BC’s Chinese Communist Party-linked NDP candidate loses to normal candidate

BC Election 2013 result: socialists of the NDP lose to less socialist BC Liberals

Last week before the BC election I wrote about a Chinese Communist Party-linked NDP candidate, which the NDP leader Adrian Dix embraced even after discovering that star candidate of his in the huge Richmond Centre riding had Chinese Communist Party links. I left my article hanging with, “we’ll see what happens,” with regard to how voters might view Chinese Communist Party-linked NDPer. After all, the socialist Dix party was ahead in all the polls generally.

Chinese Communist Party-linked NDP candidate Frank Huang stands behind Socialist NDP leader Adrian Dix, who stands behind Huang.

Chinese Communist Party-linked NDP candidate Frank Huang stands behind Socialist NDP leader Adrian Dix, who stands behind Huang.

Well the flaccid Dix of the NDP must be very disappointed that both he and their Chinese Communist Party-linked candidate were rejected by most voters.

Thank God the voters elected a less socialist party generally, and in that riding, Teresa Wat, a BC Liberal Party candidate, instead of Frank Huang of the Dix party, in fact more than doubling the vote of Huang in Richmond Center.  Even excluding the votes for the BC Lib, more people combined also voted for the other non-NDP candidates of the Green Party, an independent candidate, and the Conservative Party, than they did the Chinese Communist Party-linked NDPer Hunag, under the Dix leadership.

In total, about 11,467 voted non-NDP, while only about 3531 voted NDP in Richmond Center.


Speaking of flaccid Dix: those polls were all wrong, again

As we saw in at least a couple recent elections: in Alberta, the 2012 US general elections, and in Quebec in 2011, the pollsters  –  and the media which commission many of the polls and live off of them  –  got it all wrong. But I had to laugh when I looked at the Globe & Mail paper’s postmortem headline (it was for a video), pulling an Obama and blaming it on, well, not them or their polls: “What Christy Clark can learn from her stunning election victory in B.C.”

Note that they can learn nothing themselves. They still know it all. Trust ‘em!.

Not surprisingly, none of the lessons Christy Clark could have learned included anything like “ignore the horrible mainstream media like us, and our stupid polls.” One Globe pundit did say “it’s a rebuke of all the pundints [yessir, he said pundints] and pollsters who said she didn’t have a chance…”. Well yes. But that’s a lesson for us and for you all, no?

Today the Globe’s postmortem editorial ever so generously allowed “The media, too, have a role to play, by breaking out of preset, poll-driven narratives and doing their own legwork.”

Oh “the media, too, have a roll to play…”.  Golly. Ya think?

I’ve always said practically the only reason the socialist NDP even exist in this erstwhile free-market, freedom-loving, naturally and inherently individual pioneer-spirited and entrepreneurial-based capitalist country, is that the left-wing progressives  –  liberals, socialists, full-on communists who are systemically embedded within Canadian media  –  nurture them, and literally keep them alive. (Well, the media together with their comrades in academia). So yeah, I think “the media, too, has a role to play.” That’s what the people should learn, and learn well.

It’s not “legwork” from the media which is lacking, as much as it is an egregious excess of left-wing advocacy. Learn that, people.

For my part, I will continue to call the socialist NDP “The You’ve Got To Be Kidding Party.”  You should too.

Life looks different when unfiltered by the Obama-luvin’ liberal media

Naturally we see this — what I call enhanced intellect — all day long on conservatives sites, but I also see this other phenomenon amazingly often: when real people write their unfiltered comments about news articles on all those non-political web sites like Weather.com. Suddenly, you see a fresh and different viewpoint which, well, the Obamatons and their news media division would haughtily disapprove of, and work hard to obliterate, obfuscate, fail to report, and so on.

Rather than obliquely mocking and sneering at conservatives and Republicans, as is ubiquitous across all the non-Fox News Channel media on every issue social and economic, we see quite the opposite: people mocking the ridiculous sun spotspostures of liberal, leftists, and all the assorted tribes of the progressive left.

Here’s an example from this morning. This is from a news article about sun spots, which, you’ll remember, might explain some of that “man-made global warming” — sorry, “climate change” — which we hear and see the media shrieking about all day long, every day (but which is actually a climactic change which has been ongoing since approximately the year 4,500,000,000 BC). These are actual comments, in the order I found them, which I’ve simply copied and posted — I only took out the names and photos and superfluous information. And there are many, many more such comments.

(Bullet points indicate a unique commenter or reply to a previous comment)

  • This shows the dire straights that our planet is in , the global warming , check that….global climate change (new and improved lingo) has spread so far that it is now affecting the sun. Someone please help us , Al Gore to the rescue…
  • Sound Garden track comes to mind…
  • I doubt the sun can influence the climate…..right Al Gore?
    • They would have to call it something like a “solar system” if the Sun had any influence on climate.
  • It’s almost worth it to wish that it would create a Carrington type event.Just think with no electricity, power grids or electronics all the useless leeches on the planet would die off.
    • Even useless leeches like pacemaker dependents and premature babies?
    • Jillane Kent lol yes
    • egardless of J.K.s pithy statement, I agree with Zac. Humans as a species are way overdue for a cleansing. Yes, technology has helped extend lives, but it has also helped decrease the quality of life as we all plunge into sedentary lifestyles that make us more and more dependent on fragile technology. Would I survive? Maybe, maybe not. But the human species would be the better for it.
  • Should I bring my tomato plants inside?
    • I know where you hang out.
  • Get yer camping gear out, the power grid will fry. Dogs and cats living together…MASS HYSTERIA!
    • Love the Ghostbusters reference, there!
  • How is this possible? We re-elected Obama! Have the sea levels gone down yet?
  • It’s all OK.Today will be better than Tomorrow.
  • It’s Bush’s fault.
  • I am sure Congress will come up with something to solve this problem. Perhaps they can pass another bill delaying the Sun’s decision to erupt for another few months while we watch and do nothing.
    • Time to dust off the “We Can’t Wait” campaign signs and air out the snappy t-shirts
    • They could increase taxes on all sunspots and that would grantee slower development and possibly the rest of the sun would become unemployed.
  • CNN will ask if this massive sunspot is due to global warming.
    • Evil capitalists are affecting the Sun’s climate .The UN should really do something about this .
      :p
    • It’s because we are driving too many SUV’s
    • No it’s not Ian. You know as well as I do that it is all the “cow farts” that are causing the problem.

I could provide a dozen other examples just from today’s other news; alas I don’t have the time it takes to properly format and post them here. But do yourself an intellectual favor and take some time today to see for yourself. See what people are saying about the things going on today, as unfiltered by the liberal-leftist reporters and meme-makers and left-wing talking-point purveyors and the Obama stenographer pool who are systemic in the liberals’ mainstream media division.

 

UPDATE:
AMAZING COINCIDENCE – The next story I read this morning, this one at the excellent DailyCaller.com, was about a Democratic Party state senator, Ira Silverstein, who is pushing for a law banning those nasty commenters at online sites who post their comments without using their real names and all manner of addresses and identifying credentials. He want them exposed.

A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.

The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

Read more at DailyCaller.com

It’s one thing for web site owners to do this for their own reasons, mostly having to do with protection from slander and libel lawsuits against them, and for the security of their own web site properties, but it’s quite another thing for the government to travel down this road.

Girls With Guns

In my last column, “Good Guys With Guns,” I wrote about the Mayan 14 incident, in which a shooter was halted by an off-duty cop. I referred to the cop as a “good guy,” and my readers were quick to issue a correction: the good guy was actually a girl. Lisa Castellano shot the wannabe James Holmes after he ran into the Mayan 14 theater and began firing—and managed to snatch away his gun.

I don’t know about you, but Lisa Castellano is my new hero.

I’ve written about women and guns before, when I was the lone conservative columnist on the staunchly liberal Ohio University campus. As you can probably guess, readers sneered at the notion that guns serve a legitimate self-defense purpose. A self-described feminist activist claimed that women should be more afraid of “facing charges” for shooting an attacker than being raped or murdered. A male reader condescendingly suggested women should “carry mace.” I want better than that.

So did 18-year-old mom Sarah McKinley. On New Year’s Eve 2011, she was at home alone with her infant son, having lost her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier. When she heard two men trying to break in, she called 911—and grabbed her guns.

“My husband just passed away. I’m here by myself with my infant baby. Can I please get a dispatch out here immediately?” McKinley pleaded.

Twenty minutes went by with no police response. McKinley fired, killing one of the two men, both of whom were armed with 12-inch knives.

“It was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son,” McKinley told reporters. “There’s nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child.”

As the mother of a 15-month old daughter, I second that.

In October 2012, 12-year-old Kendra St. Clair was also at home alone when a home invader kicked in her back door. Her mother advised her over the phone to hide in the bathroom. Luckily, the preteen grabbed her parents’ handgun first—and shot the intruder in the shoulder.

“When I had the gun, I didn’t think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody,” she told ABC News. “I think it’s going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore.”

Now that’s girl power.

Two weeks ago, Abilene resident Lawanda Taylor was awakened at 2 am by a break-in. The intruder turned out to be her violent ex-boyfriend, who began assaulting her. Taylor managed to grab her gun and shoot her attacker in the side—likely saving her own life and the lives of her two children.

Last Friday, a Georgia mother spotted a strange man breaking into her home with a crowbar. She hid her 9-year-old twins in a crawlspace and called 911. When the intruder discovered the family, she shot him five times with her revolver.

Guns can’t and shouldn’t be used for self-defense? Tell that to these women and countless others who never make the news. Every two minutes, a woman in this country is sexually assaulted. Three are murdered every day—a third of them by boyfriends, husbands, or exes. Millions become victims of crimes like robbery.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids,” Donnie Herman, the Georgia woman’s husband, told reporters last week. “Her life is saved, and her kids’ life is saved… She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner.”

I couldn’t agree more. America might be a dangerous place for women, but it’s less dangerous when they can defend themselves with a gun.

Good Guys With Guns

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

That statement, from NRA president Wayne LaPierre, was immediately turned into a laugh line by the press, deemed everything from “deadly spin” to “delusional” to “paranoid.” The New York Daily News proclaimed that anti-gun cranks—oops, I mean “mental health experts”—who had never met LaPierre had diagnosed him as crazy.

As someone who went to journalism school and has worked in media for years, I’m used to this. Left-leaning editors and reporters declare what “everyone” knows and “everyone” thinks, while pretending to be objective. Their preferred method of slanting the news is covering stories that bolster their worldview while completely ignoring others. Because whether the “good guy” is a police officer or a private citizen, LaPierre’s statement is absolutely true—and several incidents ignored by the media prove it.

Two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a San Antonio man burst into the Mayan 14 movie theater and began shooting, “sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover,” according to MySanAntonio.com. But instead of becoming the next James Holmes, the suspect was shot by an off-duty cop. Unlike the Aurora theater shooting, the incident ended with only two wounded—thanks to a good guy with a gun.

How many of you have heard the name “Mayan 14” before today? Is it any surprise that a network like CNN, which employs Piers Morgan, let this story slip under the radar?

When most Americans hear “school shooting,” they think Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. They’re all incidents where the gunmen took a dozen lives or more. We rarely think of Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Pearl, Mississippi; or the Appalachian School of Law. Why? School shootings there were all halted by good guys with guns. They also had dramatically lower death tolls—one, two, and three, respectively.

At the Appalachian School of Law, the gunman was tackled by three men, two of whom had rushed to their cars to retrieve their guns. The media covered the story—but selectively edited the details.

“What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns,” wrote economist John Lott in his book More Guns, Less Crime. “In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks.”

The media deemed LaPierre’s “good guys with guns” line as a delusion of wannabe cowboys everywhere, who fantasize about Wild West-style shootouts with cartoon villains. Maybe they should go back and read one of my favorite Townhall columns of all time: Chicks Carrying Guns and Kicking Tail by Mary Katharine Ham.

Ham’s examples aren’t fantasies or hypotheticals. They’re true stories of women who chased away thugs, rapists and thieves with guns. The potential victims included elderly women and a pregnant mother of two, who shot an armed gunman who kicked in her door. A woman named Charmaine Dunbar was accosted by a rifle-toting gunman and shot him twice with her handgun. It turned out he was a suspect in six sexual assaults in her area.

As Ham put it, “This is the kind of women’s empowerment that gets me going.”

The mainstream media might have a bigger audience and more influence, but the conservative media should refuse to ignore these stories and countless others. Instead of letting the anti-gun camp control the debate, let’s turn “Mayan 14” into a household name.

 

CTV “online reporter/editor” skips lede, blithely tweets her love for Justin Trudeau.

Cross-posted at JoelJohannesen.com

This tweet from a CTV reporter follows nicely on the heels of my old YouTube video called Justin Trudeau is so Groovy! I mean it is truly laughable after you watch the video.

Here’s Christine Tam’s tweet from moments ago, re this story:


Justin Trudeau can make anti-Alberta comments to me anytime! http://t.co/4nDrGVkJ
@christinetam
Christine Tam

I include the screen capture of the tweet just in case she is instructed by her liberal bosses at CTV News or Team Justin to delete it. (UPDATE – 11:00 AM PST): it’s already been deleted)

 

I always say many in the liberal media are so liberal they don’t even know how liberal they are anymore; and that liberals speak as though everybody in the room agrees with them, but really. Do they have to spell it out for us in quite so obvious a manner? I guess they really do think we’re stupid.

Here’s a graphic of her Twitter bio:

An anti-conservative channel bias? It’s partisan politics. I think.

I went through a purgation the other day when I tweeted my satellite TV provider with several of my gripes about their service.

Here’s a graphic (from today) of my TV screen representing what actually got me going that day. See how the description for Fox News Channel is “Nouvelles”? We have a word in English for that: WTF?

It’s been that way for years.

I admit I’m one of those people who swears whenever I’m trying to read the ingredients on a cereal box or trying to find the instructions on the side of one package or another, in Canada, and I always land on the annoying French side first, and have to flip it around to find the right side. Because, you know, I’m not French, and this isn’t France. But this “Nouvelles” thing is on the English side of the box, if you see what I mean.

Now, I know, you’re gonna say I’m being … well I was going to say niggardly but some douche (excuse my French), whom I guarantee will be on the left side of the political fence, will falsely and idiotically call me racist, so… niggling. Oh I see, OK, hang on…. a pettifogger.

Whatever. I’m none of those. I was just in a bad mood and sick and tired of the media running roughshod over …. yes, conservatives. And that notion is not to be trifled with, at least among us conservatives, as I pointed out in one of my recent articles.

As I tweeted out to them, it’s not just that “Nouvelles” things (which exists ONLY on the Fox News Channel description). There was more. Like this tweet:


@ How come Bell satellite fails to offer Fox News, Sun News *in HD*, but does CBC, MSNBC, HLN, CTV etc.?
@JoelJohannesen
Joel Johannesen

(Follow some of the back-and-forth at this link.)

…A legitimate question even if at first glance you mistake it for being more pettifogging or niggling. Think of how a person, who is after just a scan of all the news, surfs through the news channels. As a responsible and sane human, I only watch the high-def channels where possible, since I invested approximately a zillion dollars in wide-screen HD TVs and those expensive Bell Satellite HD boxes I’m required to buy in order to actually watch HD TV. Plus it just looks a thousand times better. So I up-arrow my remote thought the channels, hitting CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CTV News Channel, the dreadfully stupid state-owned and taxpayer-funded CBC News Channel, among some other liberal and leftist news media. They’re all in glorious HD. They’re all conveniently grouped together in the HD channel section of the Bell Satellite lineup.

What’s missing from my picture? Only two channels  –  which in my case happen to be my favorite channels on account of the fact that I also like to see what a conservative might think about the news, too: Sun News Network, and Fox News Channel. Both broadcast in HD, but aren’t made available in HD by Bell Satellite service. Only those two, alone, are available to me only in low def.

And as we know, once you’ve gone high def, it’s hard to go back. Low def is just so inferior after you’ve gone high-def. Bell knows that.

And so those two news channels are in the lower channel number banks, where I’m not. And so I don’t get to just passively surf to them, I have to punch numbers in, and moreover, abort the high-def realm I’ve invested so heavily in, and much prefer to watch.

Don’t worry, I do that extra work, because I’m also invested in the idea of being fully informed, and not just propagandized by the Left and their left-wing media biases. So I do remain smart, but as you see, I have to work harder for it, and not enjoy the experience. I think (and judging from the polls and recent elections), most people don’t bother doing that extra work that I do.

So I kept asking Bell through their Bell support Twitter account, and they either pretended to be ignoramuses, or they actually are. At first they tried to pass off their stock answer designed by marketing asses to appease the idiot masses, to wit, the likes of: “We’re adding new channels all the time.” Which I take as an insult to my intelligence, on account of it being precisely that.

At one point, the Bell “support” tweeter seemed to exhibit that they do not even have a full grasp of the company’s offerings, claiming, somewhat triumphantly it seemed to me, that in fact, having “investigated” the matter on their own, Fox is in fact available to me  –  in high-def  –  on channel so-and-so. They’d confused (purposely or otherwise) Fox News Channel with a regular Fox TV network channel.

I didn’t accept their insulting answers, and so like little girls who can’t win an argument, they just went away, apparently to hide under their desks, refusing to even acknowledge any more of my tweets. Nice.

They had no answer.

I’m left to wonder if all of this isn’t on purpose.

Are they purposely trying to marginalize Sun News and Fox News Channel  –  the only two really conservative-tolerant news channels, by sidelining them and confining them to the low-def morass? I have to think so.  I have to think that someone  –  possibly a whole cabal of them  –  over there are anti-conservative, and are trying to make it difficult for Canadians to see or hear conservative ideas or points of view.

They will deny it, as they already have, by way of some kind of “we’re adding new channels all the time” -type explanation. But given what we know about liberal-biased media and big-government-reliant corporate cronies, I think I have all the credible reasons I need to back up my suspicions.

 

Benghazi: Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dry

This past Friday the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hell’s corridor in Libya, begged Obama’s boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by “democracy seekers” from the “Religion of Peace” in the “liberated” nation of Libya.

As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosen’s findings in the newly released damning papers, it’s crap like …

· On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”

From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.

If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?

Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off.

Someone please forward this over to Romney’s campaign for talking points for [last] Monday night’s debate on “National Security.”

 

Check out my latest video, F.I.U. Lady Prof: “You Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Graduate if You Believe in Creationism.”

 

Shocking admission of Obama lies from surprising source: columnist at Canadian state-owned CBC

Since I regularly and properly slam the left-wing mainstream media in North America for the abject bias they display against all things even remotely conservative, I’ll take this extremely rare opportunity to point out one ounce of truthful reporting I found this morning.

Not only is the topic of the article in question surprising  –  the Obama/mainstream media coverup of the Benghazi-gate facts; but so is the media source of this shocking revelation –  the far-left, Obama-loving, state-owned CBC. Even more amazing, the author of this article is the consistently, openly, anti-conservative columnist at that state-owned, socialism-reliant media behemoth, Neil Macdonald.

“Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that the White House deliberately misled the public about the attack in Benghazi, either for security reasons or perhaps for political ones.”

– Neil Macdonald, state-owned CBC
“Mitt Romney was right about the Benghazi attack”
CBC.ca, October 19, 2012

Maybe Macdonald read my recent article, published here, slamming the media and warning them that they’ve got one last chance to redeem State-owned CBC's Neil Macdonaldthemselves for their lack of honest reporting about their man Barack Obama, and to finally tell the truth about him (Last chance for media, reporters, to save reputations, and finally get honest on Obama). It’s not out of the question. His bosses at the state-owned CBC and their taxpayer-paid lawyers did write me a letter once threatening to monitor this web site and what was posted here. You know, like they might do in North Korea or Iran, or in Libya. Forgive me if I continue to take them at their word.

It can’t go unnoticed, though, that the article I wrote earlier this week was not just a scathing warning to the journalists about their share of the media perfidy, and their role in helping the Obama administration cover up the Benghazi-gate facts. And it was also about the broader mainstream media’s lack of an honest vetting of Barack Obama more generally  –  from before the last election until this very day. Here, Macdonald makes no headway. And he offers no mea culpa. In fact he attempts to squirrel out of the alleged Benghazi perfidy as best he can:

“But that doesn’t square with reports the day after the killings, evidently emanating from intelligence briefings to lawmakers, that the attacks were military in nature, and employed heavy weapons, which several journalists, including me, reported on Sept. 13.”

While in his piece he mentions the horrible CNN presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley, Macdonald wastes none of that expensive internet ink criticizing her. Rather, he seems to rush to defend her as best he can, by defining her, just as the media does of their man Barack Obama, as “one of the smartest…”  and then, also as usual, go after conservatives or Republicans instead, for even daring to criticizing her for her blunder.

To the fury of conservatives, it was the debate moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, who opened the door through which the president gratefully scampered.

That night and all the next day, Republicans hammered at the Benghazi exchange …

Obama’s senior officials have been evasive on the topic, and while it’s unfair to call Crowley a lapdog, as some Republicans have – the woman is one of the smartest political journalists in Washington – even she has since admitted that Romney’s concerns, which he attempted to voice in the debate, are “in the main” correct.

(For the record, pace Neil Macdonald, I did go ahead and call Crowley “a lapdog.” An “Obama lap dog”  — because that’s not an “unfair” description at all.)

Macdonald offers no eorum culpa for the continued failure of the broader media, including his CBC, to communicate the whole truth about Benghazi, and Barack Obama.

The whole truth is the Obama White House coverup, and the liberal mainstream media’s part in aiding and abetting it.

Baby steps.

 

Cross-posted at BoldColors.net and JoelJohannesen.com

 

Last chance for media, reporters, to save reputations, and finally get honest on Obama

Cross-posted at BoldColors.net and JoelJohannesen.com

 

The mainstream media has been demonstrably biased in favor of Barack Obama — as if I had to tell you — at least those of you on the Right.

I’ve said most of the mainstream liberal media have given up all pretense of objectivity, but just when I think they can’t do any worse, they do worse. Take CNN’s Candy Crowley in last night’s presidential debate. No I mean take her. Take into your camp, Lefties, and let her serve your propaganda needs in that place. If you love your country so much, as you say you do, then you’ll appreciate the need for objectivity in things like nationally-televised presidential debates, and you’ll take her away from that stage.

There’s still hope for many in the mainstream media to redeem themselves, as many have (see Fox News Channel reporters and anchors, or in Canada, Sun News Network, most of whom came from mainstream media), but time is running desperately short for them. Less than three weeks.

CNN's Candy Crowley

CNN’s Candy Crowley

The trouble is, their egos, their pride, the shear amount of time and ink and journalistic capital they’ve already invested (or dumped, like so many Obama bailouts), will not get them off the couch to do something about it. The reputations they’ve already invested in a Barack Obama win, and in the advancement of progressivism generally, will prohibit most from arising and doing the right thing: breaking from the consensus media and becoming honest brokers again. Going “rogue,” as Sarah Palin (to bring up a sore point for you character-assassins in the media) coined it. Doing so would prove they were wrong, and that’s hard. And liberals don’t like doing things that are hard, and right, when there’s so much “free” and “easy” to consume from the government teat.

So news outlets will crash and burn. Which is good. Careers will be ruined. Which is good. More of the public’s trust will be lost. Also good. Respect: out the window — or I should say what little is left of the respect they still have, which isn’t much. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, just 28% of the public said they rate the honesty and integrity for the profession of “journalist” as “very high” — and that was a year ago. I’m sure it’s only gotten much, much worse since then, what with their terribly biased, anti-Republican coverage of the GOP nomination for president, and the hideously biased coverage of campaign of 2012, in which the mainstream media has hit bottom, but has continued digging. Digging Obama.

Surely some of them are embarrassed by this Obama suck-up routine, even though I have held in the past that most liberals are rarely embarrassed by their own displays of overt liberalism, and even by its proven failures. The trouble is, after living a life of progressive governments and their social engineers, leftist teachers (sometimes radically so), a very liberal-left anti-conservative Hollywood, state-funded left-wing culture-creators generally, and an insecurity-based, group-think mentality, most are so liberal they don’t even know how liberal they are anymore. Some just live in a liberal-left bubble, and have honestly lost real objectivity. Most of them act as non-media liberals do at, say, cocktail parties, or around the water cooler: they think everyone in the room agrees with them. And that’s fine, as long as they’re out having cocktails with their pals. But CNN isn’t cocktails. And the New York Times also isn’t.

Some in the media still pretend to be honest. They’re simply hideous and I pay no attention to them any more. They’re clowns. At least they should give up the pretense, and man-up, or woman-up, or whatever, and own their deception and fakery and lack of professionalism.

You’d think they’d place some value in journalism as a profession, and in the institution of journalism, since they’re ostensibly in it. But every indication is that they don’t value it. Maybe it has reached a tipping point toward failure, and they have just given up rather than choosing to fight to right the ship. Maybe they’ve become “empowered” (a progressive word favorite) and emboldened by recent successes, such as their help in getting their man Obama elected, that they think they’re beyond reproach; that they’ve achieved the fabled tipping point toward socialism, which I know is their ultimate goal, and so “what the hell?” seems to be their credo now.

They are losing every vestige of credibility, each and every day, and they don’t seem to care.

Back to last night’s debacle: We saw an excellent example of all of media perfidy last night, where one supposedly straight-up news reporter for a supposedly straight-up news network, CNN, literally injected herself — quite reflexively — into the presidential debate, and defended Barack Obama on a debatable point of contention (coincidentally, something which also points to a coverup). That is very odd behavior for a presidential debate moderator, but the fact that it came so naturally for her, reveals the systemic liberalism that is now inherent in the ever-emboldened, biased, and lazy mainstream media.

Hideously, post-debate, after the audience had tuned-out, she went on CNN and walked-back her reflexive Obama face-suck, and corrected herself by admitting that actually Romney was right on the main issue.

She admitted Romney was actually right. Sorry did I just repeat myself? I guess I just had to say that “louder,” in case you missed it. You know — kind of like she obeyed Obama when he instructed Crowley to repeat her defense of him but to say it “louder,” right in the middle of the debate. And then she did just that. Like a lap dog. An Obama lap dog. The fact that the president of the United States had the temerity to ask the “moderator” to repeat the remark, speaks volumes for the perfidy I am speaking of.

Candy Crowley wasn’t a moderator. And she wasn’t just a participant in the debate — she was an advocate. I’m an advocate, so I know. But I’m allowed to be. She is not.

Hey Lefties: I suggest Sean Hannity for the next debate moderator. Any problems with that? Yeah I thought so. Even conservatives wouldn’t want that, because they seem to understand the difference, as does Sean Hannity, who openly acknowledges his conservatism. Of course in fairness to all, in order to help start to make up for 25 years of liberal-left-biased debate moderation, it might actually be a great idea.

 

Suddenly, liberal media’s line is “Debates Don’t Matter.”

I was only half kidding when I tweeted last night during the first presidential debate:


Suddenly the liberal media line is that these debates don’t really matter. “What matters is what we say matters.”
@JoelJohannesen
Joel Johannesen

[https://twitter.com/JoelJohannesen/status/253697409161523200]

But lo and behold, today, this:

…And they were serious. Their opening paragraph is laughable, as just prior to the debates, the mainstream media was opining to anyone who would listen (all 46 Americans) that the debates were game-changers and dead serious and they matter more than anything on the face of the Earth, including — especially including — vetting Barack Obama.

As America argues about who won last night’s debate, it’s hard not to wonder: “Does this change anything?” Quite a few politicos and statisticians seems to be convinced of the same answer: “Not really.”

Oh dear. How embarrassing for them all. No wonder nobody takes the lamestream media seriously anymore.

And when suddenly pretending the debates don’t matter, naturally, as if I had to tell you, the very predictable, liberal-obsessed Obamamania mainstream media is tripping all over themselves in their effort to avoid actually declaring Mitt Romney the clear winner in last night’s debate, despite debates not mattering anyway. See, they “don’t matter” so much that they can’t even bring themselves to declare Romney the winner. Had their man Barack Obama won, you bet they’d be doing exactly that: declaring Obama the “clear winner” using every font at their disposal including “Greek Columns,” and emphasizing how much “debates matter.”

Many are today reducing the impact of the Romney win as much as possible, using simplistic boxing match analogies to disguise the facts of life. Mitt Romney “came out swinging” is a media favorite in spite of its massive overuse.

For his part, former CBS reporter and now a more enlightened, and therefore conservative, reasonable, and thoughtful guy, best-selling author Bernard Goldberg went right with that in his excellent piece at his BernardGoldberg.com. Here’s a snippet:

“If the debate we just saw were a boxing match, Barack Obama would have been staggering all over the ring. He was the fighter who hasn’t had a tough opponent in a long time, and he didn’t know how to handle the blows he was taking. This was a unanimous decision for the challenger, Mitt Romney… “

Others in the media went with sporting analogies in lieu of actually declaring Romney the winner, claiming only that “some” or “Obama supporters” have “indicated” that “perhaps” Romney came out “slightly ahead” and that Obama didn’t “bring his A-game.” (Oh and “debates don’t matter anyway, wink!”).

The inestimable Charles Krauthammer was alone in making the factual “Romney won” declaration, while also using a detailed sports metaphor score:

Here’s a snippet:

I thought Romney won and Romney won big, he won by two touchdowns. You know, when a challenger just steps up on the stage that already gives him stature. But when he performs the way Romney did, I think it really changes things. It doesn’t change the game, but it changes the momentum. …

… So I think he just didn’t hold his own, he showed himself to be the equal of the President. And in fact, if you counted it on points, the way you would of a fight, you’d say he won by far the majority of the rounds. …

Let’s be clear: Romney won the debate. And debates matter. But as a trick moving forward, if you ever have any doubt about who won, and whether debates matter, if the media don’t say Romney won when he did, or they call it a “draw,” and they declare that “debates don’t matter,” it means Romney won, and debates matter.

National Post: please provide your ’07 reporting of what is still new to your audience today

Like the rest of the Obama-luvin’ mainstream media, Canada’s National Post is apoplectic about the latest example of Obama’s lies and failure  –  and the exposure that Fox News Channel is giving to the liberal media’s own failures. Like its scarcely reporting any hard facts which could be damaging to their man Barack Obama   –  then or now.


‘Exclusive’ Fox News video of so-called ‘racially charged’ Obama speech… is actually five years old http://t.co/5IqOX3gE
@nationalpost
National Post

I’d love to see National Post’s “five years old,” “so-called” “reporting” (to use their own scare-quotes as per their tendentious Tweeting style) on this video from back in 2007, before Obama was elected, when it was also new to their readership. I suspect there wasn’t any. So it certainly would be new to their readership today. The news isn’t “five years old” at all, to their readers.

Nor is the story of Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital (which is a success story, but they “report” on it as if it were a negative). Or the fact that Romney is a wealthy man (which they also “report” as a negative). Those stories are actually 10 or more years old. But that doesn’t stop the National Post or any lamestream media from reporting on it, extremely negatively, over, and over, and over again.

In fact, the video itself isn’t new, and nobody said it was! In fact, the DailyCaller.com, which is actually the news organization which exposed this video yesterday (not their old clichéd nemesis Fox News, as they even admit in their story  — so why Tweet otherwise?), clearly says this is a 2007 video, precisely to make the point that exposing this is also an indictment of the liberal media’s cover-up of the true story, way back then.  And way back then means when it should have been exposed fully, before Obama was elected with the help of the Obamamania media like the National Post  –  when voters really needed to know about the facts  –  the true character of Barack Hussein Obama, through a detailed vetting and full, objective assessment of his actual character. You know, they way they did (only woefully unfairly and full of malice and mendacity) with regard to Sarah Palin and her entire family, in detail.

And DailyCaller’s point is also the fact that only nine minutes of the video was ever available until now, out of the whole 36-minute video, and that some of the most damaging (to Obama) footage was the 27 minutes conveniently left on the cutting room floor. Other than that nine minutes, the rest is indeed brand new. It has never been seen.

Is the National Post therefore ignorant? Or deceptive? Which one?

National Post, today, doesn’t bother to cover that missing footage of the story either. That’s because really, the National Post is only concerned with slamming Fox News Channel, rather than the real story subject, which is Barack Obama’s angry, divisive, race-baiting and racially-charged thespianism and pandering.

Just look at the National Post’s article about this today: the video clip they provide their online readers selectively includes only a few seconds where Obama simply gives a “shout-out” to Obama’s mentor, Jeremiah Wright, instead of the fuller, more damaging new video footage now available to them. Why did they choose to do that? Aren’t they interested in the truth?

As the DailyCaller also explains, newspapers and other print media which pretend to be objective and pretend to employ journalists, only ever dutifully reported (to the extent they even touched this bit of Obama-exposing race-charged demagoguery at all) from the supposed “transcript” provided to them, which was from the Obama people themselves! And conveniently and deceptively the Obama people called it a “transcript” of the remarks, which is a lie: they only provided the liberal media with the pre-scripted (Obama/teleprompter) remarks, and not the actual words spoken  –  the actual transcript  — which would include the parts where he goes off-script and takes on that race-charged, pandering, divisive, anti-white rhetoric, and drives it to a whole new level.

The liberal media, in 2007, including as best I can tell, the National Post, also never said anything about the hilarious, fake southern/black accent Obama is putting on in the speech, in order to pander to his mostly black audience  –  despite his being born in Hawaii and living in Chicago most of his life. I know southerners, and northerners, and I have family in Hawaii. Obama’s faking. Play-acting. And that’s weird.

The media never really reported on any of this then and most, including the National Post, won’t even broach the real subject  –  the real problem  –  now. They “report” only on how ridiculous they think it is that Fox News is reporting the whole truth on all of this. In fact, their article is really nothing but a sad, silly and unwittingly, a very revealing rebuke of Fox News’ reporting of the facts; and a scathing criticism of Fox News. Their ink, and what’s left of their credibility, should actually be reserved for the belated, full and honest vetting of the angry, divisive, race-baiting Barack Obama, whom they already helped elect as president once.

But they’re too pro-liberal and biased to do that. That’s what’s more importantly “not new.”

Here’s DailyCaller.com’s video:

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.

 

Michael Coren writes: Mr. Ordinary: Jack Layton was OK. Nothing more, nothing less

The time of waiting has come to an end, and like a child embracing the dawn on Christmas Day I feel my heart bursting with a fulfilled anticipation.

Yes, filming has started on the Jack Layton biopic, and Rick Roberts — who? — and Sook-Yin Lee will play Layton and his wife Olivia Chow in Smilin’ Jack: The Jack Layton Story.

“It’s been a pleasure looking into the life of such a multi-faceted man. I’ve had to learn to speak Cantonese and French, and play the guitar,” explained Roberts. “Jack Layton was an incredible athlete, and I like to lie on the couch — so this in itself has been challenging. The most intriguing part has been trying to embody his passion for life, his generosity, and his resolve to follow his vision in spite of overwhelming odds.”

Quite so. Gifted musician, linguist, Olympic athlete, saint. A little like Gandhi and Churchill, but oddly hidden in an extremely ordinary municipal politician and man who was ever so briefly the leader of the federal opposition. This is the sort of thing that makes Canada look so small and silly. Jack was a nice fellow, but my goodness he had his faults, and there have been legions of better people and better politicians. This is pathetic stuff, all paid for with the tax dollars of the very Canadians to whom, it seems, Jack was a god. Odd, then, that so few of them actually voted for him.

But more bewildering is the casting of the absurd but politically acceptable Sook-Yin Lee as Chow.

“Jack and Olivia were an amazing team in life, love and politics,” she explained pretentiously. “They cut through bureaucracy and remained accessible to people. It will be a challenge for me to embody Olivia in all her beautiful complexity. I hope to serve her well.”

Yeah right, but there was that massage parlour thing wasn’t there, where most of the media refused to refer to the 1996 police raid on a Chinatown massage parlour where Jack was found naked in the suspected bawdy house. (He was not charged). It doesn’t make him a monster, but can you imagine any conservative politician being treated so generously?

Lee would probably have been better cast as a masseuse in the alleged bawdy house, in that she is best known for her intriguing role in a low-budget movie called Shortbus. Laughably bad and largely forgotten, this nonsense caused controversy only because Lee performed non-simulated sexual intercourse and masturbation on the screen.

Nope, she wasn’t faking, it was for real. And who of us is not a better person for watching some silly girl playing with herself and having public sex on the large screen? Well, it’s easier than acting I suppose.

Look, Jack was OK and Olivia is OK. Nothing less, nothing more. The Layton funeral was a preposterous demonstration of ersatz grief and communal neurosis, and yet another platform for Stephen Lewis’s invincible arrogance and pomposity. Stephen Harper was blackmailed into allowing it by media pressure, and it’s sad that he submitted.

Layton was not a beloved Canadian figure, he was a beloved media figure. Now he is to be portrayed in a television hagiography, and his widow by someone who professionally masturbates.

As I say, nice.

This week in idiocy: Maclean’s magazine latest kowtow to Team Canada Republican-Hater

As per Canada’s liberal-left media’s style guide and its prescription for reporting on American politics, this week, Maclean’s reflexively and dutifully came up with another one of their flaming (and flamingly stupid) anti-Republican covers (see below).

See how with “YES HE CAN” they ever so smartly admit the fact that despite the liberal media’s collective efforts, their nemesis Mitt Romney, moreover a Republican, might actually win the election against their man Barack Hussein Obama? Awesome ironic wit and pro-Obama political marketing skills displayed here. I probably don’t need to point out that the headline is actually designed to lead you to their neat sub-head in which they coach you on how to think: “How this gaffe-prone, flip-flopping, mega-rich elitist could still beat Obama.” Nobody actually buys the magazine and reads its articles, so… job done!

How deliciously ironic and passive-aggressive and smug. How Canadian liberal media.

And what an excellent political pander to Canada’s many unthinking, unknowing, misinformed, anti-conservative left, Maclean’s! What a great news and information magazine. (Forget for a moment that thanks to liberals and socialists and sundry progressives in government through the years, Canadian taxpayers subsidize Maclean’s magazine every year  –  this year to the tune of a million-and-a-half taxpayer dollars. Hey just like CBC except only a thousand times less! What a bargoon! But anyway just forget that. There you go. Now you’re thinkin’ like Obama!)

Hey let’s have a look at the Maclean’s January 2008 cover!

After all, we’ve been informed by Maclean’s that Canada has a “love affair” with Barack Obama. It’s official!

 

Hey let’s look at some other recent Maclean’s covers!

 

oh and this one:


 

But back to this week’s Maclean’s objectivity gaffe-fest, and their “How this gaffe-prone, flip-flopping, mega-rich elitist could still beat Obama” information package: As is the habit of useful idiots including the news media across the West, a “gaffe” is anything a Republican or conservative says that the liberals don’t like, which is everything they say, but especially the truth, and which they want the public to take as yet another example of pure idiocy that their crack squad of non-investigative non-journalists have conjured-up and dubbed as a “gaffe,” whether it is or not. (That’s some good reporting, huh?!) Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s and myriad other liberals’ speeches (especially when rarely off-teleprompter) are replete with hysterically stupid gaffes and pure factual nonsense and outright lies, but don’t you dare call them gaffes! Like I had to tell you.

The term “flip-flopper” is only ascribed to a Republican or conservative. When a liberal/socialist/progressive flip-flopper flip-flops, it’s called “an evolving position.” Once again, that’s “evolving.” Say it with me. So Obama flip-flopping on, say, gay marriage is actually just some  –  all together now!  –  “evolving.”  How Darwinian.

“Mega-rich” is socialist for anyone who earns more than $250,000 per year (which the media also dutifully describe, as per Obama talking points), as “millionaires and billionaires.” (No no, stop laughing. It’s true.) Luckily I can translate from socialist. What it really means is “hate them.”

“Mega-rich” is a term which one usually doesn’t necessarily reflexively conflate with (except in the case of Republicans or conservatives) the term “elitists.” Especially when it’s used, as it is here, in such a banal, inarticulate, intellectually vacuous manner. But who cares if it sells magazines and denigrates Republicans or conservatives, and advances the left-wing, liberal/progressive cause  — am I right, progressives? More on that in a second. Here’s a paragraph from a late 2011 article in a Socialist web site:

Despite attempts by Democratic Party supporters to present the Democrats as defenders of working people, there are more millionaire Democratic senators (37) than Republicans (30). The median net worth of Senate Democrats was likewise higher: $2.69 million compared to $2.43 million.

I would add that many of them, like John Kerry, the Kennedys, and others, inherited or married into the wealth, rather than actually earning it like Mitt Romney did.

An “elitist” is any conservative who, darn the luck, is obviously not an elitist, like, say, Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber, or like most conservatives I’ve ever known. But, and this is key, an “elitist” also isn’t a Democrat or progressive. Any of ‘em. So for example, John Kerry, a multimillionaire hundreds of times over, was and still is neither “mega-rich, nor an “elitist. Ted Kennedy (or any Kennedy including Jr.): nope, not mega-rich, and not an “elitist.” Jay Rockefeller, no, not him either. Millionaire Nancy Pelosi: not rich, not an elitist. Barbara Boxer: nuh-uh. Barack Obama, the ultimate rich snotty highfalutin academic who has never worked in the private-sector: an elitist? Certainly not, you mega-rich racist idiot! Just Republicans or conservatives can be “elitists” (and racists. And idiots!). The joke here is that the media are among the biggest elitists (and idiots).

If you really want to be informed, the best thing you could do is to not buy Maclean’s or most any other Canadian liberal hack media publications. Or support politicians who support them with your tax dollars.

 

 

Like Canada’s state-owned CBC? In America, the Stupid Liberals Network is failing in ratings

This past week in irony:
CNN
is the super-smart and ever so hip American liberal media news network which, much like Canada’s state-owned CBC and others, is so systemically engorged with mentally immature liberals, and so lacking in adult supervision, that it found it quite acceptable to play the Pink song “Stupid Girls” (lyrics: “Aha, aha. Stupid girl, stupid girls, stupid girls…”) in its bumper lead-in to story about Sarah Palin; and then think that it can get away with that without even being called out on it.

Watch:

CNN going down logoAnd then when they are called on it, as any half intelligent person would know they would be, they make the incredibly dumb-ass calculation that its audience is so utterly gullible that they would accept, as CNN’s mia culpa, insultingly stupid excuses.

This is their actual excuse: “The music selection was a poor choice and was not intended to be linked to any news story. We regret any perception that they were planned together.”  The only thing that could have made their excuse funnier, or dumber, is if they added their catch-phrase “the most trusted name in news,” here.

God they’re smart.

This week:
Once again, it’s a great wonder why CNN’s ratings are sliding, and Fox News Channel totally dominates the cable news ratings, doubling, more or less, all the others including CNN, in its total audience numbers. All the top prime time news and news analysis shows are on Fox News Channel. Yet the liberal hipsters like to call Fox News Channel and its viewers “dumb”.

We are not the least bit surprised to find that super-smart CNN continues its ratings slide even further, this past month.

July 2012 Ratings: CNN Continues to Struggle

By Merrill Knox on July 31, 2012 3:31 PM
CNN was down double digits across the board in July. Compared to July 2011, the network is -20% in Total Viewers and -23% in Aged 25-54 in Total Day. In primetime, CNN is down -23% in Total Viewers and -26% in the demographic.

All CNN has to do, and all CNN is supposed to be about, and all CNN holds itself out to be, is “trust us, we’re grownups, and we’ve deployed all manner of resources to do our jobs right.” Well actually, it seems as though they’ve given it up. They’re just joking around now. They literally (still) call themselves “most trusted name in news.”  Clearly even that is a lie. But whatever the case, implied therein is the sentence “we’re serious people, and serious about our jobs reporting the news in a trustworthy and reliable way, so watch us.” But that ship has sailed.

CNN is intelligent. Even at the precipice of disaster they find it quite normal and natural to play cheap, juvenile politics with whatever little goodwill is left in their already depressed inventory, and make the supposedly conscious editorial decision to do an idiotic, disrespectful thing like smearing Sarah Palin, a huge big-name favorite of conservatives  –  a groupp representing twice as many Americans ass liberals. But of course we know Palin’s a political figure who just doesn’t happen to be among the pop-favorites of the idiot liberal kids who work at CNN (and apparently in most ever other news organization, and actually, everywhere).

This is actually how liberals think. No it really is. Think about it. This is how they’re running America right now.