Topmost (in use)

Archive | Canada

Make Canada Great Again — say liberal Canadians, apparently.

My morning’s first tweets were so much fun to write.

 

 

 


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

Maxime Bernier gets our endorsement for Conservative Party leadership

Since its launch in about 2000, ProudToBeCanadian.ca has stood for solid true-blue conservatism. No, all you leftists reading this (and we know you’re there thanks to all your ever-so gracious and tolerant and inclusive emails), we’re not “alt-right” (whatever that means, and we know for certain you don’t); and no, we’re not “extreme right-wing” (whatever that means, and we know you call all right-wingers “extreme” — well either that or “Nazis” or “fascists”); and no, we’re not “you wanna put us back to the year 1950” (an era they have utterly no clue about since they were mostly born in the 1980s and think world history began just then).

Over the years, just being outspokenly conservative and speaking conservative in bold colors frequently put us at odds with the cool kids and the smart set (all self-described), who learned their values from the left-wing public school teachers and a government-mandated left-wing Canadian culture — as promulgated by the liberals’ state-owned CBC and its propagandist left-wing news division; and by the rest of the mainstream media in Canada (and with not just a little help from the left in America).

We didn’t care. We pressed on. In fact we just got more energy from the leftist onslaught, and from their emails sent immediately after we launched, angrily exclaiming “you’ve got to be joking,” and demanding we change our website’s name, and literally mocking us for standing up for plain old conservative values. We believe we helped the Conservatives win back in 2006, by emboldening conservatives across Canada with our dedication to speaking conservative in bold colors and advancing the irrefutable conservative facts of life. So we appreciate a candidate who has endured as we have, because it takes guts, it risks a lot on a personal level, and it takes a strong sense of principle.  Conservative principle.

You can then see why choosing which candidate to endorse for the new leader of the Conservative Party, seventeen or more years on from our start, is therefore largely based on the longevity of the candidates’ true-blue conservative credentials; and their long-held and outspoken conservative principles. For example, while he ultimately disappointed in some ways (nobody’s perfect), Stephen Harper passed the sniff test back in the day, while Peter MacKay and Belinda Stronach and others did not.

And since we think we’ve succeeded, we see the value in the ability of others — Conservative Party leaders — who can lead Canadians toward conservative principles with their conservative outspokenness and ability to communicate and promote solid conservative facts and values in a compelling way.

When it comes to maintaining a history of conservative values and speaking out for them in bold colors, one current candidate stands way above the rest: Maxime Bernier.

Bernier has a very long record of outspoken true-blue conservative values, very often (alas, unwittingly) positioning himself with the likes of us, and likewise being slammed by the leftists at the CBC, in Parliament, and everywhere else  — without skipping a beat, and just carrying on. Speaking in bold colors, and surviving, and winning.

No candidate comes close when you factor in the longevity of outspokenness about conservative values. But also importantly, Maxime Bernier has never wavered on his conservative values. Over the years Bernier has had, and still maintains, all of these values, and has plainly stated them in his current candidacy for leader of the Conservative Party:

  • Bernier is very pro gun and he (alone) gets an A+ rating from Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
  • Bernier is for ending state-controlled marketing boards and supply management in agriculture
  • Slashing the state-owned CBC, adopt a PBS model, refocus its mandate to end competition against private business
  • Keeping the state-run regulator behemoth, the CRTC, out of our lives; phase it out
  • Lowering our income taxes
  • Decentralizing and shrinking the federal government
  • Scrapping the idea of a carbon tax
  • Ending corporate welfare
  • Dropping the corporate tax rate
  • Ending the bribing of Canadians with boutique tax credits
  • Abolishing the capital gains tax
  • Privatizing the relic Canada Post
  • Getting Ottawa out of healthcare and shifting it back to the provinces
  • Ending the stupid provincial equalization program
  • Reducing immigration and limiting it to those who will help fulfill Canada’s economic needs
  • Reining-in the United Nations or as Bernier puts it: “Foreign policy must focus on the security and prosperity of Canadians — not pleasing the dysfunctional United Nations”

Maxime BernierThese are all things this web site and its many columnists over the years have spoken out for. Have we gone further on some of these issues? Yes — especially with regard to the state-owned CBC, where we (or at least I) have advanced the notion not of not only “ending” it, but enshrining a principle in our constitution prohibiting the state from even being in any business and competing against its own citizens.

And do we utterly oppose Bernier on any issues? Yes. On abortion, for example, he voted against Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth’s pro-life Motion 312 in 2012, but says he’s open to debate in Parliament. That’s a fail. On the other hand, he voted against Bill C-14, the Liberals’ 2016 bill to legalize doctor-assisted dying. If you think it seems like he’s a little conflicted on the subject of “life,” we agree.

And one picayune and possibly obtuse matter: Bernier speaks with a strong Quebec French accent. Not Jean Chretien strong, but it’s right out there. We view that as a negative in the English-speaking world insofar as electability, although it may assist him in Quebec.

(I imagine leftists out reflexively racing to call me a “racist” now, or some such banality, but actually I’m not against or “phobic” about people with French accents. My dad had a strong French accent until the day he died — he came from France and Belgium way back in 1959. He had a better vocabulary than anyone in English, but never lost the accent).

It’s not about being anti-French, or anti-Quebec, it’s about electability — particularly in the rural and suburban west where many people have some disdain for Quebec and thus Quebecers. Far be it for us to explain the idiosyncrasies of others, but the electability issue of a French-accented candidate is very real. Those who know my history know I admired, for a time, Pierre Trudeau. One of his foremost qualities was his ability to speak almost perfect English and French — with no accents in either language at all. Love it or hate it, that’s a Canadian quality nobody besides him has, in my lifetime, mastered. Bernier should work on speaking English without an accent.

As for experience, Bernier is once again tough to beat. He has Bachelor’s degree in Commerce, he is a lawyer, and he has two decades’ worth of private-sector business experience (mostly banking). He has also of course been in elected government — since 2006 — and has held cabinet positions in the Industry and Foreign Affairs ministries.

Maxime Bernier describes himself as a libertarian on most issues. All true conservatives have some libertarian bent.

Bernier will lead the party well, and can lead Canadians to a new appreciation for conservative economic principles, especially if he can adjust his accent. We think he can win the next election for conservatives and Conservatives.


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

Ivanka Trump fashion business booming after Nordstrom ban

I know what you’re thinking, but it is merely a coincidence that ever since our ad for the Ivanka Trump fashion line was put up on our site, her sales skyrocketed.

Ivanka Trump clothing line reports record sales

Ivanka Trump’s eponymous women’s fashion line is reporting record sales figures despite calls for a boycott and controversies surrounding President Trump.

“Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump fashion brand, tells Refinery29 in an interview published Tuesday. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.”

The news of a sales surge comes after Nordstrom announced in early February that it would no longer carry the 35-year-old’s clothing and accessories, citing poor product sales. …

Maybe we should advertise our own website on our website.


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

Trump Tower Vancouver opens; media promotion of massive protest: fails

 

Trump Tower Vancouver: the ever-so objective and trustworthy media “reported” that the number of protesters organized by two different left-wing groups and their web sites could climb into the thousands. Thousands. For example the Globe and Mail’s Frances Bula reported, “About 2,000 people have indicated on each site they are interested in attending.” And the media (generally) kept reporting that the massive protest was going to happen. Over and over. At some point it isn’t “news,” it’s a promotion.

They were all on scene with multiple reporters and cameras, tweeting the minute by minute action.

As I watched it unfold, perhaps 50 actual protesters showed up, the rest being media (but perhaps I repeat myself), security, and even some pro-Trump folks.

Gorgeous building — maybe the nicest building in Vancouver — a city full of ugly, mostly old, cheap-looking buildings.

Designed by the famed architect Arthur Erickson, as possibly his last major building design before his passing.

Owned and built by a family from Malaysia — a Muslim country for those of you on the left who are into identity politics, and we all know you are.

Its lobby is adorned with artwork featuring a major piece by a Mexican-born female artist Miriam Aroeste, from Vancouver, again for those of you on the left who are into identity politics.

The building employs over 300 locals, after employing hundreds during construction. Some are likely unionized too!

Construction costs were about a third of a billion dollars, largely benefitting the local community.

Taxes on the property will yield the city millions over its lifetime, to say nothing of the income taxes and other taxes (and there are lots, and lots, and lots of taxes in Vancouver, BC, Canada).

But yeah, protest it. Idiots.


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

That Dakota Access Pipeline protest? Yeah. What a load of crap. Literally.

Want to get up-to-speed on pipeline protests in light of the recent Canadian pipeline approvals, what with the left’s promises (threats?) of protests and “resistance?”

As a good backgrounder, get a good fact-based synopsis of that Dakota Access Pipeline protest down south, now that’s it’s being Trumped. Katie Kieffer writes it up today with aplomb.

But it comes with a warning: this ain’t over. “Like the anti-Trump Women’s March, the DAPL protest was hardly organic,” Kieffer writes. Organic? Ironically, nothing the left and far left does these days is “organic.” This protest is (was) fake. Lies. Another big, phony, Oscar-worthy show.

I’d call them all AstroTurf, but AstroTurf is a nice, usefull, green product. These people are evidently awful, dirty, unproductive time-waters and they cost everyone plenty. And they are product not of innovation, but of the today’s left and the Democratic Party and here in Canada, the much further left New Democratic Party, Greens, Marxists, and so on. And they’re on the hunt.

DAPL Resistance: The Real Story

By Katie Kieffer

Be wary of those who only destroy. Smoldering embers of emotional environmental extremists can re-emerge as a wildfire.

The Trump administration last week extinguished Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters when they proved only willing to torch and trash the earth; culture; children and animals they claimed to be defending.

Pounding drums and donning feathered headdresses, they claimed to be “indigenous.” Shouting “Water is Life!” they professed to be guarding natural resources for “the children.” Holding “Protect the Sacred” banners, they declared themselves defenders of Native American cultural sites. It was all a show.

Four hundred and eighty-plus mounded dumpsters full of trash, including tents; food stores; personal items; and building materials are now being hauled off the federal land where protesters camped for five months. The earth the protesters claimed to cherish was so ravaged that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enlisted a professional cleaning crew from Florida.

Eight pet dogs (minimum) were abandoned by protesters. A local pet rescue crew continues to visit the camp in search of animals. Funds are being raised by Furry Friends Rockin Rescue for vet bills to help the dogs regain health.

Two children were burned so severely that they were rushed to a Bismarck hospital when their negligent guardians set fires in protest of the federal order to leave. And one hazardous and toxic waste crew has been tasked with examining the area that has been tarnished by protesters. …

I had to do a double-take of that line about the number of dumpsters. The source is the Associated Press and people on the ground:

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — … Corps officials say about 240 dumpsters have been hauled out of the main camp, each brimming with debris of old food stores, structures, tents, building materials and abandoned personal belongings. Officials estimate another 240 loads or so will get the job done, the Bismarck Tribune reported…

That’s 480 diesel trucks coming from all over the place, going back and forth into that barren land, to clean up after these “environmental” protesters.

So enough of this crap.

And this crap that I got just today: I’ve tried to explain that it isn’t “grassroots” if you’re organizing them, with the help of millions of dollars, and you’re using thousands of paid protest-organizing staff. That is precisely the definition of AstroTurf! It is exactly not “grassroots!” But these people fail to understand — or they just fail to want to be real and honest:


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 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

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.