VIDEOS: V-P J.D. Vance speaks frankly about security and free speech

Still catching up after much time spent amongst the winter's snows. In Munich, Germany, on February 14th, Vice-President Vance delivered one of the best speeches of his life. This was within hours of yet another Islamic terrorist attack, and J.D. pulls no punches in speaking truth to the European liberal elites about "the enemies within" our Western civilization. Only 20 minutes, a must watch.

This video is closing on 1.5 million views on YouTube, and deservedly so. You'll find a transcript on the YT page, useful in following along. 

Were the Euro-wienies paying attention? We're coming down to crunch time on Russia's war of aggression against the Ukraine, and on the vital question of European security. Thanks to President Trump's new approach to foreign policy, we're on the verge of a new Cold War. Time for the fence-sitters to jump one way or another.

Further viewing (added 18/2/25 at 1830 FMT) "Listen to Your People, Don’t Go Hard Left: - Victor Davis Hanson summarizes and adds a hearty "Amen" to Vice-President Vance's Munich speech.

VIDEO: Guess who agrees with Donald Trump about banning Muslims?

Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:

Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.

Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.

But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.

The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.

But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.



Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.

Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."

That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.

"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"

That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."

Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?

Muslim refugees being "welcomed" into Canada in dark of night

The story so far... During the Canadian election campaign of this fall, Justin Trudeau ("the Hair Apparent"), in a classic example of pandering to the ethnic vote, pledged, if elected, to bring 25,000 Syrian "refugees" to Canada by the end of the year. That would be on the Canuck taxpayers' dime (value US$0.07) of course. Himself Jr. was probably as surprised as anyone when he did get elected, and was immediately called on to make good on his promise.

Much humming and hawing ensued, with the chief hummer being old Liberal Party hack John McCallum, awakened from his slumber on the opposition benches and dubbed Minister of Immigration and Refugees (sic). As October turned into November turned into December, the Hon. Mr. McCallum backed away as best he could from the original date and numbers. Now it's supposed to be only 10,000 refugees by December 31st, with a goodly percentage of those being privately sponsored, with government (Canuck taxpayers) picking up only part of the massive cost.

More embarrassment for the Gliberals as it turned out that a lot of "refugees" to whom Canada's gilt-edged invitation was extended preferred to languish in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. No prizes for guessing why. See "Middle East refugees refuse to live in cold places" (WWW 29/10/15)

But some refugees decided they could live with the ice and snow -- they haven't experienced it yet -- and probably couldn't get more money out of the German or Swedish governments, so now have Canadian visas stuck in their passports, and tickets clutched in their hands. The first wavelet -- not enough to call a "wave" -- are due to arrive tomorrow, or the next day, or certainly by the weekend.

Can you imagine the scenes at Pierre Eliot Trudeau Airport (named for Himself Sr.) in Montreal, and Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto as the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, are welcomed by their Canadian sponsor, friends and relatives? Errr, maybe not, because the refugees are going to smuggled in kinda secretly.

When they arrive at YYZ (= Toronto Airport; don't know about YUL) they will not deplane at either of the regular terminals, but at a temporary facility in the infield between the runways. It was built back in the 90s when a new Terminal 1 was being constructed, and is still there. The last time it was used was for security purposes when the Prime Minister of India visited.

No members of the public will be admitted to that distant terminal, not even sponsors, friends and relatives. The only greeters who will meet the incoming Muslims -- for that's what most of them are -- will be officials from the Ministry of Immigration [Don't forget "and Refugees". Ed.] who will "process" them for a few hours.

And after that, will they be taken to one of the regular terminals to be welcomed? Errr, no. They will be bussed [or "bused"? One of them means kissed, the other means being transported by bus. Ed.] to a secret location -- seriously -- to which sponsor etc will also be taken for the final meet and greet.

Why all the secrecy? Why all the security? Could it be because the Canuck government's claim that the majority of Canadians, unlike the majority of Trump supporters, are happy to welcome all these Muslims into the Great No-longer-white North is untrue? Errr, could be!

Further reading: "Canada's welcome of 25,000 Muslim refugees "madness": Marine Le Pen" (WWW 28/11/15)

Registering Muslims in America vs registering Jews in Germany

Inevitably, the "progressive thinkers" and bleeding-heart liberals in the USA and elsewhere have pounced on Donald Trump's expressed agreement with the idea of registering Muslims so that they can be "surveilled" [There is no such verb as "surveille", but our "security forces" love it. Ed.] to the registration of Jews in Nazi Germany.

Walt wishes to point out that it was not the Donald's idea. The NBC interviewer sucked him in with a hypothetical, with which he expressed his agreement. Mr. Trump may be many things, but he is no Hitler.

Furthermore, there is one vital distinction to be drawn between the Jews of Nazi Germany and the Muslims of today's America. The Jews never declared themselves to be the enemies of the Gentiles, bent on destroying their religion and culture. The Muslims -- not all of them, but the radical Islamists among them -- have vowed to exterminate the "crusaders" not just in the Middle East but here at home.

Even Hellery Clinton cannot deny (try as she will) that there are "radicalized" Muslims among us. Walt stands by the proposition that it's not unreasonable to keep an eye on them.

Footnote: A report on Interfax today quotes a statement from Russia's Anti-Terrorism Committee that ten militants who had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State were killed in a special operation in a southern Russian republic. "During the active phase of a special operation near Nalchik," the committee said, "ten militants were neutralized. They were all members of armed groups that had sworn allegiance to the international terrorist organisation ISIL."

Walt adds... How do you suppose the Russians identified the late terrorists? Perhaps they had a list?

"We don't know who did it, or why..."

The words of President Barack Hussein Obama in response to the Boston Marathon bombings, which the White House is calling "an act of terror". But why would "they" do that... to Americans??!! Walt will tell you why.

Let's assume that the bomber is not just one deranged Unabomber wannabe. There were two bombs, suggesting at least two terrorists acting in concert. And let's assume, from the somewhat lame and amateurish quality of the attacks, that they were amateurs, not professionals. Walt believe what we have, then, is an act of domestic terrorism with an international connection.

Putting it another way, if the identities of the bombers are ever learned, they'll likely turn out to be local Muslims acting in sympathy with their co-religionists in the Middle East and Africa. Lifetime pct .980.

Most of the ROTW (Rest Of The World) hates Americans, but none more so than the Muslims of Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Iran [That's enough. Ed.] Why? It's not just envy of America's riches. Other countries -- Norway for instance -- enjoy larger per capita incomes and better standards of living. But you don't see the Islamic extremists targetting Norwegians.

Walt suggests that the main reason why Muslims -- especially the Islamic fundamentalists -- hate Americans is because the government of the USA keeps trying to impose its versions of democracy, justice, "culture" and the other blessings of the American way of life on the Islamic society which rejects those ideals.

Worse, America keeps trying to extend its economic and cultural empire by force of arms. The USA keeps on bullying and attacking smaller and weaker countries -- every country other than Russia and China -- whose politics or social systems it disagrees with: Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya [That's enough. Ed.], yet Americans wonder why they are hated. 

Three Americans were killed yesterday, and the Prez promises those responsible will be brought to "justice". But just over a year, an American soldier decided to shoot up an Afghan village, for target practice or just for the hell of it. 16 Afghans, including women and children, were killed. Has he been brought to justice yet?

It seems to the ROTW that Americans regard non-Americans as some lesser form of life. If Americans kill unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- in large numbers, it really doesn't matter, as long as they're foreigners, like "gooks" (Vietnam) or "towel-heads" (the Middle East).

Just one (particularly egregious) example of American disregard for others. This is taken from the chapter headed "Friend or Foe" in Christopher Dickey's recommendable book Expats: Travels in Arabia from Tripoli to Teheran (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990).

Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian airliner, an A300B2, flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai on 3 July 1988. That's a 140-mile, 35-minute milk run. Conditions in the Gulf were such, at the time, that civilian aircraft were restricted to a 20-mile-wide commercial air corridor, within Iranian airspace. Flight 655 was flying right down the middle of that airway, at the correct height and in the approved manner, when it was shot down by a guided missile fired from the US Navy cruiser Vincennes.

All 290 on board including 66 children perished -- the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean, and the ninth-deadliest disasters in aviation history. The ensuing enquiry determined that the crew of the Vincennes somehow mistook the jumbo jet, which was climbing, for a much smaller F14 Tomcat fighter diving to attack them.

The commander of the Vincennes was exonerated. American investigators -- Iranians had no say in the matter -- recommended that one junior officer receive a "nonpunitive letter of censure", the mildest reprimand in the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Secretary of Defense rejected that recommendation. Officially, no-one was to blame.

Dickey quotes Iranian Brigadier General Mansour Satary (who was trained in the USA) as saying that he didn't think the Americans actually intended to shoot down an unarmed civilian aircraft. They just didn't care enough to be careful enough not to do it.

It is that attitude -- that nothing matters except the security and prosperity of America -- that rankles the ROTW. It makes the ROTW feel threatened and insecure. In Walt's opinion, the goal of the terrorists is to make Americans feel equally threatened and insecure. As well they might.

John Cleese explains European security threat alerts

A rare sighting of Agent 34 who forwarded something of interest to all fans of Monty Python and John Cheese...

ALERTS TO SECURITY THREATS IN EUROPE
by John Cleese (British writer, actor and tall person)

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross".

The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army> for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are"Collaborate" and "Surrender". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

Agent 34 adds this final thought. Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Fear and loathing at the airport

It has been years since Walt boarded an airplane. There are multiple reasons for this, and fear of flying itself is not one of them. What I fear and detest and avoid like the plague is the experience of going on an airplane voyage in the 21st century.

Gone are the days when I could afford to fly first or business class. How I used to enjoy sipping my vodka 'n' tonic while the hoi polloi filed past to their little seats in the back. But now, if I flew, I would be relegated to the SBS (Screaming Baby Section) with the rest of the cattle.

Here's the problem with "coach". The seats are getting smaller, but the cattle are getting bigger!

Let's talk cabin configuration. Back in the day when the 747 was the biggest thing in the air, many airlines had 2-4-2 or 2-5-2 seating in coach, so you had only a minimal chance of getting stuck in a dreaded middle seat. "Never more than one seat from the aisle" was OK.

Now we have 767's, 777's, and their Airbus equivalents, and the airlines have discovered that with 3-3-3 seating they can squeeze 9 pax into a narrower cabin! Sure, they've bulked up the seat cushions a bit so the seats don't look so skinny, but the seats are narrower.

Or maybe it's just my impression, an optical illusion created by the fact that those who fly are so much wider! Have you seen some of the behemoths waddling through our airports these days?

I took Mrs. Walt to the airport a couple of days ago for her annual jaunt to the mysterious east, and watched in slack-jawed disbelief at the down-filled mammoths in the check-in lines. I felt Mrs. Walt's fear as she attempted to peek at the seat number on the boarding pass of the gargantua ahead of her.

And here's the thing. The blubberbutt who sits beside you and needs a seat-belt extension to satisfy the FAA pays the same fare as you do, even though they really occupy two seats -- their own and half the space on either side as their bulk oozes over and under the armrest.

They get the same weight allowance for their luggage too. Mrs. Walt weighs about 100 pounds soaking wet -- we put a scale in the shower to check -- and can bring with her two suitcases of 50 pounds each, total 200 pounds. The circus exhibit behind her, weighing in at 250 if she's an ounce, adds 350 pounds to the plane's take-off weight, for the same price.

The fare's not fair! Why not just weigh the passenger and the luggage and charge by the pound-mile! [Or kilogram-kilometre, for the metric-minded. Ed.]

And don't get me started on airport "security". The terrorists [if they really exist. Ed.] have made prisoners of us in our own country! I don't need or want to have my junk touched. If I want to hear laughter, I'll try stand-up comedy. And really, what's the point of it? They couldn't even catch one guy with explosives in his shorts. Seriously, can anyone report an instance of a terrorist being caught by airport "security"? Just one?! I thought not.

So, taking all this into account, I'm grounding myself until further notice. In fact, I think I'll be like Nero Wolfe and just stay in my house tending to my orchids.

Not in Kentucky yet

I was hoping to post this from Kentucky -- Lexington, perhaps -- where I hope to join in the celebration of Ayn Rand's victory in tomorrow's senate race. [Errr... that would be Rand Paul. Ed.]

McClatchy reports a recent Mason-Dixon poll has Rand (or Paul... whoever) 5 points ahead of Democrat Jack Conman [Errr... oh, never mind. Ed.] But the only poll that counts is the one on election day, so all you Tea Partiers better get out there!

But I digress. I am not yet in Kentucky...though I once knew a gal from ole Kentuck. I am stuck at the airport where I've been held up by security for failing to remove my shoes. That's because I wasn't wearing shoes! But, it seems, the rules clearly state that all pax must remove shoes, so here I stand.

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks airport security has reached ridiculous heights. What happened to our individual rights and freedoms, including the right to go barefoot! Dammit, where I come from, a man wants to die with his boots on...but live with his boots off if he chooses!

The emergency that never ends

Yesterday I passed on a news item about the closure of three terminals at LAX, all because a security guard had left his post guarding ONE exit to ONE terminal, possibly to keep any would-be terrorist from changing his mind and leaving the building.

I am mindful that we are just six days away from the ninth anniversary of 9/11. I remember the day well. Who doesn't? I also remember the actions...and overreactions...of the nation and indeed the world.

At the place where I lurked [worked, surely! ed.] the immediate reaction was a meeting of senior management. Our offices were on a small campus in a somewhat remote rural area, and management was worried that we might get stuck there. The topic of the meeting was whether we had enough food to eat. I suspect a list was drawn up of who would be eaten first if supplies ran out.

Well, supplies didn't run out and things eventually got back to normal. Sort of. For the truth is that life in the USA has never returned to what passed for normal before the attack on the Twin Towers. 9/11 not only killed nearly 3000 people, but made us -- Americans and the rest of the world -- the hostages of fear.

Travellers feel the suspicion and mistrust every day. Any stranger in any strange land is now a potential security threat, and is treated accordingly. In fact, you don't even have to be in a strange land to be subjected to the harassment, poking and prodding of the high-school dropouts charged with "protecting" us.

Maybe our national motto should be changed to "You can't be too careful!" because, for our "safety and convenience", we are subject to new and increasingly severe security measures every day. And these laws and regulations are never going to be repealed because the emergency will never be deemed to be over.

Even if the Osama bin Laden were to turn himself in tomorrow, even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Hunosehu were to convert to Judaism, the political and cultural alienation that has been engendered by the "War on Terror" will never end. After all, just because we're paranoid doesn't mean "they" are not out to get us.

Footnote: I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why US stamps can't be steamed or soaked off envelopes any more.

Fear and loathing at LAX

Associated Press reports today that three (count `em -- 3!) terminals at Los Angeles International Airport were shut down early this morning after an airport contract worker left an exit from a secure area unattended.

You read that right -- an exit, not an entrance. In other words, someone might have sneaked OUT of the airport. And note that although the exit was presumably in just one terminal, three terminals were "locked down", as the buzzphrase has it. Five arriving flights and three departures were delayed.

Doesn't this strike anyone as being a bit extreme? The matter is being investigated by top men -- TOP men -- and Walt expects the investigation to show that the security guard just needed a bathroom break and couldn't wait.

So no biggie, right? But this is the United States of Paranoia, where any little thing could be a warning sign of a terrorist plot. Ridiculous... I'd say the folks at LAX need to learn to RELAX.

Fertilizer bomb scare just that - OOOOOOOO!!!

As predicted in yesterday's post, the guy who bought all the fertilizer from the Vineland co-op has turned out to be ... wait for it ... a farmer. His intention was not to blow up all the VIPs attending the G8/G20 summit (and the fake lake!) but to grow bigger strawberries. Walt was right. Lifetime average .991.

Meanwhile, hundreds of police manhours ["personhours" please. ed.] were spent looking for this guy. An identikit drawing was on every newscast. Ooooooo...could be a terrorist! After all, he spoke with a European accent, or maybe it was an Arab accent. And he was missing two fingers from one hand. Could be a Japanese gangster or a member of some weird cult! Ooooooo!!!

And he bought the fertilizer only 20 miles or so from the US border. Oooooooo! Maybe he's already smuggled it across the bridge to attack America! Ooooooooo!!!

What we saw yesterday was a prime example of how the paranoia that has gripped the Excited States of America since 9/11 has infected the rest of the West. We are afraid of everything now, even old people innocently going about their business.

What Toronto Police Staff Supt. Jeff McGuire called "a gardening incident" was blown out of all proportion by the media and (especially) the police and government. What a great opportunity to justify the billion-plus dollars being spent on "security"! What a load of fertilizer!!!

Postscript: It's worth noting that at least three police forces -- Niagara, Toronto and the RCMP -- never did find the farmer. He came forward on his own after seeing the story on TV.

G8/G20 security update

Last week I commented on the ridiculous amount -- over a billion dollars -- being spent on "security" for the photo-op that masquerades as a summit of world leaders, to be held in Ontario at the end of this month. That's a billion US bucks, just for "security", not including the cost of other huge pork barrels such as Lake Harper -- the fake lake being built inside the Toronto media centre, a stone's throw (if you have a good arm) from Lake Ontario (a real lake).

Here are a couple of examples of how much planning and care is going into the security arrangements.

As if bringing cops and soldiers from all over Canada wasn't enough, the RCMP (a.k.a. Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen) decided they'd better hire a private security company to provide additional manpower. [Please say "personpower". ed.] Who better to turn to than the firm which guarded the Winter Olympics held in February in Vancouver. They managed to keep "Call me Steve" Harper and other VIPs* from getting stoned (in the Biblical sense) or pied, so they could do the same again now, right?

Only one hitch. The ink on the contract had barely dried before someone noticed that the firm in question, Contemporary Security Canada, is... errrr... not licensed to undertake such services in the province of Ontario. Since getting a licence takes 6-8 months, and the summit is to be held in a couple of weeks, there's some pretty fast walking around in the halls of Queen's Park this morning.

Meanwhile, in Vineland, Ontario -- just down the road from Fruitland -- the horsemen have joined the local police -- both of them -- in looking for the man who bought 60 55-pound bags of ammonium nitrate.

As the village names suggest, that part of Ontario is fruit country, whence come many surprisingly good wines. The wines are made from grapes. To grow the grapes you need fertilizer, which is what ammonium nitrate is.

So what's the big deal? Seems a bright Mountie remembered that ammonium nitrate was what Timothy McVeigh used to make his bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995. And with the G8/G20 and G8 summits just around the corner, you can't be too careful, eh!

Mind you, McVeigh used about 120 times the amount bought in Vineland, but still, according to RCMP Sgt. Marc LaPorte, "It is a legitimate fertilizer in that quantity, it's just that it is also an ingredient for a bomb. There is a concern because of the upcoming events in Huntsville and Toronto. We're taking this potential threat seriously."

Maybe a bit too seriously? Leave aside the distinct possibility that the purchaser is a farmer. Walt's Ontario roadmap reveals that Toronto is about an hour's drive from Vineland, and Huntsville... errr... about three hours.

As fans of The Simpsons and South Park know, it's all too easy to poke fun at Canada. Right now a would-be humorist doesn't even to make up stories. All you have to do is write the news. Stay tuned for more of the hilarious antics of those crazy Canucks!

* Very Irritating Persons

Eagerness to please is not a security policy

You have to laugh at Canadian Transport Minister John Baird, the Harper government's trained pit bull. When it comes to dealing with the Americans, he's more like a chihuahua bitch! Reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon in which a little lap dog dances circles around a big brutish bulldog, the little dog just about wetting himself in an effort to please the big one.

Today's Toronto Star has a good editorial on the Canadian overreaction to the American overreaction, about which I wrote this morning. Have a look at "Canada's abrupt rush to scanners" to see how Call Me Steve and his toadies are all but tying themselves in knots to suck up to His Obamaness.

The terrorist threat

Walt has been told to "get real". How can you write about funny TV commercials, a follower asks, when we are surrounded by Serious Threats to Our American Way of Life? OK, he didn't put it quite that way, with the caps and all, but that was the gist of it.

Walt says: Can we (Americans) purleeze stop overreacting? More important, would Canadians and other foreigners stop overreacting to the American overreaction? Security is tighter now at Canadian airports than it is at US airports!

If I really wanted to get an explosive onto a US airliner, I'd forget about trying to board the plane at Pearson or Trudeau. I'd drive across the border to, say, Buffalo, with the explosive in my gotchees (wonder if it's itchy) and get on the plane there.

All the restrictions, patdowns, and "naked picture scans" being put in place in Canada and Europe strike me as extreme overkill, like burning down a house to kill a mouse. The effects on air travel to the "land of the free" (what a laugh that is) are already hurting international business and the not-yet-recovered economy.

If I lived in the Netherlands or Canada, let alone Pakistan or Nigeria, I'd just stay home. Come to think of it, maybe that's been the plan all along.