Topmost (in use)

Archive | Joel Johannesen

CNN Apes CBC: Bias is Over The Top

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


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

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

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


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

Article page | 2

Alberta’s new socialist gov CAN’T raise the wage…until economy picks up. Huh?

And here we were told by the fact, evidence, and science-based economists of the Alberta NDP that if the government forces employers to raise the minimum wage to exactly $15 per hour, it will actually fix the economy, make it grow, create jobs, and whiten teeth, etc. So how could this be?


Actual quotes from the article, which, notwithstanding the hilarity, is written as a serious article:

…the government indicated the move would create more jobs and ensure workers in the province receive a living wage.

In an interview Wednesday, Notley said her government will examine the minimum wage issue as Alberta grapples with low oil prices and the economic downturn. …

… An internal government document prepared last June showed the province can’t currently evaluate the impact of its plan to hike Alberta’s minimum wage to $15 per hour and that “significant job loss” could be a “realistic possibility.” Prepared for Labour Minister Lori Sigurdson, the note was obtained by CFIB through a freedom of information request. …

Maybe if they raise the wage to $45 per hour, it will fix the Alberta economy. Well either that or resign and call an election.

Article page | 0

Liberal-Left RUSH to import refugees: facts refute liberal ideology and their “evidence-based” twaddle

These Liberals are all about the science and the evidence, you see. They’re ever so erudite! And this newfangled evidence-based governing system was to be understood by you and me as a radical (no sorry, progressive) and ever so positive a change in Canada’s governance. So, or ipso facto if you will, rushing exactly 25,000 refugees to Canada within precisely five or six Liberals Evidently 4 Pinocciosweeks, or more specifically by exactly December 31 of 2015, from Islamist terrorist-riddled (sorry, those people of other values-riddled) Syria and other countries, was based on evidentiary, or dare we say scientific proof. Yessir.

Being all science-y and evidence-based is what a pedagogic Justin Trudeau and his loyal fawning acolytes (their backers in the mainstream media) kept insisting they were all about. Over and over. They wanted you to believe it so bad that they appointed two science ministers. See, the Liberals are not about the politics and ideology, you know, like those awful anti-science Conservative Party knuckle-draggers who uniformly believe in their christian fairy god and did stuff just to turn Canada into a christian Conservative theocratic dictatorship. Over to you, Peter Mansbridge. 

But actually, most Canadians, when asked both during and after the election, said that they didn’t think the Liberals should rush into importing all those Syrian refugees. Four PinocciosThere was no need to rush, and besides, we uneducated Canadian Neanderthals pointed out that there were grave and real Islamist terrorist security concerns involved with rushing the Left’s irrational plan. For which we were shamed and called “racists.” The refugees, we also said, need to be screened to ensure they weren’t just country-shopping. That was all an important chunk of the easily available evidence that the Trudeau Liberals (and all their media) chose to almost fully ignore, in favor of… politics. Their ideology.

Oh and then there’s this. It seems even the Syrian refugees agree. This according to the Liberals’ own National Post division, which never saw this coming, because they purposely didn’t look:

… Even then, only 3,049 [of 28,000 possible refugees contacted by cell phone] agreed to meet with UN officials for an interview. And of those, only 1,801 – or less than five per cent of those the UN initially tried to contact – said they wanted to come to Canada. Those refugees have since been referred to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for screening.

Immigration officials said part of the reason for the seemingly lukewarm response was because many of the refugees were not prepared to move so quickly. They said such response rates are typical, and that applications had started to pick up as prospective refugees were given until the end of February to make the move.

De Angelis said there are several reasons many of those identified by the UN for possible resettlement would be unwilling or unable to leave for Canada at the drop of the hat. The first and most important factor, he said, is their family situation.

“Due to their culture and society, families are very bound together,” he said. “One family may be a father, mother and children, but they will not take such a drastic decision without consulting the larger family links. And this may take some time and may also need some more reflection in terms of the different options.”

Those options could involve seeing if the entire extended family can stay together or has a better chance of making a new life elsewhere. …

So evidently, not only are many of the refugees in no hurry (raising the additional question of just how refugee-y they are), but evidently, the potential refugees themselves seem to be admitting that they are in fact country-shopping, just as White_lab_coat_peace_signmany Canadians had warned. And country-shopping is also arguably un-refugee-ish, and it certainly speaks to the fact that there is no rush

But they aren’t country shopping! We went to university and discussed it! They’re desperate to come here! Now! They need to get here fast!  Yeah whatever. Evidence shmevidence.

Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Liberals and all of their sycophants in the media, knowing they didn’t actually know the facts – the evidence; the science – insisted that they did know, and they made up what they pretended to know. This is known as an outright lie in any other country. It’s also insulting, and it’s disrespectful. And it’s largely premised in pure liberal politics and liberal ideology. Demagoguery. Not compassion, not common sense, not “it’s the Canadian thing to do,” just actually a lie.

And now nearly 400 of these ever so science-y liberals are in Paris – discussing amongst themselves the “man-made global warming,” and how the “science is settled.” A statement which is itself utterly anti-science.

Sunny ways. Vote Liberal.


Article page | 0

U.S. (53%) and Canada (54%) both oppose their “leaders'” refugee dictates

In both the U.S. and Canada, polls following the Islamist attacks in France show two liberal leaders way out of step with the people they supposedly represent and (gulp) lead.

The majority of Canadians oppose the government’s plan to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees in the next six weeks, and the most common complaint is that there isn’t enough time, a new poll shows.

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) either moderately or strongly oppose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to bring 25,000 refugees over by Jan. 1, 2016. Meanwhile, 42 per cent moderately or strongly support the plan, according to an Angus Reid Institute poll conducted three days after terrorist attacks killed 129 people in Paris.

If I understand liberals like Trudeau and his Globe and Mail division correctly, Canadians are therefore full of hatred and racism. His Quebecers are even more against his refugee policy  –  60% opposed  –  which is fun, especially since over a third of those hateful racists voted for Trudeau to be their leader.

I’ve come to expect this “racist” crap from Barack Obama and his acolytes, but I did not see this coming: Trudeau joining Obama and calling those countrymen who disagree with him “racists” and “haters.”

Wierd though, he never called us that during the election! Polling during the long election campaign shows that Canadians were against Trudeau’s idiotic refugee election promise  –  first airily (as all Trudeau policy was) touted in May of 2015. But it’s now a firm government mandate which simply must be accomplished in exactly the next five weeks or it will all completely fall apart and never come to pass… on account of, um, some unspecified reason or something. According to the Liberals’ state-owned CBC division:

“Quite frankly, the loss of momentum would probably put the whole objective in jeopardy,” [Liberal Public Safety Minister Ralph] Goodale said. “The slippage might mean it never happens.”

Quite frankly, that’s what we call a total lie. And this effort to lie and overwhelm and freak out Canadians is, of course, a sign of the Liberals’ great respect for Canadians and Canada.  But be fair and put what he said in context and what the reporter asked and wrote after that you racist!  Yeah no that was it. That is the last line in the fawning news report. No questions, no explanations, just a fully acceptable statement, on that matter of grave national security importance. Look – I took a screen capture in case they accidentally change it or delete in five weeks.

CBC_pimping for Goodale - 2015-11-19_094633

Trudeau was elected in spite of his refugee promise, not because of it. But now he carries on as if he were elected on that promise, and is unalterably compelled by the election gods (the CBC) to fulfill it, world-altering Islamist terrorist events in Egypt, Lebanon, and Paris be damned. I think even his state-owned CBC would allow him to renege, especially given ISIS’s beheading of Chinese hostages yesterday. Trudeau loves communist China and their “basic dictatorship!” (Hey how many refugees is China taking? None! They may be racists!)

And as if to add salt to the falafel, Trudeau also insists on holding to his pacifist, idiotist election promise to bring our CF-18s home from Syria (now!) because apparently defending our homeland and helping the Syrian people and trying to contain a terrorist jihad, alongside France, the United States and others, is too mean and yucky and stuff. (Besides, the CF-18s may be needed to help clear snow in Toronto this winter). Just as the media is utterly incurious about Goodale’s urgency lie, Trudeau’s ludicrous CF-18 pullback gets a complete pass by his swooning media, who are today investigating with great rigour, on multiple fronts, whether a Conservative MP said “NDP horde” or “NDP whore” a few weeks ago during his entirely polite, happy, calm, gentlemanly, and well-worded victory speech (he quite obviously said “horde”). This goes on, as other nations, their leaders, and their media, finally now see the obvious need to up their game against the Islamists.

And as if I had to tell you, Canadians also support our CF-18s bombing the Islamist terrorists of ISIS. A poll released just today says “60% of people said they approved of Canadian airstrikes on Islamic State targets while only 30% disagreed.” You rarely if ever get 60% agreement on anything in Canada.

The term “tone deaf” doesn’t even touch this. Trudeau’s behavior is the mark of a solipsistic politician, and this –  both the solipsism and the massive and quickly-screened refugee influx from one or more terror-laden countries  –  does not bode well for Canada’s future.

And in the U.S.:

Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists…

President Obama should deploy his teleprompter brigade, push his chin way up and out the way he does pre-condescension, and this time haughtily declare a “red line” on this refugee idea, signifying his intent to summarily ignore the plan and abandon it. Hopefully Justin Trudeau golfs.


Article page | 1

Socialist NDP HATES those state-owned monopolies – which they created

British Columbia has a state-owned and state-run car insurance monopoly, which is of course completely unnecessary, purely ideological, and universally hated  – by all sensible people except its creators, the socialist NDP (circa 1973). Or… maybe by them too?

The reason it is hated starts largely with the fact that it utterly sucks, to use the proper economics terminology.

Sun_re_ICBC-2015-11-10_0758Today it was announced that “the corporation” (yeah, “the corporation”) was going to stop allowing monthly payments for insurance premiums to be paid by credit card (because you know, what business accepts credit cards these days?!). And yes, “corporation” is what a sycophantic liberal media like the Vancouver Sun calls a state-owned, state-run politbureau when they want to whitewash the socialism; and yes they also call Apple a corporation as if it is exactly the same kind of thing.

Anyway that announcement prompted Adrian Dix, the leader of the opposition socialist NDP, to say this, and we kid you not, this is an exact quote:

The change will be a major inconvenience to some customers, and is the kind of thing ICBC can get away with only because the Crown agency has a monopoly on basic insurance and drivers can’t take their business elsewhere, said NDP critic Adrian Dix.

“What they are doing is making things harder for their customers and clearly, given what they say the fees are, a lot of their customers were using this method of payment,” Dix said.

Of course the “they” that Dix refers to is his own party’s state-owned, state-run monopoly behemoth, which he calls a “Crown agency”perhaps because “state-owned and state-run” sounds too North Korean; and it is one which, according to himself, “makes things harder for customers.”

But if you’re waiting for the part where the Vancouver Sun reporter, Rob Shaw, laughed out loud and demanded in Karl_Marx_thought-bubble-no-competition!disbelief that the socialist leader revisit what the frick he just said about it being a government operation and there being no competition in the marketplace, you’ll be waiting a long time. No such questions were asked by the reporter. No remark about it whatsoever. Apparently it was all good. Perfectly acceptable.

Unbelievable. It should have been the feature part of the article. There should be a 2-page investigative analysis about the BS that is the NDP (and their own shoddy reporting, but yeah…).  This kind of reporting, this kind of intellectual dishonesty, and lying, and lying by omission, is why low-information Sun_re_ICBC-2015-11-10_075713voters vote for the NDP or Liberals, so why would the Left ever start to do things any differently?

While we’re on this left-wing politician/media cabal-fest, note how the liberal-left’s media division, like the socialist NDP itself, absolutely forbid the use of the proper terminology, which is “state-owned” and/or “state-run,” to describe the left-wing monstrosity in question. Aside from “corporation” and “Crown agency,” they also whitewash it with crap like “the public auto insurer.”

Article page | 0

Sneering Condescension From Globe & Mail’s Feminist Left

The sneering commentary today by the liberals’ Globe and Mail division via their ever-so modern Tabatha Southey is so condescending to conservatives; so full of cheap shots and banality that I thought I must be reading the state-owned CBC’s new state-run national newspaper (coming soon!).

GM - gender parity lecture - 2015-11-06_113315

According to Tabatha Southey if you don’t agree that a cabinet should be made up of equal number of women and men, you need a six-step program like an alcoholic, and lesson one is that you’re “psychologically stuck in the 1950s.”  Not merely “stuck,” mind you, but “psychologically stuck.”  The liberals’ purported love of science has jumped the shark again (liberals – sharks can’t actually “jump,” it’s an expression!). Now they just stick science-y words onto things to demonize Canadians they don’t like. “Deniers” and “Nazi” were just teasers.

All on its own, that “stuck in the 1950s” trope is an old, rather insulting and hackneyed phrase that the left (particularly the more vapid among them) have used only in the most derogatory way, as part of their arsenal to insult conservatives. But Southey adds “psychologically” to “stuck in the 1950s,” which ups the ante quite a bit. So why try to redefine the term into a new official mental malady? Because of the way that the term “psychologically stuck” might be perceived as “mentally retarded,” inasmuch as that’s exactly what it does mean. So what do you know, I’m not totally stupid. Conservatives are sick. Mentally ill. Nicely done. Psychologically nicely done.

Let’s go through the list of the sick (according to Southey) who suffer or did suffer from this mental illness: the 1960s Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson, Justin Trudeau’s “psychologically stuck” dad Pierre, Liberal John Turner, Liberal Jean Chretien, Liberal Paul Martin, every Liberal premier, oh and their very hip albeit “psychologically stuck” “feminist” U.S. President Barack Obama, and more. Hey does that Obamacare look after the “psychologically stuck in the 1950s”?

Then Southey goes from the ridiculous to the utterly jejune in another one of her six steps: “Be prepared to stave off the impending communist revolution, which the threat of 15 or so women cabinet ministers can cause.” I don’t really know how that helps us get over the supposedly horrible prospect of three more women in cabinet than Stephen Harper had, but of course Southey writes this solely to mock conservatives, reality be damned. Forget the original project! Let’s just get on with insulting conservatives, which was our original point!

I imagine it’s supposed to be “funny.” But she doesn’t even do it right. Not even a CBC viewer thinks that conservatives link, in any way, shape, or form, women to communism. Ever. Anywhere. At all. (We do link the CBC to communism, sure, but that’s based on scientific and economic reality!)

Her spiteful little anti-conservative missive takes several more cheap shots but Southey just succeeds in increasingly revealing herself as a boor, and moreover as someone who monumentally lacks even a modicum of understanding of conservatives or their principles. Women = communism? Come on. Libby Davies aside, I mean.

Write a funny article, sure, but to be effective and maybe even make me laugh, you ought to display a pretty thorough understanding of your subject first. She obviously doesn’t. Quite the opposite. (Or she’s merely a hack.) But I don’t blame her. I blame the news media who ensure this lack of any honest understanding of conservatives. The fact that Southey writes for one of the biggest in Canada’s news media is a mere coinkidink.  Oh hang on.

The Globe and Mail – ostensibly a mainstream national newspaper, holds itself out to be fair and balanced, and reminds me over, and over, and over again that it is worth $10 per month simply to read their articles online. I must have my head “psychologically stuck in the 1950s,” when most newspapers were a source of some truth, some facts, some balance, some fairness, and some good columns. But at least I don’t have my head up my assumptions.

Article page | 0

Left-wing government news today: “It’s not looking good.”

Thanks to liberals/leftists worldwide, it really isn’t looking good.  We start from the left coast and this Globe & Mail article, and, well, actually we just keep moving left.


…“The count came in at the average that we’ve seen over the last 10 years,” Mr. Affleck told reporters. “The mayor made a commitment, a promise in 2008 to end homelessness. Clearly, he’s failed at that promise.” He said the consistent numbers on homelessness underlie the failings of the mayor’s Vision Vancouver party on the file. “It’s very disappointing.” …

Another article said it straight up:

…[homeless numbers are] still higher than they were back in 2008, when the mayor first promised to end homelessness in this city.

Gregor Robertson and city council have now reviewed a 34-page report breaking down the latest data, and it’s not looking good. …

And over in the newly far-left NDP-led Albertistan, they naturally raised corporate taxes, because that’s what left-wing governments all over the world do (and then turn into Greece). And what do you know? Their corporate cash cows like Westjet – which has dared to succeed and have the gall to actually make a profit – start to bleed.




And then there’s Greece, as led by a communist/socialist government.

And China and its state-controlled economy and state-controlled stock market, plunging.

No, it is not looking good for the world when liberals and leftists take the reins of power.


Article page | 0

News to leftists: Canadians aren’t surrender monkeys

Polls show most Canadians want war in Iraq/Syria extended;
and the niqab banned in public

Even though the Liberals and the even more socialist You’ve Got To Be Kidding party are bent on being so, Canadians are actually surrender monkeys no more. Canada seems to have mostly, finally, shaken free of that sad era of effete neo-liberalism and its abject pacifism; and have shunned the left’s incessant failure to match the commitment of our enemies, and fight to maintain our own beliefs, whatever it takes, for however long it takes.

…An Ipsos Reid poll released on Monday suggested that two in three Canadians support an extension of the military mission. The poll, conducted for Global News between March 16 and March 19…
Globe & Mail

Just what level of evil would be required for the left to rise to the occasion and defend Canada and its values, and to do its part as a member of the free world to battle a threat to our freedom and a global menace, is an open question. We don’t have the answer, Globe-tw-032415-sqbecause since it must be an evil even greater than the current Islamist terrorism threat, nobody can even imagine that kind of evil. Therefore we are forced to suspect that they will do utterly nothing, ever, under any circumstances. Well, that is unless the menace starts smoking, or emitting carbon, or worse, starts talkin’ all Jesus ‘n stuff.

In the interest of transparency, and since we pay their wages, and since it’s an election year, and it is our country and our lives, after all, I do think the opposition leftists owe us a clear, detailed description of exactly what kind of evil would whip up their desire to defend our nation and its interests and deploy our defense forces militarily, and as an “exit strategy,” to do so “until we win.” Failure to do so would conjure up suspicions of a “hidden agenda,” and if I understand the Left and their news media division correctly, they’re dead set against that.

In other happy news, very much related, Canadians apparently also unite behind Conservative prime burqa_gangminister Stephen Harper on the issue of Muslim women wearing those dreadful bodybags known as niqabs at their Canadian citizenship ceremony. In fact Canadians actually go further:

…The Leger poll, for the Association for Canadian Studies, indicates 70% of respondents agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strong view against wearing the niqab while taking the oath to become Canadian.

“It’s very easy to understand,” Harper told the House last week. “Why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time (of gaining citizenship) that is not transparent, that is not open and, frankly, is rooted in a culture that is anti-women?”

Canadians agreed with the prime minister 70%, according to the Leger poll taken Tuesday to Thursday.

And 60% of the 1,711 respondents went even further, agreeing “the niqab should be banned in public spaces (i.e government offices and courts).”

24 Hours Vancouver

It’s almost as if Harper has a finger on the pulse of the nation. And the nation has a pulse. And both Harper and the nation want to maintain a pulse.

Not so the opposition Left. The opposition create false dilemmas and fatuous claims about their desire to offer humanitarian aid instead of defending Canada militarily, as if Canadians can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. This tweet by the PM, following the motion to extend the anti-ISIS mission in the House today, beclowns the left and their specious, milquetoast political posturing:

“We will continue” as long as the Conservatives remain in power. If they don’t, everything – everything – is up in the air.

Article page | 1

Sun News Network Sets

Sun New Network simply went away today. Signed off for good. And I’m not shocked. I am a little forlorn, because now, once again, we have nothing but LIBERALVISION – and worse – to watch, for hard news and talk in Canada. Yeah once again, what we’re left with is utterly terrible news-watching, with that all-too familiar liberal-leftist stench to it.

What happened? Easy. The whole four years they were on the air, they never called me once for my opinion on anything, so they obviously don’t know how to run a TV news station. But seriously  – no actually I am serious about that. But also, Sun News Netwhat they did do was worse than what they didn’t do: they did call a whole lot of total idiots and many annoying humans for their often stilted opinions, and they did give airtime to them – often using the crappy webcams of those who were called, to get their faces on air. That was a mistake. Much of the non-primetime viewing was thus cringeworthy, amateur hour, sophomoric, or even moronic.

But their afternoon/primetime – I will miss. Especially the excellent shows hosted by Ezra Levant, Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, and a couple of other personalities. Those were some of the most powerful and useful news shows seen in Canada in my lifetime. The privately-owned CTV News Channel would do well to hire them and give them shows in an effort to build up that moribund news network. (None of them would work for the state-owned CBC, not that the socialists over there would have the balls to invite them anyway).

Some 200 people are out of jobs, and that’s terrible, in this economy. If any of them want to contribute to PTBC as (unpaid) columnists or bloggers, you’re absolutely invited and absolutely welcome here.



Article page | 1

Maclean’s “Reporter” Nancy Macdonald Fry’d; Caught Faking “Racism,” As We Speak

Move over Hedy Fry (Liberal MP, Vancouver Center). “As we speak,” the Rogers Cable conglomerate’s Maclean’s magazine division (or is it the liberals’ Maclean’s division – the left is so confusing with their complex corporate and political Nancy_Macdonald-Macleans-2015-with-remarksstructures) gets $1.5 MILLION in annual taxpayer subsidies for… things like seemingly faking “news” reports on “racism.”

These millions upon millions in accumulated taxpayer subsidies – to a giant profitable private news and media corporation like Rogers’ news magazine – are not designed to promote a “racism” meme, we thought, but rather to “help Canada” – whatever that means (and let’s be clear: it mean exactly nothing. It’s a liberal/progressive thing.)

We mention this because the article written this past week by Maclean’s awful “reporter” – and associate editor – Nancy Macdonald, is headlined “Welcome to Winnipeg: Where Canada’s racism problem is at its worst.” 

Inasmuch as the premise of the article is arguably totally false, and it appears the writing could be driven by the largely phony left-wing (and now stale) “racism” industry agenda, rather than by facts, you can see how that would “help Canada.” Yeah no, it actually seems kind of harmful to everyone in Canada, especially Winnipegers. But remember, your Canadian tax filing deadline is April 30, you racist idiots!

Play this interview she did with Winnipeg’s 92 CITI FM’s Dave Wheeler about her article. It’s fun because it’s so embarrassing for the liberal and her media cabal:

I don’t know how Wheeler maintained his cool while deftly dismantling Nancy Macdonald’s seemingly phoney meme, and coping with all her weaving and dodging. As I tweeted to someone, it seems Nancy Macdonald has only ever done interviews on CBC radio or TV, where her sort of calculated non-answers to hard, liberal-meme-hurting questions get a pass, and the CBC host actually helps her to whitewash or obfuscate to help protect The Party, and its ideology, and its agenda. She definitely seemed out of her element, here, where the host is seeking the actual truth.

This Wheeler interview is an object lesson in coping with liberal reporters. As a free bonus, thanks to the privately-owned radio station 92 CITI FM (irony alert: owned by Rogers!) and Dave Wheeler, we’re shown that Winnipeg must obviously be a city of Canada’s coping and fact-finding and truth-telling best, to say nothing of how the city actually exemplifies Canada’s racial tolerance at its best. It is also shown how, as we speak, Maclean’s magazine may be, with the possible exception of the state-owned CBC, Canada’s phony liberal propaganda problem at its worst.

The article itself also provides a little lesson about how Maclean’s publishes its “news” articles: apparently the Maclean’s associate editor edits her own stuff, and nobody else even reads it, much less vets it for truth and facts, before publication.

Liberals like Fry chose to “serve Canada” by taking tons of taxpayer dollars to talk about phony racist “crosses burning,” and the liberal tradition carries on – but much like before, the only things on fire today are Nancy Macdonald’s pantsuit pants.

Also see this, regarding Nancy Macdonald’s article:
Many flaws in Maclean’s story about Winnipeg’s race problem
by Tom Brodbeck;

And this, regarding Nancy Macdonald’s article: Ezra Levant’s excellent coverage, replete with actual facts and stats, rather than phoney left-wing bluster and agenda-driven “cross-burning”-style bullcrap:

Article page | 4

Oh look! The liberal media are being complete idiots again!

Some days, the liberals’ mainstream news media division provides us with more than reports of the current events of the day. They provide glimpses of just how callow and idiotic they are.

Take today as an example. Today, at least two Canadian – Canadian, mind you – liberal mainstream news outlets, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, saw fit to feature, on their websites’ front page, a headline of a big, big news story critical of something someone said on Fox News Channel. You know, because all Canadians are liberals, and all collectively agree that Fox News Channel is such a total joke and everything, and when something is said on their air which is dumb, you know, as usual, this is big, big national news. In Canada. Where, if we understand correctly, Fox News Channel is utterly irrelevant.


Fox News viewers such as, oh, most of America (FNC is by far the leading news channel by viewership, sometimes doubling the viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined and making an embarrassing joke of Canadian news outlets’ viewership numbers), would likely be quick to read the article, that is if they’d ever even heard of the Globe and Mail or Toronto Star, wondering who at Fox would say something that was so crazy that it was this newsworthy – in Canada. Was it Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity? Or maybe one of their hard news people like Shepard Smith, Bret Baier, or Megyn Kelly?

No. None of the above. It was Steven Emerson. Yeah.  Who?  Steven Emerson. Yeah I know. I’ve also never heard of him. You’ve never heard of him. That’s because he’s not really with Fox News at all. He was just another talking-head panel guest pontificating on another Fox News show – one of perhaps 300 talking-heads the Fox News Channel has on their air every day, which they garner from all corners of the political, geographical, and intellectual spectrum. No different than the other-talking heads they get, like the common Canadian socialist, who regularly say the damndest – the stupidest – things you’ve ever heard, totally embarrassing Canada.

Liberals always speak as though everyone in the room agrees with them. But this practice, more often than not, backfires on them, and they end up making total fools of themselves. As they did at the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star today. And as small as it is, that’s actually the bigger headline. But their ardent studies in investigative journalism aside, they’re too myopic – too dumb – to even look for their own reflection in the mirror.

Article page | 0

Globe and Mail goes to bat for left-wing moonbat, Suzuki

First the liberals’ Globe and Mail division parrots a line in a politically-charged group’s report, in their headline, calling for a new national tax on top of provincial taxes, which the report authors also call for.

B.C. carbon tax an effective model for national climate change approach: report

This yummy new tax that they clearly espouse, is necessary according to “report” – a word which liberal media often add to their headlines to imbibe an air of authority and hopefully cause a giant tingle up our legs; and hope that it makes us respect their opinion – their agenda – more.

We don’t.

Leftists always, always want more taxes. No matter the cause, no matter the problem, even if government and high taxes is the problem: higher taxes and more government to the rescue. This is the opposite of sanity, as abley proven in history.

But as if the tendentious headline weren’t already a fail, they then mention that this “report” was another one of those left-wing screeds written-up by the very politically left-wing enviro industry folks at the David Suzuki Foundation…. at which point we laughed, because they didn’t actually employ the words “left-wing” at all, nor the “very politically left-wing enviro-industry” part.

Luckily, we’re not stupid. Even if they and the Globe and Mail (and most liberals, by and large) think we are.

The Suzuki Foundation is a “think-tank” only inasmuch as it is actually a left-wing political agenda-driven organization which thinks it is taken seriously by sensible people. It is led by the state-owned CBC’s David Suzuki, limousine socialist, and millionaire owner of multiple homes, each requiring heating by God Gaia knows what energy source, and emitting sundry greenhouse gas this ‘n that.  Included in his inventory is a glamorous $8 million-dollar waterfront home in Vancouver, from which he boards automobiles to the airport to jet all over the world. For example, this “report” came out of the current enviro-industry junket in… Lima, Peru, halfway across the world. It was arranged by the U.N., which also want to invoke its own global enviro tax, and more regulations, on top of all the other taxes and regulations.

But nice try, Globe and Mail. And we’re off to the next agenda-driven “news” story.

Article page | 1

The state-owned CBC: they’re not like us.

CBC-2014-10-06_163436(500px)Last week, the state-owned (and therefore backward, but we digress) CBC asked its notoriously far-left extremist viewers whether they supported the Harper administration’s plans to combat ISIS terrorists with our air power. Here’s how that went, left – by which we mean look at the graphic at left, in this case.

Now… you’ll just have to do as we did, overlook the technical errors in reporting, and accept it on faith that they simply transcribed the numbers wrong, and it is all backward. (Yes, their editor had just one job… etc.)  Also note that this isn’t the main point, just something we have to stumble through.

Their Yes with 1351 votes should be No, since 1351 is closer to 71% than 28%, which is closer to 455 votes.  So they got the Yes/No backward, the numbers backward, or the percentages backward.*

Here’s all we need to know:  71% of CBC viewers said no, they do not support the mission.

We can be sure of this correctness of this particular mop-up of their editing mess, because the CBC’s viewers consistently vote whatever the opposite of the Conservatives’ policy stand might be. For example today, they voted 84% NO on the question, “Do you think airstrikes will defeat ISIS?” (– which is itself a stupid, strawman question, since nobody is claiming that airstrikes alone will “defeat ISIS.” That’s not up for discussion in any realm).

OK so just shake it off and move onward – or backward – to the next, more salient, and backward, aspect of the CBC and its viewers, who aren’t like us:

Today the CBC ran a story about the national polling on the subject of air strikes. Here’s how that went, according to their own reporting:

Ipsos Reid poll for Global News on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, found 64 per cent of Canadians were somewhat or strongly supportive of a Canadian participation that included air strikes…

That’s getting darn close to exactly the opposite of their own viewers. They also mentioned other polls, such as the Angus Reid poll, which closely reflected the Ipsos poll, above, which again is in direct opposition to CBC viewers.

They also allow this bit:

In the surveys by Abacus Data and Angus Reid Global, fewer Liberals and New Democrats opposed a combat role of some kind than those who were in favour of one. It suggests both Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair could find themselves offside with party supporters in their opposition to the mission.

Holy mis-read of Canada and Canadians. That article will leave a mark on the CBC’s (tiny) fan base. I detect a possible job opening at the state-owned media behemoth.

Between the state-owned CBC, Trudeau’s being out of sync with his own party, Mulcair’s similarly being out-of-sync with his party, and together their both being out of sync with Canadians; and then also add the CBC being out of sync with Canadians at large… well that’s a lot of wrong and out of touch and out of sync and backwardness, in one ugly package, for the so-called progressives.

But sticking with the CBC alone (although the question could and probably should be asked of those two left-wing leaders as well): how can we – or how can the CBC and its fan base – really claim that the CBC represents Canada or Canadians (arguably their very mandate), when their viewers are so consistently unlike -– virtually the opposite – of Canada and Canadians at large? We can’t. They can’t. Nobody can.

But wait — it’s the viewers who are backward and out of sync, you say. So what, we can’t blame the CBC for their viewers?

Let’s have a laugh and do as their side’s Justin Trudeau does, and seek to find “root causes.” Trudeau does this in lieu of thinking, or of admitting to the fallacy of his own liberal-left or PC “logic.”  We do it to hoist them by their own petard.  The CBC’s viewers are this way because the CBC is this way. The CBC has welcomed, and cultivated, and given a warm home – a gathering spot – to this out-of-sync, left-wing mob. Just read the often extremist, radical left-wing statements, and the sometimes disgusting smears against conservatives, which apparently pass for “reader comments” on almost any article, for proof of that. Or, for example, just watch the CBC, especially their “news.”

The fact is, state-owned, socialism-reliant, taxpayer-funded media is itself a backward concept in a free and freedom-seeking country, and that provides us with all the “root cause” we need to explain them and their viewers both now being so backward – so completely out of step with Canadians. They’re innately wrong. Inherently wrong. Systemically wrong. They’re all out of sync with Canada. They are not like us by nature or by nurture.

Not coincidentally, judging by their viewership numbers, most Canadians don’t like them either.

*Pull out a calculator and try to get the percentages that the CBC got, given the numbers they present (assuming the backwardness is merely a typo). It doesn’t work. It comes close, but doesn’t work. So what went wrong there is anyone’s guess. 

Article page | 4

“Corporate” Sponsorship of Premiers’ (i.e. Government) Conference?

The Globe and Mail editorial mocks the notion of private-sector sponsorship of a government conference. Good. They’re right to. But their disdain is not surprising, given the liberal media’s reluctance to embrace anything “corporate” or in any way capitalist.

“The Premiers’ conference: And now, a word from our sponsor”

Let’s watch how they, and others in the liberal-left’s media division, craft this.

The Globe and Mail’s editorial begins with a lamentation about “corporate sponsorships” paying the bill for the conference.

…is being paid for in large part by corporate sponsorships. This is government brought to you by “insert sponsor name here.” And it’s dead wrong.

“Dead wrong.” Wow. That’s pretty adamant.

They go on: in the second paragraph, they sneer, “But this year it has hit new heights of indecency…”

And then they list some of the “wrong,” “indecent,” “corporate” sponsors, such as Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor and CUPE.

Yeah exactly. Wut? We thought you said “corporate.” They’re more like anti-corporate than “corporate.”

Oh and by the way, also on the sponsorship list is BCE (an actual corporation), which partly owns the Globe and Mail; a newspaper represented by the union UNIFOR. So that’s a neat package of “dead wrong” and “indecent” Globe and Mail influence.  At this point one might invoke some snark, and ask if they’ve even got editors over there at the Globe and Mail. Alas, this editorial about “dead wrongs” and “indecencies” was written by their editorial board. So.

We have at least two problems here, Canada: (1) that there is non-governmental sponsorship of a supposedly ever-so vital government conference; and (2) that the media is being so, well, how about just “insert word here”  – in their reporting, and in their own culpability.

Ottawa_CitizenAccording to the Ottawa Citizen, those “corporations” –  Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor and CUPE – each gave $25,000 of their union members’ cash to, essentially, the government; but the unions, the Citizen also dares point out, represent numerous workers whose jobs and personal salaries and benefits and pensions are paid in one way or another with provincial taxpayers’ – government – money.

That has at least the appearance of a shady situation in which there could be a conflict of interest, influence peddling, corruption, and just very poor government. It’s a situation even worse than the similar-sounding labor unions’ ownership of the federal and provincial NDP, um, “corporations,” to use the Globe and Mail‘s crafty terminology, and how they elect and run governments who in turn pay them and such. That too is “dead wrong,” and “indecent.” But you won’t hear them saying it.

But wait! No influence-peddling could possibly happen here, folks. Trust us! We are the government! The Charlottetown newspaper The Guardian goes right ahead and conflates the two problems with their reporting: they put the “corporate” sleight-of-hand right in their headline, while going to bat for the apologetics of an apparently “bought” Liberal premier Robert Ghiz, in the process:

Corporate sponsors for premiers meeting not conflict of interest, says Ghiz

…and they go on about how “hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised through “corporate sponsors,” and even quote
Ghiz explaining, “If we’re bringing in people from all over the country, I want to show them a good time”  – a pretty Froot_Loopsgalling statement, even from a big-government progressive.

Well yeah, we all expect government to be “a good time,” first and foremost. Our concern for big, growing government, its corruption, waste, high taxes, the joblessness, aboriginal murder and mayhem, and governments’ propensity to do utterly nothing positive, are all way down the list, in that big-government leader’s mind, apparently brought to you by Froot Loops. Insert other appropriate slams here.

Which brings us back to our problem #1.

The Ottawa Citizen‘s writer concludes:

When our political executives meet to do the people’s business, it should be on the people’s dime. If they can’t afford to have receptions, or don’t want to be seen paying for them with public money, they shouldn’t have them. The way the premiers have grown accustomed to doing it is tawdry.

The Globe and Mail finally allows this in their editorial about the “corporate” sponsorships:

…If this is a valuable conference, it should be paid for by taxpayers. If it can’t be justified as a worthwhile expense, it should be abandoned or cut back in scale or frequency. Do it in a high-school gym under a basketball net, if you have to. …

You had us at “If this is a valuable conference.” It is not.

Article page | 0

Globe and Mail smear merchants get butt hurt with embarrassing smackdown after baseless personal attack

dr-zoidbergs-butthurt-creamSmear merchants at Globe and Mail got their embarrassing comeuppance when Peter MacKay’s wife took the high road and easily schooled arrogant writer Leah McLaren, who wrote “An open letter to Peter MacKay’s wife,” with a classy rebuke, “An open letter to Leah McLaren”.

The Globe and  Mail, through Leah McLaren, embarked on a gratuitous, totally uncalled-for personal attack on the wife of politician – Peter MacKay’s wife Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay – who loves her husband and her motherhood role – very much. The Globe and Mail actually printed that tripe – a terrible journalistic decision.

Which leads us to question what is wrong with Leah McLaren and the Globe and Mail. Was this done on a dare during a drunken party with progressive strategists from the Liberal Party and the you’ve got to be kidding party at G&M editorial offices? Are they all high on something over there? Or are they just stupid?

The smackdown was embarrassing for the Globe and Mail, because it is so obviously well deserved. But even in the absence of the beautiful smackdown, McLaren’s “open letter” to Mrs. MacKay is itself an embarrassment. For example:

Dear Nazanin,

How are you, my dear?

…I guess you saw the Mother and Father’s Day e-mails, hmm? The ones that came on the heels of his (very incorrect) comments about how not enough women were applying to be judges. I could be totally off the mark here, but reading between the lines it seems pretty clear whose job it is in your house to change diapers, make lunches, take care of aging parents and think about dinner. Luckily you can leave all the “guiding, teaching” and “moulding” of your son to your husband – which must be a relief, because who feels like building character after a long day baking cookies?

She lost me at “my dear.” But yeah, you’re totally “off the mark,” Leah, “my dear,”  in a dozen different ways (not including your terrible, snotty writing). Leah McLaren also refers to Nazanin’ husband, Nazanin-Afshin-Jam_Kian-Alexander-MacKay_Peter-MacKayPeter MacKay, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, as Nazanin’s “baby daddy.” (As one commenter wrote, “you lost me at ‘baby daddy’.”)

But what fresh hell is this, where the media presumes to personally, publically, engage the wife of a politician in an attack on her husband? Moreover, in a manner which is so superior and snobby and elitist? Furthermore, doing so when the basis of the attack is nothing but another construct of left-wing media rumor and hearsay and just pure BS? Again I have to ask – are they stupid? Have they simply given up on professional journalism?

Here are some good lines from Mrs. MacKay, who is riding the high road all the way:

 …I believe the fact that he [Peter MacKay] was raised by a single mother (an active feminist for 50 years) and two caring grandmothers, and has three dynamic sisters (all working mothers) to whom he is very close, gives him an important perspective and strong respect for our gender.

Leah, were you aware that his closest working partners in his office are predominantly women, including the chief of staff, the director of communications, the press secretary and all his constituency assistants and regional directors?

It is interesting to note that the Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards that everyone is getting so worked up over were drafted by female Department of Justice staffers and approved and released by the respected women I’ve listed above.

… It was and is fully my decision to put my career on hold, to be a full-time mother, and I honestly believe there is no more important job in the world. I am blessed to have the opportunity to nurture my child in mind, body and soul. Peter supports me entirely in my choice. When I decide to return full-time to my chosen profession, he will support me in that endeavour as well.

…Leah, with regards to your comment on dads “rolling up their sleeves,” Peter has been incredibly supportive since our marriage and the birth of our son. Even after often putting in 16-hour workdays as the main income earner in our household, he does all the sewing (his grandfather taught him), mows the lawn and takes out the garbage and recycling. He does most of the laundry and heavy cleaning in our house. We happily share housework and cooking. We both change diapers, bathe Kian, dress him, play with him and love him. Cameras are not rolling when Peter reads to Kian before bed, or does the grocery shopping, picks up medicine and attends doctor’s appointments…

The Globe and Mail and its Leah McLaren will pretend that this controversy is good for them because… publicity, or something; but that is not the case. This is terrible for them and it further debases Canada’s already extremely tarnished liberal media – an institution which has already lost almost all its credibility; and this makes it far, far worse. It’s a real failure on their part.

A glance at the reader comments on each article reveals this in spades: Mrs. MacKay’s reader comments are all laudatory and praising, while some of the comments on MacLaren’s attack piece are like this one (others do join in on the attack on MacKay, as you’d expect, with the Globe and Mail having just emboldened their readers to lower themselves to their level):

Ariel Milano 1 day ago
Somehow, Leah, my dear, this is super-offensive. Peter MacKay should be taking his own heat.
Giving condescending advice — in public , no less — to an extremely intelligent woman who has an international reputation in human rights activism, and who is also a documentary film-maker, musician, and pilot, just because she happens to be his wife and to have a young son, identifies you as a bully, and misguided as to how she could possibly need your help.

Leah McLaren isn’t the only “bully,” here. This is the liberal media using its bully pulpit in all the wrong ways. This is a terrible editorial decision by the Globe and Mail. An even worse public exposure of the liberal-left’s arrogance.

Article page | 0

It's a question.