“5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”

Something about gardening and getting right down there in the dirt with your bare hands makes clear things that might otherwise be convoluted. For example, this happened:

“Five… four… three… two… one… BANG, you’re DEAD!”

toy_gunThat’s what the kid yelled.

And that’s what me and my wife heard last weekend while we were innocently working away out in the garden amongst our tulips and daffodils in our quiet little white picket fence suburban neighborhood. (Our house literally has a white picket fence, so there.)

The pseudo-auspicious warning  –  or play-by play commentary  –  wasn’t directed at us, luckily, and I’m happy to report we’re still alive  –  but rather at a group of other kids and/or adults a couple of doors down.  And it was just a bunch of kids playing on the street, like kids do. Playing “guns.”

I wouldn’t have given it another thought, but I love to jump down liberals’ throats and expose their sundry sophistry and logical fallacies whenever I can.

In the context of today’s bombastic and always idiotic gun control rhetoric coming out of liberal/left America as led by the sophists-in-chief Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, foot-in-mouth numbskull VP Joe Biden, et al, post-Newtown shooting; and out of the even more idiotic (at least on this subject) Smith_and_Wesson_640_hand_gunCanada’s liberal left, my mental meandering has the added value of being at least a little apropos of something, unlike 90% of liberal-leftist blather on any pet subject.

Here’s what stuck: that kid didn’t learn what today’s liberals would deride as horrible, red-neck, right-wing, conservative whackjob-style, pro-gun rhetoric from the NRA, as liberal leftists the continent over would love you to falsely believe. No, rather, he almost certainly learned it from today’s liberals in Hollywood. Yes, liberals from the blathering liberal-left anti-gun, anti-conservative, anti-NRA set in notoriously liberal-left, Obama-supporting Hollywood (or “Hollywood North”  –  Vancouver, or Toronto  –  which is the exact same class of weapon). He got it from a TV show, movie, rap or hip-hop “song”, or video game from liberals in what we all know to be that hypocritical-on-nearly-every-issue, holier-than-thou, liberal Hollywood and their liberal-left media industrial complex.

The NRA doesn’t teach “5… 4… 3… 2… 1… BANG, you’re DEAD!” or anything like that kind of theatrics. They don’t advocate for alarming, penultimate warnings to the end of innocent life at the hand of kids role-playing an awesome man with cool, fearsome weaponry. Hollywood does. Liberals do.

So own it, Hollywood. And moreover liberals. Own what you created. Hey maybe liberals should be registered, or banned, since they cause gun violence! And by the way, actually, I’m kidding. I say that because some liberals are so dumb they may take me seriously and actually volunteer, much as they do with regard to paying higher taxes.

A couple more notes on this subject: It brought back a “discussion” around the Christmas turkey dinner table (I’m itching to claim the turkey was picked-off by a well-placed shotgun blast, but it probably wasn’t) with family (where I’m surrounded by liberals and outright socialists  –  yeah, real fun). An in-law, truly aghast at the audacity of the NRA to defend gun ownership after that Newtown elementary school shooting, said (in that liberal way  –  wherein they speak as though it is assumed everyone in the room agrees with them, which in this case nearly everyone did) that the NRA keeps making these totally “idiotic” claims about guns being a “constitutional right” (said using excessive eye-rolls and air quotes), “and junk like that”  –  or at least words to that dismissive, pejorative effect.

I quietly reminded her that it was, in fact, a constitutional right, in America, for citizens to have guns. “Well they should change their constitution then!” she shot back.

Of course my brain comes fully loaded with a magazine full of real science and information and actual facts and objective truths rather than knee-jerk emotional responses based on sophomoric rhetoric, so I quietly reminded her that they had, in fact, changed their constitution. “It’s called The Second Amendment,” I said. If I’d had a mic I’d have dropped it.

This is where liberals usually take to calling me an idiot, or something I find even funnier (Hitler, a Nazi, racist, homophobe, a swear-word, or whatever), then do an adroit about-face and storm off, but alas, it was at the very start of Christmas dinner and we were too crammed in there for her to get up and storm off. Suffice it to say she won’t be sending me any Christmas cards (or even “festivus” or “happy tree” or “highly regarded seasonal values and greetings!” cards) in the future.

gun-Beretta_92FS_S_maxi250-202x140Another point: It’s actually the right of Canadians, too, to defend themselves, regardless of what liberals tell you to the contrary. I’ve been a member of the NRA for years. (And by the way, I’m not a hunter. Or a “Hitler.”)  This past month or so, I also joined the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, and donated to the National Firearms Association.

I’m loath to remind my readers (oh who am I kidding, I love it) that when I took the Canadian Firearms courses and got my license to acquire and possess guns in Canada (including semi-automatic rifles and handguns), I nearly failed one of the tests when I was told to unload the magazine from the Beretta semi-auto I was being tested on (exactly as pictured, above right), and I accidentally turned the muzzle downward, toward my left toe, instead of keeping it pointed down range. While I got nearly perfect and perfect scores on the written tests and the other practicals, I had to go back and take the handgun practical test over again. My wife passed all the tests with flying colors. Shut up.

So I’m not perfect, but at least I know all about guns, and what, for example, a “military-style” “assault” weapon is, unlike another in-law who blasted off several rounds of liberal-left talking points total BS last Christmas about the supposed need to ban those guns… but don’t get me started again.

Which is why everyone should work in the garden.

Carbon Tax is Pointless and Inflationary

Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama’s re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a “carbon tax” deal in 2013. But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.

A carbon tax would operate as a new sales tax on goods and services that are produced through or otherwise involve the burning of fossil fuels. You might pay the tax in your electric bill, at the gas pump or in the form of higher prices for other good and services.

The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s).

While higher prices for goods and services aren’t inherently evil, their merits must be judged by what consumers and society get in return. So let’s consider a carbon tax from a climatic perspective.

To give a carbon tax the maximum advantage in our analysis, we’ll assume that it would be totally successful in reducing U.S. Big government: big failurecarbon emissions — i.e., the U.S. emits no carbon dioxide whatsoever from fossil fuels. And let’s also imagine that this public policy wonder has this magical effect as of Jan. 1, 2013.

So what would be the climatic effect of immediately shutting down the fossil fuel-based U.S. economy?

Let’s assume that U.S. fossil fuel use results in 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere annually and that, of this amount, about 40% (2.4 billion tons) stays and accumulates in the atmosphere annually.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million and one part per million of carbon dioxide weighs approximately 7.81 billion metric tons. Simple division, then, shows that the U.S. might be adding at most approximately 0.31 parts per million to the atmosphere every year.

If the carbon tax could magically stop U.S. emissions entirely as of 2013, then by the year 2100, we would have avoided adding about 27 parts per million (0.31 x 87) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That may sound like a lot, but consider that the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 391 parts per million. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the year 2100 could range from 450 parts per million (absolute global clampdown on greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century) to 950+ parts per million (no clampdown).

Either way, it’s plain to see that a savings of 27 parts per million over 87 years is trivial, particularly in comparison to its cost (shutting down the entire economy) and would make no meaningful climatic difference even if atmospheric carbon dioxide was the driver of global climate that the alarmists claim it is.

For further perspective, consider that 27 parts per million ago (i.e., 364 parts per million) was, temporally speaking, 1997 — since which time there has been no significant global warming, even according to the alarmists.

But remember we here have been fantasizing wildly about the effect of a carbon tax. No carbon tax enacted into law — even by an Obama-fearing 113th Congress — would come any where close to significantly reducing, much less stopping fossil fuel use in the U.S. anytime soon.

In reality, goods and services would simply be made to cost more. The atmosphere and climate would not be affected in any significant way. Consumer dollars would have less purchasing power — a phenomenon called inflation.

Sadly, some prominent conservative economists support a carbon tax.

Reagan economist Arthur Laffer would support a tax in exchange for a reduction in payroll or income taxes. Bush 43 economist Greg Mankiw supports a global tax. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior adviser to John McCain in 2008, wants a tax to provide the energy industry with regulatory “certainty.”

As smart as these guys may be, none of them has apparently done the simple math that shows a carbon tax is a policy futility that buys less than nothing.

Hurricane Sandy shows what life is like without fossil fuels; it’s not a reason to do away with them. President Obama doesn’t care about the realities of climate; for him and his kind, global warming is an excuse to seize greater control of the economy. As to congressional Republicans, don’t panic; do the (simple) math.

Ontario Liberal premier quits amid contempt charge(s), doubling of debt, failure to lead

The super-liberal Canadian mainstream media is twisting like fat-free, no-trans-fats pretzels today (in deference to McGuinty’s daddy-state Ontario food consumption laws and regulations), trying to whitewash failed Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty’s resignation as (for example) merely a “personal” decision. This is exactly as he risibly claimed yesterday. After all, the excuse has been poll-tested by the wind-powered Liberal machine, and by gum, these are winning words! Trust them! They’re the (liberal) gov’ment!

This is as per the liberal media guidebook, in which they are instructed to simply regurgitate exactly what any liberal politician commands them to say. Had it been a conservative premier quitting at a time of abject failure amidst charges of corruption and debt-doubling (or for purely altruistic reasons), trust me, they’d be pulling their full Sarah Palin. That’s when they suddenly become ever so earnest news hounds, digging and finding “journalistic” reasons to question everything, and somehow then finding supposed nation-saving, truth-based reasons to assassinate the personal (and family!) character of a politician, and engage in the conservative-career-bashing techniques taught to them at the state universities and colleges under the rubric of “investigative journalism.”

The even more smarmy among the mainstream media are wagging their fingers at us conservatives, admonishing us that today is not the day to be all negative and political (read truthful), but rather it is a day to openly embrace his daddyship’s super-duper career. Laud his supposed benevolence and longtime “public service” and his supposed personal sacrifice. Some Liberal Dalton McGuintyare even attempting to advance McGuinty’s political career today, by seriously suggesting that after failing Ontario, he might possibly be a good contender for an even bigger train wreck  –  that of Liberal Party Of Canada leader. And do even more damage ( — my words, like I had to tell you!).

It’s hideous. And it doesn’t speak well for Canadians that so many apparently continue to buy into the narrative being spewed by nearly all of the liberal news media.

Luckily, I don’t like pretzels and don’t consume them. I mean unless they’re fried in bacon fat and covered in milk chocolate. So I have little more than another disdainful head-shake about McGuinty’s latest news.

In a nutshell, by which I mean McGuinty’s party and his premiership was a nutshell within which he was the nut-in-chief, it’s good news for Ontario. Maybe now Ontarians will take a breath and take another look at the huge mistake they made in the last election, which you’ll remember was only a year ago. And take another look at their media and how they advocate for liberals and liberalism, rather than for the right politicians. Not that I’m holding my breath.

Start by asking why he even ran in the last election since incredibly, only a year after the last election, he said yesterday that by golly, one of the reasons he’s quitting  is because now “it’s time for renewal, it’s time for the next Liberal premier”. Maybe my brain cells are all clogged from all the trans fats, but it seems to me it’s pretty obvious that last year was the “time for renewal.”

As it is, they’re still going to be stuck with a Liberal Party government at least until the next election, which, due to “time for renewal,” might be a few weeks from when the next Liberal Party leader is chosen.

Paper shredders aren’t subsidized by government “investment” wizard Barack Obama or Dalton McGuinty or any other progressive governments, yet, are they? As long as they’re “investing” for purely political or left-wing ideological reasons, and then (allegedly or otherwise) covering-up when they prove to be abject failures or saturated in crony capitalism or politics, that “investment” would have at least paid-off far better for liberals and the citizens, whose money they’re “investing.” Alas they mostly pick losers.

So today, for my part, and as long as they’re not government subsidized, I’m looking at investing in the companies that make paper shredders. Between Obama’s Benghazi-gate and that associated ongoing media-aided cover-up, the Liberal Party of Canada’s sponsorship-gate (which is still paying dividends), the recent Quebec Liberal government’s alleged corruption, and now Ontario’s Liberal mess, and that of other liberal administrations across North America and Europe, I think that’s a winner for the rest of us.

 

 

Liberal media at work: They tendentiously ask what you think, then instruct you how to think.

MOMENTS AGO:

First, they tweet asking this rather tendentious question, suggesting the answer is “yes”  –  or at least they accomplish what I think is their actual goal, which is to conflate the words “all talk” with Harper’s far-north outreach (link):


Stephen Harper north of 60: Are the PM’s yearly trips all talk? http://t.co/QuOO2Hqr
@nationalpost
National Post

Then moments later, they tweet again, ever-so-subtly instructing us as to how we should think, and how we should approach the question. Let’s see if we can figure out how we are supposed to think! (link):


(Northern) white lies: Are Stephen Harper’s yearly trips north of 60 all talk? http://t.co/QuOO2Hqr
@nationalpost
National Post

The linked article is actually headlined “White Lies,” lest there be any doubt as to the motive to start with.

It buries the lede. To the extent that they even bother to mention the most important point of Harper’s yearly trips to the far north in the opening paragraph, which is that he actually bothers to go up north every year unlike previous ever-so-Canadian leaders, they twist themselves into a knot to use that most important point against him. Take this part of the smug, sneering opening paragraph:

Harper has made it a point to swing through the three territories each year seeing the sights, tasting the local seal and delivering promises of new infrastructure and ships. Critics, both northern and southern, have dismissed the yearly ritual as “all talk.”

Golly. “Swing through.” I didn’t know you could travel countless thousands of miles and “swing through” the far north of Canada, just wistfully “seeing the sights,” and “tasting the local seal.” And oh how jejune of the prime minister of Canada to do that. It’s not at all as important as politicians marching in all those fantastic gay pride parades!

And hey, I wonder if any non-critics have not dismissed anything remotely pro-conservative today! Ah, but who gives a sealshit about that, when there’s incredibly stupid, contrived criticism to get on with, using at least a third of page four of their “National” paper to do it?

And by the way, no, it turns out no non-critics were available in Canada today. Just critics. That’s because it’s mostly another liberal media hit piece. It virtually skips over possibly the most important attribute of Harper’s yearly sojourns to the far north  –  the thing which is at the actual heart of the prime minister traveling to the far north every year  –  which is the simple fact that he promised he would, and he does.

All the ubiquitous, incessant, left-wing media blather about their prescribed need to make the country “inclusive,” and make groups of people feel (barf) “empowered,” and other such left-wing claptrap (like creating giant national parks out of land which is crown-owned anyway), fly out the igloo window when even a pseudo-conservative is making an effort to help far-northerners feel “included” and “empowered” by the other Canadian folks down south, most of whom have no clue about the far north. (One need only look at the liberals/socialists/progressives down south who all want to ban all guns, to figure out their vast understanding of Canada.)

The article lists six “promises” that this politician has dared to make, which are behind schedule (Wait. What? Government projects behind schedule?! No way!), or which in any case have not yet been accomplished. And it might all be true, but it is not necessarily the PM’s fault, or at least not his alone. And it’s certainly not something I’d classify as “lies,” whether “white” or not.

As a general matter, the PM’s opposition  –  Liberals, the socialist NDP, the media  –  have all worked almost as hard as Stephen Harper. But they’ve worked hard to make sure some actual progress that the Harper Conservatives (keyword: conservatives) want to make in Canada is shouted-down, slammed as unreasonable, or racist, homophobic, un-inclusive, anti-women, environmentally unsound… and then summarily shut-down, pending another royal commission, judicial inquiry, 10-year-long environmental assessment, or yet another election. Or at least delayed to the greatest extent possible, at the hand of the government bureaucracies which are stacked from top to bottom with liberals and sundry leftist, progressive ideologues that they’ve appointed over the decades. (Yes, the progressives did build that, pace Mr. Obama). Or they did it by outright political lies and misinformation and omission of information and/or pure maliciousness. Their motives are far more suspect and slimy than Harper’s, in this regard. Write an article about that! (Nah, just kidding. As if!)

Harper trip so-called 'marred'

The whole damned thing was a waste of time anyway, on account of it being ‘marred,’ apparently.

And they fail to mention the latest big thing, which is the creation of that big, new, national park. Why didn’t they mention that in this laughingly and purposely incomplete list?

Maybe they just had to make room for the article right beside it, wherein they report that a few northerners complained that the Harpers used ATVs on what “used to be pristine” trails, but thanks to the likes of the stupid evil Harpers and this year’s “yearly ritual,” are no longer pristine. For its part, the editors at the National Post toss out the whole baby seal with the bath water: “PM’s Arctic trip marred by ATV quarrel.” The whole trip! Marred! Damn those Harpers and their promises to build the north!

The National Post can’t claim to not know about the park, as their partners at the state-owned CBC might do, since they even reported on it, just yesterday:

… On the second full day of his annual northern tour, he visited the site of a new national park reserve in Norman Wells, a small community about 680 kilometres northwest of Yellowknife.

Negotiations to create the NDaDats’ihch’oh (pronounced nats-each-choh) reserve have been underway for years and involved the federal government working with local First Nations groups to make the deal happen. …

They can’t write that it’s all about Harper just doing it for votes, since there are roughly 800 far-north votes. And they can’t write about it being to secure all the campaign cash those northerners could contribute to Conservatives. No, the problem is that it could just possibly be that Harper actually cares about his job, and he cares about Canada. And all this time you’ve been instructed by the Left and its media division that only the sacred socialist Jack Layton cared!

So maybe the politics of it are just largely not helpful to progressives, and are too largely pro-conservative. Which is a little like lying through omission. Or largely like that.

Maybe writing fully informative news articles  –  not omitting things to advance a point of view  –  and not writing just another lousy hit piece, is too big for the National Post. But God knows the National Post is beyond any reproach, and it’s never “all talk.” And it never writes any “white lies.”

Not white ones.

 

Fact-Check On Left-Wing Lies: The left’s BS “rich getting richer and poor getting poorer” meme.

Oh no! More of that annoying-to-liberals conservatives speaking the truth in bold colors, thing? Oh yes. Thomas Sowell’s column is out. Correcting the BS claims made by liberals again? Yes, yes. And I’m not sorry, progressives. The truth is good. It’s liars who are bad for spreading lies, and forcing us to engage in this embarrassing remedial action. That means you, non-Sun News Network media and NDP and Liberal socialists and sundry other progressives.

Liberals and all progressives are against this sort of thing  –  postings like this. Lies don’t bother them. It’s the truth that makes them so spitting mad.

Big Lies in Politics

It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough. Although the Nazis were defeated in World War II, Thomas Sowellthis part of their philosophy survives triumphantly to this day among politicians, and nowhere more so than during election years.

Perhaps the biggest lie of this election year, and the one likely to be repeated the most often, is that the income of “the rich” is going up, while other people’s incomes are going down. If you listen to Barack Obama, you are bound to hear this lie repeatedly.

But the government’s own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the “top one percent” that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.

[...Read the whole thing...]

Life would be so much easier and more productive if progressives just didn’t lie so much.

And here’s a gratuitous picture of Tom Mulcair! With bonus Libby Davies in background!

Tom Mulcair with Libby Davies

And here’s one of Barack Obama!

Yes, Obama lies

The socialist NDP rats hit bottom, keep digging.

This is the party that purports to be one of “caring” … and of intelligence and good ideas? What a bunch of attention-seeking alarmists Malcolm Allen, NDP meat and vegetable criticand fear-mongers. And political dumb-dumbs.

Here’s a news release just posted on their web site:

Conservative changes will allow roadkill on your table: NDP

May 15, 2012

OTTAWA – Proposed changes to Meat Inspection Regulations (MIR) will leave Canadians wondering if the meat they buy is actually safe, because of the Conservatives’ reckless cutting spree.  Private inspectors, who may not be qualified, will now be able to inspect meat.  Worse, these changes to meat inspection rules also change what meat is acceptable – meaning already-dead meat and crippled animals’ meat will be okay for processing for Canadians’ tables.

“First the Conservatives will let private inspectors monitor meat, and now they’re essentially allowing road kill-ready meat into the food supply,” said Malcolm Allen, NDP Critic for Agriculture and Agri-Food. “Even scarier is the fact that we won’t know how long animals have been dead before processing – or even that the meat will be inspected at all.”

I wonder if they feel “private” car manufacturing workers, home builders, food service workers, pharmaceutical and medical workers, and all other workers are also inherently inept (or shall I say “may not be qualified”?) on account of them not being state employees at a state-owned facility and members of one of Canada’s far-left political public service labor unions. Because apparently only state workers are acceptable to the NDP.

Anyway, Sun Media’s report about it used the word “overkill” in their report, earning it a mention here:

Expect roadkill to reach dinner table: NDP

By Mark Dunn, QMI Agency

OTTAWA – The NDP ratcheted up its overkill on government cuts Tuesday, suggesting changes to meat inspection mean Canadians can expect splattered squirrel, groundhogs and other crunched critters for dinner.

“First the Conservatives will let private inspectors monitor meat, and now they’re essentially allowing roadkill ready meat into the food supply,” said Malcolm Allen, the party’s meat and vegetable critic.

The NDP is concerned about what happens to animals on farms before the carcass is shipped to a federally inspected slaughter house. …

… “Only the NDP would stoop so low as to mislead Canadian families with hopes of gaining media attention,” [Agriculture Minister Gerry ] Ritz said.

People who put out this sort of lie  –  this tactic which is nefariously designed by jerks in the backroom (and then approved by its leader) to do nothing but scare the crap out of people in order to gain power  –  should be summarily ignored and treated by Canadians as, well, roadkill. These people show nothing but an utter contempt for the very people they purport to “care” about. They treat them Canadians as stupid. Naive. Gullible. Idiots. They treat us as roadkill on their precious highway to power.

Strident? Maybe, but I think these power-hungry jerks politicians who will do or say anything  –  including lying and fear-mongering and anything else at any cost to simply win political power… have by default relinquished their moral authority to ever win seats in elections. And to be taken seriously by anyone, including their enablers in the Canadian news media, who are ultimately responsible for anyone in this country even knowing who the hell the NDP are in the first place.

And I have even less respect for all these people than I did before. As you should.

And what’s with the folksy name-change for the NDP leader, socialist Frenchman Thomas Mulcair? It’s “Tom” now, is it? If the above is what you think of Canada’s citizens  –  that is, gullible, naive, idiots  –  I think your last name should be Tom Don’tcare. “Fighting for you” my butt roast.

Liberal calls this a “Conservative recession”; CTV’s Dan Matheson calls him on it

image  Reminiscent of when the CTV’s Kate Wheeler actually called the New York Times “left-leaning”, thereby astounding me out of my shorts…

Just now, while interviewing a Liberal automaton today on CTV’s Newsnet, anchor Dan Matheson called out Liberal “strategist” Steve MacKinnon for calling this a “Conservative recession”.

Actual transcript from my recording:

 

Steven MacKinnon, Liberal Party strategist:  … but also, um, on this economy, and what we’ve seen from these Conservatives in, in these, uh, in this conservative recession, is a very very tough thing!  Umm, Mr. Ignatieff is coming up with ideas whether it be early childhood education, new investments in green technologies, uh new jobs, infrastructure projects, employment insurance, that, uh, I think are going to intrigue Canadians, and are going to create a more “just society”, but also create these new jobs that we need in the 21st century!

CTV anchor Dan Matheson:  Uh, sir, did you call it the “Conservative recession”?

Steven MacKinnon, Liberal Party strategist: HA HA HA!!!!

CTV anchor Dan Matheson:  Is that what slipped out there?  OK never mind.  [Then carries on with new question…]

Steven MacKinnon, Liberal Party strategist:  Tory time ‘r tough times, Dan, just on that earlier uh point, uh, I don’t know if that’s been said before [chuckles as Matheson doesn’t]…

 

OK well maybe my contention that Matheson “called him out” is a little strong, inasmuch as Matheson totally wimped-out and caved-in to his liberal better, and dropped it (“OK never mind!”), and chose to accept the blatant promulgation of pure, unadulterated bullcrap, on national television, on a hard news program, instead of perusing it and ensuring that truth is what gets reported on national television news, instead or pure, unadulterated bullcrap.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  any politician and the party he speaks for who blames this global economic turmoil on “Conservatives” (or even more so, small-c “conservatives” —or as the CAW’s radical left-wing socialist extremist Ken Lewenza does, on “right-wingers”), is worthy of nothing more than being viewed as completely dishonest, vacuous BS-ers, bereft of any thoughtful ideas, and obviously incapable of being even remotely intellectually honest with the Canadian people.  They are literally trying—TRYING!—to mislead Canadians—to fool them.  That’s how little they think of Canadians—how they condescend to them (think of another Liberal “strategist”, Scott Reid, and his idiotic, elitist “beer and popcorn” remark).  And so they should be held in utter contempt by the Canadian people, and all voters should literally laugh at and ridicule them at every opportunity, and should certainly never vote for them, ever.

And they should be roundly called-out as the BS-spewing louts that they in fact are, by the supposedly truth-seeking news media.