Topmost (in use)

Archive | America

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

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

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

Fidel Castro is dead! Trump/Trudeau: a contrast between the Real, and the Farce.

First let me express my deep delight that the evil, murderous, socialist dictator Fidel Castro is dead. Most sensible people feel the same way — all around the world.

Not here at home though. Our leader, the Liberal-leftist Justin Trudeau, has made a mockery of us. Rather that deep delight, he feels “deep sorrow.”

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.”

Longest serving. Sheesh. Castro made political opposition parties illegal, genius. Or as I tweeted this morning:

My favorite tweet of the day so far comes from Donald Trump, who has a better, clearer, less adoring take on the death of the evil murderous communist dictator:

He actually followed that up with a statement which was far more wordy and statesmanlike, while also being real. 

He feels no “deep sorrow” because he’s not actually a farce. Obama, meanwhile, was more in the Trudeau style, deeply saddened by the passing of that communist ass, but not nearly as loving, and sickeningly anodyne.

Americans chimed in on Trudeau’s idiocy as well:

But Castro’s fellow socialists in Canada are in deep despair. Take this NDP MP from Vancouver — and this is not a parody Twitter account:

“Justice.” For goodness sake. “Monumental vision.” “Courage.”

That man must be a communist.

ProudToBeCanadian?


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

Ann Coulter with new book just in time: IN TRUMP WE TRUST

Although I no longer have her, Ann Coulter was the first columnist I ever paid at this site. And the longest standing columnist too. And all thanks to me (yeah right), she’s now one of the best-selling politics authors in America.

I’m happy whenever she comes out with a new book. Buy it now.

In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!

Buy this now!


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

BRILLIANT take-down of CNN, a CNN reporter, a CNN anchor, and its hideously biased agenda-driven editing

I’ll get to the point in a second. But first (and I promise this is related), I read my usual National Review articles this morning and copied this nugget:

Conservatism must be about explaining to non-conservatives why they should be conservative not why they can’t be. This is politics 101 going back to Aristotle: Persuasion.

~ by JONAH GOLDBERG, August 18, 2016

I’ll take that as good advice from someone (Goldberg, I mean, but yeah also Aristotle, whoever he is) who definitely practices what he preaches; and as a reminder that I should do more of it here.

If you read that NP article and the others I read over the past couple of days (see short list below), you’ll see they’re all related, and they all lend themselves to the video that I’m on about here (which is actually unrelated to the articles). See how I tied that all together? Well I think it’s a good package.

So if I’m doing my homework correctly, I’m at least persuading non-conservatives to see that (1) we’re a diverse group of actual thinking people, often self-critical among other things, and (2) what we’re up against is huge and it isn’t actually made up or delusional. I’m trying to engage some of Aristotle’s (whoever he is) logos, pathos, and ethos (look it up like I did).

The video is done-up by Anthony Brian Logan. He describes his YouTube channel as  “Current events from the perspective of a young black male conservative and news/political junkie.” I like his perspective. It’s truth.

This CNN anchor, above even their others, should be one of the most prolific apologizers on air today, but 99.9% of the time she fails to apologize for anything. I suppose she thinks she’s simply “sticking to her guns” — well OK actually that brings up a great point (thanks, me): she’s plainly, rabidly anti-gun, so she’s literally “sticking to her anti-gun rhetoric,” or something  –which she seems to find to be a good quality in a supposedly unbiased journalist. (Sidebar: See an interesting article here about how one news station legitimately stuck to their guns.)

I’ve written her up in my own effort at exposing her bias, but I’m pretty sure someone could make a go of a website devoted just to daily examples. Her anchoring is replete with self-satisfied, anti-conservative bias both in undertone, and hell, sometimes right-in-your-face conservative mockery (for which she never apologizes, even in the face of a Twitter onslaught). But quite apart from her anchoring, as I recall them, her all-too-few trite apologizes are smug, insincere, and serve only to increase the aggravation level generated in me by the bad reporting for which she is supposedly apologizing. Nothing in her “apologetic” delivery speaks to her sincerity, and in fact quite the opposite. Every apology comes off as forced, delivered extremely begrudgingly, and quickly read off a teleprompter as written by some poor CNN schlub who was forced to write it equally as begrudgingly. Gosh it’s shocking that CNN ratings are still faltering.

I’m just glad Costello is white, since it shields me from being called a racist. Oh who am I kidding. I’ll be called one anyway.

National Review Short List for Friday August 19 2016:

  1. ‘New Nationalism’ Amounts to Generic White-Identity Politics
  2. Trump’s Coalition: Nationalism, White-Identity Politics, or Justice-Seeking?
  3. The Folly of White Identity Politics
  4. Up From White Identity Politics
  5. Equal Justice, White Identity Politics, and the Battle for the GOP’s Future

 


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

CNN Apes CBC: Bias is Over The Top

You’d be forgiven for thinking you were watching the CBC. But no, it’s CNN. And this is ostensibly not a CNN opinion piece: This is how CNN introduced their “news report” about Trump achieving the 1,237 delegate votes needed to secure the nomination, on Wednesday May 26, 2016:

capture_20160526_144030

If you think CNN was using the occasion to ever so delicately imply Donald Trump is “OVER THE TOP” with all his egregiously inaccurate and tendentious wordplay, you’re obviously wrong, since if you ever watch CNN, they clearly abhor inaccurate and tendentious wordplay. They bitch about Trump doing it all day long, and if you’re paying attention, among other Trumpian things which are ruinous to America and the American way of life, this wordplay apparently also forces people who are otherwise upstanding citizens (well OK, a great many illegal aliens too) who want America to be a giant “safe space” and want world peace ‘n stuff (and basically mostly just smoke pot) — to violently protest outside of Trump rallies, smashing car windows and throwing rocks at cops on horses.

Yeah, no. It’s just who says it that matters to these people. They, as news reporters, can be the tendentious wordsmiths any damn time they please. Republicans cannot. Got it? Now you’re thinkin’ like a liberal!

After CNN themselves finished being over the top or “climaxing,” as you might say if you, too, were as unserious as them, Wolf and his PAC smoked a cigarette, pulled their big boy pants up, and then had to get on with pretending to be objective reporters, which is a task so not puerile (#boring!). So, using that same picture of Trump, a far more odious banner for them: “DONALD TRUMP CAPTURES THE GOP NOMINATION” more accurately described the actual news.

capture_20160526_144201

And then those ever so sober and never over-the-top journalists naturally went on, and on, discussing Trump’s words, and his honesty, and how important words and honesty and transparency are, these days.


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

Arctic Apple Takes a Bite Out of Pseudo-Science

After years of research and extensive field testing, the Okanagan’s own GMO apple is going to the big leagues.

Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are routinely attacked by urban organic activists in spite of the fact that not a single ailment has ever been linked to this technology. And now, as a testament to the baselessness of such attacks, the rights to the GMO Arctic Apple have been purchased by the U.S. biotechnology company Intrexon (owners of GMO salmon), for the princely sum of $41 million.

This acquisition stands as a textbook example of how to stand up to organic activists.

Rather than compromise, Neal Carter, the Summerland developer of this non-browning apple, stood firm as organic activists claimed falsely that a GMO apple threatened organic orchards. The only question that remains is whether the organic industry will take former U.S. president Bill Clinton’s advice from 1997 and include the Arctic Apple in organic production.

Unlike some GMO crops that incorporate pesticides, the GMO Arctic Apple could, in theory, be grown under organic management with composted fertilizer and holistic pest management, according to the original version of the world’s most-widely adopted organic standards – the USDA National Organic Program.

I grew up on an organic farm and worked for five years as a USDA-contract organic inspector. I left when the organic movement became a bureaucratic scam designed to propel an anti-GMO, anti-scientific political agenda.

I still support the true principles of organic production. But with three-quarters of organic food being imported from countries like China, and with 46 per cent testing positive for prohibited pesticides — pesticides that do cause harm and can lead to death — it has long been my position that the organic industry has a massive problem on its hands, a problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with GMOs.

Organic crops are not tested. Record-keeping and record-checking are all that’s required to get a crop certified.

Imagine if we quit testing athletes at the Olympics. Do you think maybe athletes might take this as a licence to cheat? This is how the anti-GMO organic industry runs.

No wonder multimillionaire organic execs like John Mackey (Whole Foods) and tax-subsidized activists like Ronnie Cummins (The Organic Consumers Association) pretend GMOs threaten organic farms. By maligning this field of science, they’ve carved-out a sizable niche for themselves, giving consumers the false hope that they’re eating a better diet when they purchase premium-priced, certified-organic food, all based on the fact that it’s non-GMO.

The reality is quite the opposite.

The lack of organic field testing not only results in 46 per cent of organic food testing positive for prohibited pesticides, but also in un-composted fecal matter making its way into the organic food chain.

As Carter and his new corporate masters at Intrexon will surely attest, this causes serious illness, and can lead to death. How is this “organic” exactly?

GMO Golden Rice, papaya and brinjal are all examples of non-proprietary (no patent) GMO crops that could be grown organically. The time is long overdue for the organic industry to follow Clinton’s advice and embrace GMOs. And what better place to start than with Carter’s GMO Arctic Apple?

By standing up to organic “pseudo-science and naysaying fearmongers,” Carter proves that when the enemies of science can’t beat you, they might someday be forced to join you.

This article first appeared in the Kelowna Daily Courier. Mischa Popoff has no financial interest in the Arctic Apple or Intrexon.

Mischa Popoff

Mischa Popoff

• B.A. (Hons.) U. of S. and IOIA Advanced Organic Inspector (USDA) • Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute • Research Associate for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy • Is It Organic?". For public speaking engagements or consultations, please contact my agency, The National Speakers Bureau or Sawa Matsumura at smatsumura@nsb.com


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

Tags: , , , , ,

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

“Intolerance is now a vice of the left” – says a liberal media columnist

When it comes to catching up with the reality on the ground, and admitting their perfidy, it takes the liberal media approximately eight years to catch up. But let’s give credit where it’s due.

Margaret WenteMargaret Wente, the Globe and Mail’s putative “conservative” columnist, writes up one that is sure to get her petitioned, rebuked, trolled, and possibly banished for life from the liberal-left’s cocktail circuit, and certainly added to the the gay industry’s hit list.  And for that, we applaud her.

Intolerance is now a vice of the left

The Globe and Mail
Published 

What poses a bigger threat to Canada: A small Christian university that endorses traditional ideas about marriage? Or a large group of liberal activists who want to stomp all over them?

That’s easy. It’s the Christians. Progressive people across the land have been waging war against Trinity Western University and its plan to start a law school. Now that the school has been approved in B.C., they want to make sure the graduates are shunned, ostracized and never allowed to practise law anywhere in Canada.

They lost a big one last week, when the B.C. Law Society reluctantly voted to recognize the law school and its graduates. The West Coast Women’s Legal Education Action Fund expressed its disappointment, saying that “TWU’s discriminatory policy effectively excludes LGBTQ students from access to the benefits of a legal education at the university.”

Well, not really. The problem is the university’s conservative views on sex, which apply to everyone. It asks all students to sign a pledge saying they won’t have sex outside of marriage. And Christian tradition doesn’t recognize gay marriage. That’s it – it’s a conduct issue, not an issue of belief or identity. It doesn’t mean gay students aren’t welcome. Yet this simple request has been blown up into a case of monstrous discrimination against gay students. Never mind that if they don’t like the rules, there are umpteen other law schools they can apply to.

…read the rest  —  takes 90 seconds…

 


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

Tags: , , ,

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

Lose Firefox. But if you must keep it, don’t do web searches with it and they’ll go broke.

If you haven’t heard of the backlash against Mozilla, which is the owner of the Firefox browser brand, here are a few links to bring you up to Firefox_boycottspeed:

The best course of action if you’re interested in protecting freedom of speech, and conscience, and religion, and you abhor fascism and idiocy, is to stop using Firefox as your browser, and stop using Thunderbird as your email software.

But if you must, for some odd reason, stick with Firefox, at least don’t use it to do any internet searching. Mozilla is, at its core, a non-profit organization. So how does this not-for-profit make its money? Mozilla gets nearly all of its income from the various search engines, mostly Google, who pay Mozilla a royalty every time a user who uses Firefox searches the search engine. Yes, web sites including this one track what browser you’re using. Search engines use that capability to pay royalties to Mozilla/Firefox.

From Wikipedia:

Financing

The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donations and “search royalties”. Since 2005, the vast majority of funds have come from Google Inc.

Initial funding in 2003 came from AOL, who donated US$2 million, and from Mitch Kapor who donated US$300,000. The group has tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, though the Mozilla Corporation subsidiary is taxable.

In 2006, the Mozilla Foundation received US$66.8 million in revenues, of which US$61.5 million is attributed to “search royalties” from Google.[8]

The foundation has an ongoing deal with Google to make Google search the default in the Firefox browser search bar and hence send it search referrals; a Firefox themed Google search site has also been made the default home page of Firefox. The original contract expired in November 2006. However, Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and again through 2011.[9] On 20 December 2011 Mozilla announced that the contract was once again renewed for at least three years to November 2014, at three times the amount previously paid, or nearly US$300 million annually.[10][11] Approximately 85% of Mozilla’s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract.

I’ve decided not to block Firefox users from accessing this site for now, but that will change if Mozilla refuses to embrace freedom and stop acting like a cabal of fascist idiots or the Gestapo. Here are instructions of you are a web site owner and want to block Firefox. Otherwise, instructions are also provided if you simply want to create a banner across the top of your site, warning users of the attack on freedom by Mozilla (watch the punctuation on their example —  it’s not “it’s,” it’s its! You could just express your own personal outrage in your own words, which would be better anyway).

Here’s more about what you can do:
How you can push back against Mozilla/Firefox’s gay marriage thuggery

Here are a few alternative browsers.
Google Chrome | Apple Safari (works in Windows too) | Opera | Internet Explorer

This action by a cabal of zealots presents a very dangerous slippery slope.  Don’t let them get away with it.

 


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

Canada’s jobs up, U.S. down. Media? Studiously ignoring the comparison.

Here’s something that won’t be played-up by the liberal mainstream media today like more Rob Ford jokes or the all-important David Letterman replacement pontification: Stephen Harper_at_swearing_in_2_AP_PHOTO_Tom Hanson_CPConservative/Harper-led Canada nearly doubled economists’ expectations and grew by 42,900 jobs in March.  Obama looking like a goofballEconomists had projected just 22,000 new jobs. And it’s the biggest job growth in seven months.

Canada historically shadows the U.S., the ties to which are absolutely of vital importance in every respect.

In the liberal/Obama-led U.S., economists had projected 200,000 new jobs, but only 190,000 were created. The U.S. jobs picture remains stagnant and is getting stale. America remains in the unemployment and economic doldrums.

Using the old standby comparison of America being ten times that of Canada in terms of population, the U.S. would have to have grown around 400,000 new jobs.

Canada nearly doubled its economists’ expectations, while the U.S. didn’t even meet its economists’ expectations, much less match Canada’s job growth. There’s far more too.

So I’m glad you came to visit today, because you won’t see this comparison anywhere in Canada or the U.S. by the liberal mainstream media. You know why. It’s because Harper is Conservative, and Obama is a liberal Democrat. That’s why.

 


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

When government deems a park as sacred and organizes a “pilgrimage?” Tweet Poo!

Total confusion!

The upcoming “Earth Day” (barf) promises lots of pure, natural, “organic,” un-man-made, Earthy stuff to do. If, that is, as a normal person, you can ignore the left-wing aura that envelopes the obviously politically tainted “Earth Day.”

For example, you could do like the Muslims do when they embark on their sacred pilgrimage, wherein they make a religious journey to Mecca. Only make it a park instead.

That’s sort of the suggestion from a city government through their Twitter account.

This, from a town like practically every PC town these days, that doesn’t even dare celebrate Christmas as a religious day, for fear of upsetting the tender sensibilities of the secular progressive set and their mystical Gaea(300px) “church and state” mythology.

Jesus Christ? Taboo. Gaea, the Goddess of Earth, that’s totes cool. Organizing a “pilgrimage” to a park on “Earth Day?” High fives.

But wait there’s more confusion! What is with the need for all that man-made music during this Earthy nature walk through, you know, natural organic Earth, and what-not? Earth isn’t good enough on its own? Birds tweeting and beavers munching and insects buzzing and wind blowing through trees and all that Earthly music isn’t sufficient? You have to “fill” the joint with man-made music and drown out all that Earthly beauty? Well. You’re weird.

 


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

Tags: , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 [ничего
nichego
“nothing,” in Russian]

 

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

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

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


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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

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

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com