterday to rejected a controversial Beijing-backed election reform package that sparked mass protests -- "the Umbrella Revolution" -- last year.

The goal of the the Umbrella Revolution was universal suffrage -- to allow all Hong Kong Residents to vote for the next Chief Executive, in elections due to be held in 2017. But there was more to it than that. Following the Communist model for elections, the Chinese government had proposed that everyone should vote, OK, but only to choose from two or three candidates approved by Beijing. "Choose Commie A or Commie B!" Pro-democracy advocates rightly called that "fake democracy".  

Beijing's decision last August to control the candidates for the next leadership election sparked protests that drew crowds of more than 100,000 people to the streets, where they demonstrated and camped and demonstrated some more. Activists occupied major parts of the city demanding universal suffrage for several weeks. HKG police used violent force against demonstrators, as well as tear gas which the protesters repelled with upturned umbrellas, hence the term "Umbrella Revolution". After more than two months with no concessions -- not even the courtesy of a meeting -- from incumbent Chief Executive CY Leung, the protest camps were ultimately dismantled by police.

After the police finally cleared the streets, the protests moved into "Legco", Hong Kong's Legislative Council, which was the scene of raucous debates, recriminations, demonstrations and walk-outs for weeks prior to last night's vote. Pro-democracy members hoped that if Beijing's proposals were rejected, China would be forced to offer more far-reaching reforms, but there was considerable doubt as to whether the democrats could carry the day.

Then came the drama of last night's proceedings. For reasons unknown -- hey, it's the inscrutable Orient! -- pro-Communist government officials gave their final speeches hours ahead of schedule. Journalists scrambled to retake their seats in Legco's main chamber. Then a bell rang, reminding the solons to get into the hall to vote. With only minutes to spare, a voiced called out for a halt to the proceedings, but the chairman of the council declined. Then pro-government legislators walked out in protest, resulting in the government's "reform" plan, which needed 47 votes to pass, being defeated by 28 votes to 8.

Po-faced Chief Executive Leung said he was "naturally disappointed" that legislators had voted against the wishes of the majority of Hong Kong's people. Presumably he was referring to people other than the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators who had hurled insults (and the occasional egg) at him for the last ten months.

A spokesthingy for the government in Beijing said the "reforms" would remain in force and were legal despite the vote. That's the Communist way -- votes don't matter.

Older Hong Kong protest leaders surrender; students remain in streets

From the beginning, a serious problem for the Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters has been leadership -- not so much lack of leadership, but division of leadership. Protesters have been encamped for over two months at two or three different sites in the city state -- Causeway Bay, Central and Mongkok -- and there has been a conspicuous lack of communication between them, or even within them. The protests resemble nothing so much as the stereotypical Chinese fire drill.

There seem to be two or three factions: students; members of the "Occupy Central" movement and other assorted other community leaders and political activists. They share the same goal -- free elections for the position of CEO of HKG -- but differ on the means of achieving it. In the last week clashes between the student protesters and police have become increasingly violent, to the dismay of the Occupy Central faction.  Today the leaders of the latter group surrendered to HKG police, in hopes of bringing peace back to the "peaceful protest".

In this Reuters photo, we see (L-R) Joseph Cardinal Zen, Archbishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, as he walks with Occupy Central civil disobedience founders, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, chairman of the Hong Kong Democracy Development Network, Chan Kin-man, professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Benny Tai, law professor at the University of Hong Kong, as they arrive at the Central Police Station to surrender themselves.

The three leaders turned themselves in voluntarily, calling on students to retreat from protest sites in the city's financial centre amid fears of further violence, just hours after student leader Joshua Wong called on supporters to regroup.

"I hope we can show others the meaning of the surrender," said Mr. Tai. "We urge the occupation to end soon and more citizens will carry out the basic responsibility of civil disobedience, which is to surrender."

The three leaders filled in forms and were allowed to leave without facing any charges. Including them, Hong Kong police said, two dozen people aged between 33 and 82 had surrendered for "taking part in an unauthorized assembly", and authorities would conduct follow-up investigations based on the information provided.

The students, however, seem unimpressed by this show of pacifism and, as Walt is hearing on the phone this very moment, are bracing for another night of clashes with the police. Stay tuned and show your solidarity!

Further reading on WWW:
"Why Hong Kong's 'Umbrella Revolution' matters"
"5 things you should know about the Umbrella Revolution"

Hong Kong protesters: they're baaaack!

When we tuned in last week, Hong Kong's pro-Communist CEO, Leung Chun-ying (aka CY Leung) had refused to step down to appease the 1000s of students and others demonstrating for free and fair elections in the former British colony. The protesters then defied Mr. Leung's ultimatum to vacate the areas they were occupying. So, in order to get them to go home without losing too much face, Mr. Leung promised the student leaders a meeting with his flak-catcher, Carrie Lam, on Friday.

Most of the demonstrators -- credulous souls -- went home, leaving just a few hundred camped out on Gloucester and Harcourt Roads, blocking a key thoroughfare in Hong Kong Island's Central and Admiralty districts. But sure enough, on Thursday the duplicitous Leung called off the promised talks, saying the protesters' refusal to end their campaign had made "constructive dialogue" impossible.

He also said (again) that he would not resign. In an interview with Hong Kong broadcaster TVB, he said the protests had "spun out of control" and did not rule out the use of force to end them. When asked about the protest camps, Mr Leung said, "We've resorted to all kinds of persuasions... We absolutely would not prefer clearing the venue, but if one day the venue has to be cleared, I believe the police will use their professional judgement and training using minimum amount of force."

So the pro-democracy protesters -- saddened but not surprised -- are back in the streets, in even greater numbers than before, paralysing parts of Hong Kong. In an open letter to China's Supreme Leader, Xi Jingping, a coalition of three protest groups proclaimed, "We cannot allow one person, Leung Chun-ying, to destroy the Hong Kong core values we so cherish."

Hong Kong's Chief Executive CY Leung has insisted China will not change its mind on the format for elections in 2017, despite weeks of protests.

In the Basic Law under which Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997, the Communists promised direct elections in 2017. But of course their idea of a free and fair election is one in which they choose which candidates are allowed to stand. Mr. Leung told TVB today that Beijing would not change its mind on the election format. "In achieving universal suffrage in 2017," he said, "if the prerequisite is to put down the Basic Law and the decision made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, I believe we all know that the chance is almost zero."

The Basic Law (Hong Kong's mini-constitution) states that "the ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". It was the NPC Standing Committee's decision on the make-up of that nominating committee that sparked the protest movement, since that format effectively gives ultimate control not to the people but to the Beijing regime.

Further reading on WWW: "Why Hong Kong's 'Umbrella Revolution' matters"

Comment from Ed.: Do you know when the Chinese have their best elections? Answer: just before bleakfast!

Why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters

Walt Whiteman's World is "unavailable" in the People's Republic of China, unless a would-be reader can find a way through or around the Great Firewall of China. Freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, even freedom of thought, are not allowed to the 1.4 billion people under the thumb of the Communist emperor.

I say "emperor" because, 65 years (and a day) ago, the Communists established an autocratic regime as bad or worse than anything China knew in the 1000s of years of imperial rule. The people of China are subject to totalitarian control that demands they bend their individual inclinations and welfare to that of the all-powerful state. And that's why Hong Kong's "Umbrella Revolution" matters, not just to the Hongkongese, not just to the Chinese, but to the whole world.

Back in the bad old days, when Hong Kong was a British colony, its people enjoyed the freedoms we take for granted. And, under the deal made between Britain and the Communists for the handover of HKG to China in 1997, they were to continue to do for another 50 years. Hong Kong's existing social system was supposedly guaranteed, along with the rule of law, until 2047.

Even better, the "one country, two systems" deal provides that the Hong Kong "Special Administrative Region" would become a full democracy. Under the British, there was an elected Legislative Council, which was to continue (and has), but the people were not entitled to vote directly for the "Chief Executive Officer" who would replace the British governor.

In the new fundamental law which governs the Hong Kong SAR, the Communists promised to institute a system of "one person one vote". When the present CEO, Leung Chun-ying -- "C.Y. Leung" to the Western press -- was "elected" in 2012 (by a committee of 1200 "representatives of the people"), Beijing said that "next time" (in 2017) there would be a direct election in which everyone could vote.

Too bad that the people of Hong Kong took that to mean that they could nominate and vote for whoever they pleased -- even (gasp) a non-Communist. (Mr. Leung is not officially a Communist, but it is thought that he keeps his party card in his other wallet -- the one he takes on his regular visits to the imperial capital.) As it turned out, what was really meant was that voters could choose among up to three candidates vetted and approved by Beijing.

Not much of a choice, then. Martin Lee, one of the founders of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, told a rally, "What's the difference between a rotten orange, a rotten apple and a rotten banana? We want genuine universal suffrage, not 'democracy with Chinese characteristics'."

That's a part of what the protests are about, but only a part. The greater battle is for the heart of Hong Kong -- its institutions and legal system -- as bequeathed to them by the British, whose ideas about the governed having a voice in how they're governed date back 799 years.

Let us support those who are risking arrest, injury or worse fighting for democracy in Hong Kong. As we do so, let us bring to the front of our minds the freedoms we take for granted, particularly the freedom to vote for (or against) whoever we like.

The next two months will see elections taking place in most American states and Canadian provinces, for offices ranging from senator down to dog-catcher. The people of China would love to have the freedom of the ballot. Some are prepared to die for it. If you have it and don't use it, don't be surprised if one day you lose it.

China -- not a good place to be a democrat or a Catholic

China may be far from Walt's decrepit body, but it is never far from his mind. [Or what passes for it. Ed.] I pray especially -- and hope Catholic readers of WWW will too -- for Chinese Catholics who, if they wish to be loyal to and in communion with Rome, must worship in secret, as did the first Christians. Here's a picture of worshippers at an "underground church" in Yunjiang.

They are gathering in someone's home, because the few church buildings still existing in China are owned by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the schismatic "church" set up by the Communists following the revolution of 1949. 1000s of Catholics, including priests and even bishops, went over to the CPCA, but other 1000s belong to the "underground Church", the True Church recognized by Rome.

Last month the underground Church lost one of its dwindling number of priests. Father John Peng Weizhao, the apostolic administrator of the Yujiang diocese, was arrested on May 30 by agents of the Communist "religious affairs department". His current whereabouts are unknown. Eyewitnesses told UCANews they were saddened -- but not surprised -- when the officials who were on hand when Father Peng was arrested now say that they know nothing about him.

Meanwhile, Joseph Cardinal Zen, the retired Archbishop of Hong Kong, has repeated his support for a democracy initiative in that "Special Administrative Region" of China. The prelate told AsiaNews that the people of Hong Kong will "hit back if they are repressed and forced to be enslaved."

Cardinal Zen is well known not just at the Vatican but to Catholics and human rights activists around the world, thus is unlikely to be treated in the same way as Father Peng. He has taken a prominent public role in support of a referendum calling for true democratic elections in Hong Kong. In a radio interview, he criticized a "White Paper" issued by the Beijing government, which stressed China’s "comprehensive sovereignty" over the region. In the Cardinal's view, the Communists may have sovereignty over the bodies of Hong Kong's people... but not their souls.