Topmost (in use)

Archive | Joel Johannesen

News media updates their fake news story on Trump-related immigration to Canada

This story gave me a smile this morning. The Supreme Court slaps the lower (liberal) courts and reinstates President Trump’s travel ban.

Related news: The liberals’ mainstream media division’s past reporting (sorry “reporting” — so much smug, anti-Trump, fake news…) make the mainstream media look all the more idiotic today as they quietly go about trying to set the actual (real facts, real news) record straight.

From the National Post this morning:

Trump win produces only tiny bump in numbers of Americans applying for Canadian citizenship

The number of Americans applying for Canadian citizenship jumped slightly after Donald Trump’s election, but numbers are still only half what they were five years ago [my bolding]. …

Five years ago, you say. Five years ago. Huh. Let’s try to remember who was president five years ago. Could it have been Barack Obama — three years after he was elected? Why yes. Yes it was. So the people — those poor “Obama refugees” — they were “fleeing” Barack Obama, then, right? Fleeing! Escaping his wrath! Hitler!

In the decade since 2007, applications peaked in 2011, with an average of 564 Americans per month applying to become Canadians…

You remember the media’s post-election stories gleefully reporting touting precisely the opposite, right? Yes with Trump’s election (and speaking of his election… RUSSIA!!) a huge surge in folks fleeing America into perfectly liberal-led Canada even overwhelmed the Canada Immigration website, and (breathless…) those poor people walked through actual snow (SNOW!!!) to get here! (!!!)  More on page two! Also see our 13 photos of “undocumented” Mexicans walking through all the SNOW(!) in North Dakota! (!!!)

They hope you don’t remember all that BS reporting, so let’s totally remember. The whole of the liberal mainstream media — especially in Canada — went completely crazy promoting what we now know, using our vast powers of perspective and science and historic facts, to be utter nonsense — fake news created out of whole cloth by leftists in and around the media — to promote their anti-Trump agenda.

But let’s continue to reflect on facts for another moment. The truth is, more Americans were moving to Canada during Obama’s tenure — especially his first years — than during the beginning of Trump’s. Let’s also recall that a Conservative Stephen Harper was the prime minister of Canada during most of that time — until 2015, when a liberal-leftist Liberal (Justin “I am a PC feminist who welcomes Syrian or any kind of refugee” Trudeau) was elected as prime minister. Then, at that exact same time, fewer people started “escaping America” to liberal-led Canada.

Either way, it appears the number of Americans opting to become citizens has significantly decreased. In the past 10 years’ worth of data, 2016 and 2015 saw the lowest numbers of [American applying for Canadian citizenship] applicants, with 3,168 and 3,623 applicants, respectively. In each of the seven preceding years, there was an average of 5,712.

The “seven preceding years” was when there was a Conservative prime minister and (for most of it) a Democrat president. While Obama was president and Harper was prime minister, more Americans were trying to become Canadian. And even in light of the facts, no media hysteria has caught up to to explain that greater, relatively huge tidal wave of anti-Obama “refugees” to Canada from Obama’s America from 2008 to 2016.

In other real news, people are fleeing the liberal mainstream media.


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

Peter Kent on Trudeau’s weird Chinacommielove

I’m not the state-owned CBC or CTV. I don’t act like a stenographer for (in my case) CPC talking points, the way “reporters” for the CBC and several citizen-owned media outlets do for their parties (Lib, NDP, Green, Gaia, or any combination thereof). And by the way, I’m also not a reporter in case you hadn’t noticed my good grammar and punctuation. But occasionally — really rarely — I can’t say it better than it was said in a CPC talking points memo or email. (Or I’m being lazy).

I find what the Liberals are doing on this file more appalling than than lots of the rest, which is saying a lot. So here’s this:

Dear Joel,

Justin Trudeau is putting the interests of his friends, closely connected with Beijing, ahead of the safety and security of Canadians.

Back in 2015, our Conservative government blocked the sale of a Canadian electronics firm to China’s O-Net Communications – due to national security concerns.

But the Liberals reversed our decision.

And now, the Liberals are set to approve another Chinese takeover deal of a Vancouver-based company that builds satellite receivers for NATO – while refusing to subject this takeover to a full national security review.

Canada uses this company’s technology for its own military purposes. Without a proper national security review, Canada’s safety and security — and that of our allies — are being put at risk.

Even the former head of CSIS said he would have recommended a full national security review of this deal.

As I’ve said before, China’s drive to militarize the South China Sea and the technological ramifications of a deal like this, deserve much more due diligence.

So why is the Prime Minister so fascinated with China and their “basic dictatorship”?

Why does he have such an overwhelming desire to appease his friends in Beijing – so much so, that it clouds his judgment on Canada’s national security?

Is this the Prime Minister’s way of thanking his Chinese communist government billionaire friends who paid top dollar to meet with him privately a year ago?

This is a worrying trend – one where Trudeau is putting his own interests ahead of the best interests of our country.

Canadian security – not Chinese government connected donors to the Liberal Party – needs to be top of mind for Justin Trudeau.

Donate now if you agree.

Sincerely,
Peter Kent, MP for Thornhill

 


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

Donald Trump may be a lot of things, but he’s not ineffectual

Quote of the week — by former Conservative government Finance Minister Joe Oliver, in the National Post this morning. He’s writing of how the current Liberal government is blowing our relationship with America, at a crucial time, by stupidly grandstanding largely to satisfy their own Liberal Party base.

…Still, we [Canada] should do our share to protect ourselves. That is what the current president demanded, as did his two predecessors who were much gentler, far more diplomatic and utterly ineffectual.

It’s the last part of that quote that struck me as unusually bold (for a Canuck), but I’ll hedge a little on it being “utterly” true: Obama was certainly ineffectual. Utterly. No argument there. But that same characterization being assigned to W is a little incongruous to me. President Bush was nothing if not strong on the defence file, insisting on not just American defence (and offence in the case of Iraq and terrorism generally), but North American defence — and dragged Canada — sometimes kicking and screaming — closer to his way of thinking on defence and security policy, and even on the war on terror. Granted, Bush proved ineffectual in convincing Canadians (the general population as opposed to its Conservative leadership at that time) to take greater responsibility for Canada, particularly against the looming Islamist threat, but he tried, and it was inarguably not his job to do so. Canadians are still utterly ineffectual on this global terrorism file, and nobody in Canada is even trying to change that.

Oliver wasn’t done with the bold. I love what he wrote about the ridiculous Paris climate accord:

Withdrawal from the Paris climate accord is viewed as the latest and to some, including the minister, the most egregious instance of America renouncing its leadership responsibilities. It is not. In a triumph of feel-good faith and ideology over the facts and common sense, extravagant emotion is devoted to the agreement.

Unfortunately, rather than humanity’s last hope it is basically a meaningless conceit. The accord is founded on voluntary promises that are not binding and have no penalties for non-compliance. At best it will have a minuscule impact on global temperatures (0.2 per cent of a degree Celsius) by the end of the century, assuming every country does what it promised, which we know will never happen. Yet the cost will be in the trillions, which will undermine growth, reduce employment, divert funding from critical social programs and disproportionately hurt the poor.

Proclaiming the emperor has no clothes is not the abandonment of leadership. To the contrary, confronting consensus with truth is the assertion of leadership. If Paris leads to more robust military spending, it would be the first positive thing to have emerged from its pretentious hypocrisy.

And his conclusion about the pose the ineffectual Liberals are striking:

Hopefully, the president will take the win and let Canada worry that it weakened its bargaining position with intemperate posturing.

Perfectly said.


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

Spot the bullCBC story at Yahoo Finance Canada

You’d be forgiven for thinking it was was the extreme leftist state-owned CBC web site. But no. It’s Yahoo.

This kind of bullCBC does happen occasionally at regular free-market sites. I mean normal ones who haven’t given up the pretence of objectivity. It leaks out the odd time giving us the chance to see what they’re really made of, which is so often left-wing bullCBC.

Below is part of Yahoo.com’s Canadian Finance page this morning. See if you can possibly spot the rabidly biased Trump-hate fake news piece:


I never thought of Yahoo.com’s (Canadian) Finance page positioning itself on the left side of the political spectrum. But apparently it, too is on the wrong side — i.e.,  it’s biased. Left-wing, as if I had to tell you.

“Trump,” as many commenters wrote in response to the hideously stupid article, “makes me want to visit America more.” Others wrote that left-wing biased “news” articles like this make them want to visit America more, even if they hate Trump. But here’s one which represented many — and it’s my favorite (the one highlighted in yellow):

There were many more like that one. It was like a contest to see how many times the words “fake news” and “bias” could be written in one commentary thread.

You’d think someone at Yahoo would wake up, or grow up, or something. Or maybe since it’s a finance news site, check the stock price of Yahoo which is down as of this writing — down 1.6% just today (according to Google’s finance site).

It is such a stupid, blatantly anti-Trump rant, as written by an obvious liberal-leftist Trump-hater who just can’t get over losing to Mizz Corruption. Yeah I double-checked and I wasn’t at the CBC site. Given the season, I also figured the article was written by a petulant young summer intern — a young leftist Clinton “Resistance” agitator — possibly the child of nutty far-left Bernie-supporting parents (or one of the many extreme-leftists or socialists right here in Canada). But no, the author, Melissa Dunne — was educated in journalism at Ryerson — and is thus ostensibly an adult. And a professional writer — a reporter. And Yahoo still bills itself as a straight-up news site rather than a CBC.

Yup. I too, have never read such horseshit.

So yeah go ahead and visit “Trump’s America” (I mean provided you’re not an illegal alien or any other kind of criminal). It’s Ryerson, and “news” sites like Yahoo with biased left-wing writers like Melissa Dunne pretending to present honest and unbiased news stories — which I would be far more worried about you visiting again.


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

News of his election booted to page 30; now media asks, “Who is this Andrew Scheer guy?”

When the Conservatives elected Andrew Scheer as its new leader last weekend, the Vancouver Sun shoved the story onto page 13 — so insignificant they thought — or wanted you to think — that it was. They certainly weren’t interested in you learning the big news, or who Andrew Scheer was, to say the least.

Vancouver’s The Province (same owner — Postmedia) did worse: they shoved it back the furthest they could — to page 30 — which is just before the obituaries and sports. (See our article here).

Today they — perhaps with a sense of victory — “report”: “Who is this Andrew Scheer anyway?” — and further report that almost a third of Canadians don’t know.

Are the media malicious? Or merely obtuse?

Hanlon’s Razor suggests “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” But it’s not a rule we’re forced to abide by. Sometimes the liberal-leftist news media is malicious, and sometimes it is both malicious and stupid.


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 Media vs Conservatives: Conservative Party Leadership Finale = Page 30

The big Conservative Party leadership contest ended on Saturday with Andrew Scheer winning. Where did Vancouver’s The Province (a Postmedia paper – same owner as National Post, etc.) put the story on Sunday?

Page 30. Yeah no, not the front page. Not page 4. Not page 11. Not 16. Not 26. Page 30.

The story — an important one by any measure if you are of a sound or fair or balanced journalistic mind — and one which is of interest to and which ultimately affects all Canadians, is not even mentioned or teased on the front page.

And by the way, page 30 is their last page of news before the Obituaries section and Sports.

The far-left NDP meet in October to pick their new leader. Wanna guess where that story will be situated, and how many pages at the very front of the paper will be dominated by that story?

P.S. on Monday morning, the Vancouver Sun (same owner): story finally found, 13 pages in — with this headline: “TORIES DARE TO BE DULL”.

“Tories.” “Dull.”

 


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

ProudToBeCanadian is undergoing a rebirth

STICKY POST – Fresh new posts below

Since we’re between elections, and other distractions have been largely shoved aside, it’s a great time to rebuild this site. Competing plans are being analysed, and through the rest of spring and into summer, a new plan will be chosen and work will begin.

Meantime, there’s lots of articles to catch up on (thousands!), starting below this article, and some new articles will be added when time permits.

Please keep in touch!


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

Other. Neither. Both. None. All of the above.

Hey boys and girls! I’ve done this before but it hasn’t ceased to amaze me yet. Which I think is a good thing.

First question in a survey I did this week:


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

Conservative Party leadership ballot — and how I’m ranking my vote

How did I decide how to mark my Conservative Party leadership ballot?

Virtually all the candidates spout the same lines on personal and corporate taxes (lowering them), and some other key issues.

So I judged based a variety of other factors where the candidates’ position on issues were actually different: abortion, gun rights, supply management, ending the CBC, carbon tax; and the more esoteric things like their the detail of their plans, their web site and the information contained therein, history, how they managed the narrative, and a host of other things.

The fact that there were 14 candidates, and so the attendant lack of my time for this, and the confusion and laziness that such a big roster brings to my table — also played a pretty big role in my balloting, especially after rank 5. That, and enormous boredom after this seemingly 58-year-long leadership process.

1. Maxime Bernier
2. Brad Trost
3. Pierre Lemieux
4. Andrew Scheer
5. Erin O’Toole
6. Steven Blaney
7. Andrew Saxton
8. Chris Alexander
9. Kellie Leitch
10. Deepak Obhrai

—- Voters only get 10 choices —-

11. Rick Peterson
12. Lisa Raitt
13. Michael Chong

Kevin O’Leary would have been #10 or so.


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

Foreign aid is not aid, it’s a rip-off

I’ve made clear the position of this website on the candidates for leader of the Conservative Party (Maxime Bernier). So I’ll go ahead and share another reason why: it comes from this latest emailout by his team. In it he talks about foreign affairs, or at least foreign aid, and how it should really be called failure aid.

It is spot on.

As an aside, I have noticed a weird affliction among political campaign support teams and their mailout writers: someone must have told them that when doing a mass mailing, it’s best to make every sentence have its own zip code.

Each sentence contains within it a fresh new declarative doctrine, and its own paragraph.

And each sentence is made to stand out as another fresh bold take.

It’s as if they made an allowance for applause time at the end of each line.

And they think it makes each notion appear somehow august by doing this.

To wit:

Friend, Canadians are being ripped off by Justin Trudeau.

He’s trying to buy a seat at the UN by sending aid money around the world.

He’s building roads in Africa with your tax dollars.

He pledged $2.6 billion to fight climate change in developing countries.

And last month, he announced millions more to fund abortions abroad.

My position on foreign aid is clear:

Canada should not fund economic development abroad, and humanitarian aid should be given only to help save lives in crisis situations.

No country has ever been lifted out of poverty by handouts.

They need to reform their economy, free their entrepreneurs from bureaucratic shackles, respect the rule of law, and trade.

We have people who struggle here. We can’t send billions in tax dollars overseas when there is no tangible benefit to Canadians.

Foreign aid should be given only when there is a genuine humanitarian crisis.

Famine. Rapid outbreak of disease. War. Natural disasters. These are real problems.

In times of real need, Canada can and will do its part.

But we must stop funding things based on a flawed left-wing ideology.

(From Maxime Bernier emailout, April 13, 2017)

I hope you get the point. Because if you didn’t, your reading skills may need some aid from a foreign country.

America has it even worse, both debt-wise and foreign aid-wise (“wise” being an ironic suffix to use in each of these cases). Bernier has it right all on his own, I’m sure, as I’ve heard him speak this way for ages, but down south, Donald trump got elected partly on this same footing. For example he once said,

This country is a great country but we are a debtor nation. We borrow money from Japan in order to defend Japan and we pay interest on that money and I think it’s just ridiculous. The country, the United States, is being ripped off and it shouldn’t happen.

(Taken from The risk Trump takes in abandoning Steve Bannon, Washington Examiner, April 13 2017)

As different as both of these men are, both are absolutely correct, including their shared usage of the term “ripped-off.” And whether both said it or not, it’s all left-wing ideology at work, here, to be sure.

And here’s another thought:

Canada is a rich nation, and yet we know that Canada absolutely relies on the United States to help defend Canada, not unlike Japan. Canadians thus save billions every year simply by not spending the cash otherwise necessary for her own national defence. Canada in effect gets foreign aid from the United States, even while Canada gives out cash aid to other countries — for abortions and other such left-wing values.

Both Canada and the United States are getting ripped off. And I think it’s ridiculous.


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

Alt-right email. Alt-answered.

Mail delivered to me in a fashion at odds with the quaint traditional postal mail methods of yore. And then answered in a similar alternate fashion.

Hi Joseph,

I think what the “alt-right” folks intended to mean was “an alternative to the traditional, or ‘establishment,’ or commonly-known version of the right,” rather than anything like the opposite of the right.

As you know, nobody, not the right, not the left, not libertarians, not moderates, not the gay set, not Mexicans, not jihadists, not ‘working families’, not the ‘news’ media — nobody — even knew what in tarnation “alt-right” meant, until maybe a year ago.

Everybody immediately pretended they’d known the term for years and years, and knew just precisely what it meant because of course they’re so hip and smart. Nobody actually knew, and still don’t, because there is not “alt-right” manifesto or constitution or head office or clubhouse.

As soon as the cool kids started using it the term was brought into the sunlight and immediately used — by the left only — as a way to smear conservatives or Republicans who liked Donald Trump. They used the term as synonymous with “racist” or “Nazi” or “irredeemably deplorable” (or pick from the Left’s menu of other hate-smears).

If you’re like me, when I first heard it, I thought it meant more something along the lines of “neo-con” or just another version of the conservative-right, which was just as palatable as most of the other member-groups of the conservative family, like the Log Cabin Conservatives, but just with yet another distinct angle.

And since Breitbart.com (a site I’ve visited since the day it was born because I hugely admired Andrew Breitbart and because the site is excellent) was touted as the home of the “alt-right,” I thought it, too, was perfectly mainstream and good. Because Breitbart.com is generally that: mainstream and good.

I was always fully aware that Breitbart had some edgy — just edgy; no, not “racist” or “Nazi” — articles, but I always took them in the context in which they were intended to be taken, and read them as a grown adult with a half-ass brain, instead of an idiot man-child like so many on the Left and in their media division.

I still don’t know even remotely know what “alt-right” means.  I brush it off as another bullshit term invented by yahoos. Millennials. Or hippies. I don’t bother to call myself “alt-right” mostly because I refuse to let the idiots on the left define me, especially if they’re trying to define me as racist, or as a “Nazi” (even though it really just makes them look like the total imbeciles they are).

I’m a conservative and I like Breitbart.com. And that’s alt-OK.

Sincerely,
Joel Johannesen

Also posted to BoldColors.net


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

Email about CBC: Asked and Answered.

Hi Kent —

The CBC — and virtually everyone who works there — literally relies on a degree of socialism and a socialist mindset for the CBC’s very existence. Without their annual $1.5 billion of the taxpayers’ cash and all the market protections given to them by the state and the other state-mandated advantages, they would immediately die under the rules of actual life — the free market, free enterprise — ie., conservative rules. So that explains their love for and promotion of socialism; and by logical extension, their hate of free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, conservatism.

The benefit they get from exercising this perfidy is not just perceived — it’s a real benefit. The Liberals and further left NDP literally promise them more welfare if elected, and they deliver; while the right — real conservatives — threaten to withdraw funding or to even kill the CBC. (Bear in mind the Stephen Harper “Conservatives” fully supported the CBC).

Thus being a government-owned organization, they are subject to politics, and so will act out accordingly. That’s one of the (several) reasons I’ve always said that the state should not be involved in any business, and in fact that notion should be enshrined in our constitution.

Government of a free country — a democracy — should not be in the business of competing against its own citizens, as in the case with the CBC; or even of meddling in the free marketplace the way they do, because it wrecks the marketplace. Wrecks capitalism. Wrecks freedom. Wrecks countries.

I think somebody with standing — like a competitor (or all of them as a group) or a taxpayer group — should take such a case to the Supreme Court and they could win. But at least a politician should lead, and sell these principles to the people and win over the sentiment of the nation.

— Joel Johannesen


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

Trudeau Liberals’ crony capitalism and hypocrisy is delivered by courier trucks, V8s, and jet engines

Not a day goes by wherein the uberliberal Liberals don’t meddle in the economy, engage in their croney capitalism, waste our taxpayer dollars, further wreck the free market, wreck capitalism, wreck businesses, negate any semblance of their own principles which are now demonstrably farcical, and gradually take Canada down with them as a general matter. 

Earlier this week I heard about Purolator, that state-owned courier company which competes against private business and Canadian citizens, going on strike. (Read my previous posts about Purolator being state-owned, etc).

Just yesterday I lamented the Trudeau Liberals’ idiocy in propping up Bombardier — that epic failure and chronic corporate welfare bum. That particular taxpayer largesse wasn’t the news yesterday — it was the fact that right after securing those hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars from the Trudeau Liberals, Bombardier executives laughed at us, spit in our faces, and awarded themselves a 50% pay raise, and raised their bonuses by up to double, in case we weren’t already insulted enough. Great dealmaking by Trudeau and Liberals, since that wasn’t preemptively disallowed in whatever crazy-ass deal they made with them. As I tweeted yesterday:

Today both the Trudeau Liberals and Ontario’s Wynne Liberals have propped up that newcomer FORD in Ontario. The Essex plant, which is getting the taxpayer funding, is where Ford produces enormous 5-liter V-8 engines. This should help the Liberals collect more carbon tax when they introduce that new tax, which they purport to be doing in order to “save the planet,” as we are in “an emergency climate crisis,” dontchaknow. Bombardier also causes few gazillion tons of carbon to be spewed, if my reading of climate science is correct. Purolator? Spewtastic.

For giggles, see CTV “News” article ‘Can’t stop a train’: Trump climate policies won’t deter Liberals, McKenna says.

And if my reading of Liberals’ “principles” — economic, philosophical, and political — is correct, the Trudeau Liberals are a disgrace. A farce.


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

National Post misleads on Leitch. Again.

The liberal mainstream media misreads, and it misleads. But now for some news:

Demonstrating the mainstream media’s amazing ability to misread public sentiment, notwithstanding their recent gigantic misses, I think the National Post thinks it is slamming Kellie Leitch today. But I suspect it’s actually going to help her. And that’s because readers are tired of being misled like this:

There is a lot of rational anti-radical-Islamist sentiment in Canada, and in fact it’s a now long-held official government policy in Canada and around the world. So it’s not insane for a politician to play to that precinct. Lots of Canadians gravitate toward Leitch for that very reason — she is the most outspoken Conservative leadership candidate on protecting Canadians and Canadian values against that real threat. Or are we still arguing about whether or not radical Islamists have shown themselves to be a real threat to Canada and Canadians — and globally? If so, you need to read a lot more than just the National Post and the state-owned CBC. You’re in the right place now, for example.

Still, those who delve into the article will be alarmed by the extreme message the group in question is sending, to wit:

The Rise Canada Twitter account has called Islam “a barbaric ideology of hate that must be banned,” and proposed “a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants PLUS mass deportation of existing Muslims.”

Ouch. Further reading suggests to me that they sound like a bunch of racist idiots. But does that mean Leitch agrees with them? No. In fact she has emphatically said the opposite. And after all, Justin Trudeau and other Liberals have attended lots of questionable meetings, and mosques widely believed to be possible centers of Islamist radicalization without Trudeau or any Liberals even remotely challenging their teachings — nor the media challenging those yummy liberals. Nobody in the media posits that Justin Trudeau or Liberals associate with radical Islamists on purpose. The media actually just swoons over Justin Trudeau and all liberals no matter what or who they meet with. Swoons.

Oh but also, by the way, if you’ve got the time, there’s this tidbit: this meeting wasn’t what the media just tried to make you think it was. Later in the article, after the extended quotes of predictable righteous outrage from a National Council of Canadian Muslims spokesman, the reporter allows this small detail thusly: it wasn’t that awful group’s meeting. At all. That tiny group of loons were merely in attendance — as demonstrators — without Leitch’s foreknowledge.

In a statement to the National Post on Wednesday, Leitch’s spokesman said the meeting was organized by a group that wants to keep religion out of public schools and that the Tory leadership hopeful was not sent a guest list in advance.

“This meeting was about the place of religion in public schools. That meeting was attended by a number of people from a number of different groups, including people from Rise Canada,” Michael Diamond said.

But Leitch was unaware the Rise Canada adviser would be there, he said. “Had she known she would not have attended. She wants to be very clear that this guy and his opinions are repugnant and do not reflect her own views.”

And further down, toward the end:

She said the event with Leitch was organized by another group called Concerned Parents of Canada, which said it was opposed to religious practices in Canadian public schools and was not associated with Rise Canada.

“We don’t support or promote activities/dialogue against any religion or faith. We respect all. This was a free event and everyone was free to ask questions. That should not be interpreted or projected as any one individual playing a prominent role,” Concerned Parents of Canada said in an email.

The headline obliquely promised a “troubling” link between racists and Leitch. The only thing that is “troubling” is the bullshit headline.

This reminds me of Donald Trump’s campaign coverage. Any time a radical person or group of people were caught attending a rally (and the media spent all their time searching for them, as they’re all but inevitable in all campaigns — including even at the sacred Hillary Clinton’s rallies), the news media would get apoplectic and write all about that group and Trump’s “troubling” association with them (but would write about none of the good stuff Donald Trump actually said at the rally). When Marxists and communists and radical atheists and extreme left-wing groups and extremist feminists and the many various left-wing haters attended Hillary Clinton rallies — and they surely did — nary a word was ever written. Just the incessant swooning.

So: poor choice for Leitch to attend this? Sure, maybe. So call it that — in an editorial: Suggested word choice: “A poor choice, maybe, but whatever, next.” (Also go ahead and call so many of Justin Trudeau’s and Katherine Wynn’s choices to attend various places and meetings “a very, very, poor choice.” And then do the NDP if space permits.)

But to imply — in a news article — that Leitch was cavorting with these idiots, and that she in any way agrees with them — is itself radical. Extremist. A leap way too far. Even for a media which has given up all pretence of fairness or objectivity toward conservatives.

And to plaster the story on the front page of the “news”paper the way they did is hideously unobjective, biased, and an extremely poor editorial choice — especially for a newspaper that still fancies itself a purveyor of truth and honesty and which still wishes to be taken seriously.

 


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

Everything that is wrong with liberals and Liberals: Bombardier.

Taxpayer protection against this sort of crap wasn’t written into the agreement to bail this chronic corporate welfare case out? Apparently not. The Trudeau Liberals are quite the dealmakers!

This is croney capitalism run amok. This liberal crap didn’t start with the Justin Trudeau Liberals. But it’s only liberals who engage in it; or people who don’t understand capitalism or economics generally. And it’s wrecking capitalism, free markets, and it’s wrecking Canada. Just as it is the United States and Europe.

I don’t care how much executives get paid — that’s up to the company’s owners to control.  But when the state “invests” billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out this chronic abuser of federal taxpayer largesse — this perpetual corporate welfare case — I do care.

The answer is for the state to stop meddling with the free market where it has no business. Largely because governments — politicians — don’t have the foggiest clue. But also because it isn’t how free markets and capitalism works. Nor how economic progress is made.

Since the Trudeau Liberals apparently made an amazingly bad deal, there may be no way out. So Bombardier will once again laugh at all of us stupid taxpayers. But if there is even the slightest provision in the deal to do so: demand immediate repayment. If it means the Bombardier welfare case fails, let that welfare case fail. Don’t let us take the fall for them and for the Trudeau Liberals’ stupidity.


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

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com