Walt, Len [and Ed.! Ed.]wish all our Chinese friends and readers
a happy and prosperous
Year of the Rooster!
Friday, January 27, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Didn't anyone else hear Trump call out Islamic terrorists?
For eight years, I waited for Barack Hussein Obama and/or his sometime Secretary of State and would-be successor Hellery Clinton to utter the words "Islamic" and "terrorism"/"terrorists" in the same sentence. It never happened. Then, last Friday, in his inaugural address, PresidentTrump -- how sweet it is! -- said "We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth."
Cazart! "Islamic terrorism!" Is that what's been going on in Orlando and San Bernardino, not to mention Nice, Paris, Brussels, Berlin and other Western cities? [And don't forget Peshawar, Kabul, Baghdad, Palmyra and other Middle Eastern shitholes! Ed.] You mean these killers were fanatical followers of the Prophet Mohammed? Jihadis bent on the extermination of Christians and Jews? Why were we not told?!
In the daze of President 0 and other apostles of "diversity", "tolerance" and "inclusion", the I-word was never mentioned in the same breath as "terrorism" or "terrorists", because, you know, these misguided "lone wolves" were beset by their own individual demons, acting on their own and not as part of any ISIS or other Muslim extremist conspiracy. And they certainly didn't represent the majority of Muslims (the former Prez kept assuring us) because, you know, Islam is "the religion of peace". NOT!
For eight years, President 0 and Shrillery Clinton and John Kerry bent over backwards to make sure Islamists inside and outside the Paranoid States of America wouldn’t get upset and unleash new terrorist attacks... which they did anyway. Now, finally, the appeasers are gone and the Western world -- or the American part of it at least -- has a new leader who's unafraid to name the elephant in the room. Which he did... just like that!
I would have thought that President Trump's declaration of war on the Islamic terrorists would have been front-page news in the USA and around the world. But it wasn't. None of the media I checked -- including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Times of London, ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC right down to ZBC [There is such a broadcaster. Ed.] -- led with President Trump's promise of "eradicating Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth". Amazing... or maybe not.
The American media, in particular, were obsessed with numbers -- how many turned out for the Trump inauguration, who had the larger approval rating, and non-news like that. Dozens of column inches and hours of video were given to interviews with people who attended or witnessed the inauguration. There was wall-to-wall coverage of the vandals and miscreants who showed up to "protest" and scream in rage at hearing Mr Trump introduced as "President of the United States". As for the subject of Islamic terrorism, not one word did I read or hear.
On Saturday, President Trump told staffers at the CIA, "We have to get rid of ISIS. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. Radical Islamic terrorism -- and I said it yesterday -- has to be eradicated. Just off the face of the Earth. This is evil. This is evil." Those remarks were similarly under-reported, or not reported at all.
What's with the lamestream media? Did they not get the memo? It's OK, now, to stop pretending that we are all brothers, and that mutual respect and tolerance of diversity are the answers to the problems of the world in general and the Middle East in particular. It's no longer necessary, in the interest of political correctness, to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism. It's time, now, to stand up to the Muslim extremists and do whatever it takes to end their threat to our religion, our society and our way of life! Report that, you pussies!
Further viewing: Click here to see Michael Matt's take on the inauguration, in the latest video from The Remnant.
Cazart! "Islamic terrorism!" Is that what's been going on in Orlando and San Bernardino, not to mention Nice, Paris, Brussels, Berlin and other Western cities? [And don't forget Peshawar, Kabul, Baghdad, Palmyra and other Middle Eastern shitholes! Ed.] You mean these killers were fanatical followers of the Prophet Mohammed? Jihadis bent on the extermination of Christians and Jews? Why were we not told?!
In the daze of President 0 and other apostles of "diversity", "tolerance" and "inclusion", the I-word was never mentioned in the same breath as "terrorism" or "terrorists", because, you know, these misguided "lone wolves" were beset by their own individual demons, acting on their own and not as part of any ISIS or other Muslim extremist conspiracy. And they certainly didn't represent the majority of Muslims (the former Prez kept assuring us) because, you know, Islam is "the religion of peace". NOT!
For eight years, President 0 and Shrillery Clinton and John Kerry bent over backwards to make sure Islamists inside and outside the Paranoid States of America wouldn’t get upset and unleash new terrorist attacks... which they did anyway. Now, finally, the appeasers are gone and the Western world -- or the American part of it at least -- has a new leader who's unafraid to name the elephant in the room. Which he did... just like that!
I would have thought that President Trump's declaration of war on the Islamic terrorists would have been front-page news in the USA and around the world. But it wasn't. None of the media I checked -- including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Times of London, ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC right down to ZBC [There is such a broadcaster. Ed.] -- led with President Trump's promise of "eradicating Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth". Amazing... or maybe not.
The American media, in particular, were obsessed with numbers -- how many turned out for the Trump inauguration, who had the larger approval rating, and non-news like that. Dozens of column inches and hours of video were given to interviews with people who attended or witnessed the inauguration. There was wall-to-wall coverage of the vandals and miscreants who showed up to "protest" and scream in rage at hearing Mr Trump introduced as "President of the United States". As for the subject of Islamic terrorism, not one word did I read or hear.
On Saturday, President Trump told staffers at the CIA, "We have to get rid of ISIS. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. Radical Islamic terrorism -- and I said it yesterday -- has to be eradicated. Just off the face of the Earth. This is evil. This is evil." Those remarks were similarly under-reported, or not reported at all.
What's with the lamestream media? Did they not get the memo? It's OK, now, to stop pretending that we are all brothers, and that mutual respect and tolerance of diversity are the answers to the problems of the world in general and the Middle East in particular. It's no longer necessary, in the interest of political correctness, to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism. It's time, now, to stand up to the Muslim extremists and do whatever it takes to end their threat to our religion, our society and our way of life! Report that, you pussies!
Further viewing: Click here to see Michael Matt's take on the inauguration, in the latest video from The Remnant.
VIDEO: Planned Parenthood doesn't do prenatal care, only abortions
One of the organizations heavily invested in the Wimmins March on Washington was Planned Parenthood. PP campaigned hard for Hellery, and against those who called for the defunding of their abortion clinics. "We provide many services for pregnant women," they shrilled, "including cancer screening, family planning and prenatal care."
Live Action, a pro-life group, decided to put them to the test. They made phone calls to 97 Planned Parenthood clinics across the USA. All but five of them turned away women who asked for prenatal care. A typical clinic staffer told one caller, "Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care."
Here's a compilation of some of the phone calls. Hear the truth from the mouths of the baby-killers.
FOOTNOTE: A new national poll, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist, reveals that a majority of the 2729 American adults surveyed are in favour of "significant restrictions" on abortion. A slim majority (52%) of respondents identified themselves as "pro-choice"; 42% say they are pro-life. But when asked more specific questions, solid majorities supported legal restrictions on the "procedure". 91% of those who supported Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy said they wanted restrictions on abortion. Surprisingly, a majority (55%) of Hellery Clinton’s supporters had the same opinion.
Further viewing: Click here to see Michael Matt's take on the inauguration, in the latest video from The Remnant. Mr Matt says the Wimmin's March and all the other leftie snowflake demonstrations are really all about sex and abortion. Period.
Live Action, a pro-life group, decided to put them to the test. They made phone calls to 97 Planned Parenthood clinics across the USA. All but five of them turned away women who asked for prenatal care. A typical clinic staffer told one caller, "Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care."
Here's a compilation of some of the phone calls. Hear the truth from the mouths of the baby-killers.
FOOTNOTE: A new national poll, sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist, reveals that a majority of the 2729 American adults surveyed are in favour of "significant restrictions" on abortion. A slim majority (52%) of respondents identified themselves as "pro-choice"; 42% say they are pro-life. But when asked more specific questions, solid majorities supported legal restrictions on the "procedure". 91% of those who supported Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy said they wanted restrictions on abortion. Surprisingly, a majority (55%) of Hellery Clinton’s supporters had the same opinion.
Further viewing: Click here to see Michael Matt's take on the inauguration, in the latest video from The Remnant. Mr Matt says the Wimmin's March and all the other leftie snowflake demonstrations are really all about sex and abortion. Period.
Monday, January 23, 2017
VIDEO: British cops taser their own race relations adviser
Here's a great item from this weekend's police blotter, the coppers in question being the Avon & Somerset police, who "serve and protect" the city of Bristol, in southwestern England. Check out this video of the Peelers subduing a "dangerous" black man.
The man on the wrong end of the Taser is Judah Adunbi, aged 63. The location of the video is the front gate to Mr Adunbi's home. As he was trying to enter his own property, the police, apparently mistaking him for a wanted man, asked Mr Adunbi for his ID, which he refused to give, saying "I've done no wrong. Leave me alone."
That seemed to be a trigger -- pun intended -- for the boy and girl in blue, who let him have it. Mr Adunbi told the Guardian, "I felt that was it. Because of the way I fell back. The way I fell backward on the back of my head. I was just paralyzed. I thought that was it. I thought they were taking my life."
After discharging the Taser, one of the officers can be heard yelling, "Taser, Taser, Taser. You've been Tasered. All right?"
Mr Adunbi's neighbour can be heard protesting, although an officer tells him, "He was trying to fight us." That's what cops always say, that the victim was "resisting arrest" or "threatening us" or "appeared to be holding a weapon". Obviously the neighbour filming the incident missed that part.
Now here's the funny part. The Guardian reports that Mr Adunbi was a race relations adviser -- a member of Bristol's independent advisory group, designed to forge links between police and the community! How shocking! [No more electric jokes, please. Ed.] Walt thinks Mr Adunbi should count himself lucky that he lives in the UK. If this had happened in the USA, he would doubtless have been a deceased race relations adviser.
The man on the wrong end of the Taser is Judah Adunbi, aged 63. The location of the video is the front gate to Mr Adunbi's home. As he was trying to enter his own property, the police, apparently mistaking him for a wanted man, asked Mr Adunbi for his ID, which he refused to give, saying "I've done no wrong. Leave me alone."
That seemed to be a trigger -- pun intended -- for the boy and girl in blue, who let him have it. Mr Adunbi told the Guardian, "I felt that was it. Because of the way I fell back. The way I fell backward on the back of my head. I was just paralyzed. I thought that was it. I thought they were taking my life."
After discharging the Taser, one of the officers can be heard yelling, "Taser, Taser, Taser. You've been Tasered. All right?"
Mr Adunbi's neighbour can be heard protesting, although an officer tells him, "He was trying to fight us." That's what cops always say, that the victim was "resisting arrest" or "threatening us" or "appeared to be holding a weapon". Obviously the neighbour filming the incident missed that part.
Now here's the funny part. The Guardian reports that Mr Adunbi was a race relations adviser -- a member of Bristol's independent advisory group, designed to forge links between police and the community! How shocking! [No more electric jokes, please. Ed.] Walt thinks Mr Adunbi should count himself lucky that he lives in the UK. If this had happened in the USA, he would doubtless have been a deceased race relations adviser.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
VIDEO: Catholics! Into the new catacombs! Keep the Faith!
Yes, it's a short (2:14) promo for Remnant TV, which Walt recommends highly. Leaving that aside, the message is sound and urgent. The Catholic Faith is in danger from heretics and apostates at the highest levels within the Roman Catholic Church. It's time for those who believe what the Church always taught -- up until Vatican II -- to "circle the wagons", or, to use a more religious turn of phrase, go once more into the catacombs, there to keep alive the True Faith as revealed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Why Margaret Wente didn't join the Wimmin's March
Ed. here. Walt left on Wednesday to go to the nation's capital for the inauguration of President Donald Trump. (Dontcha love that phrase? We do!) But when he got to Richmond he found it strangely quiet, almost empty. I hope to set him straight over the weekend, and hope for some comments on Monday. Watch this space.
Meanwhile, here's an excerpt from "Don't set your hair on fire. It won't help", by Margaret Wente, an American ex-pat now living in Canada. If you read the whole thing, you'll learn that Ms Wente doesn't like President Trump, but is not joining the Wimmin's March on Washington because, IHHO, there's no point to it, or any of the other hysterical reaction we're hearing and seeing this weekend.
Why are we so irrational about Donald Trump? Well, we’re tribal, and we’ve decided he is Moloch. (By “we,” I mean the usual left-liberal-academic-media-urban professional crowd who don’t own pickup trucks.) Also, we have no sense of perspective. Most of us who live in North America have no idea what bad leaders or bad times are truly like. We don’t know any history, either. Populist backlashes are nothing new. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, the five ingredients for a backlash are a rise in immigration, a rise in inequality, a perception of corruption at the top, a major financial crisis, and a demagogue to light the spark. The U.S. scores a Bingo. Populism, he points out, is usually part of a global phenomenon. Its targets are typically immigration, free trade and high finance. Populists are more interested in trade wars than shooting wars. So Mr. Trump is nothing new in history. What’s new is his unequalled power to shake the global order.
Meanwhile, here's an excerpt from "Don't set your hair on fire. It won't help", by Margaret Wente, an American ex-pat now living in Canada. If you read the whole thing, you'll learn that Ms Wente doesn't like President Trump, but is not joining the Wimmin's March on Washington because, IHHO, there's no point to it, or any of the other hysterical reaction we're hearing and seeing this weekend.
Why are we so irrational about Donald Trump? Well, we’re tribal, and we’ve decided he is Moloch. (By “we,” I mean the usual left-liberal-academic-media-urban professional crowd who don’t own pickup trucks.) Also, we have no sense of perspective. Most of us who live in North America have no idea what bad leaders or bad times are truly like. We don’t know any history, either. Populist backlashes are nothing new. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, the five ingredients for a backlash are a rise in immigration, a rise in inequality, a perception of corruption at the top, a major financial crisis, and a demagogue to light the spark. The U.S. scores a Bingo. Populism, he points out, is usually part of a global phenomenon. Its targets are typically immigration, free trade and high finance. Populists are more interested in trade wars than shooting wars. So Mr. Trump is nothing new in history. What’s new is his unequalled power to shake the global order.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Burqas banned in... you'll never guess!
Just saw, on the Agence France Press website, what promises to be the most incredible story of the month, if not the entire year. After considerable debate, a national government has banned the importation and sale of burqas. Completely. In their entire country. For those who don't know what a burqa is, it's the ultra-Islamic garment for women that covers the entire body, from the top of the head right down to the ground. That includes the face, only a small "window" being left (albeit screened) so the wearer can see where she (or he) is going.
The country is... this is the incredible part... Morocco! Morocco has a population of nearly 34 million people, almost as big as Canada. 99% of Moroccans are Muslims, unlike Canada where only 98% are Muslims. [Ed., please check those numbers.] So why, you may ask, would the government of a predominantly Muslim country risk offending so many voters by proscribing the ultimate Islamic fashions? Walt will explain.
First of all, Morocco is a monarchy, and elections are not quite as free and fair as they are in, say, Cook County IL. Secondly, in Muslim countries, freedom of religion and freedom of expression aren't guaranteed by law. Quite the opposite, in fact. Thirdly, and most important, the Moroccan government is worried about security. It's that "she (or he)" in the first paragraph that prompted the burqa ban.
You can't tell what's under the damn things. It could be a sultry voluptuous Muslim woman, like the ones you see in the streets of Kabul every day. Or it could be a Mohammed with a beard and an AK-47. Or either of them, with half a dozen sticks of dynamite strapped to his/her torso. See "A good reason to ban the burqa", WWW 4/11/13.
The AFP story quotes a spokesthingy for the Moroccan Ministry of the Interior as saying "We have taken the step of completely banning the import, manufacture and marketing of this garment in all the cities and towns of the kingdom, since bandits have repeatedly used this garment to perpetrate their crimes." ("Bandits" is Arabic for "terrorists".)
In fact, not that many Moroccan women wear the burqa. Most of them prefer the hijab, a headscarf that doesn't cover the face. The niqab, which leaves the area around the eyes uncovered, is worn in Salafist circles and in more conservative regions in the north, from where 1000s of jihadists have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. A Salafist preacher condemned "the Satan-worshippers" and "atheists serving the interests of the Jews" who, he said, were behind the burqa ban.
So there you have it. A 99% Muslim country bans the burqa to deter "bandits" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them. What are the chances of that happening in North America? In the USA (as of January 21st), chances are slim. In Justin Trudeau's Not-so-Great, Not-so-white North (see previous post), the chances are... none at all.
Further reading: Still not sure about the difference between the burqa, the niqab and the hijab? Read "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", [Great title! Ed.] WWW 28/7/10.
The country is... this is the incredible part... Morocco! Morocco has a population of nearly 34 million people, almost as big as Canada. 99% of Moroccans are Muslims, unlike Canada where only 98% are Muslims. [Ed., please check those numbers.] So why, you may ask, would the government of a predominantly Muslim country risk offending so many voters by proscribing the ultimate Islamic fashions? Walt will explain.
First of all, Morocco is a monarchy, and elections are not quite as free and fair as they are in, say, Cook County IL. Secondly, in Muslim countries, freedom of religion and freedom of expression aren't guaranteed by law. Quite the opposite, in fact. Thirdly, and most important, the Moroccan government is worried about security. It's that "she (or he)" in the first paragraph that prompted the burqa ban.
You can't tell what's under the damn things. It could be a sultry voluptuous Muslim woman, like the ones you see in the streets of Kabul every day. Or it could be a Mohammed with a beard and an AK-47. Or either of them, with half a dozen sticks of dynamite strapped to his/her torso. See "A good reason to ban the burqa", WWW 4/11/13.
The AFP story quotes a spokesthingy for the Moroccan Ministry of the Interior as saying "We have taken the step of completely banning the import, manufacture and marketing of this garment in all the cities and towns of the kingdom, since bandits have repeatedly used this garment to perpetrate their crimes." ("Bandits" is Arabic for "terrorists".)
In fact, not that many Moroccan women wear the burqa. Most of them prefer the hijab, a headscarf that doesn't cover the face. The niqab, which leaves the area around the eyes uncovered, is worn in Salafist circles and in more conservative regions in the north, from where 1000s of jihadists have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq. A Salafist preacher condemned "the Satan-worshippers" and "atheists serving the interests of the Jews" who, he said, were behind the burqa ban.
So there you have it. A 99% Muslim country bans the burqa to deter "bandits" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them. What are the chances of that happening in North America? In the USA (as of January 21st), chances are slim. In Justin Trudeau's Not-so-Great, Not-so-white North (see previous post), the chances are... none at all.
Further reading: Still not sure about the difference between the burqa, the niqab and the hijab? Read "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", [Great title! Ed.] WWW 28/7/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)