Topmost (in use)

Author Archive | Joel Johannesen

Media botches another phony anti-Trump headline

I could do this all day long. This and only this. And I still wouldn’t have time to do them all. But here’s the latest today:

Drudge corrects the record — actually corrected it a long time ago. Globe & Mail doesn’t care. They leave their headline in place.

@ericContrarian put it succinctly:

As did Sean Davis:

But the liberal media doesn’t just get headlines wrong (purposely or not — who knows?), they inject their opinion — their political opinion — into headlines. Look at this “bizarre” CTV “News” headline which is an opinion posing as serious straight news:

“Bizarre” is not a fact. It is an opinion. For example, I think it’s bizarre how biased the media is. (Don’t get confused by that statement: “bizarre” is an opinion. That they’re biased is actually a fact.) And besides, the whole premise of the article is to attempt to mock Donald Trump — a terrible and terribly biased journalistic tactic — at best.

That story was written by a reporter whose bio says that he is a graduate of Ryerson University’s journalism undergraduate program. I did not go to journalism school.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Perceived as giving a damn. Canada’s unofficial motto.

Great line in Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt newsletter today (my bolding):

…As a country, we’re not always quick to respond to far-off bloody massacres like the gassing of the Kurds or the Balkans or Rwanda, but we do denounce them. (Whether or not we actually give a damn, we give a damn about whether we’re perceived as giving a damn.) …

He’s talking about the U.S., and nationalist sentiment there now. But it looks like a fit for Canada – times ten.

Some Canadians (civilians, anyway) are all about talking the talk and looking good or sounding cool and hip, caring, concerned, and generous, about the plight of others around the world. Especially now in the Trump era. So, not being “some Canadians,” I was struck by some recent polls.

IPSOS – Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Toronto, ON – Canadians are evenly split on whether the impact of immigration on Canada has been positive or negative, according to a new Ipsos survey for Global News. One in three (36%) Canadians say the impact of immigration on Canada has been generally positive (9% ‘very’/26% ‘fairly’) – in line with perceptions from 2015 (down 1 point), balanced equally by the one in three (36%) who say it’s been generally negative (14% ‘very’/22% ‘fairly’) – although this is up 4 points since last year. A further one in four (26%) say the impact is neither positive or negative, while 2% just don’t know.

And I found these passages to be eye-opening:

Moreover, half (51%) of Canadians believe (221% very much/30% somewhat) that ‘there are terrorists pretending to be refugees who will enter the country to cause violence and destruction.’ …

… Six in ten Baby Boomers (61%) and more than half of Gen X’ers (56%) believe that there are terrorists pretending to be refugees coming to Canada, while Millennials (36%) are significantly less likely to share this belief.

Just (up to) six in ten believe something which is factually and demonstrably true — something which has actually happened in Europe and the U.S.? (And this is after the fact, but look at this week’s arrest of a Syrian refugee in Edmonton, Alberta.) At least we can still say that as people get older, they get wiser.

Here’s an earlier poll from the same pollster:

IPSOS – Sunday, July 01, 2012

Toronto, ON – Three-quarters (72%) of Canadians ‘disagree’ (34% strongly/38% somewhat) that ‘Canada should let in more immigrants than it currently does’, according to the fourth instalment in a special series on Canada conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of Postmedia News and Global Television.

A study released just this week smacks smug Canadians in their sneering-at-Trump faces. It opens appropriately:

OTTAWA — Canadians may not be as tolerant of refugees and immigrants as they might think, a new study concludes.

“As they might think” can be replaced with “as they would like to be perceived.”

And it gets clearer the more you read, or read into it. Try to get your head around the double negatives as you read on:

…And yet, as Donnelly writes in the study, “Whatever is driving Canada’s exceptionally positive history of immigration and integration over the last half century, it does not appear to be an exceptionally tolerant public.” … [The word “tolerant” here is rather tendentious, if you ask me.]

… For example, the survey found what Donnelly described as “surprisingly weak” opposition to the idea of stopping all immigration to Canada.

While about 45 per cent of those surveyed would oppose any policy that would end all immigration, just under 20 per cent would support such a policy while nearly 35 per cent said they would neither oppose nor support such a policy [I’ll spell it out since they didn’t: a total of 55% of Canadians would either support or not oppose ending all immigration].

“These results suggest that a serious anti-immigrant movement is not impossible,” Donnelly wrote. …

It does more than “suggest” it. It spells it out — or at least I did. And, just as in the American liberal media, “anti-immigrant” is painfully tendentious. Being careful and being wary of the security of Canadian families and our values is not “anti-immigrant” — a term which is really just a leftist dog-whistle for the word “racist.” Canadians aren’t racist or stupid, Mr. Donnelly. They just care about the security of their families, and about Canadian values. So let’s use “wary” — the definition of which is the appropriately Canadian, “on guard”; or use the word “responsible,” rather than “anti-immigrant.”

And while we’re on it, lest you smug Canadians think you’re (what you’d call) “above” Kellie Leitch’s (or Donald Trump’s) sentiments toward immigrants’ integration with our Canadian values:

Just over half of those surveyed agreed with the statement “too many immigrants don’t seem to feel connected to Canadian society,” while better than two of three Canadians believe immigrants should change their behaviour to be more like Canadians once they arrive here.

“Over half.” And “two of three.” That’s what you anti-Trumpers call “winning the popular vote.” Not clear? Let’s review, via the left’s own Toronto Star division:

Sat., Sept. 10, 2016

OTTAWA—Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending support to an idea that is stirring controversy in political circles. …

And there are a lot more polls and facts and truth to see too, if you look. But the point becomes obvious: while Canadians — particularly progressives (liberals, socialists, communists, greenies, Gaia worshippers, CBC, the rest of the media, and the sundry other leftists) —  talk a pretty talk (or what sounds like pretty talk to them) about welcoming immigrants — especially refugees — from any damned place, especially in the wake of President Trump’s hard line on vetting immigrants and refugees, smug Canadians don’t really feel or actually think the way they would like to come off sounding or looking.

Whether or not we actually give a damn, we give a damn about whether we’re perceived as giving a damn. And by “we” I mean most of y’all but not me.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Trudeau Liberals bail out private Quebec corporation in crass political move

What a disgrace.

The progressive Justin Trudeau and liberal-left cabal he leads is going to prop up a corporation to the tune of 373 MILLION taxpayer dollars. A private corporation.

Ottawa helps shore up Bombardier with $372.5-million cash infusion” — Globe & Mail

Canadians should understand this for what it is. Governments with this sort of political ideology don’t have to own, outright, the means of production or individual corporations — they merely need to regulate them to the hilt, control them through bailouts and financing and sundry other cronyism, cause them to become completely reliant upon the government, and generally force them to suck up to government for their very survival. When government thus controls corporations, they don’t have to be the controlling shareholder. They nonetheless own them. Full control is ownership by another name. And this isn’t called capitalism. This isn’t free markets. This is socialism.

Soon there will be few corporations and few individual Canadians that aren’t partly or completely reliant upon the government. It is a very dangerous trajectory, and a bad ideology, as history proves.

And it’s not just a left-wing agenda at work — it’s political pandering at its worst. You’ll only read this here since the Globe & Mail reserved space for only about 13 words for any Conservative reaction to this calamity, but Conservative Party leadership candidate Maxime Bernier says it like it is in his newsletter: “The Liberals are giving Bombardier $372 MILLION. And why are they giving Bombardier a massive bailout? To win votes in Quebec!”

That pandering is actually the least offensive part of it, as egregious as it is.

Bernier goes on:

…The massive Bombardier bailout is against the FREE market. It’s unfair for other businesses. It’s disrespectful to taxpayers. It’s irresponsible government.

In other words, it’s everything I oppose.

This type of pandering is the worst kind — it’s not just stupid, it’s wasting millions of dollars. … And as Prime Minister, I will end ALL corporate welfare.

For her part, interim leader Rona Ambrose chimed in with this, in her newsletter:

…We can all agree Bombardier is a world class leader in its field.

In fact, business is booming. Orders for the company have picked up significantly in recent months.

That’s what makes this decision so puzzling. Why bail them out when Bombardier already said last year that they don’t even need the money?

“We have secured all the funding required to ramp up the CSeries program and also for the rest of aerospace. Really, the federal funding would just be … an extra bonus that would be helpful but is very clearly not required.” –Rob Dewar, vice-president of Bombardier

As the voice of taxpayers, we have serious concerns about this handout. Bombardier still has outstanding government loans which have yet to be fully repaid! …

… Justin Trudeau is handing a giant corporation another $327 million of your money with one hand, and then forcing you to pay for it via a massive new carbon tax with the other hand.

He is making life easier for multi-billion dollar corporations, while making life harder for ordinary taxpayers.

This sets a horrible example for other Canadian corporations to follow, and for Canadians generally. And it bodes very poorly for how Canada’s business and economic climate is viewed both here and around the world, especially insofar as trade. The world — and America in particular under the new Trump administration — will have a very dim view of this sort of government interference in the free market, and this sort of government/corporate cronyism and unfair trade practice.

This is horrible for Canada. Another major blunder from the Justin Trudeau Liberals.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags:

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Media reporting: easy to spot the abject dishonesty with comparisons

There’s honest reporting and there’s dishonest reporting. Today, once again, the dishonesty is obvious to anyone who actually knows the facts, like me. This is all American media, because Canadian front pages didn’t touch it.

Here’s honest reporting from the Wall Street Journal on the appeal before the (very liberal) 9th Circuit Court regarding the Trump administration’s temporary immigration restrictions from seven countries, in which the judges grilled the lawyers from both sides:

And here’s dishonest reporting from the liberals’ New York Times division, in which they report that “JUDGES QUESTION GOVERNMENT CASE FOR TRAVEL BAN” — as in just the government’s case, not the opposition. They are trying to imply that the lawyer arguing against the Trump action was not questioned, which is a total lie, as his case was in fact challenged by the judges aggressively.

The dishonest USA Today went the same way: totally dishonest, in what I think is an obvious and ongoing effort by the likes of these newspapers to drive an anti-Trump agenda. The judges didn’t just “slam” the defence (The Trump administration), they slammed the opponents — the plaintiffs — too. I listened to the entire thing, so I know this is a lie:

The Washington Post took a middle ground, surprisingly, since they rarely do anything but unfairly attack President Trump. The sub-headline reads “Appellate judges interrogate both sides on Trump travel order”. So that pits them against USA Today and the New York Times which said something really completely different.

I think in Seattle or at least Washington state, where this court challenge started, the big newspaper there also took a fairer approach, perhaps knowing that their readers, being mostly local, are likely well attuned to the actual truth, and mindful of the taxpayer cash being thrown out the window to pursue their government’s anti-Trump political goals. So they had to go with honest:

I guess if there’s a plus to all of this, it’s that there obviously isn’t overt coordination or a conspiracy between the various media outlets, as they are clearly telling quite different — almost opposite — stories. At least two of them are telling a lie as I see it.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

CBC “News” does a downward doggy for their Trump-hating fan base

I’m smellin’ a Pulitzer!

I guess this is why taxpayers fund the state-owned CBC to the tune of in excess of $1.5 BILLION per year.  It’s stories like this. So proud. So proud. And so informed!

But in defence of actual journalism, let’s be like their Justin Trudeau and try to figure out the “root causes” of this — this example of state media news or journalism malpractice.

Did the state-owned media launch an exercise in investigative journalism trying to find examples of anti-Trump hatred? Surely not. That wouldn’t be fair and balanced, which the CBC claims it is.

OK so let’s say that the Yoga studio sent their ever-so newsy information to the state-owned media, or a local resident or a customer sent it in hoping (or knowing) that CBC would run with it to help advance their anti-Trump political agenda. If so, is the state-owned CBC now seen by some on the left as just another one of those left-wing anti-Trump blogs like Huffington Post, rather than a supposedly serious and fair and balanced and extremely subsidized state-owned news organization which would never go with such biased nonsense? Seems so. So that’s weird. How’d the CBC get that reputation amongst lefties?

Either way, the CBC decided to run with this “news” story.

The lengthy CBC “news” story about this on their state-owned website strains to explain that it’s really just about avoiding “stress” in the yoga studio with all the political talk as a result of President Trump’s fast-paced action, with several direct quotes from the yoga studio boss to that effect. The photo of the studio’s “trump-free zone” notice does depict the unambiguous political position of the owners however. Amidst their quest for calm and political (or at least Trump) silence, they point out that they support Planned Parenthood and other lefty organizations. So they are unambiguously left-wing, as if I had to tell you. Or as if they had to tell you. They didn’t have to tell anyone that. They wanted to. So they did. Now the rest of y’all, shut it — if I understand correctly.

But this is not so much about the yoga studio owners, who I’m sure are very nice people who simply want to create a nice environment for their yoga classes. It is about state-owned CBC “News” deciding to post this as a news story. It seems tendentious to say the very least.

I wonder how they’d depict a pro-Trump shop or business office if they were ever advised of one.  Because I am pretty sure they wouldn’t treat it with quite so much deference as they did the yoga studio owners in this story. I think they’d be treated as heretics and zealots and nutbars. But I don’t think we’ll ever know how they’d write up a news story about a pro-Trump business.

So the “root cause” is that the state-owned CBC implores you to see the world as they do: anti-Trump. That’s a media with a left-wing agenda. And you can’t trust a media with an agenda. In this case you have to pay for it, but still, you can’t trust it.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Global News fails to find support for Trump. Here’s some.

I don’t need to tell Global News how to do their job… no wait that’s hilarious. Of course I do. Somebody does.

I think we “get” what their opinion is. here’s mine; when you get a so-called objective, straight-up news organization tweeting out these five anti-Trump tweets in a row, within just 19 minutes, it starts to look like, well, what it is: a left-wing news media pushing an agenda.

Here’s their last five tweets as of this writing. See more of my editorial and actual polling facts and news (!) following this hideous @Globalnews.ca timeline snippet:

Could they find no news of people supporting Trump’s actions? Because polling indicates that he’s getting some support. Here’s the actual news: more Americans support his action than not.

Global News even tweeted the story out, even though in their tweet they purposely hid the pertinent facts from you, which, according to a Reuters/ipsos poll, is that 49 per cent of American adults said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with Mr Trump’s order, while 41 per cent “strongly” or “somewhat” disagreed and another 10 per cent said they don’t know.

That’s an amazing result given the horribly skewed and blatantly biased anti-Trump news reporting out there by the liberal-left media.

In another ipsos poll, this answer to the statement “The United States should limit the number of refugees allowed into the country” : 66% in total agree, 26% in total disagree.

In a Quinnipiac University poll: almost half of American voters support Trump’s immigration order. The poll showed American voters support 48 – 42 percent “suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions.”

So is Global News reflecting the reality in America today in their reporting or their reporting via Twitter? Of course not. They are, as I said, pushing an agenda. And you can’t trust a media that is pushing an agenda.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

POLL: Most Canadians agree with screening immigrants for “anti-Canadian” values.

That third item.

I don’t even remotely understand the concept of being “OK” with immigrants coming into Canada with anti-Canadian values. From from the pattern demonstrated in the poll, that’s a purely left-wing “value.”


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags:

Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Globe & Mail report says terror suspect “liked” Trump; but didn’t add that he also “liked” the NDP.

I’m not going to be one of those idiots who rush in and make stupid conclusions about catastrophic events before knowing far more. Early reports are almost always almost completely wrong, and so one of my favorite hobbies is laughing out loud at the idiotic media reports as they blurt out crap in haste, then have to retract later. Like the state-owned CBC had to do earlier today (do go ahead and laugh):

So what I will do instead is report on the media’s reporting on this latest thing.

As I’ve come to expect, the liberal media reporting on the shooting in the Quebec mosque over the weekend seems anxious to label it as “yet another” case of “Islamophobia.” It may well be in this case, but it’s problematic that I sense a yearning among the media reporters and editors to be able to cast it that way.

The media world works at a snail’s pace when considering the degree to which a terrorist attack is motivated by islamist terrorists, as they almost always are, or even calling it that when that conclusion is obvious. And if it obviously is, they then strain to understand its “root causes,” and try to rationalize it a thousand different ways, and mostly, they never come to a final explanation as to why it happened, even though the explanation is in fact Islamist terrorism (but don’t worry, it might be America’s fault, somehow). Even their guy Barack Obama would resort to such milquetoast terms such as “workplace violence” when (wrongly) describing what we all know was yet another case of Islamist extremism.

But in this latest case — in Canada — they can’t invoke “Trump” often enough. They draw a direct line to “Trump.” Immediately. It’s actually amazing.

The liberals’ Globe and Mail division was quick to characterize the suspect, Alexandre Bissonnette, as a right-wing Trump supporter, as if to provide that as the chief motive for the suspect’s alleged actions. That theme dominated their coverage. “Trump” is mentioned  eight times in this one story — despite their own reporting in which they explain: “…French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen visited Quebec City and inspired Mr. Bissonnette to vocal extreme online activism… “.

But check out these two different media reports — the first one from the Globe and Mail:

Globe and Mail:

The suspect in the deadly attack on a Quebec City mosque was known in the city’s activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump.

[…]

Before it was removed, Mr. Bissonnette’s Facebook page revealed normal preoccupations of young adulthood. While he “liked” the page of Ms. Le Pen and other right-wing politicians, he also liked Garfield and pop stars such as Katy Perry.

This is somewhat at odds with this other report from Heavy.com, inasmuch as it seems to include an omission of fact:

Heavy.com:

Bissonnette likes the Facebook pages of U.S. President Donald Trump and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, but he does not express support for them elsewhere on his page. Other likes include the Israel Defense Forces, United With Israel and Parti Québécois of Université Laval.

He also likes U.S. Senator John McCain, a moderate Republican who has opposed Trump on some issues, President George W. Bush, the Canadian New Democratic Party and late Canadian politician Jack Layton, who was a leader of the left-wing NDP, so the likes do not shed much light on Bissonnette’s beliefs.

Well that’s weird. Maybe Heavy.com got their facts wrong. But given the facts in question, that seems unlikely. Their report seems to indicate first-hand viewing of the Facebook page prior to it being removed, and indicated Bissonnette “liked” the NDP and Jack Layton — whom practically nobody in the U.S. have ever heard of.

As long as they’re talking about the suspect’s politics, the Globe & Mail should tell us the whole truth. Tell us the whole story instead of leaving facts out for very suspect reasons. I sincerely hope the Globe & Mail isn’t trying to hide pertinent facts in order to advance an agenda. But this sure looks bad.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): Quebec Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Proof that Canada’s news media is far-left

A “think” tank called Public Policy Forum, wherein the word “think” apparently means “socialism,” has pooped-out a large “public policy” turd, which will appeal to all progressives — liberals, socialists, communists, the Canadian news media alike: it is to give taxpayer money to the Canadian media “to deal with the financial crunch in the media industry and the ensuing perils to Canada’s democratic institutions.”

Huh. Sounds lofty. Also stupid.

By the way, they got federal funding to come up with this gem. Seriously.

Canada’s media industry needs major federal cash injection: report

A major report on the crisis in Canada’s media industry is recommending changes to Canada’s tax system and to the CBC’s revenue model to boost funding for private and non-profit news operations, in addition to calling for a $100-million federal investment in the creation of a new Journalism & Democracy Fund.

The Fund would also receive annual funding derived from tax changes to digital advertising, giving the new body annual funding of $300- to $400-million a year to distribute among Canadian media organizations.

But at least they recommend killing the left-wing state-owned and state-funded CBC, right? Ha. No, don’t be so silly. They do not suggest dismantling the state-owned and massively taxpayer-funded CBC, or stopping its taxpayer funding in order to quash the “financial crunch” which that behemoth has obviously caused the media advertising and subscriber market in Canada. It seems the thinkers in the tank (so to speak) didn’t even study that possibility for some reason. Apparently they take as a given that state-owned, taxpayer-funded media is a good thing, and the free market (or what’s left of it in Canada) should just essentially join them in being state-funded, if only to a lesser degree.

The Canadian news media generally seems to be for all this. If they weren’t, they be in high dudgeon and smearing it with at least 86 “news” stories and editorials, just as they do daily to relieve their hate-on for President Trump. They also join the thinkers in supporting the CBC, notwithstanding their own ruination caused in large part by the CBC. I see practically no editorial stand taken by the private Canadian media against the CBC as a general matter. Which is just weird, unless they really do appreciate socialism.

As if suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, none of the news media covering this story includes this bit of the thinky report, which I found on page 25 (after waking myself up several times):

Among traditional news and advertising vehicles, only radio, with its hyper-local orientation (crime news, traffic, weather, hometown sports) and no revenue competition from CBC, has managed to hold its revenue position. And then there’s the CBC itself, the main alternative to daily newspapers as a producer of civic-function news across the country. Despite the budget cuts it experienced (a hole plugged in Budget 2016 by the Liberal government), in relative terms, the CBC has fared well over the past decade. In the first six months of the current fiscal year, CBC’s revenue is up 14.5 percent over last year, including a $45-million (40 percent) leap in ad revenue.

As I was reading the Globe & Mail’s utterly uncritical story, which might well have been published in Soviet-era Pravda, I was listening to liberalvision CTV “News” Channel and the state-owned CBC News fiasco network in the background. Between them they presented me with at least 6 vehemently anti-Trump “news” stories — in a row.  Seriously. It went on for nearly an hour. Perhaps a “think” tank should have studied that phenomenon and its effect on the market, and profitability.

Maybe (and I know I’ve said this at least once before), the liberal-left Canadian media could switch it up a bit, and try a new thing — start an experiment where they try to tolerate conservatives and conservative thoughts and ideas, and don’t just mock conservatives and Republicans all day long, every day. Their taxpayer-funded 100-page “major” “report” doesn’t even suggest trying anything like that, notwithstanding the immense success Fox News Channel found in the U.S. in market share (they are number one by far), and their profits, and thus their sustainability.

Page one of my (free) report is this headline: Sell and Stop Funding the CBC. Enough said right there. So actually it would end at that headline on page one. Nobody would fall asleep, lose any more tax dollars, and Canadians would actually save huge amounts of tax dollars and get better media too.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Media: “Trump can’t win election!” (He won). “Can’t happen in Canada!” (Yes it can).

Gee liberals and media, thanks for all the free advice to Conservatives! But yeah, you can just keep it.

Whenever you see a liberal media article (columnist or reporter — they both do it) warn conservatives about their course of action, brace yourself — it’s bound to be lunacy. Or we have learned nothing.

Look at today’s Globe & Mail pedagoguery, “Note to Conservatives: There is no future in Donald Trump Lite,” without rolling your eyes and snickering. Can’t do it, can you?

Of course you can’t. The media — columnists and reporters — both in the U.S. and in Canada — really couldn’t have been more wrong about Trump and the sentiments prevailing in America, at least in the heartland. The media was, and still is, totally clueless about “flyover” USA, otherwise known as “most of America,” and “not California.” And virtually none of them took Donald Trump seriously; not the possibility of Donald Trump running, winning the Republican nomination, nor the election.

They were wrong about everything. Wrong about Hillary. Wrong about the people. Wrong about America. Yet the high esteem in which they hold themselves has diminished not one bit. They’re still dispensing advice.

I’m old enough to remember helping the Harper Conservatives start winning — from this perch — back in the first half of the 2000s by driving — hard — the conservative message, in “bold colors.” I was repeatedly lambasted as a Nazi and as part of a bunch of right-wing loons with no hope of driving Conservatives to victory. I was right. They were wrong.

Trump’s victory is deja vu.

The very liberal media (its columnists and reporters…) had no idea what the people wanted — not in 2006 in Canada, and not in 2016 in either country. And they know it. And yet they’re presuming to give advice, supposedly for the benefit of Conservatives. Here’s a little test of your sanity: do you trust them? After being so totally wrong about everything, and after ditching even the pretence of political balance?

Here’s an Ibbitson quote ostensible meant to steer Conservatives in the right direction by pointing out the difference between the American and Canadian electorate in terms of anger and trust:

“All in all, Canadian citizens trust the Canadian state.”

You’d be forgiven for thinking that was a statement pulled directly out of a Unicorn’s butt.

For the first time in Canada, a sitting prime minister — Liberal Justin Trudeau — is being investigated by ethics watchdogs for a serious conflict of interest and for breaking ethics guidelines — a serious breach of trust to say nothing of Trudeau putting a total lie to campaign promises of a new era of ethics and transparency. Some even suggest an RCMP probe is in order, not unlike the FBI investigations on Hillary Clinton and her illegal email server, and the ongoing FBI probes surrounding her alleged pay-to-play schemes and the Clinton Foundation. The similarity of the Justin Trudeau and Hillary Clinton scandals; and the American people’s lack of trust of Clinton helping cause her electoral loss, does not seem to faze Ibbitson.

Trust issues here in Canada are not limited to that growing conflict of interest scandal: it’s also the now massive and possibly out-of-control annual deficits versus those Trudeau campaign promises which we now know to be outright lies; Trudeau’s decision on pipelines, resulting in his losing the trust of the greenies; Trudeau’s abject failure to move on his promised electoral reform, which is another outright lie causing another trust deficit; the lack of any real aggressive involvement in helping end ISIS; his cabinet ineptitude; and more — and this after barely a year in office.

Trust?  I’m not feeling it.

On “anger,” Ibbitson also makes the exact same mistake the liberals all made down south: thinking only of the folks in the biggest cities and surrounding suburbs — ignoring “flyover” Canada just as they did the U.S., at their electoral peril:

There are doubtless some Canadians who are this angry. But you won’t find many of them in the suburban ridings of Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver, dominated by new Canadians. You won’t find many of them in Calgary and Edmonton. People are hurting there, but they know the downturn in oil and gas prices is to blame for the slump, not immigrants or low-wage factory workers overseas.

I don’t think folks anywhere blame immigrants — not for that. But they also don’t just blame the price of oil. I think they blame liberals and socialists for doubling the reasons for their anger and misery by increasing regulations and taxing carbon and killing a major pipeline and sending billions of our tax dollars to other countries to fight climate change, taking money from communist billionaires, vacationing with billionaire lobbyists, and taking asinine selfies all the time.

It’s not just Ibbitson — at the National Post a columnist lectures us in a remarkably similar manner: “Michael Den Tandt: Trump-style nativism is an electoral dead end for Canada’s Conservatives.

I tried to help:

Den Tandt wrote:

The Canadian Trumpist movement, led by the charisma-challenged Kellie Leitch, the oleaginous Steven Blaney and soon the trash-talking Kevin O’Leary, is unraveling Harper’s life’s work by the day. The electoral effects promise to be devastating.

He seems to have forgotten Stephen Harper and the Conservatives lost the last election. Badly. But anyway.

As if on cue, the King of Twitter, David Burge, picked up on a theme similar to mine, this morning, as the liberal media, who enjoy a whopping 9% approval rating — an almost complete mistrust and disapproval of the public — continue to lecture us about Trump — and continue to rail against him:

Trump supporters are “irredeemable” according to the failure Hillary Clinton. But the liberal media seem irreparable. Even after being totally wrong about these things, they — seemingly as a group — are still making out like they know best — and like they have conservatives’ best interests at heart.

So let’s get back to that question of “trust.” Here’s the scoop: they aren’t warning Conservatives against choosing “Trump” or “Trump light” because it won’t work, they fear that it is exactly what might work. That’s what I think. Trust me. I’ve actually been right.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Jail for man-buns, peeing in bushes, and assorted other crap for Friday, January 13, 2017

Since it’s Friday, here’s some assorted lighter stuff I found on the internet today:

1. Eureka. The only good use for man-buns has finally been found: jail.

Note that when we refer to “man-buns,” we use the term “man” very loosely.

2.  The liberals’ New York Times division continues the (seemingly coordinated amongst all the mainstream media) campaign against Donald Trump. A quick scan of their online page today gives you a clue:

… and on and on…

By the way, don’t you love how people who hate Trump (or any person in politics) derisively refer to him by his first name only? Way to go, “Paul.” You made your point, you hate President-elect Donald Trump. (Even more hateful and juvenile are those who contemptuously turn “Donald” into “Donny,” etc.)

3. Ready for a laugh? This. (Then they went on to discuss how and why Donald Trump is so awful.)

4. The greatest decision a government ever made:

Swiss town denies passport to Dutch vegan because she is ‘too annoying’

Nancy Holten, a Netherlands native who moved to Switzerland when she was 8 years old, has twice been denied a Swiss passport because locals don’t appreciate her animal rights campaigns, The Local reported.

… the residents didn’t want to grant the animal activist citizenship “if she annoys us and doesn’t respect our traditions.” …

And here we thought Europe was a lost cause.

5. We love Stacey Dash. And not just because she’s bright young conservative. Also because she’s conservative in Hollyweird, and proud of it. So you don’t see her being honored at the Golden Globes as much as the rest. Yeah. Ref sentence two and three. Also refer to your lectures from “liberals” about their great love of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

And given the above, the book she wrote is called “There Goes My Social Life: From Clueless to Conservative.” Conservatives get the joke. Liberals call her a bitch.

What caught our eye this morning was this headline: “EXCLUSIVE: Stacey Dash Says Transgender People Should Pee in Bushes, Claims Feminism Is Ruining Men

Watching the video of her saying that just about made me pee my pants. It’s replete with good quotes:

“Stop trying to be men. Let’s be women. And let’s let men be men.”

“I can look like I look and use all the tools in my toolbox, be a stay-at-home mother and a wife and be a feminist or be a CEO of a company and wear a dress and show my legs and whatever God gave me and be a feminist. I don’t have to dress like a man or try to beat a man or try and get a man’s job to be a feminist.”

You had us at “wear a dress and show my legs” and the yummy chaser, “whatever God gave me.”

In another article, headlined “Stacey Dash Regrets Voting For Obama ‘Because He Was Black’,” she says: “Obama had the opportunity to really unite this country in such a profound way, but instead he has done the opposite. We are so divided right now, everything has become about race, more than I’ve ever known in my lifetime.”  True.

In one of her own articles Dash chats about the recent Golden Globes and one starlet in particular, who preened down the red carpet adorned in a sexy dress with a classy button stuck on it which read “Fuck Paul Ryan.” Dash says, “In the name of feminism, she appeared with plenty of armpit hair to help accentuate her feelings toward Paul Ryan.” We saw it. It’s true. Aside from being a profane ass, the starlet (“An actress almost no one has heard of, Lola Kirke” — who is also totally unrecognizable to me) loaded up with armpit hair for the big occasion. In a previous Instagram post, that same feminist starlet, Lola Kirke, wore a tight white t-shirt emblazoned with: “pussy stronger than god.” (Caps are so uncool with the kool kid set).

6. Slightly related to #5: “Many children who are diagnosed as transgender may actually be autistic” and “Children who think they are transgender ‘could have autism’ and are ‘fixating’ on their sex, says expert.”  But good luck with all your social/sexual experiments on our kids, liberals.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Trudeau Liberals’ Press Secretary Caught in a Cheap Lie?

Calling it a “Cheap Lie” is a bit of a misnomer since this is all costing all of us tons of taxpayer cash. But anyway. The Libs seem to be taking their cues from CNN now.

Even the Liberals’ minister of finance, who can’t balance a budget, could count better than Justin Trudeau’s allegedly lying press secretary. You only have to look at the photo they attached (all of this at taxpayer expense).

The ever-present David Akin begs to differ…

And yet they’re stickin’ with what appears, from their own photo and Akin’s reporting, to be a lie. I anticipate no “fact-check” from the Libs’ CBC division (number one, because he’s a lib and they luv their boy). But on the plus side, CBC ignoring this alleged lie means fewer tax dollars will be blown reporting on it than what already has been blown on this BS boondoggle. Wait. Is not reporting on it actually a good thing? OK nevermind. You can’t really make sense of a thing when there’s so much left-wing perfidy involved.

I normally dub them as “liberalvision” because they are, but CTV had me chuckling a little this morning when they tweeted about it as a “taxpayer-funded” “outreach tour.”

I call it a taxpayer-funded Liberal Party PR and support-building charade, disguised as an altruistic outreach tour in order to con Canadians whom they apparently think are complete idiots, but at least they said “taxpayer-funded.”

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Meryl Streep Wins Annual Hollywood Leftist Politics Award Again

Yes the Snow Globes were on last night, and like most of the crap coming out of Hollywood, the results were totally self-serving, pedantic, banal and predictable. They hate Trump. And they think saying so is cutting edge and bold. Yeah.

“Powerful.” “Defiance.”

Or as @corrcomm said,

All the even more liberal/left and therefore sycophantic Canadian media thought the exact same as the liberal American media, which is also exactly as you’ve come to expect. So there’s literally nothing new here — let alone “newsworthy” (yet all the media are covering it like it were actually Tiananmen Square). To the Canadian media, Streep was not only front page news, she was “powerful” and “daring” and, as the Globe and Mail put it, she “raised the bar.”

What does a person have to do to lower the bar? I chimed in in amazement.

I’m so sure if, say, Sly Stallone or Vince Vaughn got up on stage and railed on and on about how good it was that America was finally over and done with Barack Obama, and listed some of his mistakes and failures, Hollywood and their sycophantic media would just charm all over them and how they’d “raised the bar.”


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Washington Post leads the pack in false/fake news — irony undetected by them

(From BoldColors.net)

Nobody is doing a better job of deciphering and explaining the latest round of false/fake, totally biased, and just plain bad journalism, than the left’s very own star reporter, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept.

I first read the facts behind the false news about the supposed Russian hacking over the Christmas holiday, when Wordfence (a security app for WordPress users like us) boss Mark Maunder completed a detailed review of the hack, and of the information provided by the FBI and DHS, as filtered by Obama spokesmen.

As soon as I read Maunder’s work I knew there was going to be a media shitstorm — the media would be lying to you again. And there was.

Obama’s spokesmen took the information for a spin — “literally, not just figuratively,” as Joe Biden would say. The obedient left-wing media, led by the Washington Post, thereby began telling what quickly devolved into a massive viral lie around the information the FBI/DHS released in December about hacking. Much of the media is still going with this lie. I’m looking at you, CNN, MSNBC, and pretty much all the rest.

This was easily predictable. Maunder had to issue another newsletter to clarify, including this FAQ point:

Does the report prove that Russia Hacked the 2016 US Election?

No it does not. What Wordfence revealed on Friday is that the PHP malware sample that the US government provided is:

  • An old version of malware. The sample was version 3.1.0 and the current version is 3.1.7 with 4.1.1 beta also available.
  • Freely available to anyone who wants it.
  • The authors claim they are Ukrainian, not Russian.
  • The malware is an administrative tool used by hackers to upload files, view files on a hacked website, download database contents and so on. It is used as one step in a series of steps that would occur during an attack.
    […and much more…]

Mark Maunder pointed us in the direction of Glenn Greenwald’s writing on the subject, saying, well, let’s quote him directly: “Glenn Greenwald has provided some magnificent reporting on this incident and the response from the media and from US senators.”

Greenwald has since followed himself up too:

IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom. …

If I had one complaint about Greenwald’s take, it’s that he washes over what I think is the sole reason for this DNC/Obama/media perfidy. Greenwald seems to blame the media’s lies on the notion that they were all about bitch-slapping Russia simply because “DC” wants a foreign bogeyman — as if it might just as easily be any other foreign land, or as he says, “Scary Foreign Threat.”

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

He buries the lede here I think. “[T]he obvious reasons” is the main point of it — it’s really the whole point of this DNC/Obama/media lie-fest. For example, China has been hacking for years — including hacking the White House itself (and yet Hillary’s private email server couldn’t possibly have been hacked!), and there have been reports of Russian and other state-sponsored hacking for ages. So why fret now, suddenly, about Russia alone?

Let’s spell out “the obvious reason” instead of washing over it: it is that the Democratic Party (and team Obama Legacy and team Hillary Poor Loser) and the media are in cahoots, nefariously (that they are in cahoots is already nefarious, but that they are doing it for these reasons doubles the wickedness); and the target of their derision — and of their agenda — is not Russia, but rather the President elect of the United States, a Republican, Donald Trump.

That makes it political and media corruption at the highest level (“literally…”). And it stinks to high heaven. They are, together — a political party and the media — trying to delegitimize and take down Donald Trump, and they’re using a series of lies — the latest being the false narrative about Russian hacking of the election to cause the Trump victory — to help them do so.

Among the other damage they are causing (journalistically, to the trust in the news media, to trust in political process, to trust in political parties, to themselves…), they are causing harm to democracy and to the strength of the nation itself. You’d think they would be aware of that — or would cast politics aside and care about that rather than treat the nation as mere collateral damage of their more important goals.

They’d like you to think the corruption is between Trump and Vladimir Putin. They whine all day long about “church and state” and other phony canards such as the one about “the rich” and “big business” being in bed with Republicans when it’s actually, factually, the Democrats with whom they spoon. But the most real and most dangerous collusion is between the Democrats and the media — even more so than the Democrats and academia.

This political and media perfidy is a huge story in and of itself. And “for obvious reasons” it can’t even be covered by the Washington Post.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.