Topmost (in use)

Archive | Canada

Media botches another phony anti-Trump headline

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

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

@ericContrarian put it succinctly:

As did Sean Davis:

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

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

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

IPSOS – Wednesday, September 28, 2016

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

And I found these passages to be eye-opening:

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

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

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

Here’s an earlier poll from the same pollster:

IPSOS – Sunday, July 01, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sat., Sept. 10, 2016

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

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

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


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

Tags: ,

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

Trudeau Liberals bail out private Quebec corporation in crass political move

What a disgrace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernier goes on:

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

In other words, it’s everything I oppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tags:

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

Media reporting: easy to spot the abject dishonesty with comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tags: ,

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

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

I’m smellin’ a Pulitzer!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


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

Tags: , ,

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

Proof that Canada’s news media is far-left

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

Huh. Sounds lofty. Also stupid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tags: , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

“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

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.