Topmost (in use)

Author Archive | Joel Johannesen

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

Global News: left-wing biased or extremely lazy and misinformative. It’s one or the other.

I wrote a comment in an online “news” article written by Global News. Here’s what I wrote:

The journalist writes, “His comments prompted vitriol, and mockery, online:”

Hey Global News, did O’Reilly’s comments prompt any support, and compliments, online? Any at all? I ask because it’s important to show some semblance of journalistic balance, and tell the whole, true story.

Yes of course they did, as if I had to tell you. I saw dozens on Twitter alone. And they were from regular folks — not from the likes of one of your examples, whose twitter account bio reads: “African Descendant. Revolutionary Socialist.” Or another of your examples, a far-leftist who works for the huge far-left agitprop organization Media Matters for America, another Soros-funded anti-Fox News activist organization whose basic premise is that Fox News Channel is the very embodiment of evil, or something, and which spends most of its time and millions of dollars simply smearing Fox News. Another of your examples describes one of Trump’s advisors as a “Nazi” in one of his tweets, and calls the GOP “fascist” in another. In yet another, he wrote “Let those who have never thought ‘Wow, @realDonaldTrump really wants to f**k his daughter,’ cast the first stone.” (The asterisks are mine).

I also wonder why Global News didn’t include the whole O’Reilly talking points video instead of just their clipped version. The whole thing is only a few seconds longer and provides greater context. It’s at Bill O’Reilly’s web site and at Fox News for those of you who really want to be properly informed. Also worth noting that an extended conversation was had afterwards, with people from both sides of the political aisle.

So this is a blatantly biased and unfair “news” article written by someone whose Global News bio includes this: “She enjoys digging in to issues that matter…”  I really don’t see how that’s true.


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

The NDP’s #FakeGrassroots

The you’ve got to be kidding party has got to get the word “grassroots” straight in their heads.

Or maybe they think astroturf is organic. Or maybe they’re just full of it.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall wherein the hired (so, paid) organizers set up (or “grow”) what is clearly a fake “movement,” created by political marketing hacks, about one fake narrative or another (whichever one polls the best), and see how they dupe Canadians and the media into believing all their fakery as if it’s actual news rather than fake news.

Then again they call themselves “progressives” instead of socialists.


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

CTV licks Trudeau’s face, gets 90% backlash

I figure out of the 56 replies to to CTV’s facelick tweet (complete with the now ubiquitous media glam shot of their dream boy in the nicest pose they could possibly find), about 6 replies were right on board with CTV. The rest, 50 or so, were mocking the tweet, Trudeau, and sometimes CTV too.  That’s nearly 90%. Which makes me think if an election were held today, our boy might be sent back to drama class. Where he belongs, some would — and did — say.

If you thought, “Yeah actually, I’m concerned about Trudeau, not Trump,” you’d be just like me. A lot of them were like that:

Yeah most were like that. Trump and Trudeau don’t go together — not even like poo and pee…

And back out of the bathroom…

And perhaps the most poignant (their Twitter handle notwithstanding):

But then maybe we’re all wasting our time…

I guess we weren’t quite done with the poo.

 


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

UPDATED Mon Dec 19 – Trying to get the official word on why Canadians don’t deserve Fox News Channel in HD

Sent to the President of Canadian cable provider Eastlink, Deborah Shaffner, on Wednesday, Dec 14, 2016:

Hello,

I have subscribed to Fox News Channel since it was launched by (what is now) Eastlink’s Delta Cable, in early 2005 I believe. Delta Cable made a big deal of it when it launched back then. “The news channel Ottawa didn’t want you to watch is now available in Canada” was how it was advertised by Delta Cable in big display ads in Delta papers. I immediately subscribed.

Let me interrupt my email to show you this. I couldn’t include an image in the email I sent because I had to use their online form, but here’s what I was referring to with regard to the display ads placed by Delta Cable when Fox News Channel was made available in 2005. I posted it here, back in the day:

But to go on:

On Eastlink, it’s still not in HD, after 12 years. Fox News Channel is provided on the HD channel 861 here in Delta, but in SD, despite the premium being charged for that channel.

I have asked Eastlink staff over the years why it is that you don’t offer it in HD, and I have been given various non-answers, such as, “Eastlink is always making improvements,” etc. But after nearly 12 years of waiting for this simple and reasonable improvement, I must naturally question that assertion.

I assume that the reason I would finally be given is that there is not enough demand for FNC to make it worthwhile for you. And yet you and every cable provider in Canada offer it; and in the U.S., it is just about the most popular cable channel and certainly the most popular news channel by far. Canadian viewing habits match almost identically American viewing habits, as you know.

In 2016 virtually every channel is available in HD. It seems very outdated and primitive to watch any channel in SD in 2016, especially on our huge and increasingly higher-definition screens. Moreover, important information channels like Fox News Channel should be in HD — like virtually all the other channel and certainly all the other news channels – American, Canadian, and even British and the “Euronews” channel.

I pay well over $200.00 to Eastlink every month, including the premium I pay to get Fox News Channel. I feel as though I should get the best technology and best viewing available, for that amount of money.

I would like your comments on this please.

Sincerely,
Joel Johannesen

I know, I know, it’s a long email. But bear in mind this is not my first whack at this. I’ve asked this numerous times, and have never gotten anything like a reasonable answer.

First reply received December 14, 2016:

Delta Cable

The President @eastlink

Reply: Today, 10:25 AM

Dear Mr. Johannesen,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding your Delta Cable Service and the availability of the Fox News Channel in HD quality. We will look into this right away, and will have someone from our team get in touch with you to discuss as soon as we have some information to share.

Thank you for your business and we will be in touch shortly.

Sincerely,

Courtney Bezanson
Senior Product Advisor
For the office of Deborah Shaffner, President

It took me probably a half an hour to find the email address for Eastlink (Delta Cable), and I’m sure it would take just as long to find one for Shaw, Rogers, Bell, or any other cable company. If you have the right email addresses I’ll post them here so others can send email. If you do write an email, please share with me — I might post some here (with your personal privacy intact of course).

UPDATE:

UPDATE Monday Dec 19 2016

I got a call from a representative on behalf of the president of the company, who told me that they’d looked into it and found that the root of the problem is that it’s a restriction that Fox News has, in which Fox News has not given them permission to broadcast in high def.

That sounds ridiculous.

Naturally, I asked why that might be, as it obviously sounds rather strange that Fox News would require Eastlink to broadcast their signal in an inferior viewing mode, making their channel look bad compared to their competitors. They had no answer as to why this was. The rep said he could look into it and see if he can find an answer, but couldn’t promise anything.

Rather frustrated, I told him my “why” question should obviously have been anticipated, and since he didn’t have an answer now, I’d leave it up to him to find the answer, and whether or not to share that answer with me when or if he does find it.

I suppose my next step is to ask Fox News Channel why they would impose such an odd restriction. But I have a feeling this given the relatively tiny market I am a part of, this at the bottom of their list of customer concerns.


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

Today in liberalism: a Canadian Liberal government committee proposes socialism.

Like Facebook only run by the state. Kim Jong Un will be so pissed…

OTTAWA—A House of Commons committee is recommending Canada Post come up with a plan to reinstate door-to-door delivery in parts of the country that lost the service in the last year and maintain a freeze on the installation of community mailboxes.

The report, released today, also muses about expanding Canada Post’s mandate to provide what it calls critical digital infrastructure, including email services or “the basis for a Canadian social network.”

Seriously. Communism. In Canada.

Sunny ways. Vote liberal.

Conservatives on the committee didn’t back the report, saying the recommendations do nothing to address Canada Post’s serious financial shortfalls.

Yet they fully support a state-owned media — the CBC. It’s just a matter of time before they glom onto this one too.

The NDP’s dissenting report criticized both the Liberals and Conservatives for closing the door on exploring postal banking services, an idea recommended by the postal union.

Yeah — state banking too. Why not. Also, state-clothing. Why not just go full Kim Jong Un?

 


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

Trudeau Foundation-Gate

By the way, why is it not called Trudeau Foundation-Gate? I remember when in 2008 I wrote about the Liberals’ CBC division calling something “NAFTA-Gate” — on that sound, scientific, evidence-based and ever-so journalistic basis of: “because that’s what it’s called” (Don Newman, CBC, actual words).

In fact that CBC host was joined by a (now) CTV host in calling that something — which was something comparatively quite banal — “NAFTA-Gate” (Don Martin, CTV, actual words). That press gallery pundit/columnist/host stated at the time that by golly he “hated” calling it that, but, like, he had no choice. Journalism. (Also known as Ass.) For their part, the Globe & Mail also called it NAFTA-Gate, “as the issue has been dubbed.” (Dubbed by them. They’re just reporting. On what they decided to call it.)

I don’t even remember what “NAFTA-Gate” was about — just that it was about nothing. It was another bit of mainstream (and taxpayer-funded) media B.S., designed only to kill Conservatives politically. This Media-Gate corruption continues today.

Today, the media is bending over backwards to protect their boy, Justin Trudeau, and the Liberals. If they weren’t, this would be a scandal at least as big as “Hidden Agenda” (remember that cute pile of liberal media lies that lasted for years and years?), or “Sweater-Vest-Gate” (oh that was ugly).

But now we are barely told, much to most people’s surprise (because it was never made an issue much less a “-Gate”), that among the many other things that stink today in the Trudeau government (and it is increasingly a very smelly place), the Trudeau Foundation is not really a Trudeau foundation at all. Normally, a charitable foundation in the name of someone is started by that someone’s own money, or at least money which they were responsible for raising in the private sector. Otherwise it’s just a branch of government. I know all about this as I have been involved in just such a process.  Also, I’m not a lying liar.

(I hate to confuse you, but this latest scandal should not be confused with the Liberal Party Foundation-Gate, circa 2005 — and the use of “-Gate” here is all mine – duh).

Federal taxpayer funding of the Trudeau Foundation, when it started in 2002, came in at $125 MILLION — from the ridiculous Industry Canada branch (which itself sounds like some sort of Soviet-era central-planning politburo). Industry Canada has no business donating our cash, on our behalf, to a charitable foundation started in the name of, and designed to please the ideological desires of, left-wing politicians. Especially when it’s staffed by and run by those left-wing politicians (named Trudeau, among others who are their friends). Of course taking our money and then giving it out — even as charity — is not charity at all — it’s theft. (See this excellent video explaining that concept). And when it’s Liberal governments giving our cash to Liberal foundations run by their Liberal friends, well that’s just corrupt. And that’s yet another tawdry aspect to this.

Wikipedia describes what was then known as Industry Canada as “the department of the Government of Canada with a mandate of fostering a growing, competitive, knowledge-based Canadian economy” and it supposedly “works with Canadians throughout the economy, and in all parts of the country, to improve conditions for investment, improve Canada’s innovation performance, increase Canada’s share of global trade and build an efficient and competitive marketplace.” (Clearly a Wiki entry written by Industry Canada).

Incongruity alert: “efficient and competitive marketplace” and the Alt-Left Trudeau Liberals do not exactly go together like a hammer and sickle. An “efficient and competitive marketplace” and the left are literally at odds with each other.

Even if the government massively failed in its pretend efforts to create this fancy capitalist marketplace back in 2002, and we all let them get away with it and continue to today, Justin Trudeau is today doubling-down on the perfidy and has clearly — obviously — violated his own ethics guidelines (much vaunted by the media). And this, by his own admission. This would be like Bill Clinton finally admitting he DID have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, and then the media clapping for him. The National Post (reluctantly, I think, because they called that nothingburger “NAFTA-Gate” too, back in ’08, but there’s nary a “gate” to be found today) writes it up today:

…Whether or not the foundation violates conflict-of-interest laws, its operations represent another challenge to the high ethical standard Trudeau has established for his government. The Open and Accountable Government guide, codified after Trudeau became prime minister in October 2015, specifies that when fundraising or dealing with lobbyists, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.” …

… The National Post’s analysis confirms about 40 per cent of 108 donors, directors and members of the foundation since 2014 — or one in six, if academic institutions are excluded — have affiliations with organizations that currently lobby the government, which could indeed create the perception of a conflict.

The NatPo calls Trudeau’s guidelines a “high ethical standard.” This is what the rest of us call “we’d be sentenced to a jail term in about 10 minutes if it were us.” The fact that Justin Trudeau has actually admitted — after first denying — to violating his guidelines (he DID have sex), should help you decide if there’s corruption here. In a separate article, columnist John Ivison says this about that:

During the press conference, he was asked if he had ever been approached about government policy at Liberal fundraisers.

He admitted he is lobbied at private cash-for-access events, but said that donors have no more influence or special access than other Canadians.

So like, I did have sex, but I did not have an orgasm. Or perhaps inserting a cigar in there is not sex. 

Liberal Party spokespeople have argued for weeks that no such lobbying takes place at these extremely lucrative fundraisers but they have now been contradicted by their own leader.

The matter might even veer into a breach of the criminal code, if the lobbying was not reported.

A blowjob is sex. And a “contradiction” in this case is lies and corruption; corporate elites and political elitists all working together with Liberals and Liberal governments — all to their own benefit, and lying about it. “Sunny ways” is apparently a euphemism for Liberals are in power, suckas.

The fact that this all sounds almost identical to the ongoing (and still under FBI criminal investigation — hint!) Hillary and Bill Clinton Foundation scandal — and how the American and Canadian media dealt (didn’t) with that — should get your attention.

There are so many “gates” here.

No wonder Trump won. A Trump should win here too.


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

Robotic checkouts? Say no more.

Capitalism is coming to the rescue of those store and restaurant owners who no longer feel the love from their employees. Employees who applied for their job, were given one because, again, they apparently wanted one(!), but who then almost robotically start calling in sick and showing up late and going on twenty smoke (or “vape”) breaks and complaining about their job and their wages and their working conditions; and who you then spot on the local news at the latest angry and sometimes riotous “raise the wage” rally.

I’ve got a load on my mind and tons to get done back at work and at home, but I’ve got to get some stuff, so I zoom over to the store, grab whatever is on sale, and then zoom over to the checkout. The second-to-last last thing I want to have to do is wait and wait in a line at the checkout, while the checkout clerk chats it up with each customer ahead of me, delaying me. The last thing I want to do is start chatting with the checkout clerk when it’s my turn. The banal “So how’s yer day going so far?” is fine, and after I robotically answer “Fine so far!”, even their ubiquitous “Awesome!” answer is now tolerated by me because I’ve become dulled by surfeit — but then please, please just get on with it.

I like people just fine, and I’m not anti-social, it’s just that right this second I’m kind of busy and just need to get back to my stuff — and I don’t feel the need to delay the folks behind me who are all subtly sighing and tapping their foot.

We can usually rely on businesses to come up with just the right answers to our problems and our needs and wants. But one is apparently getting half the point and missing the other half. Japan’s Panasonic is working on robotic check outs, such that the customer brings their basket of goodies up to a robotic checkout, which checks it all out and bags all the goods on its own. That much is all good. Right up my ally. But the execs are worried. Worried that we will all miss… chatting with the clerk at the checkout.

Executives at Panasonic and Lawson said they didn’t want to eliminate employees from stores entirely. “Our store is also a point of communication for neighbors, where customers can enjoy chatting with clerks,” said Lawson’s Mr. Takemasu.

Yeah no. Domo arigato, Mr. Takesamu, but I’m good.

Others get it. Back in America, Amazon.com and others are testing amazing robotic models that do it all. As another example, I thought of the latest National Car Rental ad starring Patrick Warburton — which are some of the best ads on TV. They feature Warburton touting one of the great advantages of their automated car rental system: the fact that you can avoid having to strike up yet another banal conversation with the clerks. Watch.

Even if you abhor Facebook and Twitter and think they’re foul replacements for your community socializing and face-time needs, there are a million Starbucks and a million other shops and a million other ways you can chat with your friends and neighbors, and even store clerks, without doing it at the damn checkout line. So bring on the awesome bots. Enough said… unless you want to chat about it over coffee, or email me with all your thoughts.


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

“Those who dare to teach, must never cease to learn”

Socrates wrote my headline and I dared to use it because others could learn from it.

I mentioned in another article that the op-ed writers Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson were about to be on the receiving end of my latest didactic — simply on the basis that it was written by what I presumed (wrongly as it turned out) were more of those “Trump will never win” herd members. My prescription in that article was to fire all those hacks, simply because they obviously have utterly no idea what they’re talking about.

As I mentioned in the other article, I let these two off the hook, a little, because they were among the 14 other people in the world who cast aside all the mocking and pointing and laughter from their ever so learned associates, and predicted a Trump win — back in May 2016. “Brace yourselves: Trump is going to win” was their Globe & Mail op-ed headline. Amazing. Congrats. To be a Hillary Clinton “denier” at that newspaper is quite a heroic venture.

But with those niceties out of the way, let me go at ’em, if gently. Their Dec 8 2016 op-ed included this line:

Mr. Kissinger, a long-standing friend of the president-elect, met with Mr. Trump shortly after the Nov. 8 election. This speaks volumes about the new direction U.S. foreign policy will take.

There’s a good chance their previously demonstrated prescience could still be intact. But I think they lost it.

It’s like they were skipping class and not watching the media’s weeks-long, post-election Trump Tower Elevator-Cam, in which the CNN and MSNBC reporters and “experts” presumed to educate us, lecture us, and chin-wag about the various players entering and exiting the elevators, and then professorially pronouncing their smug prognostications — despite having proven themselves to be ill-equipped to prognosticate about Donald Trump or politics generally. Those media hacks didn’t learn their lesson at all whatsoever. But at least we could watch and learn with the volume turned down.

Kissinger’s visit “speaks volumes about the new direction” in much the same way that Trump meeting, as he did, with his opposite, Mitt Romney, speaks volumes. Or how meeting, as he did, with leftist man-made global warming zealot Al Gore speaks volumes; Also riding up the elevator just today was Hollywood leftist star and uber-hypocrite Leo DiCaprio, with whom Trump must have spoken very slowly — it speaks volumes about the direction Trump will take with the EPA (yeah, oops). Or meeting, as he did, with left-winger and failed Chicago mayor Rahm (sanctuary city) Emanuel speaks volumes about the direction Trump will take on criminal illegal aliens and sanctuary cities.

So they missed all that? That’s lousy research! They also wrote their assignment with faulty reasoning to back it up:

Mr. Trump clearly does not understand the importance of calibrating economic diplomacy with the United States’ broader strategic and security interests.

I think he understands all of that just fine, and what he has done so far proves that more than disproves it. But it kind of depends on your view and whether you’re willing to learn new ways of doing things. I got over the “new math,” and I’m sure other people can too. (Certainly not the Common Core math of the new progressive-age idiocy though).

But they seem to be stuck on their math, poorly conceived as it was:

Mr. Kissinger’s new student clearly still has much to learn about the finer points of realpolitik and the importance of deft, not unconventional, diplomacy.

But that’s illogical if not plain silly. “[T]he finer points of realpolitik and the importance of deft … diplomacy” is not incongruous with “unconventional.”  “Conventional” is what got us here. And “here” is this dreadful mess — all over the world and at home. Trump didn’t create this mess. Clinton and Obama and “conventional” did.

Not talking to the Taiwanese president on the ever-so sound scientific (but “conventional”) basis of “because that’s not what we do” — is what got us here. Signing crazy trade deals and even worse deals literally allowing Iran to build nuclear bombs, and paying them billions in unmarked bills to do it; and ignoring nuclear weapons currently being built by the socialist nutbars ruling over North Korea, etc. — is what got us here. If that’s “conventional,” I want none of it.

Or is it that Clinton and Obama knew just what they were doing, and we’re exactly where we want to be now? And that the 709th murder this year in Chicago– up almost 50% this year — and now more than in Iraq or Afghanistan — is exactly what the finer point or smart-take is these days?

Do we need to invoke the truly erudite Einstein quote about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

It’s Al Gore and Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and most every Democrat and virtually every single person in the liberal mainstream media who are the students needing to learn a thing or two — from Donald Trump.

I think that’s the more reasonable, prescient view.

C-

 


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

Tags: ,

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

Coulter the laughing hyenas.

I keep reading all these mainstream media articles written by reporters and “experts” who all presume to know what will now happen in a Trump presidency. But I don’t understand why they’re even printed. They’re written by people who simply couldn’t be more wrong about these things — demonstrably so.

Why even keep them on staff? Why not fire them? I would. The media should try to retain some credibility. They won’t this way.

Theses people uniformly dismissed a Donald Trump win — out of hand. They laughed at it. Sneerred at it. Summarily abandoned or ignored even the possibility — first of him actually even entering the race, then under the Republican banner instead of Democrat, then winning that Republican race, then winning enough electoral college votes to win the presidency. “There’s no path to victory for Donald Trump” was the universal cry of all these geniuses — mostly with the sneering suffix “–Thank God” attached either literally or under their breath (as if these liberals suddenly revered God).

They wholly misunderstood the entire American electorate. Got it all wrong. Completely. So now we’re supposed to listen to them as they pontificate about the future Trump presidency?

You have to hand it to those who (yeah, like me), did not dismiss the possibility of a Trump presidency. Luckily, I only have to “hand it to” approximately 14 people aside from his earliest and bravest supporter, Ann Coulter (whose brilliant column I will never cease to mention was featured here for nine years).

I was about to totally lay into one Globe & Mail op-ed writer until I researched and found he and his writing partner were actually early Trump-winning advocates. So I decided to go ahead and hand it to them, and get that out of the way before I more gently lay into them (which I did separately, here).

Canadians and their government should nevertheless ready themselves for the possibility of a Trump presidency.

That was May 16, 2016, well before the Republican primary was even won, in a Globe and Mail column titled, “Brace yourselves: Trump is going to win.” It was written by co-op/ed writers Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson.  Note that the column was not supportive of a Trump win by any means. Quite the opposite. But still.

Including them, there were as I said 14 others who joined these two in predicting (or, as in their case, “warning”) that Trump might win. One web site from New Zealand attempted to list them — they got to ten — and included Derek H Burney but then called it a day without naming Ann Coulter, which renders that list stupid. I’ll give them credit for calling Michael Moore (yes, that one) “left-wing.” Here, they would maybe call him “progressive,” but more likely the anodyne “filmmaker.”

I want to make special mention of Ann Coulter, and not just because her column appeared here for nine years (did I mention that?) and I’m among her biggest fans (and she of mine, in my wildest dreams). The best example of the wrong-headed smugness with which liberals generally and #neverTrump-ers — but more importantly, mainstream media “experts” — can behave, is captured in this video from June 2015. In it, left-wing host Bill Maher, all his other panelists, and his left-wing audience, all laughed like hyenas at Ann as she predicted that Trump would — remember this is June 2015 — win the November 2016 election and become president.

That clip should be required watching for all mainstream media employees. All of them. And journalism students.

A few Democrats would profit from it as well, and certainly all the hideously smug Canadians — Conservatives included — would benefit enormously.

I think there should be a new word for the firing of these clearly wrong-about-everything hyenas. I’d like to suggest “Coultering.”


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

Liberals staying in Big Gov Resort: so much government, so many regs, we need a “concierge”

It actually made me laugh. The big government stupidity, the big government solution, the glib nature of the big government presenting the supposed solution to it — all of it.

Even the media’s delivery of this news — in the National Post’s Financial Post section (ostensibly its business section) struck me as funny because it’s really a story about extreme government run amok — it’s not really about business. But cut them a break — they have no “Socialist Post” section.

“Ottawa to create one-stop hub for
international investment with $218 million price tag”

…During the Liberal government’s first year in office, Freeland [Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also makes me laugh on her best days] said several investors have complained that it is too difficult to deal with multiple levels of government on different points of regulation or policy….

So there’s now so much government; so many levels and layers and so much regulation and policy nonsense, that the government needs another layer — another bureaucracy — a freaking “concierge” — just to help business people from abroad to sort through the muck that already exists? THAT’S the solution?

I suspect they’re only too well aware of the future they imagine, and are paving the way for even more layers of government, more regulations, more government writ large. They’re liberals.

Note that we the taxpayers will of course pay the (so-called) $218 MILLION price tag — which I guarantee you will rise to $650 MILLION in no time flat.

“What they have told us, is that it is quite hard to navigate the spaghetti of different federal government ministries, of what provinces and territories are doing, and what cities are doing,” Freeland said.

So the “concierge” is a spaghetti-eater or something. But comparing the myriad regulations and layers of government to “spaghetti” is like comparing horse shit to thin mints.

“What companies were looking for is a single-window approach. When I say concierge services, I mean someone who could guide them through all the things that are attractive about investing in Canada.”

Now it’s a “single window,” through which will be the bright shiny face of a handy spaghetti-eating “concierge.” But if mixed metaphors are the way to talk about this, then let’s just call it what it is: this idea is actually like “horse shit.”

The government wants to hire a CEO and to have the new federal agency up and running within one year. Besides hiring staff, the government still needs to work out how the new agency will work alongside existing foreign investment promotion operations set up by provinces and municipalities.

A CEO, and obviously other officers, staff — tons of staff — offices, pension plans, and all those other things that go with another layer of government; another bureaucracy; another expansion of government; another taxpayer bill to be paid.

And the story goes on, reading every bit like something in Pravda out of the old Soviet Union.

How about just reducing the complexity of this country for businesses, such that they don’t need a “concierge” just to sort through the crap? What? That’s too obvious? Too cost-effective? Too government-reducing? Too regulation-reducing? Too conservative? Yeah. Too bad. Because now we all have to pay another $218 MILLION (or more like $650 MILLION) to get them out of their crap pile.

It’s because they’re liberals, and it’s liberals’ ideology to grow government instead of reducing it. Growing government is obviously at least as important to them as growing business. And businesses will check out of that resort right quick.


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

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.