I just added a few more comments to my blog post from yesterday exemplifying the extremist left-wing hate found at the CBC web site. 

It should be all over the news.  I don’t just mean Dick Cheney’s recent check-in to the hospital for chest pains —I mean the story of the hate site, CBC.ca, and how a state-owned, taxpayer-paid entity can allow such a thing to occur.  And how as its overseers, the apparently flaccid Canadian citizens and moreover, the government in charge, can allow its own government division, the CBC division, which it owns and to whom the CBC directly reports, to turn into a hateful, divisive, politically extremist left-wing crap sandwich, all at taxpayer expense. 

Canadians should demand the CBC be completely dismantled to save our country from utter shame and embarrassment, to say nothing of the fact that manifestly, state-owned news and entertainment media should be banned in any free country — and certainly in ours, where we already have viable citizen-owned options, against which the government tacitly competes —for profit, and for attention, and for advertisers, and in the forum of ideas, and notably the forum of political ideas.  It’s an absolute abomination of freedom and democracy.

Be sure you bookmark my whole category of CBC hate comments for future reference.  It includes the likes of “THIS IS WHAT YOU DESERVE” —a comment written in response to a news article about a Canadian soldier dying for our country in Afghanistan. 

I miss 99% of the hate—my efforts at documenting this extremist left-wing hate are limited by my time and money of course.  Note that these limitations don’t prevail at the CBC, with its apparently limitless taxpayer-paid resources, and whose lawyers once warned me, after threatening to sue me to kingdom come for posting videos critical of the CBC, that “we will be monitoring your site.”  This occurred in Canada —not Iran.

I’ve run internet blogs and discussion forums since they were invented.  The most basic tenet of any such site owner and administrator has always been to encourage at least a modicum of common human decency, and therefore, strictly forbid anybody from wishing death on anybody else.  It can be credibly argued that a site that allows that to happen on a regular basis, particularly when the hate, regularly expressed, is almost totally one-sided as it is at CBC, could be considered a hate site, an extremist site, and one which should be shunned by all of humanity.  That’s a fairly common notion amongst all site administrators who don’t run hate sites. 

The state-owned CBC web site is one of the most vile, hateful, divisive, and most left-wing and anti-conservative web sites that I regularly look at in North America.  I would avoid that site if I didn’t adopt it as a duty of mine to report on its extremism and left-wing political bent for a web site called “ProudToBeCanadian”. 

What kind of government would allow this to happen?  And allow this to happen at a cost to taxpayers — of in excess of a BILLION of our own taxpayer dollars per year, plus the literally unknown hundreds of millions in additional subsidies every year to secure all manner of left-wing content from nearly uniformly left-wing “artists” and far-left “documentarians” like Michael Moore, and other such left-wing claptrap resources.  And allow it to employ almost exclusively left-wing and far-left opinion columnists?  And then ensure that the CBC then benefits from myriad government protective regulations and laws and mandates to ensure all Canadians get its content?  What kind of a government allows that?

This is Hugo Chavez-style, banana republic BS.

The CBC makes me utterly ashamed to be a Canadian.

WRITE YOUR MP.

Better yet, since even the Conservative Party fully supports the CBC and won’t stop reminding us of that fact, thus further legitimizing it and all that it stands for, mobilize and get active in politics in your own neighborhoods and communities, and get personally involved in the Conservative Party itself —and make it respond to the your values — values of actual conservatives —traditional, sane, freedom-loving Canadians. 

(Commenting available at the “J-Log” version of this article.)

Possibly related posts:

• More hate comments wishing for Dick Cheney’s death approved at state-owned CBC
• PTBC reader launches complaint against CBC for hate speech against Catholics in its reader comments
• Canadian heroes die fighting for us in Afghanistan today: CBC haters, extremists spew hate comments
• 65% say Harper comments were fair comments
• CBC reports on Canadian soldier’s death in Afghanistan: Vile CBC readers express HATE for him; HATE.

 

  Headline: 
  “A FITTING IMAGE
  Companies sponsor athletes who share their values and suit their brand”.

Go team!  We’re behind you!  We share your values!  You suit our brand!  …And that’s why we associate with and so support the CBC! (play that hilarious clip of screeching car tires).

The headline is about businesses associating with Olympic athletes and such, but it’s equally true of a lot of other things with which they associate themselves.  And it’s why, when Tiger Woods’ very liberal family and moral values came to our attention, companies who were associating with him didn’t waste any time publicly dissociating with him.  Woods didn’t actually “share their values”, nor did he “suit their brand”.  They wanted out.  For their own good. 

So it’s confusing to me that companies such as those I’ve listed in my Push Back list (also posted along the right side of this web site) advertise on — thereby sponsoring — the state-owned, socialism-reliant, taxpayer-funded, totally reliant on high and ever higher taxes, and it could be credibly argued, the anti-conservative, anti-capitalist CBC.  Or any clearly socialist outfit which relies on the continuation of, and what is inevitably the further advancement of, the socialist model for their very existence. 

Bank of Montreal?  Investors Group?  Tim Hortons?  I do understand groups like the University of Toronto and all those crown “corporations” (—wink!) advertising on and associating themselves with the CBC (as they do) because colleges teach and promote the same things as the CBC, and crown “corporations” all rely on the same economic model as the CBC being maintained.  But Vonage?  Shaw Cable?  General Motors?   Do these companies believe in socialism?  Does socialism “suit their brand”?  Really?  Is socialism and a government-owned, socialism-reliant media network the kind of “values” they want to be associated with?  Does socialism “suit their brand” —or ours? 

If so, good to know.  Their values aren’t mine.  (And let’s not be fooled: big businesses may very well not share your free-market capitalist values, so don’t be mislead or confused.) 

It’s a little counterintuitive to say the least.  Socialism is obviously the antithesis of capitalism and a free-market economy, and the state-owned, socialism-reliant CBC is the antithesis of capitalism and a free-market economy.  The CBC absolutely relies on the promotion of anti-capitalists like Michael Moore and his documentaries the CBC incessantly repeats, over and over, and the promotion of an anti-capitalist system writ large, to sustain them and their very existence.  So why would anybody want to be associated with that?  Whose values are those?  “A fitting image:  Companies sponsor athletes who share their values and suit their brand”  Well if the shoe fits…

It seems a little self-defeating to me, for a capitalism-reliant company who needs Canadians to have plenty of after-tax dollars and total freedom, to advertise on a socialism-reliant government media behemoth which constantly berates capitalism and conservatives and their free-market, freedom-oriented values and promotes socialists and other progressives.  It ultimately helps lead us to the demise of capitalism as we know it today.  And that doesn’t suit my own personal brand or that of my family, or even my country for that matter. 

(Commenting available at the J-Log version of this article)

Possibly related posts:

• Companies associate themselves with those who share their values and suit their brand? Like the CBC?
• All bathrooms must now be “ungendered” to suit cross-dressers
• Conservative VALUES match Canadian VALUES according to poll
• “Brand Canada”—tourists don’t know what Canada is. What a coincidence.
• The Associate Vice Chancellor of White Guilt

 

…And I finally answered this time, even though I was going to wait until the 120th call.  Yes, I’ve logged the last 118 calls, all of which have gone unanswered because I honestly thought that after 117 unanswered calls, they’d get a clue.  Alas, no, they didn’t get a clue.  They still don’t have a clue. 

I was in a particularly foul mood this time because I was awaiting an important call, and this asinine call once again took me away from something important. I answered and was greeted by a woman who, after about 10 seconds of me repeatedly saying “hello”, finally pushed the “I got a hot one!” button on her Hellacious Hal 666 Robomarketing ‘n G-D Fund Raising Auto-Dialer-o-Freakin’ Matic, and once her noggin-mounted mouthpiece went live,  proceeded with her ritual by…. presuming to call me “Joel”. 

“Hello Joel, I’m calling from the Conservative Party and blah blah blah yickity-yack…”

This is problematic. 

People who should be bending over backward to impress me and treat me with their utmost respect and reverence — especially those who call me at my castle on my weekend to ask me for (more of) my money —and who then begin that call by referring to me, uninvited, by my first name alone, will never, ever, get anything out of me, except a return of the favor:  a like-minded disrespect and irreverence. Call me an overly sensitive and old-fashioned conservative twerp (I’ve been called far worse, like “Nazi” and “idiot” and “homophobe”), but yes, I yearn for the stupid old days when sales people’s initial inclination was to show some basic respect and decorum and politeness, especially when bothering me at home to ask me to give them my money for absolutely no tangible benefit to me in return, except possibly more of just this sort of request of me for still another donation to that political party. 

I’m not as pure as the driven snow, nor are my feelings and emotions as tender as a typical liberal’s, but you’d think that a political party which calls itself the Conservative Party would at least establish itself, in its calls, as a group of people who hold to the basic, traditional value of decorum and old-fashioned modicum of respect, simply by calling people Mr. so-and-so, rather than presuming to call them by their first name —you know, the way news reporters call the leader of the you’ve got to be kidding party “Jack”, on account of their being pals.  But even that little nugget of conservatism has been tossed now by the progressive, age of Obama Conservatives, who now see no need to be anything like conservative.  Even when they don’t (but should) know me from Adam (whom I swear has no last name or I’d refer to him proper-like). 

Anyway, after I almost immediately managed to cut off her spiel and told her to take me off their sales call list after being called 118 times (and you know how it goes, they purposely start talking and talking non-stop, giving you no chance to even politely say “not interested”), she became sort of passive-aggressive and annoying and inquired as to why I didn’t want to be called again, which, in and of itself I find irksome, particularly after my telling her this was the 118th call.  But unless I heard it wrong, it was that she asked if it was that I didn’t believe in the conservative values (or something) any longer —or in any case, some such excruciatingly annoying — and blindingly ironic — BS.  And it was done in an all too cynical, almost mocking tone.  She was rude, plain and simple.

Now, I don’t know if it’s clear among my readership or not, but this inquiry as to whether or not I, of all people in Canada, believed in “conservative” anything, is something I could find somewhat, I don’t know, mildly rage-inducing, if that isn’t too much of an oxymoron (and since even Conservative Party folks don’t find the state-owned, socialism-reliant news broadcaster CBC presenting hourly reports on business to be an oxymoron, I’ll assume this also isn’t).  If they at Conservative Party HQ don’t read my blog and don’t have a clue who I am, and know they shouldn’t include me on their sales call list by now, they’re simply willfully ignorant, and need better intelligence.  Actually, that last bit could be said in any case.  But I digress.  Forget the rudeness.  The very fact that they’ve apparently got no clue who I am alone drives me nuts, inasmuch as I have spent the past many years and spent tons of my cash ranting about the value of conservative principles, usually touting that party if begrudgingly at times, but yes, I’ve also lamented over how that party has almost completed its apparent goal of finally forgetting every last vestige of actual conservative principle. 

Hideously, I presume that my last donation to the Party (which was of the maximum amount allowed by law variety), helped pay for all of this.  Which ironically puts them in almost the same league as the CBC in a weird sort of way.  And the CBC is something they also support not just in principle but with my cash.  Which also drives me batty inasmuch as it should normally help explain why I wouldn’t ante-up my supporting cash when they come a-calling.

So this is all, shall we say, very swear-word swear-word annoying.  And here I thought being a liberal was hard. 

Suffice it to say I did not offer-up any cash.  And for the record, my do not call me any more “confirmation number” is supposedly 16213759, which seems like a very long number to me.  That many folks, huh?  Unless “Patricia”, the Hellacious Hal 666 Robomarketing ‘n G-D Fund Raising Auto-Dialer-o-Freakin’ Matic engineer who, considering how my day is going, may also belong to the CAW, was lying to me.  In which case I’d be really annoyed…

Reader comments can be made at the “J-Log” version of this same article.

Possibly related posts:

• The 118th call from the Conservative Party fund raising robo machine from Hell…
• Pretend conservative John Tory of Ontario PROGRESSIVE Conservative Party encourages gay lifestyle
• No surprise: Conservative Party poised to become Liberal Two
• BC Politics, and why the BC Conservative Party is no Party - Part 4
• Conservative Party, like Canada, needs a major P.R. campaign

 

I’ll bet you didn’t even know there was a “religious left”, since all we ever hear about, especially from the left and far, radical left (especially the radical religious left), is hateful rhetoric about “the religious right”.  They throw the term “religious right” around so often you’d think there must be an official head office for “the religious right”.  But if there is one, I don’t know where to find it.  Nor do I know how to join, except it seems to be very easy.  Be a conservative and a Christian at the same time, and say anything or write anything that mentions both of those things at the same time.  See, now I’m a member! 

So Vancouver Sun “spiritiual” columnist Douglas Todd, whose job as a Vancouver Sun columnist seems to me to be marginalizing conservatism and Christianity as best he can, writes again about, well, that ever so noble cause, today.  Because he’s so progressive and trendy, and Glenn Beck is so popular, he naturally writes today about why you should hate Glenn Beck.  And, well duh, Sarah Palin.  It’s de rigueur for all leftists to attack — on a personal level —the characters of Glenn Beck and of course Sarah Palin —that’s how you join their club.  You get an honorable mention at the next club meeting if you slam and bash Ann Coulter too, usually by calling her a Nazi.  And of course mention Fox News Channel in the derogative, and you get an autographed photo of Markos Moulitsas.  All liberals and leftists and other so-called “progressives” like Douglas Todd, and all those who hate conservatives and Christianity, write negatively about them and some try to assassinate their character.  It’s their way of showing that famous liberal-left “compassion” and “tolerance” and their “love for diversity”. 

But both Beck and Palin (and Coulter and Fox News) are too successful at exposing the left for what they, which is nothing like compassionate and tolerant and loving of diversity, so the left fear them.  (But don’t worry, it’s not anything “-ophobic”.) 

“Both frequently declare Democrats to be ‘socialists,’ to vigorously support the war against Iraq (and Vietnam), to raise suspicions about black people…” he intones, as if he’s completely stupid.  But let’s face reality, shall we Mr. Todd?  (1.) Many Democrats in the Obama administration are demonstrably and even declaratively socialists (no scare-quotes needed, here, Todd)—and at least one who was exposed by Glenn Beck (Van Jones) was an outright and self-admitted communist, with others in the Administration (Anita Dunn) merely idolizing communists like Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao.  (2.) Neither Beck nor Palin support any wars “against” Iraq and “against” Vietnam, but rather against the evil tyrants and/or communists who took them over, and are in fact “for” Iraq and “for” Vietnam and their respective people, and the freedom which was their God-given (oops — I just renewed my membership!) right —something I’d think the “spiritual” Douglas Todd would appreciate!  (3.) And neither of them “raise suspicions against black people”, but what a fantastic, glib, hateful and racist smear against two Christian people who love all peoples — the kind of smear-job you usually read only in the most far-left hate-filled “socialist” blogs, and of course in CBC reader comments!  So nice effort, Douglas Todd. 

But if Todd wants you to hate Glenn Beck, he’s got his work cut out for him. 

He says Glenn Beck is noted for writing best-selling books such as “America’s March to Socialism”, which I’ve never heard of but I’m sure it’s good.  In fact, it’s not a book but only an audio recording of excerpts from his hugely popular radio show —- one of the most popular radio shows in all of the United States.  Which comes on just before one of the most popular cable news shows in all America, on the Fox News Channel, which is by far the most popular cable news channel.  And as most readers know, Beck is known for writing three books last year which were (maybe still are?) all simultaneously on the New York Times best-seller list (The Christmas Sweater, Arguing With Idiots, and Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, which shoved another of his books, An Inconvenient Book, off the NYT best-seller list), in some sort of record-breaking festival of conservative book sales.  Coincidentally, Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue occupies another of the top-ten New York Times best-seller slots at the same time.  You can see how the religious and other left-wing progressives are outraged and become unhinged by Palin and Beck.  Their words are getting out!  They must stop them!  Marginalize them!  Assassinate their characters!  It’s funny to me. 

Douglas Todd concludes that Beck and Palin are “two of its newest and most outspoken religious and political radicals.”  Well they certainly are outspoken.  And they’re religious to a very balanced, comfortable extent.  And that’s all a good thing — a very good thing.  But “religious and political radicals”?  Please.  That’s just stupid. 

I’ve gone over Beck’s massive popular — and therefore the opposite of radical, by definition — appeal.  For her part, Palin was not only recently voted as the second most admired woman after Hillary Clinton (Clinton was one percentage point ahead of Palin in the poll, and both were ahead of that “radical” named Oprah, and that other “radical”, Michelle Obama).  Palin has also already had a successful career as a popular and well-liked Governor and mayor, has a huge best-selling book, is one of the most sought-after speakers in America, draws crowds bigger than Barack Obama at many speaking engagements, and is one of the most talked-about people of the past year and a half.  I suppose she is “radical” in that regard.  Radically popular and refreshingly spot on and loved by and in tune with millions of people in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere. 

Which makes Douglas Todd… what?  Normal?  In touch with reality?  Balanced?  In tune with the folks?  No, I think it makes him rather radical.  A religious-left radical.

”[B]oth end up championing what American historian Richard Hofstadter famously called “the paranoid style,”  he informs us.  But don’t worry, Douglas Todd isn’t demonstrating any form of “paranoia” himself, he’s just a normal “spiritual” liberal-leftist, full of tolerance and compassion and love for diversity. 

Comments allowed only in the “J-Log” version of this article.

Possibly related posts:

• Religious-left columnist Douglas Todd exposes his liberal hate-on for Beck, Palin
• LIKE CANADA: Todd Palin’s union dues help pay for union smear campaign against his own wife
• CBC admits they and their columnist Heather Mallick’s anti-Palin tirade were wrong on several levels
• USA Today/Gallup poll: Most admired Americans in 2009? Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, George W. Bush…
• Hollywood liberal exposes her brainy bits

 

What with his job of having to monitor Fox News Channel and all the others and now Al Jazeera?  Wow!  He’ll have to hire more staff and possibly more fantastic “spokesmen” like his Dan Dugas. 

LET’S RECAP!

In March, the last time we heard from the Minister of What We Watch On TV, (and Defense Minister) Peter MacKay about the proper TV-watching paradigms for good Canadian behavior, as prescribed by The Government of Kanuckistan, we were told by him and the Conservative Party’s brilliant “strategist”, Geoff (Elmer Fudd) Norquay, that we should stop watching Fox News Channel and cancel our subscriptions to that channel.  (I’ve written it up here, and negatively so, several times.  Therefore I imagine he is as dismissive of me as he is of Fox News Channel, and I’m still waiting for him to tell Canadians to stop visiting this web site and for Canadians to stop sending me money.)

Of course as a normal freedom-loving Canadian (and an actual conservative!) who detests nanny-state government intrusion into every last facet of what’s left of our private lives and who don’t need the finger-wagging know-it-alls in government like MacKay or any other liberals or leftists to tell me to stop watching the only conservative-tolerant channel on TV, that was when I instead stopped “subscribing” to… the Conservative Party.  Even if they formally apologize for their idiotic, nanny-state, intrusive government meddling and Hugo Chavez —type behavior.  Which they won’t.*

The team MacKay/Fudd’s irrational, knee-jerk dictate was spawned by… a comedian (!) on Fox News Channel, who, during his 3 AM comedy show last March, uttered a joke about our military needing a rest break in 2011 after fighting in Afghanistan.  Of course the really funny part — and the part that MacKay (and other uptight liberal nannies like the National Post’s Jonathon Kay who can’t wait to strike a pose for liberals) were too highfalutin and busy appeasing their liberal constituencies to digest, was that the comedian was mocking us because it was apparently true.  The joke was based on the serious comments that one of our top Generals had made —in public, yet.  Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, chief of the land staff, said that “Beginning in July of 2011, we will have to explore the possibility of taking a short operational break, that is well organized and synchronized, of at least one year.”  When I heard him say that, my exact reaction was this, which I said out loud:  “You. Must. Be. Joking. Saying. Things. Like. That. During. A. Time. Of. War.”  Followed by, “What an idiot,” and finally “No wonder we’re losing this thing.”  And the thought that stewed in my mind the longest was that Al Jazeera would be broadcasting those remarks —the Lieutenant-General’s, not the comedian’s — all over the Islamic world for al-Qaeda savages to digest whole, which will of course help them plan accordingly.

I don’t think MacKay fired Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, or told his armies to stop listening to him.  Possibly because he wasn’t joking, which is apparently the prerequisite for MacKay’s high dudgeon. 

*Unlike the Conservative ninny, the funny Fox comedian formally apologized.  I wouldn’t have.  As those of us who actually watch Fox News Channel already know, Fox News Channel is the only reliably and ardently and consistently and overtly and positively pro-military (by which I, and they, mean any country’s military, as long as they’re on our side), and which most honors our militaries and their families in every conceivable way, and which also most openly honors the heroic sacrifices the soldiers and their families have made and continue to make fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else, and which is also the most pro-American (ahhh!…what a relief!), and pro-freedom channel on television today.  And which is actually on our side.  Sort of like a breath of fresh, non-CBC air.  So this idiotic nanny-state dictate by Fudd and MacKay was hideous on its face.  Of course you have to be fully informed to even know that, which they obvious aren’t, otherwise they’d have apologized. 

What those of us on our side (by which I mean Canada’s. and conservatives’) also already know, is that liberals in Canada are literally sitting behind their often federally-funded or in some way taxpayer-subsidized or federally-protected desks, waiting for what they perceive as good excuses to yank more conservatism out of the mainstream, and hurl it into the ditch where they think it belongs.  Team MacKay/Fudd’s dictate of idiocy finally gave the liberals at Shaw Direct (formerly Star Choice) satellite service exactly that opportunity, and what they perceived as an excuse to change their subscription offerings, suddenly making Fox News Channel an “opt-in” channel — even for those of us who’s Shaw digital TV subscription packages—or “theme packs” — already included it.  And for those news channel “theme pack” subscribers at Shaw who wanted the one that hitherto included Fox News Channel — well they too would have to take the additional step of “opting-in”, separately, to Fox News Channel.  It is the only channel in their buffet of normal news or information channels that Canadians are forced to “opt-in” to if they want it.  It remains thus today. 

By the way, I also cancelled my subscription to Shaw’s lousy satellite service, and moved to Bell satellite service (see item 3 in my NewsQuips), where Fox News Channel is not an “opt-in” channel —it’s merely a part of a theme pack. 

But now with news from The Government and the liberals’ CRTC division that Al Jazeera (English) will be given a license to broadcast in Canada, Nanny MacKay (and Shaw, I guess) will have to carefully monitor that one too!  I do believe they’ll be a little busier with that one!  Just as our own Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie was serious when he said what he said, Al Jazeera is not known for their funny Arab comedians making anti-American or anti-Western or terrorist-aiding jokes about anything, as they prefer to be serious about it.  So maybe Al Jazeera will be safe on that basis alone. 

So far I have heard nothing—from Shaw or the Defense Ministry — about having to “opt-in” to Al Jazeera.  Or, for that matter, having to “opt-in” to the far-left, state-owned, socialism-reliant CBC division of the government.  In fact, the CBC isn’t an option or something for which we must “opt-in”.  It’s actually made mandatory by Canadian liberals’ laws.  We MUST, by law, be provided with the CBC’s left-wing and arguably anti-American, anti-war, anti-conservative, take-no-sides—not-even ours, channels.  Fudd and MacKay are totally cool with that Iranian-style fascism. 

We still do have some choices left:  About what we buy, and about who we support, and who we vote for. And you hear reminders of exactly those kinds of virtues and values inherent in our free, democratic, western life, being happily celebrated all the time on Fox News Channel, for which they are always sure to give credit to all our freedom-loving nations’ fighting men and women;  but you won’t ever hear any of that on Al Jazeera. 

So move forward as you wish based on all the information; make good consumer choices; and most importantly, vote responsibly and intelligently at the next opportunity.

And Fudd and MacKay:  Allahu Akbar.

Possibly related posts:

• Al Jazeera in Canada? Elmer Fudd and Peter MacKay should shoot at the waskewy wabbit instead of Fox!
• CBC purposely links Elmer MacKay to son Peter; purposely doesn’t link Stevie Cameron to CBC?
• Peter Mackay hops over security fence
• Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay lands in Afghanistan
• Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay hits back at liberal media