Topmost (in use)

Archive | World

U.S. (53%) and Canada (54%) both oppose their “leaders'” refugee dictates

In both the U.S. and Canada, polls following the Islamist attacks in France show two liberal leaders way out of step with the people they supposedly represent and (gulp) lead.

The majority of Canadians oppose the government’s plan to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees in the next six weeks, and the most common complaint is that there isn’t enough time, a new poll shows.

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) either moderately or strongly oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to bring 25,000 refugees over by Jan. 1, 2016. Meanwhile, 42 per cent moderately or strongly support the plan, according to an Angus Reid Institute poll conducted three days after terrorist attacks killed 129 people in Paris.

If I understand liberals like Trudeau and his Globe and Mail division correctly, Canadians are therefore full of hatred and racism. His Quebecers are even more against his refugee policy  –  60% opposed  –  which is fun, especially since over a third of those hateful racists voted for Trudeau to be their leader.

I’ve come to expect this “racist” crap from Barack Obama and his acolytes, but I did not see this coming: Trudeau joining Obama and calling those countrymen who disagree with him “racists” and “haters.”

Wierd though, he never called us that during the election! Polling during the long election campaign shows that Canadians were against Trudeau’s idiotic refugee election promise  –  first airily (as all Trudeau policy was) touted in May of 2015. But it’s now a firm government mandate which simply must be accomplished in exactly the next five weeks or it will all completely fall apart and never come to pass… on account of, um, some unspecified reason or something. According to the Liberals’ state-owned CBC division:

“Quite frankly, the loss of momentum would probably put the whole objective in jeopardy,” [Liberal Public Safety Minister Ralph] Goodale said. “The slippage might mean it never happens.”

Quite frankly, that’s what we call a total lie. And this effort to lie and overwhelm and freak out Canadians is, of course, a sign of the Liberals’ great respect for Canadians and Canada.  But be fair and put what he said in context and what the reporter asked and wrote after that you racist!  Yeah no that was it. That is the last line in the fawning news report. No questions, no explanations, just a fully acceptable statement, on that matter of grave national security importance. Look – I took a screen capture in case they accidentally change it or delete in five weeks.

CBC_pimping for Goodale - 2015-11-19_094633

Trudeau was elected in spite of his refugee promise, not because of it. But now he carries on as if he were elected on that promise, and is unalterably compelled by the election gods (the CBC) to fulfill it, world-altering Islamist terrorist events in Egypt, Lebanon, and Paris be damned. I think even his state-owned CBC would allow him to renege, especially given ISIS’s beheading of Chinese hostages yesterday. Trudeau loves communist China and their “basic dictatorship!” (Hey how many refugees is China taking? None! They may be racists!)

And as if to add salt to the falafel, Trudeau also insists on holding to his pacifist, idiotist election promise to bring our CF-18s home from Syria (now!) because apparently defending our homeland and helping the Syrian people and trying to contain a terrorist jihad, alongside France, the United States and others, is too mean and yucky and stuff. (Besides, the CF-18s may be needed to help clear snow in Toronto this winter). Just as the media is utterly incurious about Goodale’s urgency lie, Trudeau’s ludicrous CF-18 pullback gets a complete pass by his swooning media, who are today investigating with great rigour, on multiple fronts, whether a Conservative MP said “NDP horde” or “NDP whore” a few weeks ago during his entirely polite, happy, calm, gentlemanly, and well-worded victory speech (he quite obviously said “horde”). This goes on, as other nations, their leaders, and their media, finally now see the obvious need to up their game against the Islamists.

And as if I had to tell you, Canadians also support our CF-18s bombing the Islamist terrorists of ISIS. A poll released just today says “60% of people said they approved of Canadian airstrikes on Islamic State targets while only 30% disagreed.” You rarely if ever get 60% agreement on anything in Canada.

The term “tone deaf” doesn’t even touch this. Trudeau’s behavior is the mark of a solipsistic politician, and this –  both the solipsism and the massive and quickly-screened refugee influx from one or more terror-laden countries  –  does not bode well for Canada’s future.

And in the U.S.:

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists…

President Obama should deploy his teleprompter brigade, push his chin way up and out the way he does pre-condescension, and this time haughtily declare a “red line” on this refugee idea, signifying his intent to summarily ignore the plan and abandon it. Hopefully Justin Trudeau golfs.


Continue Reading

Oh look! The liberal media are being complete idiots again!

Some days, the liberals’ mainstream news media division provides us with more than reports of the current events of the day. They provide glimpses of just how callow and idiotic they are.

Take today as an example. Today, at least two Canadian – Canadian, mind you – liberal mainstream news outlets, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, saw fit to feature, on their websites’ front page, a headline of a big, big news story critical of something someone said on Fox News Channel. You know, because all Canadians are liberals, and all collectively agree that Fox News Channel is such a total joke and everything, and when something is said on their air which is dumb, you know, as usual, this is big, big national news. In Canada. Where, if we understand correctly, Fox News Channel is utterly irrelevant.


Fox News viewers such as, oh, most of America (FNC is by far the leading news channel by viewership, sometimes doubling the viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined and making an embarrassing joke of Canadian news outlets’ viewership numbers), would likely be quick to read the article, that is if they’d ever even heard of the Globe and Mail or Toronto Star, wondering who at Fox would say something that was so crazy that it was this newsworthy – in Canada. Was it Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity? Or maybe one of their hard news people like Shepard Smith, Bret Baier, or Megyn Kelly?

No. None of the above. It was Steven Emerson. Yeah.  Who?  Steven Emerson. Yeah I know. I’ve also never heard of him. You’ve never heard of him. That’s because he’s not really with Fox News at all. He was just another talking-head panel guest pontificating on another Fox News show – one of perhaps 300 talking-heads the Fox News Channel has on their air every day, which they garner from all corners of the political, geographical, and intellectual spectrum. No different than the other-talking heads they get, like the common Canadian socialist, who regularly say the damndest – the stupidest – things you’ve ever heard, totally embarrassing Canada.

Liberals always speak as though everyone in the room agrees with them. But this practice, more often than not, backfires on them, and they end up making total fools of themselves. As they did at the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star today. And as small as it is, that’s actually the bigger headline. But their ardent studies in investigative journalism aside, they’re too myopic – too dumb – to even look for their own reflection in the mirror.

Continue Reading

Globe & Mail Pundits: Canada is useless in the world; and Canada is leading the world!

Same day, different outlooks. Where they’re alike: One is dour, the other one more dour. Because… Conservative.

The Globe and Mail’s liberal pundits can’t agree on where Canada and our Conservative (and that’s key) prime minister fits in the world. Which means there is a great division in the Globe and Mail which will ultimately lead to their humiliating defeat and utter demise!… if we apply the same standard to them as they do to the Conservative Party anytime one Conservative MP says something slightly different from the rest.

Jeffrey_simpsonG&M’s Jeffrey Simpson, perpetually down on Harper and the Conservatives no matter what, has a column today headlined “Canada is not engaged in this new world,” which is weird because Canada is exactly engaged in this new world, forcefully, and for me, proudly. Simpson is not proud, or happy, or optimistic, or even sane. Read this and weep into your sweater:

…Canada no longer tries, however feebly, to help resolve or mediate international disputes. Rather, Ottawa chooses sides and then offers little beyond rhetoric and finger-pointing…

…which, by the way, is dead wrong; but describes, exactly, Barack Obama (erstwhile the leader of the free world) and Obama’s incessant finger-pointing and useless, effete rhetoric read off a teleprompter after being written by a hack, and perfectly describes Obama and his unwillingness to take absolutely any hard action, ever, on anything of global importance. Glad I could clear up Simpson’s obvious confusion. Now someone hand him a hanky.

For Simpson, no test, including this one, is ever a test of Barack Obama’s leadership. Obama is not even mentioned in this entire column, possibly because Obama is not engaged in this new world. But, for example, September 4, 2013: “Syria is not a test of U.S. leadership.”  Let’s be clear: this, like Syria, is another test of Obama’s leadership; and once again, Obama and his regime get an F on foreign policy. And Simpson an F for fair analysis.

Weirdly, everything, including Syria and this matter, is a test of Canada’s leadership under Stephen Harper, to Simpson.

margaret_wenteBut the other columnist sees, uh, brown, where Simpson sees black. G&M’s Margaret Wente‘s column is headlined “Harper goes Cold Warrior, Putin laps Obama,” and sees Stephen Harper and Canada as leading the western world.

The crisis in Ukraine has pushed Stephen Harper into full Cold Warrior mode. This week, he jets off to Kiev to tour Independence Square and meet with the new anti-Russian government. No Western leader has talked tougher. “What the Putin regime has done cannot be tolerated and can never be accepted,” he said this week. …

…Mr. Harper will visit the heart of Ukraine as an outspoken champion of freedom. There is no posturing in this. …

Alas the remainder of Wente’s column is a grave lament about Canada and the world, and even Obama and the world. Note that she’s not as clear as colleague Simpson on Obama’s Syrian test score:

The biggest loser in this drama is, of course, U.S. President Barack Obama. His “reset” strategy toward Russia is in tatters. Mr. Putin has been running rings around him, first in Syria – where Bashar al-Assad is now more entrenched than ever – and now in Ukraine, where Washington was caught flat-footed. …

… Mr. Putin is looking like the stronger horse (even though that’s not really true), and Mr. Obama (not for the first time) is looking out of his depth. …

In contrast, Jeffrey Simpson said this about Obama and the Russian takeover of Crimea:

“nothing,” in Russian]


I would think their curiosity would compel them  —  at least Simpson  — to ask what Justin Trudea, the Liberal’s alleged “leader,” would do, were he the PM, since everything is so dismal now Justin_Trudeau-squnder the Conservative. But that’s not the game being played here. Apparently the game is hackery.

I shudder to imagine what their Liberal Justin Trudeau would actually do in a situation like this, short of an Obama-lite version of another useless, pedantic, pedagogical, paean to peace and love, possibly culminating in a judicial inquiry into the “root causes” of Putin’s power grabs and the spread of communism. Would Trudeau be judged by the same testing standards as those applied to Stephen Harper (and not Obama)?  No.

I’m guessing for Simpson it would go something like “[such-and-such crisis] is not a test of Trudeau’s leadership.” But he will then vigorously question what the opposition Conservative leader’s position is on the matter, since that’s so obviously all-important; then headline it as a “test” of his or her mettle… and lament it as a failure, naturally.

Continue Reading

CBC’s Evan Solomon forgot half the Harper story. The positive half. Golly. Oops.

Synopsis: Prime Minister Harper made a historic speech to the Israeli Knesset today. At one point, Harper was heckled by a couple of pro-Palestinian, Arab members of the Knesset, who were themselves jeered and eventually they left. Most importantly, the entire Knesset then erupted into a standing ovation for Harper. Here is what the state-owned CBC’s Evan Solomon reported to his 51,000 Twitter followers to explain what happened:



Yes it’s just a tiny thing  —  a tweet  —  but add them up and it all serves as irreducible proof of the systemic anti-Harper, anti-conservative (both small c and capital) bile that runs through the journalistic and editorial veins of the state-owned CBC. It’s this drip, drip, drip of left-wing propaganda from the left-wing media that is so pernicious.

While Prime Minister Harper was speaking to the Israeli Knesset today, the state-owned CBC’s Evan Solomon was watching the live feed. At one Follow this link for more hypocrisypoint, I imagine he forgot other people like me were watching too.

It was a pretty exciting thing that happened during that speech, as historic speeches go, but as a news analyst and reporter for a national news network, you have to be very careful about how you present things to your audience, lest your audience be mislead.

Toward the end of the historic Harper speech, a couple of anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian Arab members of the Knesset (yes they exist  — a dozen or more, actually) heckled and jeered at Harper when our Prime Minister was bold enough to talk about the abhorrent “Israel apartheid” meme touted by far-left anti-Israel zealots here and abroad.

Being bold and speaking the truth instead of the usual liberal-left talking points and politically-correct platitudes, is risky. So this could have looked really bad for our Prime Minister, had the story ended just there. But it didn’t. The real story is that the two hecklers left, after several other Knesset members turned and sternly told them to shut up. And then the bigger part of the story happened: the whole Knesset stood up in a grand gesture of approval and thanks to our prime minister, who was brave enough to speak the truth in bold colors. That’s huge.

But the story didn’t end right, for Evan Solomon. He preferred this other ending. here’s what he rushed to tweet to his 51,000 followers:


That’s it. No immediate follow-up to that tweet explaining that this big, momentous event was actually received very positively for Harper. Solomon got his preferred headline out there instead, which made Harper look bad. It’s a false narrative when you leave out half the story.

He might have tried to be as good and honest as several others on Twitter, including journalists like David Akin of Sun News, who tweeted:


Simple, right?

In the twitterverse, tweets are viewed by some as the day’s headlines  –  much like headlines in a paper. And journalists and editors know very well that many people “read the news” by simply scanning the headlines. That’s why some headline  —  and tweets  —  are absolutely ghastly misrepresentations of the real, full story. Sometimes the editors/journalists are simply using a quasi-marketing ploy to get your attention so you read the full story (where you may or not find the truth), but in many cases  —  particularly among the more biased, liberal-left media  — the ploy is simply to get their angle on the story out there into the popular culture. That can lead to incorrect conclusions. And that is the whole idea.

For my part, after Solomon’s tweet of half-truth, I tweeted:


Solomon replied, no doubt after seeing that it was being re-tweeted and after getting lots of negative feedback from wary conservatives and other normal people.


No.  Again, that’s only half the truth. The wrong half. Solomon only “reported” (tweeted) the ovation that was given to Harper at the end of the speech, literally saying in that tweet (it was three tweets later) that the ovation was received “as he concludes his speech.” An ovation at the end of a speech is something most people would expect to happen simply out of common politeness.

So no, it’s not “fair reporting” at all. It’s utterly unfair. So then as you can see, even in his effort at denial, he did not represent himself and his timeline truthfully at all to me and his followers. That’s two Pinocchios. And he’s a “news” man! On our dime.

And many agreed with me.


It’s no longer important to “watch the news” or listen to it or read it  —  except to catch journalists in the act as they bend the truth or tell half-truths. Mainstream media has been ruined by the drip, drip, drip of bias and ineptitude.

I view the mainstream media with deep suspicion.  I suspect that there is a systemic left-wing, anti-Harper, anti-conservative bias at the state-owned CBC. You should too.


No reply from Solomon.

There is no reply that would change the facts.



The network is now joining in the half-truth that Solomon started, in what will become their false narrative. On the news.


The whole article at the left-wing is from the perspective of one of the Arab Israelis who heckled. Copious quotes. No mention made of the standing ovation Harper got as a result of his remarks, nor did the CBC get any perspective from anybody in harmony with Harper’s position.


Continue Reading

Harper Explains Case for Syrian Attack While Obama Stutters

I personally lean toward simply allowing both sides in Syria to lose to each other in this civil war of Islamist extremists. But if I’m pressed to play nice-nice, I’d be in favor of a serious military strike against the regime, with vigor, as I like to say. Hit their air bases and other strategic military structures. And I’d like to have done it long syrian_rebelsago.

No, not the effete, symbolic gesture that is currently on the table, and will be for another week at least, thanks to the dithering, confused, unfocused Barack Hussein Obama. Had he acted two years ago when there was a clear option for democracy, he might not be the embarrassment of half his own party, the butt of late-night comedians’ jokes, and he wouldn’t need the pathetic pandering and rescue-attempts of the amazingly resilient liberal media sycophants.

Obama can’t sell his “limited, few-day-long, no boots on the ground, message” -type attack (it’s “not a war in the ‘classic’ sense”  —  John Kerry) to me. He can’t even sell it the American people he tries to lord over. Nor even the members of Congress in his own party. If it does pass the vote, it will only be because Obama’s indecision and inaction has left no better alternative.

Leading from behind is not a good way to lead the free world. How many times did we warn you liberals about this?

Jonah Goldberg is as frustrated as many Americans and in fact people the world over. He writes:

…So I am trying very hard to hold onto this perspective as I watch the president of the United States behave in a way you don’t have to be a pan-Arab autocrat to think is incredibly stupid.

Where to begin? Perhaps with Obama’s initial refusal to support the moderate rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a puppet of Iran and bagman for Hezbollah. Or we might start with Obama’s refusal to support the Green Movement in Iran, which sought to overthrow the Iranian regime, which would have been a triumph for both our principles and our national interests. …

More than any other politician in the US or Canada, it is none other than Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative, but only marginally) who has made the best case I’ve heard for attacking Syria, as per Obama’s plan.

Harper  —  not known as anything like the supposedly brilliant orator that Obama is cast as by the liberal press   —  did this this morning, in three minutes, totally off-the-cuff, while President Obama was still stuttering and muttering and “um”-ing and “aaaaand”-ing and “uh”-ing his way through some sort of seemingly tired, last-ditch attempt at a salient defense of his position.

See the video here:

And no, Barack (as he identifies himself to me in his smarmy, over-friendly, yet virulently anti-Republican and extremely-partisan, political snow sales-job emails), you cannot escape that “red line” idiocy of your own making by blaming either “the world,” as you’ve tried to do, or even George W. Bush, as I’m sure you’d love to do. (Although I admit, as you said, your credibility is not on the lines, as the fawning media will ensure.)

Both sides in Syria are dominated by radical Islamists, with one side being led by the same Baath party as Saddam Hussein. In fact I have no doubt that Syria’s WMDs came from Saddam Hussein and what used to be his authoritarian terrorist state, before George W. Bush rightfully changed history for the better. A welcoming and ever so friendly and like-minded Syria is where Hussein ditched his WMD stockpiles during the several-month-long run-up to what the liberals and their media division tried to sell us as George Bush’s “rush to war.” No wonder stockpiles of WMD weren’t found in Iraq (although we know he had them and used them to even more deadly effect than Assad has). I can’t believe I’m still having to make this argument, as, in 2013, even after we’ve learned lessons, Syria hides their WMDs and prepares, almost as per Obama’s instructions.

Again with Goldberg:

Meanwhile, according to numerous accounts, Assad is moving military assets into civilian areas and civilians into military areas, even as the Obama administration insists it makes no difference militarily to wait for Congress to debate. That’s not just stupid; it’s an outright lie that will be fact-checked with blood.

The “rebel” side in Syria is at best dominated by uncivilized, extremist mobs. The kind that hoot and holler and shoot machine guns and semi-automatic rifles in the air to express their… I don’t know what.

That rebel side may be currently controlled by, or could soon be controlled by al-Qaeda. I don’t feel the need to aid al-Qaeda after all the trouble we’ve all been through. Nor am I anxious to see any other Islamist jihadist extremists rise to power when Assad is ultimately offed in Syria, as happened in Egypt with their Muslim Brotherhood.

I obviously can’t count on Stephen Harper to sell my side of the argument. But do what I did: watch a few of the videos I’ve watched. Yes, I’ve watched the post-gas-attack videos which Obama supporters continually point me to and replay on their news programs. I also watched the Saddam Hussein gas attack videos, which apparently left the liberals unmoved. But you should watch the videos of the rebels or what the quixotic liberals still call “Arab Spring” fighters. Watch as they shoot Syrian soldiers in the the head as the Assad soldiers sit on their knees awaiting execution. In another video, watch as a rebel fighter, using his knife, literally carved the still warm heart right out of an Assad soldier, then put it in his mouth to eat it.  Then you might see my point about both sides losing being a win-win.


Continue Reading

Life looks different when unfiltered by the Obama-luvin’ liberal media

Naturally we see this — what I call enhanced intellect — all day long on conservatives sites, but I also see this other phenomenon amazingly often: when real people write their unfiltered comments about news articles on all those non-political web sites like Suddenly, you see a fresh and different viewpoint which, well, the Obamatons and their news media division would haughtily disapprove of, and work hard to obliterate, obfuscate, fail to report, and so on.

Rather than obliquely mocking and sneering at conservatives and Republicans, as is ubiquitous across all the non-Fox News Channel media on every issue social and economic, we see quite the opposite: people mocking the ridiculous sun spotspostures of liberal, leftists, and all the assorted tribes of the progressive left.

Here’s an example from this morning. This is from a news article about sun spots, which, you’ll remember, might explain some of that “man-made global warming” — sorry, “climate change” — which we hear and see the media shrieking about all day long, every day (but which is actually a climactic change which has been ongoing since approximately the year 4,500,000,000 BC). These are actual comments, in the order I found them, which I’ve simply copied and posted — I only took out the names and photos and superfluous information. And there are many, many more such comments.

(Bullet points indicate a unique commenter or reply to a previous comment)

  • This shows the dire straights that our planet is in , the global warming , check that….global climate change (new and improved lingo) has spread so far that it is now affecting the sun. Someone please help us , Al Gore to the rescue…
  • Sound Garden track comes to mind…
  • I doubt the sun can influence the climate…..right Al Gore?
    • They would have to call it something like a “solar system” if the Sun had any influence on climate.
  • It’s almost worth it to wish that it would create a Carrington type event.Just think with no electricity, power grids or electronics all the useless leeches on the planet would die off.
    • Even useless leeches like pacemaker dependents and premature babies?
    • Jillane Kent lol yes
    • egardless of J.K.s pithy statement, I agree with Zac. Humans as a species are way overdue for a cleansing. Yes, technology has helped extend lives, but it has also helped decrease the quality of life as we all plunge into sedentary lifestyles that make us more and more dependent on fragile technology. Would I survive? Maybe, maybe not. But the human species would be the better for it.
  • Should I bring my tomato plants inside?
    • I know where you hang out.
  • Get yer camping gear out, the power grid will fry. Dogs and cats living together…MASS HYSTERIA!
    • Love the Ghostbusters reference, there!
  • How is this possible? We re-elected Obama! Have the sea levels gone down yet?
  • It’s all OK.Today will be better than Tomorrow.
  • It’s Bush’s fault.
  • I am sure Congress will come up with something to solve this problem. Perhaps they can pass another bill delaying the Sun’s decision to erupt for another few months while we watch and do nothing.
    • Time to dust off the “We Can’t Wait” campaign signs and air out the snappy t-shirts
    • They could increase taxes on all sunspots and that would grantee slower development and possibly the rest of the sun would become unemployed.
  • CNN will ask if this massive sunspot is due to global warming.
    • Evil capitalists are affecting the Sun’s climate .The UN should really do something about this .
    • It’s because we are driving too many SUV’s
    • No it’s not Ian. You know as well as I do that it is all the “cow farts” that are causing the problem.

I could provide a dozen other examples just from today’s other news; alas I don’t have the time it takes to properly format and post them here. But do yourself an intellectual favor and take some time today to see for yourself. See what people are saying about the things going on today, as unfiltered by the liberal-leftist reporters and meme-makers and left-wing talking-point purveyors and the Obama stenographer pool who are systemic in the liberals’ mainstream media division.


AMAZING COINCIDENCE – The next story I read this morning, this one at the excellent, was about a Democratic Party state senator, Ira Silverstein, who is pushing for a law banning those nasty commenters at online sites who post their comments without using their real names and all manner of addresses and identifying credentials. He want them exposed.

A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.

The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”


It’s one thing for web site owners to do this for their own reasons, mostly having to do with protection from slander and libel lawsuits against them, and for the security of their own web site properties, but it’s quite another thing for the government to travel down this road.

Continue Reading

Israel: Decades-old conflict not about to cease

Since 9/11, western powers have behaved more or less like Prince Hamlet, conflicted by doubts and stalemated by niceties that barely register with those who have mounted their version of “slings and arrows” against the West and its allies.

A dozen years following 9/11 should have erased any remaining doubt that Osama bin Laden spoke for many in the Arab-Muslim world who believe Islam is locked in a millennial conflict with the West, and victory will belong to the party that has the faith to take defeats and yet remain on the field of battle as the last man standing.

Bin Laden and his associates might well be described as the crudest expression of this deep-seated conviction of Islamist thinking and practice — that Islam is politics in action, not merely a religion, with the mission to establish its system of government based on the Shariah.

Waging war, engaging in diplomacy, signing treaties, and maintaining or breaking truce are merely means in the pursuit of the end that Islamist doctrine prescribes.

Hamlet’s dilemma was how to act commensurate with the knowledge of the crime given him by the ghost of the murdered king, his father.

The tragedy that unfolds in Shakespeare’s drama is a result of action delayed and ineptly executed by the Prince of Denmark.

The West cannot play Hamlet, while Islamists have mastered the art of exploiting the West’s niceties to their advantage.

It is instructive to note Islamists are most cautious in dealing with Russians and Chinese — that neither Moscow nor Beijing will hesitate in using disproportionate force when needed and will not be troubled by any doubt over actions taken against Islamist terrorism.

But what is worse than playing Hamlet is playing the role at the expense of another.

The West does this with Israel.

Sitting in the shadow of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem one evening when visiting Israel, it became strikingly clear to me, as it is to most Israelis, that the ground zero of the millennial conflict between Islam and the West is right where I sat.

Islamists have made it amply clear, and the vast majority of Muslims support them, that this millennial conflict will not cease until Israel is annihilated.

Those Muslims small in numbers who repudiate such obscenity are in turn repudiated, ostracized, or killed as apostates from Islam.

Israelis are left with no choice but to act with wisdom and courage in doing whatever is necessary for survival. Yet instead of resolutely supporting Israel, many in the West have parked their discredited anti-Semitism inside mosques to appease Islamists.

In an ancient temple located outside of India’s capital are found words inscribed on the wall, “Coincidences, if traced far back enough, become inevitable.”

The recurrent conflict between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, as was 9/11 and many similar, can be traced back sufficiently to see a pattern whose message brooks no doubting.

Continue Reading

Free speech distinguishes the West from the rest

In Crowds and Power, the late Elias Canetti, a wonderfully gifted writer and Nobel laureate, brought a unique perspective in examining the human condition and history under the stress of mobs in politics.

When individuals gathered together turn into a crowd and then erupt into a mob, the transition from one into another is the obliteration, even momentarily, of the individual as a thinking being reduced physically into a mindless atom constituent of a mass set in motion by the wish to demonstrate power.

The crowd as mob, wrote Canetti, “wants to experience for itself the strongest possible feeling of its own animal force and passion and, as means to this end, it will use whatever social pretexts and demands offer themselves.”

The politics of the Arab-Muslim world of late — or at least since the 1979 revolution in Iran that brought clerics with a medieval mind-set to power — has been reduced to the pathology of the mob in politics.

This is not unique in history and, for instance, as it was with the pathology of mob politics during the “reign of terror” in France or the Maoist “cultural revolution” in China, the situation in the Arab-Muslim world may likely pass at some point in the future.

In the meantime, however, it should be clearly understood that there is no reasoning with mobs, and any sign of weakness in terms of appeasing mobs by acknowledging or giving in to their demands amounts to stoking their wild frenzy.

Those religious and political leaders at the head of Muslim mobs, or riding them for their own demagogic ends, sense that they are pretty close to intimidating the West into surrendering on the subject of free speech, and accepting that mocking what is sacred to Muslims — their religion, their prophet and their sacred book — must be deemed offensive and banned.

Free speech is the pulse of a free society, the antidote to the pathology of politics driven by mobs. And, moreover, free speech as the hallmark of individual freedom distinguishes the West from the Rest and, in particular, the Arab-Muslim world.

Yet once again free speech is threatened not as much by the pathology of mob politics, but by the weakness of those in the West who mistakenly believe Muslims might have a point and their demand should be met in some fashion.

This is what President Obama said at the UN this week in responding to the mob frenzy in the Arab-Muslim world: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

When one finishes parsing the sentence, one is left thinking the president of the United States agrees with Muslim mobs, and denouncing those who cause offence by ridiculing what others hold sacred can only mean admitting free speech should be abridged.

On the contrary, what needs to be said to the Arab-Muslim world, irrespective of how mobs there engage in rampaging their own societies, is that the West as a civilization is also defined by something sacred.

This something sacred and universal in appeal is individual freedom, manifest in the principle of free speech in whose defence people have made the ultimate sacrifice and, hence, this principle is non-negotiable.


Continue Reading

Religions not the same

This is a tale of two religions.

On the one hand, Christianity: Regularly abused and slandered both in the western world and the Islamic heartland.

On the other, Islam: Protected by blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority states, and by a blanket of fear, political correctness and the racism of lowered expectations in the west.

Recently, of course, one of those incredibly rare events occurred, and a film offensive to followers of Mohammed appeared on YouTube. We know the result. Yet beyond the murder and mayhem in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, matters are less violent but equally worrying here in Canada.

I attended an anti-blasphemy rally in Toronto last weekend, and spoke to dozens of the perhaps 2,000 people who were there. They called for laws protecting Islam from offence, wanted to arrest people who insulted Muslims, screamed for the death penalty for the man who made the film. I was barged, threatened, abused and told I was a “Zionist liar” and an “evil man.”

Omar Khadr’s brother was there, proclaiming how proud he was of his sibling, and there were endless cries of Islamic triumphalism, anti-Semitism, and calls for violence.

Oddly enough, little of this was reported in the mainstream media, when there is ample evidence on film of what happened. But, as we’ve been told repeatedly for so long, all religions are the same and it’s fundamentalism that’s the problem.

Thing is, I’ve never been threatened with death by a Christian fundamentalist, never seen hundreds of people slaughtered by them, never really met more than a handful in my entire life.

So, back to the tale of two religions. The Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York opened its exhibition of “Piss Christ” this week, depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. The creator of this trash, Andres Serrano, says it’s “meant to question the whole notion of what is acceptable and unacceptable.”

Oh please! You know this is acceptable, because it’s accepted. You’ll win even more awards, gets lots of applause for being so brave towards those nasty Christians, and that’ll be the end of it.

Just as happened when we had displays of the Virgin Mary covered in dung, and the Pope also in urine — quite a bodily waste fetish among these twits.

The point is not so much the bad, sad, pathetic art, but the reaction to it from those it directly offends.

The film about Mohammed is appallingly made, but does contain some truth about the man’s life.

The Christ in urine display is also appallingly bad, and says nothing of interest or authenticity about the life of Christ.

The Muslim response to the former is violence and demands for blasphemy laws, the Christian response to the latter a press release and indifference.

So, are all religions the same?

Only to the extent that all political ideas are the same, and all people the same. Fascism is not democracy, a saint not a mass murderer. They are as different as are religions. Frankly, we all know this, it’s just that some are too terrified to say it in public.

Hey, if the fanatics have their way, you won’t be allowed to anyway.

Continue Reading

PM shows leadership in cutting Iran ties

Canadians of a certain age remember well the exchange between Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and reporters in Ottawa on Oct. 13, 1970, over troop deployment during the crisis then unfolding in Quebec.

Trudeau responded to questions regarding soldiers on Canadian streets saying, “Yes, well, there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns.”

I was reminded of this encounter between Trudeau and journalists Tim Ralfe from the CBC and Peter Reilly of CJOH-TV, when a similar cackle of noise from lots of bleeding hearts in the country rose in unison in opposition to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government’s decision to suspend diplomatic ties with Iran.

The announcement by Foreign Minister John Baird to recall Canadian diplomats from Tehran and expel Iranian officials in Ottawa, in retrospect, could not have been more timely given the spike in orchestrated Islamist violence across the Middle East and North Africa during the past week and a half.

The decision itself, as Baird explained, reflected the carefully drawn assessment of the untenable relationship with the Iranian regime bent upon a destructive and lawless course of behaviour in the region and internationally over many years, going all the way back to its revolutionary seizure of power in 1979.

The Iranian regime founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and his radical Shiite Muslim followers is boastful about exporting the Islamic revolution, and its intent to destroy Israel.

It makes no attempt to hide or deny its role as the fountainhead of Islamist terrorism, as the principal backer of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asaad, and its refusal to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions relating to its nuclear policy.

Iran is a rogue regime both by choice and as a deliberate policy set forth by Khomeini. It is committed in opposing the United States, as the “Great Satan,” and its allies, including Canada, for the values of freedom and democracy they represent, and to weaken and diminish their presence in the Middle East.

But, most importantly, Harper came to recognize with a stunning clarity that is just about unique among leaders in the West of how utterly depraved and hell-bent on rogue behaviour is the Iranian regime of Khomeini’s followers, and that Tehran needs to be isolated by self-respecting western democracies and their allies.

The recall of Canadian diplomats from harm’s way in Tehran is only the first essential step of many needed to bring at least the Western powers, including Japan, to effectively squeeze the regime economically to such an extent that Iranians may succeed in bringing a regime change of their own that they were unable to do in 2009.

The support among Canadians for Harper’s decision is wide and deep.

The opinion survey by Angus Reid shows a whopping 72% in agreement with the government, and over 80% of Canadians have an unfavourable view of Iran.

It might well be said Canadians have a keen understanding of the problems and threats emanating from the Arab-Muslim world, and with such support our PM can provide leadership at a time when it is sorely missing in Washington.


Continue Reading

A night with the fanatics

On Tuesday evening, I covered a 9/11 vigil in Toronto, and a counter-protest across the street organized by Islamic and leftist groups calling for the return of Omar Khadr.

We didn’t know that as this was taking place, Muslim fascists in Libya and Egypt were murdering people who had in some way offended them. One of the dead was the U.S. ambassador to Libya, representing a nation that had given so much to free the Libyan people from tyranny.

The ostensible reason for the slaughter was outrage over a fringe movie depicting the prophet Mohammed in a negative light.

So what? We are supposed to be free to speak our minds. The issue here is not the movie but the Islamic reaction to the movie.

Remember, the same week this tiny film was made public, the internationally celebrated Venice Film Festival gave an award to a movie showing a naked woman masturbating with a crucifix.

The Christian response was an e-mail.

I doubt any of this would have moved the crazies protesting Tuesday. They described their demonstration as a hate-free zone, but told me and the other Sun News team to “f— off” as soon as we arrived. Not one of the many protesters could tell me the name of the medic who was killed by Omar Khadr, and some of them said it didn’t matter. They were also indifferent to the stories I told them of Christians, gays, women and moderate Muslims being slaughtered by militant Islamists.

What was noticeable was how many non-Muslim, white student types were there, including one with a megaphone with OCAP — Ontario Coalition Against Poverty — written on it, as an ownership marker. In that most of the crowd seemed to have the latest iPhones and iPads, I’m not sure where the poverty was.

As always, these extremist groups wheel out their token Jew or two, like the old South African apartheid regime always had a black traitor who would praise the system. One of the Jewish ladies at this event explained how all of Israel was occupied territory.

The crowd screamed “fascist” and “hoodlum” at the peaceful crowd of mainly Jewish, Hindu and Chinese people across the road, and then ostentatiously sat down when the Canadian national anthem was played.

Suddenly Omar’s sister Zaynab Khadr was spotted and internal e-mails revealed she would be kindly providing refreshments — no joke.

The lovely Zaynab once said of Americans killed on 9/11, “They deserve it.

“They’ve been doing it for such a long time, why shouldn’t they feel it once in a while?”

We asked her politely for a comment, and the zoo erupted.

We were pushed and threatened, and a group of people surrounded us screaming “racist, racist” and tried to prevent us from moving. One of them grabbed my arm and microphone, but his grip was as tenuous as his grasp of logic.

So, a night with the fanatics. Thank God they do not have the guns and bombs possessed by their friends in the Middle East.

But be aware, they live among us, and their hatred and anger knows few bounds.

Continue Reading

Islamist jihad against West rages

As Americans stopped to mark the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and ponder how much the world has changed during these years, an ocean away more terrorist attacks were mounted on American interests in the Middle East.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, with three members of his staff and several Libyans, was an act of war by men indoctrinated with the same ideology of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden is dead and so is Ayatollah Khomeini, but the war they declared against the “satanic” West continues. The West, on the other hand, has opted to be an ostrich.

The result is more than a decade after hijacked jetliners plowed into tall buildings in New York, Islamists are ascendant across the Middle East and hoisting their Shariah-based totalitarian ideology. The U.S. under the Obama administration stands instead as having reverted back to the pre-9/11 mentality.

The American election is barely seven weeks away and the Islamist jihad against the “Crusaders,” in the language of al-Qaida’s founder, will very likely get obscured in the fog of political debates and recriminations in the U.S.

But there is no mistaking that an apologetic West, as represented by President Obama, emboldened the Islamists, resulting in the manner in which the so-called Arab Spring unfolded.

The abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt accompanied by the embrace of Muslim Brotherhood is turning out to be a repeat of Iran in 1979 when Khomeini swept into power.

It is extraordinary that an apologetic America, as President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo symbolized, and Europe with its appeasement mind-set cannot get their act together in compelling a third world rogue state, Iran, to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability or face dire military consequences. This failure to disarm Iran while embracing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the political grandfather of all the various Islamist offsprings in the greater Middle East and beyond — makes the present situation eerily similar to the 1930s.

What needs to be done, and should have been done by the previous Bush administration, is to take a page from George Kennan — the architect of President Truman’s policy against the Soviet Union — and update his strategy of containment for the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab-Muslim world deserves to be isolated and contained, as was the former Soviet Union. An Iron Curtain, in Winston Churchill’s memorable words, should descend separating the West and its allies from the Arab-Muslim world until the latter has exhausted itself of its own demons.

The situation America, and by its default the West, finds itself in relation to the Arab-Muslim world is to a large extent, ironically, the result of its own guilt-ridden attitude and political correctness. This state of mind, or multiculturalism, gravely inhibits a realistic assessment of 9/11 and what has followed.

The explanation on offer that this new wave of Muslim rage was ignited by a crudely amateurish docu-drama about Islam’s prophet, and the individual responsible must be severely punished, is pathetic in describing a guilt-ridden West seeking to placate the Arab-Muslim world.

Islamists are at war, and the West needs to respond accordingly.


Continue Reading

Arab Spring now a Christian nightmare

In the 1990s, western democracies stepped forward to stop ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia by dispatching NATO forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia precipitated ethnic strife, and like all such struggles anywhere in the world, the Balkan conflict was complex and layered with history of grievances, identity politics, and religious bigotry. If one reaches back to the early years of the last century, this region was a cauldron of ethno-nationalism that ignited the First World War.

Some 16 years later, the so-called Arab Spring mirrors the conflict that ripped through the Balkans.

The rotten structures of Arab states were primed to crash once the people set aside their fear of despots. But not unlike the Balkans, the death knell of Arab dictatorships has been accompanied by predictable conflicts among people divided by religion, sect and ethnicity.

There is one stark difference, however, between the Balkans and the situation in the Arab-Muslim world. In the Balkans, the minority most seriously hurt by the conflict were Bosnian Muslims.

It was in part to protect Bosnian Muslims that the West intervened with force and, eventually overseen by President Clinton’s administration, the parties agreed to abide by the Dayton Agreement of November 1995 reached in Dayton, Ohio and formally signed in Paris a few weeks later.

In the Arab-Muslim world, the so–called Arab Spring has hurt most seriously the dwindling Christian minorities of the Middle East. While Arab despots in the name of secularism paradoxically provided some protection to Christians, the situation has worsened with Islamists taking power.

William Dalrymple, the well-respected historian and author of From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium (1998), recently wrote, “Wherever you go in the Middle East today, you see the Arab Spring rapidly turning into the Christian winter … The past few years have been catastrophic for the region’s beleaguered 14 million strong Christian minority.”

The decline, probably disappearance, of Christians from the Middle East is an ominous sign of a tragic future for the region.

And such an eventuality has precedence.

Jews of the Arab-Muslim world from the pre-Christian era, with their rich heritage and long historical presence in ancient cities across the region — Alexandria, Algiers, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Constantine, Damascus, Fez, Oran, Sana’a, Tripoli, Tunis and more — were compelled to leave lands conquered by Arabs in the name of Islam following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

There have been numerous anti-Coptic riots with attacks on Christian churches in Egypt. From Gaza reports have come of forced conversions among Christians reduced to a miniscule presence.

Iraqi Christians fled in large numbers following post-Saddam sectarian strife, and they found refuge in Syria.

This safe-haven for Iraqi Christians is in jeopardy as the sectarian conflict in Syria has intensified, and Syrian Christians are endangered.

While Christians flee from their ancient homes in the Arab-Muslim world, the West’s failure to respond effectively, unlike its response in the Balkans, is more than an immense moral failure.

It is another sign of the West scandalously appeasing Islamist totalitarianism that might well be as catastrophic as when Europe’s major democracies appeased Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s.

Continue Reading

Britain paid the price for world freedom

On the final Saturday evening of the London Olympics, NBC presented Tom Brokaw’s tribute to Britain, “Their Finest Hour.” This no doubt irritated many viewers, as they scrambled for alternative channels to watch their favourite events.

But NBC made the right decision to bring viewers, with faded or little memory of the past, some history of our tormented world in which the Olympics is hosted.

The previous occasion when London played host to the Summer Olympics was in 1948, and stench from the war that ended in 1945 was still in the air across Britain and the rest of Europe. Twelve years earlier, Hitler’s Berlin held the Summer Games, and then the next two were cancelled due to the war he unleashed upon the world.

Brokaw’s tribute was also a timely reminder of how precarious the world has become since 9/11, and the rise of the Arab-Muslim version of fascist or totalitarian politics — the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist offshoots — has been in many ways similar to what occurred in Europe between the two world wars.

When Hitler’s army invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Britain finally declared war on Germany, its policy of appeasement under prime ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain in ruin.

Britain stood alone with her dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and overseas empire (India) in defence of freedom for the next 21 months until Hitler broke his pact with Stalin.

During this period across the Eurasian landmass — from the shores of the Pacific to the Atlantic — totalitarian powers ruled aggressively, and only Britain as a beleaguered island stood in their way while at a distance an isolationist America watched.

Britain could have negotiated a truce with Nazi Germany and avoided the horrors of the Luftwaffe bombings that began in the summer of 1940.

A beaten France surrendered under the leadership of Marshal Philippe Petain, a revered national hero from the First World War, at the head of the collaborationist Vichy government.

But prime minister Winston Churchill had defied his party during the years of appeasement and warned people about Hitler’s racist-expansionist ideology. Churchill knew what was at stake, and though Britain was threatened by Hitler with an invasion in the summer of 1940, he was unwilling to go down in history as Petain did — in ignominy.

In 1984, Brokaw covered the 40th anniversary commemoration of the Allied landing in Normandy, France. He later wrote in his bestseller, The Greatest Generation (1998), “What I was not prepared for was how this experience would affect me emotionally.”

“Their Finest Hour” was, a grateful Brokaw narrates, when Britain stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany. If not for Britain the story of Europe, and the rest of the world, would have turned out differently.

The NBC decision to break from Olympics revelry and let Brokaw remind viewers of what has gone before was a small demonstration of some courage. This is because people in the West have been lulled into the false belief that the freedom, democracy and peace they enjoy can be everlasting and maintained without any cost.

Such falsehood enables gutless politicians in the West, willfully unmindful of history, to repeat the folly of appeasing enemies of freedom.


Continue Reading

It's a question.