Topmost (in use)

Archive | Joel Johannesen

“Abstinence not a viable option; must fornicate.”

As I often say, so much of the deep liberal-left philosophy and policy initiative and so on revolves around the orgasm

They will do and say and discuss a thing to death, notably in articles or discussions about sexually-transmitted diseases like AIDS and HPV, and even pregnancy, before they invoke the word “abstinence” (actually, in the case of pregnancy, all they talk about is abstinence, before the fact or after).  And if someone does bring the word up, they get positively hostile.  It’s absurd!  What—are you stupid?  Get realistic!  Abstinence!?  In this day and age!  What a retard!  Christian!  It’ll never work!   Actually, I guarantee, it will ALWAYS work.  That’s the inconvenient truth of life, liberals.

It’s not about moralizing, it’s about saving lives!  I agree (even though morals do tend to save lives, in case that’s what you’re on about). But let’s talk strictly scientifically:  the most scientifically assured way of stopping STDs is abstinence.  There you go.  Irrefutable scientific fact.  Have a nice day.

I agree that another fact of the matter is that so many girls will follow the well-taught “progressive” tact, have never heard the word “abstinence” before, and will have sex as they’ve basically been told to do in their secular progressive schools, complete with the condom on the cucumber classes and the free map to the abortion clinic.  And since I’m not about to advocate sacrificing people to prove a point, I do suggest talking about the other far less effective methods too, like drugs to cure disease and prevent them, and of course condoms so you can blame someone or something when it goes wrong.  But to not even mention the most scientifically effective method is hideously shoddy journalism and shoddy science, with more than an ounce of agenda, at the very best.

The ingenious scientists and journalists in the article in the National Post’s Financial Post section, “A cancer vaccine with political will” do what they always do, and only mention the only two methods they can get their heads around: drugs to prevent and cure STDs; and of course the condoms, which once again they insanely represent, scientifically, as “safe sex”, which is hysterically stupid, bad science, manifestly because it’s a pure lie.  Another inconvenient truth they never talk about.  Pattern developing! 

But you see at least you can still have sex this way, and that’s what it’s all about. Now you’re thinking like a liberal.

The article has to do with the scientists, drug companies (suddenly liberals are totally on-side with them),  doctors, and wild monkey sex advocates in Canada who want to vaccinate a whole generation of innocent little girls with a drug called Gardasil, so that from age eight or nine onward, the theory goes, they’ll be able to have sex (yay!  sex!) with less likelihood of spreading a sexually transmitted disease called HPV, and therefore they will be less likely to get cervical cancer from the HPV.

It’s either drugs to prevent or cure the disease, or condoms.  Those are the only options presented.  Whatever yields the ability to have sex—hopefully with multiple partners—even at the risk of life itself.  That’s sound science.  That’s “progressive”. 

In gently arguing against the drug option, the only other option available to the brains of liberals is presented as: ”…condoms and Pap tests are nearly 100% effective, not only against all cervical cancers but against all STDs.”

Here’s the actual science:  Condoms don’t prevent HPV.  No, not 100%, no, not even “nearly” 100%.  The disease is spread through the skin.  So, through oral sex, for example, which Bill Clinton informs us and the young ‘uns is not, in fact, sex. 

Great.  Now this is a problem worse than “man-made global warming” for liberals, because they’ll no sooner stop having sex and contracting STDs than stop driving SUVs, buying motor boats, and flying in jets.  No wonder drugs and condoms are the best they can come up with to combat HPV.

Therefore here’s a letter-to-the-editor from an actual “realistic” Canadian that I liked today.  It’s in the National Post:


Abstinence is the only guarantee against STDs

Re: A Cancer Vaccine With Political Will, Aug. 7.

Your article claims that condoms are “nearly 100% effective, not only against all cervical cancers but against all STDs.” That’s a joke. The U.S. National Institute of Health did the most extensive study ever on the effectiveness of condoms and the results showed there is no scientific evidence to prove that condoms can protect men from six of the eight STDs, nor women from seven of the eight.

Also, the most common STD (which also causes 99% of cervical cancer) is the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which is spread by skin contact. One doesn’t need to have intercourse to contract it—oral sex is enough.

“Safe sex” doesn’t exist in a promiscuous society, but woe to me if I talk about abstinence. It seems people can’t handle such a simple solution to such a major health problem.

I like Michael Coren’s line on this, in a column he wrote last year in the Toronto Sun about AIDS (during the AIDS conference in Canada at which talk of abstinence was apparently taboo), but which could apply here as well: 

”…The irony is that AIDS is one of the few diseases where personal behavior rather than medical research could save millions of lives.

At its most simple, stop fornicating.”

Nah.  That ain’t liberal. 

Additional reading with similar lack of sound scientific advice


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Report card: “The state is a slow learner - F”

State-run public grade-schools set to compete against private, traditional citizen-run schools? Only in Canada. 

This question of mine has been a constant refrain for years:  what kind of government competes against its own citizens for profits, for TV viewers or radio listeners, for train riders, for wine and whiskey consumers, for folks’ car insurance needs, for small package and expedited envelope delivery, for web site viewers, for readers of columnists’ political thoughts, for public education… and on and on and on?  Canadian governments compete against their own citizens—all over the map, all day long.  Personally I think that should be banned and that ban should be enshrined in our constitution.  But then I’m not a socialist or a Marxist and I believe in freedom and that we shouldn’t have to compete against our own government which uses our own tax dollars to defeat us.  What a nut huh?  Almost American—and we’ve seen how that country has failed to become the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Now it seems government has seen some of what the rest of us have known for ages:  non-government, private citizen-run traditional schools are best.  It’s not just the good Fraser Institute that proves that, it’s parents who actually know better than the state what’s best for their kids (yes liberals, it’s still true, despite “evolution”!), and the smart, well-behaved, and well-adjusted, balanced kids who have grown through that traditional system. 

Private traditional schools in Canada have somehow managed to hold onto the, well, traditional, often Christian, “actual learning!” turf since Canada’s beginnings; and they have even grown increasingly popular recently as the state-run public schools seem destined to continue to follow the liberal-left’s “progressive” tack, where they arrogantly tread on turf properly reserved for family values and the moral teachings of the kids’ parents themselves.  In British Columbia, for example, the state (and I mean right from the top—BC Liberal premier Gordon Campbell himself) has directed that a path toward the forced instruction of gay and lesbian and transgendered and cross-dressing “values” and “culture” for the young ‘uns be followed immediately in its public schools.  That’s on top of the condom on the cucumber classes, and the how to get an abortion classes.  And the George Bush is an evil terrorist classes, Islamist jihadists are misunderstood classes, the corporations are bad classes, the any Christianity is completely banned in schools because it’s so awful classes, and the conservatives are total morons classes, and of course atheism is best classes, commonly and increasingly found in public schools today all over North America. 

And all this is before the liberals’ state-run child daycare (and “early learning” —wink!) schools are instituted to replace those horrible community and church and family and citizen-run and those blasted stay-at-home mommy-style daycares.

Of course parents and families, which liberals find annoying and which they hope will be soon be replaced by government (and they’re succeeding), aren’t nearly as far left-wing, nor as Godless and Marxist as that.  But as I always say, liberals always think everyone in the room agrees with them, so they simply don’t stop pushing all the yummy “progressive”.  And conservatives being conservatives, well, you do the math, and God help you with that if you attended public schools.  Irony abounds.

In short, the “progressive”, liberal-left indoctrination schools, which are in fact religious schools as led by the church of liberalism’s clerics—the teachers—are clearly leading kids (and the whole nation) in the wrong direction, parents are revolted and revolting, and they are taking their kids back to the tradition schools and to home-schooling, so that their kids can once again be instilled with their good values and morals and a proper education—like they used to be—instead of the far left’s increasingly “progressive”, Godless, God-awful values.  And where the kids don’t call their teacher “like dude”. 

Now, in Delta, British Columbia, where on top of the parental outrage with the “progressive” public schools, and where like many areas of Canada the population is actually struggling to stay the same and the number of kids (and therefore students) is actually dropping, the state-run public schools boards are trying to find ways to attract students and stay relevant, and are finding the growing traditional private schools ripe for competition.  Not emulation, mind you—competition.  So they will embark on just that.  Remembering that this is Canada, that makes good taxpayer sense to liberals.  And to Marxists. 

The (public!) school board is exploring the possibility of establishing a “traditional” school by September of next year.  Naturally, being government, they will be exploring this by way of a “committee” and a “task force” following which a damn good “report” will be written.  By the way, so badly are student numbers dropping in Delta that they actually have a student “recruitment and retention committee”.  The “recruitment and retention committee” even admits they will look at the exemplary model set by one private Delta school called Southpointe Academy—a private traditional school at which the kids wear uniforms, and actual discipline is, like, enforced, dude. 

The public school board

chairman chairpersonage

chair told the local Delta Optimist newspaper, “I’m hearing some dissatisfaction in the community as to what opportunities there are for children who want to be in more of a structured school setting with uniforms and more structure within the education,” said Saip.  Apparently fixing the old public system is a lost cause, and they can only learn from the private sector who does it better.  Right over his head. 

The Optimist reveals more of the school board chair’s candor:  “Saip said he visited several schools in Greater Vancouver and Edmonton and was impressed with what they had to offer.”  That whooshing sound was the clue going over his head again.  The private schools are doing better, yet he only sees that as a reason to compete against them with taxpayer dollars and the might of the “progressive” and growing power of the ever-growing government.    Next up: a government replacement for Trojans! 

Coming right out of the proverbial socialist government closet and admitting that the state is setting up to compete against the citizenry, he told the Optimist:  “What we’re exploring is the different models of charter and traditional schools that are being offered in both B.C. and Alberta. We’ll come back with what we think is an opportunity for parents within the public school system to have those advantages they may be seeking elsewhere in a private setting.”  And this ostensibly makes sense to him as only it could to someone weaned on big liberal “progressive” government-think, in Canada. 

Clearly, by their own near-admission, and if they were truly concerned about the kids’ education and the parents’ desire to have their kids properly educated, they’d simply close the public schools and let the proven success of the private schools flourish, starting with vouchers, for example.  But no, this is Canada.  And the people making the decisions are, at best, “progressives”, self-anointed elites, bureaucrats, and the state, instead of citizens.  Parents. 

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

PTBC is “Canadian content”

The state-run CBC pretends it’s all about Canadian programming and culture.  Why then does the official state movie reviewer, Jelena Adzic, use her weekend movie review in the middle of the state “news” on CBC Newsworld (Channel 390 on my dial with other CBC occupying many of the others against my will) to talk about American movies? 

Jelena Adzic “On The Scene” (—the American scene).
Trying to compete with CTV’s “Entertainment Tonight – Canada”?


The other day, she went on at length about how the Canadian actors union were protesting against CTV and Global Television showing American shows in their prime time lineups instead of Canadian shows (notwithstanding the fact, which nobody mentioned, that that’s what Canadians want to watch). The union rep insinuated that Canadian broadcasters should be forced, by law, to spend their money producing Canadian shows, not unlike in North Korea or Iran.  After the segment, the “news” anchor, David Gray, even interviewed that union rep, and they talked at length about that American shows thing over at the private citizen-owned broadcasters.  At one point the “news” anchor told the union rep that she was “preaching to the converted over here at the CBC”.

Liberals and their CBC and their CTRC state censor and regulator division constantly yammer on and on about insisting that we as taxpayers (‘specially us rich ones rakin’ in over 58 THOUSAND dollars per annum!) and private sector broadcasters “fund” “Canadian content” since private investors are too smart for that —in fact there are actually laws and regulations to force private citizen-owned broadcasters to “fund” Canadian content, and force Canadian content and Canadian channels on Canadians since otherwise Canadians wouldn’t watch it—but here we have the state-run media pumping American movies for our Canadian weekend viewing. 

Today, the state reviews “Ocean’s Thirteen” starring a bunch of raging anti-Bush left-wing Hollywood liberals.  Ohhhh. Maybe I should grab a clue.


Jelena Adzic “On The Scene” (—the American scene)

Aren’t there any Canadian movies that they should be pumping? 

If there aren’t any, then maybe they should pump up Canadian TV shows like that terrific Corner Gas show on CTV, which is the only Canadian show to hit the top-30 shows on a regular basis.  Oh—they’re in competition with CTV?  That’s odd!  It’s state-run media!  What kind of government would compete against its own citizens for viewers and profits?! 

OK then why not pump up Canadian web sites?  Once, CBC Newsworld did a segment about the Internet in which they called one of the most extreme left-wing (I dare say solidly Marxist and utterly heterophobic) web sites in North America—a Canadian web site called “”—“among the best “blogs” in Canada; and it represents “a real pulse” in terms of how people are thinking across our country”.  (Actual quote. Seriously.  I have it on tape).  Ah—I guess the reason they don’t pump up is once again that “competition” thing… against me and my wife in this case. They (both rabble and the CBC web site) have all those (left-wing) columnists, while we also have columnists, after all.  This ostensibly makes sense in the liberals’ Canada.  I remember failed Liberal leader Paul Martin always calling it “Our Canada”.  I guess this is what he meant.  I’m not a Canadian, I’m a conservative, if I understand liberals and their media correctly.

(For my part, I was only ever told by the state-run CBC lawyers that they “will be monitoring my web site”—seriously.  I have it in an email and in legal papers they’ve delivered to me at my home.) 

Michael Moore’s latest agitprop lie-fest movie “documentary” is coming out this month, so I’ll stake my life on the fact that they’ll review the heck out of it “On The Scene” —totally favorably of course, not the least because it touts socialist healthcare in the U.S. (by using Cuba and Canada as examples of perfection—I kid you not).  After all, they’ve played and replayed his other documentaries at least a dozen times on the state-run CBC.  No, Michael Moore isn’t Canadian, but at least he hates America and is a good socialist.  And therein lay the keys I guess.  “Canadian content” means different things to different people. 


(Why is today’s “news” on CBC Newsworld dominated by what asses like failed punk rocker Bob Geldof and groovy permanently sun glassioed Bono think about Stephen Harper (hate him) and Canada (not living up to its global socialist progression formerly started by Chretien and Martin).  They even had their man in Germany, Keith Boag, provide a lengthy diatribe about the groovers and what they think.  They’ve played more on that part of the G-8 summit story than any other.  And those two rockers aren’t even remotely Canadian, while I am.) 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

CBC dismissively sneers at and insults top U.S. diplomat

The state-run media’s and mind-messing left-wing nepotistic spin-o-rama continues.

This afternoon on the CBC Newsworld (channel 390 on my dial, with other CBC channels taking many of the rest of them), the so-called “news” anchor Sarika Sehgal (think of a George Stroumboulopoulos but of an alternate gender choice) interviewed perpetually state-employed CBC show host and leftist agitator Avi Lewis.

For reference, Avi Lewis is the son of the image  former you’ve got to be kidding party’s Stephen Lewis, who sounds very much like a communist to me.  Stephen Lewis is the son of Federal NDP Leader David Lewis, who similarly sounds very much like a communist to me.  Stephen Lewis is married to Michele Landsberg, a feminist activist and former writer for the leftist Toronto Star, which is perhaps the most left-wing mainstream newspaper in North America, and the liberals’ Globe and Mail.  She sounds very much like a communist to me.  Not to be outdone, young Avi Lewis is married to far-left-wing feminist activist and Bush-hater Naomi Klein, daughter of an American draft dodger; and her brother is a director of the far left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (the “alternative” they speak of being global socialism and an end to capitalism as we know it, which sounds very much like communism to me).  Naomi Klein was also a Toronto Star writer.  She sounds very much like a communist to me.

This is what happens when you elect “progressives” like liberals and you’ve got to be kidding party politicians, who collectively create and support a state-run media, which seems to have as its raison d’être the driving of an increasingly left-wing agenda; and who then provide themselves with the authority to appoint themselves and their like-mindeds to run it, and to work for it in every capacity—- people who then dutifully appoint other like-minded “progressives”, and so on, and so on…

Avi Lewis and Sarika Sehgal on the 'news'
It seems son of Stephen Lewis has yet another new politics show on the state-run media, the others having failed, I guess.  The CBC never gives up (except when Canadian troops are defending our way of life—then they demand we cut and run at the earliest possible convenience).  Thus, the CBC now has yet another outlet in addition to their hideous show “The Hour” starring the aforementioned leftist George Stroumboulopoulos, and all their other shows not the least of which are their “news” show like the one I’m currently talking about, to tell Canadians how to think—which coming from them is: manifestly far-left, and rabidly anti-American, and anti-conservative, and hopefully anti-Christian, it seems to me and other intelligent people.  At our expense as taxpayers.

As we heard today on the “news”, Avi Lewis apparently has former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on as a guest as his first hit piece informative show, and Avi apparently believes it his patriotic or at least CBC duty to dissect and mock the rather brilliant John Bolton, great American, in a manner which stinks of Bolton: a man and his country which we all hate, duh.

Liberals always speak as though everyone in the room agrees with them.

Here’s a bit of the informational conversation between Avi Lewis and Sarika Sehgal, right in the middle of the “news” show called “CBC News: Today with Sarika Sehgal”.  This is , in effect, “news”, according to the state-run CBC.

[Short sound bite played of interview between Avi Lewis and John Bolton]

Sarika Sehgal: What was it like to talk to him or try and interview this guy?

Avi Lewis: Well trying to get Bolton to stop talking is the challenge…

Sarika Sehgal: mmm!

Avi Lewis: …he’s like a spin machine with titanium cladding —you just can’t—so really I wasn’t going to get through to him?  But he’s got this amazing thing where he toes the administration line—did it at the United Nations, has been doing it for years—and at the same time is exceptionally honest in a moment, like he was just there [the sound bite clip] saying ‘I actually don’t care, if this locks in a sectarian bloodbath in Iraq’

[Joel notes he did not say anything like not caring about a “sectarian bloodbath in Iraq’ in the clip]

Sarika Sehgal: But that’s not the truth is it?!  I mean ya gotta wonder what his spin is, what he’s trying to say…

Avi Lewis: You know well I used to, um, on Counterspin back in the day when I was hosting that debate show he was a regular guest and he was absolutely consistent—whatever is in the United States strategic interest that’s what we should do—damn the consequences, damn the casualties, that’s the only thing that matters, and you know, it’s no surprise that the Bush Administration put him in such a high profile place [smirking].

Sarika Sehgal: Is it hard to keep yourself censored—is that hard to do on this kind of show? [laughing]

Avi Lewis: Happily the show’s concept is that I’m relatively uncensored so apart from language I’m allowed to [hahaha] indulge.

He’s then asked what he hopes to accomplish with this show, and he answers, missing the irony, that he hopes to bring some “journalistic rigour” to television, and to be a show which “brings facts to bear on the arguments”.  Apparently he’s never watched Fox News Channel and only watches CBC.  And didn’t hear himself talking just now.  And apparently they both forgot that they just played a short sound bite and offered exactly no “facts to bear” and no “journalistic rigour”, because….

Sarika Sehgal: Yeah it won’t be in a sound bite kind of way—it’ll be more of an analysis….

Avi Lewis: Yeah that stuff is really easy and it gets really tired—just watch American TV.

Both: hahahaha

Switching to Fox News Channel now.  A fella can only take so much dumbification.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

“Sadly, Canada, you’re in the bottom three tonight”

The liberals’ Globe and Mail and their sister, the liberalvision CTV network, have had their polling firm which is called something like The National Committee of Co-opted Liberal-Left Strategery and Compliance with Leftists Trendy ‘Tudes in the Hood Council, do another one of their hideously stupid polls.  It seems to me these are designed only to test the progress of the “progressive” liberal media’s latest of their ongoing efforts at driving Canada ever leftward (a job that is never done, apparently) so that they can massage and adjust their media message accordingly, and ultimately achieve their ignoble ends.

There’s simply no other reasonable explanation for the stupidity of constantly polling a nation’s people regarding whether or not they’re kinda like tired of its war yet, today, and how they think the war should be micromanaged on the field—taking prisoners, what to do with them exactly, whether to negotiate with the enemy, and over tea and buns?  Or scones?…

But the reporting of the absolutely predictable results of their polls (they’re designed to be this predictable, I think), simply adds humour to the stupidity. Read this sneering reporter’s (apparently his name is “CTV News Staff”) condemnation of the opponents of his man General (“Taliban Jack”) Layton of the you’ve got to be kidding party at, after their polling and media effectiveness testing division drummed-up another one of their claptrap polls, in which it is revealed with much fanfare that most Canadians believe we should now “negotiate” with the savage, barbaric, Islamofascist terrorist enemy (clearly my adjectives, not CTV’s.  CTV opted for the word “Taliban” instead, because that’s what they call themselves.  If they called themselves “The Good Guys”, the liberal media would obediently call this “Canada’s war against The Good Guys”): 

Canadians support talks with Taliban: poll
Updated Sun. May. 20 2007 11:00 PM ET News Staff

[…] When NDP Leader Jack Layton called for peace talks with the Taliban last fall, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay later called the approach “naive.” Some wags started calling Layton “Taliban Jack.” 


Yeah.  Like me.  Because the good Peter MacKay, like my fellow members of the sensible set, know that what General (Taliban) Jack was calling for was for our troops to summarily split the joint, and to then supplant them and our fighting mission with a cabal of nobs like Buzz Hargrove and Svend Robinson to negotiate, instead, almost like civilized people, with Mullah Mohammad Omar, over tea and buns. 

But let’s quickly hit the dictionary while we’re here: “Wags” means humorous or droll people.  A “Droll” person is described as a buffoon.  But I’m sure the reporter meant it in a nice way.  No bias here.  Have a nice day.

According to the liberal media style guide, when they want to emphasize opposition to conservatives, the media calls the opponents (always unnamed) “critics”, as in, ”…but many critics are known to be against the Conservatives’ policy…”.  But when they’re speaking of opponents of their socialist brothers in arms, they’re dismissively called “wags”.  As in “some wags…”  Thank God for editors or it’d be “buffoons”

I actually think they (liberals) hope polls like this will show with great authority that Canada should cut and run like little girls and effete boys donning pantywaists from all the “hard stuff” that life presents, and then deploy the official “cross yer fingers” foreign relations tactic espoused by General Taliban Jack, supplemented by more of those yummy national social programs which are designed to further weaken a person’s resolve and to rely even more fully on big government.

Agenda-driven media liberals like this who constantly poll Canadians about matters of war as if war should be fought on the basis of daily changing polls, are simpletons of the highest order, with nothing better to do.  Only pinheads believe that American Idol-style pop-sociology polls conducted by self-inflated experts who make cash by testing their liberal media boss’s agenda-driving techniques —and then reporting the results as if conclusive—are doing the nation a service.  They’re not. They’re harming the nation’s resolve, its morale, and that of our fighting troops.  Worse:  I think they’re doing it on purpose.

Damaging the resolve and the morale of a nation and its troops is an effective technique used in all wars by all enemies.  It is said that the object of the battles of war is not to merely kill all of the enemy, cause horrendous damage, and generally destroy the place, but to so destroy the morale and resolve of the enemy that they ultimately just give up, leaving the place largely intact.  This tactic succeeded in Afghanistan and both Iraq wars, at least initially, when in a matter of weeks, huge enemy forces literally threw up their hands and surrendered in the face of apparently insurmountable odds. 

But nothing except the lessons not learned from the Vietnam war could have prepared me for the foe using—and thus being—the media in my own country.  Liberals and their media are doing to our country what our enemy seeks to do to win the war—causing a loss of morale and our national resolve.  So that we lose.  Go team. 

And all this media combat action is to help their masters score cheap political points, and gain power. 

As if to prove it’s all political, in the same article there is a palatable sense of glee in the reporter’s writing when he suggests that ”[The pollster’s Mr.] Donolo said 57 per cent of Conservative Party members supported the idea of negotiations.”  So they asked exactly what political party those polled belonged to, huh?  This revelation betrays two facts:  (1) that of course most Conservative Party members are not conservatives, which is what I’ve been saying without polling for years (think Stronach and Brison and half of the “conservatives” you hear from and talk to today); and (2) the poll was political more than anything else, and done with a pro-liberal-leftist peacenik agenda in mind, rather than with what I would call a neutral attitude: a patriotic, pro-Canadian, let’s win this war attitude —an attitude which was apparently suppressed if it existed at all in this case.  Such is the manner of all liberal media reporting on this war on terror.  And, as we can see, the subsequent, successful, testing results.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Conservatives can’t fight a war either?

I openly laugh at liberals who drive cars and fly in jets to their vacations in communist Cuba and live in heated homes telling me that “they” (not them, themselves, personally, of course, but you know, “they”) have got to do something about that “man-made global warming” (puff, puff).  In debate, they’ll argue that the amount of fuel or electricity THEY’RE using is OK—but everyone else must cut back. 

No.  Wrong.  And who are they to decide the “proper” amount?  (And by the way: this is the “science” they’re always on about?) 

As long as they drive, or even take the bus, watch TV, go to the movies, shop, and poop in a toilet, they need to shut up, which they won’t, and so I laugh at them, heartily.  It’s actually a little funny.  But that’s my policy, which is based on sound logic, unlike their pretentious, painfully hypocritical, liberal-leftist political pseudo-science pop claptrap. 

But the fact is that their “Free Tibet” (to borrow a Mark Steynism) method of “taking action” on climate change, which is to say “Free Tibet” by pacifistically doing exactly nothing to free it (and if anyone tries, they scream “make love, not war!”), has actually proven to be a success in a twisted sort of way.  I was going to say it worries me but actually I’m used to that kind of thing by now.  It’s Canadian.  It’s liberalism at work.  Someone else will do the hard lifting.  Someone else will pay the shot for health care.  Someone else will fight our wars.  Someone else will take the blame.  Someone else will look after us, and our kids.  Someone else will make it right.  Of course what sometimes happens is that someone else does set out to “free Tibet”—or in this case act on “man-made global warming”.  Then what?

Liberals and their hypocritical center of the universe, the Liberal Party and the further left you’ve got to be kidding party—and (importantly) their media—are now using the provably successful modus operandi of blaming others—such as the currently governing Conservative Party—for even their own past actions and inactions and indiscretions, as a matter of political course.  It’s become a routine for them.  It’s niggardly, and cowardly, deceitful, unprincipled, and disgraceful, but that’s the way liberals are.  And it’s working.  Just read the news today.  Conservatives are to blame for our Kyoto “obligations” being behind schedule. And for the Afghanistan prisoner handover problem. And much more. But the economy and the stock market is booming because of… the Liberals.

Liberals were in control when they ignorantly and (I think!) fraudulently signed the Kyoto Cult Stupidity Accord, and then proceeded to do utterly NOTHING to abide by its utterly ridiculous big world government stipulations, except to issue forth all manner of grandiose platitudes, pap, drivel and baloney.  Their media division were largely silent on this inaction or faux action, of course—choosing instead to push their more pressing agenda, the ever important gay marriage matter as the most important thing in the brave new century, as instructed by their various liberal-left political leaders and federally-funded homosexual pundits. 

Today, the new Conservative government acts (no, not on traditional marriage and a law against abortion or on lowering taxes, but…) on “man-made global warming” (my own grave misgivings aside), and the Liberals and the media attack the Conservatives for not being able to abide by the ridiculous Accord years late — a feat they, the liberals, know only too well is now completely impossible to achieve (the caterwauling and lies from the leftist environuts aside).  But Hell—it’s not on their watch so yell and scream and grab the mic and rant all day long, baby!  Free Tibet you idiots in power!  Just don’t do anything we wouldn’t do!

To say otherwise about this phenomenon is to lie.  It has been proven over the past ten years that no liberals are prepared to do anything whatsoever about “man-made global warming”, on anything like a personal or political level. That’s the other proven fact or inconvenient truth that has a “scientific consensus”. 

Similarly, Liberals were also in control when the good General Rick Hillier signed the deal in 2005, which clearly took some months to draw up since we’d been there for a long time already, regarding Afghanistan prisoner handovers to Afghan government authorities.  Only today it was (finally) reported that lo and behold, the failed Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin and his temporary successor who was then-Defence Minister, Bill Graham,  signed-off on that deal themselves.  It was their deal all this time—not the Conservatives’ deal.  They knew it.  The media knew it.  The Conservatives knew it.  Everyone knew it—yet the Conservatives suck it up.

Liberals are solely to blame for any inadequacies in that deal.  Them and them alone.  Period.  Everybody with a brain and an ounce (a “milliliter” for you liberals) of fairness knows that now and knew it then.  So this is a total farce, in exactly the same way that the Kyoto Cult Stupidity Accord and the Liberals’ caterwauling on the matter is a total farce. 

Conservatives in government are now acting (actually, they have been since last fall) to improve the human rights aspect of that deal, their tortured and confusing statements notwithstanding (of course who among us in the sensible set wouldn’t be confused when the starting point is the Liberals’ horrible deal, their many various positions on Afghanistan, and their exceedingly hideous, confusing, conflicting pronouncements on staying there to win?);  and yet the liberals and their media somehow find it perfectly normal to blame the Conservatives for the deal though it was signed back in 2005, under a Liberal government watch.  Today’s understandable confusion is apparently worse than yesterday’s human rights and national reputation-endangering idiocy.  Only in liberal-land.  The Liberals are making a career of causing confusion and obfuscation and their media is eating it up and pooping it out, on our conservative front lawns.

The Liberals never even saw fit to change or amend their horrible deal after reflection and toking up with their Dutch counterparts (who made a better deal guaranteeing Afghan human rights checks), even while in meetings with them discussing the other important item of the day, the liberals’ new “Canadian value” of Dutch-style legalized pot-smoking for our kids in Canada.  So ask the Liberals to explain that —not the Conservatives who are amending and supplementing it to make it better.

But as long as conservatives sit down and allow this kind of fraudulent manipulation by the liberals and their media to take place, we conservatives ought to ask ourselves some questions too.  Ask why Tibet ain’t getting any more free by the day.  All conservatives should be enlisting and fighting the political war at home right about now. Instead, conservatives are on the sidelines watching events unfold. Like liberals and the war on terror. Waiting to lose.

A veteran CTV politics reporter-turned-analyst, Craig Oliver, said the other day on TV that Canada is at war, and ought to have a “war cabinet” and we ought to get serious about this war.  After I fell off my chair and got up again, I found that I of course agreed.  What he left out of course was that “we” ought to start “getting serious” by covering the issues fairly and fully in the media, and also that it wouldn’t hurt “us” to zip the liberal politicians’ mouths shut until they can act responsibly and stop endangering the morale and therefore the safety and effectiveness of our fighting troops in deadly serious combat—or at least call them on it. Again with the personal/media responsibility, huh?  I know: forget it—too radical. 

Let’s follow that up by breaking tradition and appointing a new full-time Defence Minister from the outside —not an MP who has to correspond with Betty Six-Pack from Okanokie about her pot-holes and who has to deal with the petty badgering and soapbox blather of mendacious liberals who make a sport of lying and deceiving Canadians for their greedy self interests and political power for hours every day in the House of Commons. 

And conservatives could experiment with getting serious, and not letting the liberals or their media get away with controlling the agenda.  They’re totally irresponsible—as all liberals are.  They will do whatever they can to lose the war and then, of course, attempt to blame us and at this rate, we’ll sit back and accept the blame. 

And going back to my opening paragraph, if, as the environuts alarmingly contend (and the media repeats ad nauseam), the fight against “man-made global warming” is “a war bigger than the first and second world war combined”, we should do the same with that file.  Appoint a war cabinet and fight the enemy—bearing in mind that the enemy is you, dear liberal, not “them”.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Chuck Strahl – Mel Smith Lecture

Editor’s note: This is an abridged copy of a speech given by Chuck Strahl, Conservative Member of Parliament (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon), to Trinity Western University for their annual Mel Smith Lecture Series.  I liked it very much and asked if I could post an abridged version of it here in this space, and Mr. Strahl obliged.

Mel Smith Lecture


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you this evening. It is a great privilege.

Chuck Strahl, Conservative MPI’m always a little nervous speaking at an event like this. I mean, I’ve given hundreds of political speeches in my day, but when the material isn’t focused on politics, I think to myself, “this is different. This actually matters”. So I’m a little nervous.

I do like the agricultural stories and metaphors. For instance, some folks say that politics can be described as a horse race, and to be an effective politician sometimes you need the characteristics of several kinds of horses:

1. You need the strength of a Clydesdale
2. You need the speed of a thoroughbred
3. You need the herding instincts of a mustang
4. And you need the thick hide of a donkey

In my opinion, the donkey hide is particularly important.

Fortunately for us all, I’m not here this evening to talk federal Agriculture policy, but to discuss why it’s important where you stand, whether it’s in logging, politics, or life.

What would Mel Smith say about the title of this presentation? Well, I don’t claim to have known Mel Smith well, so I can’t say for certain. I am certain that he had a big influence on my entry into the political realm, and I wasn’t the only one. And whether you were seeking elected office, or simply a casual observer, Mel Smith helped to shape the public opinion and reaction of many people in the 80s and 90s, and that influence continues to this day through his writings and through this foundation.

Mel Smith also had something special in common with Preston Manning, (high praise in my books) in that both of them could (and in Preston’s case, still can) take a complex, difficult subject like Constitutional law, distill it down to it’s salient points, explain it and make it interesting to non-experts like me, all while inspiring a passionate and tangible response. No small feat.

I fear that while “rendering the complex simple” is the art of great men, making the simple complex is the folly of too many politicians. So my guess is that Mel would have been okay with the title of “logging, politics, and life”, with a caveat that I tread carefully and explain thoroughly.


There was a time in our history when explaining the details of logging was unnecessary for a BC audience. Even 30-40 years ago many, many people had a connection to the industry, and my connection – My dad was a logger, both my brothers were loggers, – wasn’t atypical. I was a logger too, although I suppose that admitting that I was a tree-killer in this politically correct world could affect my job prospects for the future. But we were still logging the great Sahara forest in those days, and nobody thought less of you for it.

In fact, throughout our province were dozens and dozens of towns founded almost exclusively on harvesting timber and sawing logs. Most people knew something about logging, and if they knew anything at all, they knew it was a dangerous occupation. By far, more men were killed and injured logging than in any other profession. So in our company, whenever we got a raw rookie into the woods we spent his initiation period drumming one thing into his head: if you want to survive in this industry, be careful where you stand.

There are so many ways to get hurt logging that it defies regulation. To a logger, the expression, “it’s as easy as falling of a log” is not really amusing; it’s just another way to get hurt. The men who fall the trees are all too often killed or injured by falling limbs, trees that kick back, or dead snags that crumble without warning. Road builders face some of the same dangers, with the added problems of trying to build a ridiculously steep and narrow road in everything from solid rock to unstable clay.

The men who actually yard the timber are continuously trying to coax 30,000 pound logs to wind their way around stumps and rock bluffs, always hoping a cable or a shackle doesn’t break at the wrong time. If it does, where you’re standing makes the difference between simply an exciting moment and a serious or fatal injury. It’s not a job for wimps.

One of the newbies we hired to go logging with us was my brother-in-law Bob. He was a farm boy, green as grass, and not used to the rugged coastal mountains at all. He also wasn’t used to working with the hard-driving, hard-drinking, tough-talking, somewhat crude loggers who were typical of the industry. Their expressions were vulgar; the average guy lived paycheque to paycheque, and let’s just say that most of them were not choirboys. Okay, let’s be honest. Most of them didn’t know what a choir even did!

So into this mix we tossed brother in law Bob. He must have needed the work badly, because Bob wasn’t a stereotypical logger at all. Sure he was used to hard physical work, but the crew dynamics were something else, and the mountains and big coastal timber were a long way from the green fields of the valley and the Holsteins that went with them. And Bob DID know what a choir was, because he was a church-goer. Worse yet, (as far as the loggers were concerned), he was a quiet Christian.

Now Bob and I do not have exactly the same personality. He claims that when I walk into a room, people will know my opinion on any given subject within 5 minutes. “Facts” are optional, but opinions, opinions are always at the ready. Bob, on the other hand, is quiet, thoughtful, less opinionated. For sure, Bob is not preachy. But he does know when to take a stand, and when he was logging, that quickly earned him the nickname, Preacher Bob.

How did he earn this moniker? By quoting scripture to his coworkers? Lecturing on morality? Handing out gospel tracts? Not hardly. Bob became Preacher Bob only because he wouldn’t join in the ribald humour, refused to ogle the ever-present pornography, didn’t talk about other women, never joined them for the Friday night bar-hopping that was typical of the logging fraternity.

So while he didn’t preach at the men he worked with, though he simply went about his work and did his share, the reaction of the rest of the crew was visceral. He was mocked, ridiculed, and belittled. They questioned his manhood. They pushed him whenever they could in whatever mean and nasty way possible, hoping I’m sure that he would simply go away. It was a rough, rough ride for Preacher Bob.

I’m not thinking of anyone in particular, now, but a louder, more aggressive guy might have lashed out and evened the score a little bit. You know, give as good as you get. But Bob and my sister Carole handled it differently than I might have. Carole started baking cookies for the crew and sent them to work with Bob. Bob invited them over to his house for the occasional coffee on the weekend. He never lashed out, he continued to work hard, and he treated everyone- even those who were picking on him- with kindness. But he never changed his standards either.

The results that summer were remarkable. Guys who had run him down behind his back (and often to his face) began first to back down, and eventually became Bob boosters. Men who had mocked him earlier in the year slowly changed their attitude, and while by summer’s end they still called Preacher Bob from time to time, it was no longer a nasty term.

If they said it at all it was a respectful thing, reflective of the fact that Bob was perhaps the first openly Christian person they had ever met, that they had watched him carefully under the pressurecooker of the workplace, and had come to appreciate that he had taken a principled stand.

When you’re logging, if you want to be safe, it matters where you stand. That summer, preacher Bob showed me that it matters where, why and how you stand as a person.

[…] Preacher Bob understood that truth, and lived it.


So what about politics? Can you take a stand in public life and still be standing when it’s over?

The short answer is yes. Admittedly, for Christian politicians like myself – who are asked to take very public positions on every imaginable subject- taking a stand can easily be- dare I say, on occasion deliberately be- misinterpreted as forcing your religious beliefs down someone else’s throat. Sometimes, like Preacher Bob, I like to think it’s because most people simply don’t know me well enough to judge differently, and that as time goes on they’ll hear me out because I’ve earned the right to be heard.

Unfortunately, there are some examples-if you haven’t seen enough Canadian examples you can surely add some from other countries of politicians who have used their positions as a bully pulpit. As a result, Christian politicians start off with a double-whammy against them: they’re politicians (the least trustworthy of all occupations), and they’re Christians (and you know what they’re like!). And any flaw- and heaven knows we all have plenty of those- is all the proof necessary to justify a very cynical reaction. “Why should we listen to these guys”, is a common reaction from both the general public and the media. Especially if the subject matter has even a hint of morality in it.

People observing the interaction between faith and politics summarize the dilemma facing Christians in politics this way:

“There is much to lose and not much to gain by MPs declaring their religious beliefs”, says John Stackhouse of Regent College, “Until the electorate decides that religious identity and religious observance matters, why would politicians mark themselves off from potential voters?”

Carleton professor Jonathan Malloy says, “Politicians only see a downside in talking about religious faith. They’re worried that too much might be made of it”.

That may be true, but since you’re paying me the big bucks tonight, I’m willing to make a few observations about why a Christian politician can and should make a stand from time to time. If I get it wrong, you may read some of these comments tomorrow under a newspaper column entitled, Political obituaries.

First of all, there is no biblical sanction against political involvement. I realize that politics has a scrappy, winner-takes-all reputation, but so does the business world, the arts, the media, and sometimes even the Church itself. There is no reason to abandon the political realm to others, especially when a Christian is skilled or gifted- or both- in politics.

It’s also important that in a democratic, pluralistic society, a Christian perspective gets a hearing. Why did Trinity Western University fight back when they were accused of homophobic activities in the court case launched against them by the teachers union? It certainly wasn’t because they loved to go to court, or spend money on lawyers. They simply used a democratic tool available to them to make a point; that Christian universities- and by extension, Christians generally- can have and hold standards different than the rest of society without contravening the Charter, and without weakening the rights of others.

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this court ruling, and generations of Christians-and people of other faiths for that matter will have Trinity Western to thank for making what should have been obvious a precedent for us all. Knowing when, where and how to stand on important issues makes a big difference to society, and in our democratic system we have an obligation to make that society as good as possible.

Finally, for Christian MPs, their faith perspective can give direction day by day, and moment by moment.

I’ll be the first to admit that Christians haven’t cornered the market on honesty, candor, insight or discernment.  We could all wish it were different, but that’s the way it is.

Yet it is possible that a mature Christian- one who has been taught well, who is well-read, who has a track record of “being in the world but not of it”, may actually have something extra to add to the public discussion. People with an active faith usually don’t need remedial training in basic ethics, something that a major US university instituted a few years ago when it became apparent that their business grads were rudderless when it came to ethical judgment. It’s because a mature Christian has had to wrestle with the right and wrong of many issues, and come to grips with how they respond in a secular world, that they can offer a unique contribution.

In an odd way, most people will accept that your faith influences your decisions if you’re upfront about it, and judge not. In other words, don’t try to be too cute about it, and it goes without saying that you should never, ever be mean-spirited.

Several years ago, the government introduced a Bill on reproductive technology. It was a complex Bill that in the end didn’t pass, but at the time it was my duty to speak to it in the House Of Commons, and people were watching to see if the religious zealots would get tripped up by the subject matter. Of course I dealt with the technical aspects of the Bill, but I also chose to be upfront about my faith, and said that, “I come at this from a faith perspective that says that life is precious, and therefore this Bill- dealing with reproductive technology and the basics of life- is important to me, because I believe that all life is important”.

I didn’t quote scripture at length or call down condemnation, because I just don’t think that’s effective in that setting. It’s true that I didn’t give anybody a religious tract on the four spiritual laws, but I was able to talk about faith, how it guided my thinking, and why life is precious. Sometimes that’s all you can do, and by being measured and calm about it, people will usually listen respectfully.

Another example was the recent motion on the redefinition of marriage. The media and much of the secular world would be quick to react if someone used the debate to condemn homosexuality, or worse yet, condemn homosexuals. But those who simply said, “I’m a Christian, and my faith and the scriptures I follow lead me to conclude that while other relationships are important to those involved, and the government may want to find a way to recognize them, it is not necessary or wise to redefine marriage to accomplish this. I believe marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. “

Again, someone may disagree with that interpretation of scripture, or feel even that it’s just plain wrong. But no one in the recent debate was raked over the coals for taking a stand based on faith. It was important, I believe, that that argument was made and heard. Even when it proves impossible to carry the day, it’s important to take a stand.

For Christmas I received a book about Abraham Lincoln. I was struck anew how so many of the great society changing issues were championed by Christians. The abolition of slavery was one. The creation of many of our public universities and hospitals have their origins in the Christian faith. Our Constitution and that of our American neighbours has faith in God as its founding premise. Almost always, the Christians who are motivated and guided by love and compassion- and this is always key- it’s this group who can take a public stand, debate public policy, and use their personal life example to change the world for the better.

Two final points before I beat this issue to death:

First, I’ve learned over the years that not all Christians will have the same priorities when it comes to public policy. This may cause the media to have a fit, cause they want to put all Christians in one box. But there’s nothing to worry about, really. Some people of faith will focus on the social gospel, where they reach out to the needy in specific ways. This is a good thing. Others will make strengthening the family their goal, and this too is good. Some will go to work on Reproductive technology and its impact on us all. Many Christians are worried about our stewardship of the environment, and take seriously the instruction to look after things here on earth. Wonderful . Others may be more libertarian, and take the principle of individual accountability and apply it generally to public policy matters. The fact that Christians have different priorities is merely a reflection of different giftedness or sensitivities or calling, and the differences should be encouraged, not condemned.

Finally, when we see someone in public arena who does something we appreciate, we should let them know.

You would not believe the impact that your comments can have on someone who is out on the edge, taking a stand on a tough issue. In fact, your comments might just make the difference as to whether or not a politician continues to stand and be counted.

I remember several years ago when the debate on the definition of marriage was in the provincial realm, and a local MLA had taken a stand- against his own party- defending the traditional definition of marriage. I’m almost reluctant to use this as an example, because (you have to believe me) I do not get up every morning focusing on the definition of marriage, but it’s perhaps the best example I have so I’m going to use it.

Anyway, right after the vote I was speaking at a church, and I was talking about communicating with your politicians. I suggested that for Christians, it was important to not simply get hold of them when you were venting your spleen, but also to encourage them from time to time when they actually do something you agree with. And I asked the question, “how many of you wrote a letter or email to our local MLA, thanking him for standing up for something you believe in”. This was a big church, maybe 7-800 people in attendance. I had spoken with the the MLA so I knew the answer. Not one person there had written a note to say thanks for standing up for what we believe. Not one person.

Let me assure you, I hear from MPs all the time who tell me that “such and such is a huge issue- I’m being inundated in my office”. Boy that sounds serious, I say, how many people? Coupla thousand? Several hundred? Often the answer is well, maybe a dozen people phoned in. A dozen!

You know what a difference it makes in your work, attitude and life when someone takes the time to tell you that they appreciate what you’re doing. Politicians are like anyone else, so please, remember to encourage people along the way when they take a stand that you agree with, whether that’s at work, in the home, or in public life.


Politicians, really, are just like anyone else. Well, that’s not completely true. I remember one of Preston Manning’s jokes, asking about the difference between a dead politician and a dead skunk laying on the road. The answer, of course, is there’s skid marks in front of the skunk. So maybe we’re not exactly like everyone else.

But the truth is, people in public life- politicians, pastors, Rick Mercer, General Hillier, Mel Smith and many others- have all the trials and tribulations, hopes and dreams, tears and laughter as anyone else. In fact, politicians even have feelings.

Okay, maybe that’s pushing it.

But I know for a fact that many MPs I work with jump at the chance to talk about their family, or their grandchildren for instance. I’m not one of those guys, although it is true that Deb and I have 6 grandchildren. But really, why would I tell you that our grandchildren’s names are Morgan, Brennan, Nathan, Maclean,Tyson and Jackson. I’m not that kind of guy. I’m not one to talk about how cute they were in the Christmas concert, or how the little guys like to be rocked just so. I’m not like some grandparents you may know.

Did I mention how cute these kids are?

Anyway, I only mention the grandchildren because we like to read books to them, just the way we read books to our own children. One of those books is called, “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, no good very bad day”. It starts like this.

Excerpts from the book….”It looked like it was going to be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, day!”

18 months ago, some folks would argue that I experienced one of those days myself. In fact, maybe more than one! Cause about a year and a half ago I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer called mesothelioma. The doctors told me it was caused by exposure to asbestos 25- 30 years earlier, back when I was in the logging business. Unfortunately, once in a while, that asbestos gets lodged in the lining around the lung and irritates it, and a cancer develops that has virtually no treatment, with a very bad prognosis.

Like most people, I hadn’t really scheduled an event like this into my life. In fact, just a few weeks earlier, I had run my first marathon, in Ottawa. (this was a real, running marathon, it had nothing to do with going to Question Period every day). Anyway, the marathon went well, but a month or so afterwards I was having trouble maintaining my usual jogging schedule. After a week or so of that, I went to the doctor and an x-ray revealed a collapsed lung.

[…] It had the makings of a terrible, horrible, no good very bad day. And I want to upfront with you- I have had better days.

But for a Christian like me, it merely confirms what the Bible says: “In this life you will have trouble”. So let’s be clear. Of course the initial news is a shock. Of course it makes the future uncertain. Of course it changes your plans somewhat. But I’ve never felt for an instant that God is picking on me. He’s not judging me, or punishing me, or really, even testing me. Trouble will come our way, but no matter what comes, even in the valley of the shadow of death, God is there to bring comfort.

[…] It’s time now for a little honesty. Why am I here, speaking to you tonight? Perhaps I was invited to speak tonight because of our new Agricultural policies, or because you want to hear about my grandchildren. Look, it’s no secret why I’m here. People know that my family and I have gone through one of those valley experiences, and they’re interested to know how it’s going, and how we did it.

And each time I do an interview with the media about the cancer, and how I’ve dealt with it, I talk about how grateful I am for a mature Christian faith and a supportive loving family. In fact, the time I was most emotional that summer was during a conversation I had with our pastor. At the time I was still recovering from surgery, and the outlook was quite uncertain, and I told my pastor, “I can’t believe that God wouldn’t allow me to go back to work so He could use me to tell others that His Grace is sufficient for all my troubles”. And he did let me go back to work, and it’s meant that I could share my story with people like you, and I’m so grateful for that.

Finally, Don’t wait for a crisis, to develop a relationship with God

To use the language of the evening, know where you stand with God. If there is only one message I could leave with people, this would be it. Some people practice ‘fox hole Christianity’, where they wait till the bullets are flying overhead and the end looks near, and they call out to God, “I don’t know if you’re there, but if you are, please save me from this”. Some times it even works, but let’s face it: a crisis moment like that is a bad time to figure out where you stand on the biggest issue of life.

Here’s how it works for some people:

When you’re little, your parents give you a bike and you say, “this is it!”.

When you’re a teenager, you get a driver’s licence and you say,“This is it”.

You go to university, get a degree, get married, you think to yourself, “this is it”.

Career starts going well, you get a promotion, start making some serious money, you say, “this is it”.

Finally, laying on your death bed, you look around the room and you can really say, “THIS is it!!!”.

Too many people spend their lives trying to find something that really makes life sizzle, and they miss out on a great opportunity to know where they stand with God.

Probably most of you have seen the sandwich boards or signs out in front of churches that say, “the Alpha Course- explore the meaning of life”. What a great program, and it’s offered by all sorts of different churches who simply encourage people to ask themselves the big questions of life- why am I here? Is there a God? What can I do to get to know him? It’s a great time to study the subject, cause you shouldn’t wait for a crisis to develop a relationship with God.


Folks, I wish I could tell you that once you wrestle with those issues, get some answers, if you’re a Christian, that life is a bowl of cherries. As Erma Bombeck once said, “If life is a bowl of cherries, what am I doing in the pits!” In my experience, no matter who you are, you will have the occasional, “terrible, horrible, no good very bad day”, and whether you personally face some of those tough times right now or you’re riding on cloud 9, I hope you know where you stand on the big issues of life. That goes for you loggers, or teachers, students, or even budding politicians- it matters where you stand.

And in life, knowing where you stand with God puts everything else in perspective.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Contact Chuck Strahl as follows:

Chilliwack Constituency Office:
106 – 8615 Young Street
Chilliwack BC V2P 4P3

Phone: (604) 792-3311
Fax: (604) 795-3033

Lillooet Constituency Office
657 Main Street, Lillooet, BC

Phone: 250 256-2677
Fax:  250 256-2678
Hours:  Tuesday and Thursday each week from 9.00 a.m. until 12 noon

Ottawa Office:
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Phone: (613) 992-2940
Fax: (613) 944-9376



Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

State-run CBC: So vital, and yet so not watched

CBC is so vital and important, we’re told, and yet it needs to vigorously advertise to compete for viewers
If it’s so crucially necessary for the people, then why do they have to advertise at all whatsoever?  Surely the people know about it and totally rely on it already.  It’s so necessary, you see.




Surely if it’s so obviously “required” for Canadians to have the state-run media and its state news channel to the extent that over one BILLION dollars is required of taxpayers all over Canada every year to prop it up, and it is such an “essential” service for Canadians that the state has for decades had to be in the business of “informing” Canadians with their spin on “news” and state “information” and official state “opinions” and official state “entertainment” for us otherwise improperly entertained folks, then folks would have somehow glommed onto it already— on their own—even without the government’s benevolent advertising and informational help.  You’d think.

Even the Eskimos could communicate things before the benevolent government’s sacred CBC, and as I understand it, unlike us modern “invader” Canadians with the help of state-run and regulated media, they even developed a “culture” on their own.  Man!  They were highly developed!  Even after decades of CBC and government regulations, we stupid invaders still can’t!

And if as one of the few, you do tune in to Canada’s state-run news media (which, again, you will find that you need to do because it’s so damn essential), in what way is it different than the multiple brands of private sector news?  It’s being broadcast on the same cable feeds or satellite beams as the private sector news channels.  They’re reporting on the same things.  They all even have that same liberal-left spin on everything.  Yes, they all have a like-minded hatred toward President Bush and to one degree or another, America in general, because they’re all similarly liberals reading and writing the copy, and liberals who own and run the networks.  They all hate conservatives and promote liberals and liberal-left ideologies fairly equally.  They all subscribe to every word uttered by any leftist on any matter, and ensure that liberal and sundry leftists have their say on every matter, and conservatives are quashed at every turn.  So there’s little difference.  (Fox News Channel is a rare exception, and by no shear coincidence, is where the phrase “the spin stops here” came from before being stolen from Bill O’Reilly’s “O’Reilly Factor” by the state-run CBC).

Perhaps the biggest difference is that by Canadian law, not unlike laws in Iran or North Korea, the state-run media must be carried on the cable and satellite distributors’ services (again for emphasis, by Canadian law, the state-run CBC MUST be made available by them), so that you will get it no matter what you think, unlike other optional private-sector channels. Therefore, if you’re a liberal, all that advertising is an especially smart use of taxpayer funds!  You silly conservatives can try simply standing on your heads to make sense of that little gem of liberal wisdom.

Which all might make you wonder just where exactly that spin stops.  Why does the state-run media need to advertise its so-called “news” channel and politics “news” show, and in such an expensive manner—by buying huge oft-repeated one-third-page ads on page A-3 of the most expensive newspapers in all the land, with your tax dollars and mine?  Isn’t this all rather redundant and wasteful?  Couldn’t tons of taxpayer cash be saved here (and not spent elsewhere)?

A conservative might think so, and might feel compelled to ask the Auditor-General to round-up some possible explanations as to why the state has paid so many countless millions of taxpayer dollars to the private sector to advertise what is an “essential service” that is, by law, already made available to all Canadians anyway, and which competes against several almost identical services offered by the private sector already.  And whether this isn’t stupidity piled upon previously hatched stupidity, or trying to spin a top faster than it is already spinning.  Do they simply have buckets of extra cash?  Apparently so.

Quite apart from that stupidity, clearly the state and its state-run media is competing against its own citizens and their citizen-owned enterprises, for attention and revenues and for whatever other questionable reasons.  What kind of government competes against its own citizens?  Not conservative governments.  Not free-market governments.  So there’s that, too.  Hope you conservatives are still on your heads.

The state-run media gets over one BILLION dollars of taxpayer cash PER YEAR and has gotten that taxpayer cash for decades, for pretty much no good reason except to ensure the spread of liberal-left propaganda and liberal-left social engineering, to marginalize conservatives, and to keep a bunch of obviously leftist and often Marxist union workers and “artists” and liberal-left suckups on the public dole.  And nobody has been able—in over a decade of debating this point with me—to get even close to convincing me that the state-run media is even remotely defensible on any level, in this country.  Never was, isn’t now, and never will be.  In fact I would say that I’ve rarely enjoyed such hearty laughter as when someone engages me in a debate over the “need” for state-run media in Canada.  The spin really starts right there, and it just doesn’t stop.  This spin is actually another federal publicly-funded law, apparently.

Few watch the state-run media here—less than 6 percent of the population as I understand it.  Which is a good thing.  I’ve always said that the state-run CBC possesses a unique quality in that it actually makes you get dumber with every second that you watch or listen.  So it’s a good thing so few watch it.  We all know how important the “early learning” is to the liberal-left, so I’m sure they would agree in their heart of hearts that it’s best that few Canadians watch the state-run media.

But as I’ve pointed out dozens of times with my repeated posting of the latest Canadian TV ratings charts, rarely if ever is there a CBC show in the top twenty or even 30 or more shows in any week, and when there is one, it’s a hockey game broadcast—not the state’s “news” or CBC-created wonderment of official state “entertainment”. Even the tendentious politically-motivated official state entertainment show called “Little Mosque on the Prairie” (an agenda-driven rip-off of the Americans’ more noble and earnest and honest “Little House on the Prairie”), which they’ve spend countless tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to promote in other newspaper ads and on huge billboards across the nation, fails to crack the top-twenty.  Manifestly, that’s because the show sucks wind.  But of course that seems to be a “plus” for the CBC-luvin’ set.

But how embarrassing for them at the CBC—their PR department trying to seriously compare their state-employed state “news” informer, Don Newman, to Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly.  I mean especially since they so hate Fox News Channel with all its tolerance for conservatives and God and it being all pro-America and all!  Do they honestly believe “the spin stops there” at the CBC—honestly?  Or is this “satire”?  By stealing from Fox News Channel their Bill O’Reilly’s signature sign-off, (“the spin stops here”), they simply give further proof that aside from spinning, they are a failed entity; redundant, useless, un-educating, an embarrassment for our nation, and in total, a waste of taxpayer cash.  And that it still exists today—truly makes my head spin.

Let me once again remind readers as I always try to do, that state-owned or state-run media should be banned in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution once and for all.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Turning Canada conservative means leading them that way

Go Reagan on ’em, in a word.

According to the latest Ipsos-Reid poll, the Titanic Grits are making no headway with Liberal Frenchman Stephane Dion at the helm.  Now that the Conservatives have proven they can amply mimic a Liberals’ budget in addition to lots of other key vote-getting nuggets like the liberal-left’s daycare ideas and singing in the ever-so-trendy enviro religion’s choir, there’s even less need to vote for the Liberal Party today.  Far be it for the Conservatives to dare to build a nation of conservative-thinking principled people. Easier to simply cave and join the choir.

Then again maybe that’s the point.  And maybe they’ve just figured that out.  Like most Canadians, many new “Conservatives” have been not so much “conservatives” as simply “Team Not Liberal” (for myriad good reason), and the Conservative budget massaged their loins nicely, as did their other recent decisions on daycare and the environment and pumping money back into the liberals’ women’s centers, for example.  So what I’ve coined Liberal Party Too could form a majority, much to Team Not Liberal‘s sporty satisfaction. 

March 23 2007 Ipsos-Reid poll

Conservatives – 40 percent
Liberals – 29 percent
You’ve got to be kidding party – 14 percent
Greenuts – 7 percent

Conservatives now have a 10-point lead (43 to 33 per cent) over the Grits in Ontario
And now nearly tied in Quebec, 26-25 for the Grits.


Many Canadians—and this is due largely to decades of liberal-left governments with their always-media-reported specious talk; the very liberal-left biased job the liberal media has been doing generally in informing this country for decades; and to the liberals that dominate our academia in our public schools, educating Canadians so poorly in this regard—are so unsophisticated about politics that most Canadians literally watch it unfold like they do a sports event—a hockey game, cheering for and sticking with their team no matter what.  It’s about teams and their team winning.  Just as in team sports, it doesn’t matter one whit what their team is fighting for or what their inner principles or goals are —aside from winning.  It just matters whether you can ultimately beat the opposition or not. That’s it.  And if I understand today’s liberals correctly, ultimately it would be best if “everybody was a winner” in the end.  And furthermore, after all of that, winning the big shiny cup makes absolutely no difference in the whole scheme of life, in this game.

For them, the Conservatives’ budget being just like a liberals’ budget is perfect.  Public policy-wise, and fiscally, Canada moves no further from the left than it has been stuck at for years, and yet their Team Not Liberal wins the next election with a majority.  How fun!

Thinking people and people who are forward-looking and serious see things differently of course.  It doesn’t matter if the Conservatives win a majority if all that’s going to do for our nation is to turn us into a nation led by Liberal Party Too—and to proceed to hold us (and coddle us nanny-state style, and cater to the left’s demands for more and bigger social programs, and generally allow our society to slip further into the morass of post-modern liberalism, and so on)… exactly or nearly exactly like the other liberals did before them. 

Winning an election is the easiest thing on earth to do in this country provided you have a half-ass good party structure and leader:  raise corporate taxes, lower or maintain income taxes except raise them on “the rich”, increase spending on social programs and create new social programs that sound benevolent to the simpleton, talk lots about your desire to leave Afghanistan “at the earliest possible opportunity”, never say a thing about tough issues like gay marriage and abortion, build a national daycare program, promise more funding for the healthcare system, issue directed tax credits at neat-sounding things, and most importantly this year, say trendy things about the environment and promise to spend “government” money on the environment so (as in every facet of life in post-modern liberalist Canada today) individual Canadians won’t have to do anything themselves, just as the left has always promised.  Guaranteed majority.

Liberal Party Too may say the right things on some law and order matters and on the international stage (and by the way, this Harper government has been an object lesson in this regard, in effective national leadership and in demonstrating just how effective it can be—how easy it is—to do the most important thing: to convince Canadians to think like actual conservatives on the basis that we’re right).  But in honesty, the “real” Liberals could do that too, given the right leader and the right polling, for as we know only too well they love their polling and they bend and flex like rubber bands that way.  What gets missed by the Team Not Liberal is that if the foundational principles of the parties are essentially the same, the outcome for our nation will very likely be nearly exactly the same.  The main path our country is on will remain the current beaten path—the path to abject Godless post-modern “progressive” Euro-liberalism —and so then what’s the point of it all, really?  Just to employ teams for sport as a sort of hobby for fun? 

The past two latest major polls—both taken after the Conservatives’ March 19 2007 budget—confirm the suggestion that the Conservatives are maintaining their lead and might even be able to form a majority. 

Someone wrote an email explaining how I (through PTBC) was wrong to denounce the Conservatives’ budget as I did over the past week (and as most other conservative people and organizations did too), and offer polls such as the latest two as proof.  “See?,”  they ask, “this budget that PTBC denounced… is going to yield a majority for the Conservatives.  We were right and you were wrong!” 

Well, sorry to burst your little Team Not Liberal bubble, but the fact that Canadians, largely still drunk on paternalistic liberalism, endorse the Conservatives’ budget, gives me little comfort. 

The idea that even now, after what the Liberal Party did to this country (even just in terms of corruption to say nothing of bad leadership);  and after the Conservatives proving themselves—showing effective leadership for over a year now; and even caving to the liberal-left in many key areas and coming out with a liberal-friendly budget, the Conservatives aren’t polling at 70 or 75 percent, is testimony to the fact that Canadians still aren’t getting what they’re actually looking for. 

The idea that the budget was such an easy sale to all Canadians and most of the liberal media is not an endorsement for your “team” as much as it is for “team realistic”—my team.  I would have welcomed a budget that was “tough sell”—one that would once again require the leadership skills of Stephen Harper—so that we could further advance the principles of conservatism. 

Worse still, some “conservatives” have suggested to me that the Conservatives must wait until they get their majority before unleashing all the “conservativeness”.  Oh lovely!  Fantastic!  Great thinking!  If I understand correctly, then, even amongst “conservatives”, the Conservative Party does in fact have that famous hidden agenda then—and they can only win if they hide in liberalism until they sucker Canadians into voting for them.  They’ll fake out Canada—even me!—until they get a majority, and then change their spots suddenly or even slowly.  Great strategy!  Include that little morsel in Chapter 666 in your manual called “How to Destroy Any Chance for an Actual Conservative Party in Canada, Once and For All”.

I hold out great hope for this Harper Conservative government.  They’ve demonstrated themselves to be principled and resolute on many fronts—mostly the international stage (Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian matter…)— and in law and order matters in particular, and in being such good leaders in this regard, have, I think, actually turned normal Canadian team sports enthusiasts into Canadian conservatives and Conservatives.  So I hope they get their majority.  But the great problem they face in caving to liberals simply in order to get a majority is that moment the Conservatives (the Conservatives in particular, mind you) get one, and only then change their spots and start acting like conservatives as some suggest they will, they will be hung out to dry like underwear, be torn to shreds by the dogs, chewed-up and pooped out the other end, and in that form, they will not be electable for yet another few decades. 

I like and support Stephen Harper.  He has shown himself to be a great strategist and has allowed glimpses of the effectiveness of being a good strong leader in some issues and persuading Canadians to “think right”, as I contend is so important.  But just as all parties now see the value in balanced budgets (a conservative trait if ever there was one), these things can be done in or out of power.  I’d just as soon see them in power because they could do more.  But again: doing “more” is only a plus if the “more” is right.  Not left.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Conservatives to provide free food, shelter and clothing for all

In order to come clean with Canadians (owing to their advertised adherence to “values” and “taking personal responsibility”), the federal Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper admitted today that they’re prepared to cave to far-left liberals and all their far-left liberal media’s long-held demands and implications, and to simply steal the liberal-left’s motto, campaign promise, and main guiding principle of “if it feels good, do it”

According to news releases, not only will the state look after all your job, lack of job, training for jobs, finding a job, retirement, health, all manner of “learning”, your television viewing and news/current affairs/information needs, controlling your radio listening, abortion, and of course your homosexual needs, but now also free food, shelter and clothing will be made available to all Canadians, effective in the new 2006/2007 budget year.  Thus, they proudly proclaimed in their news release, they will be “the first party in Canada to get the priorities straight, like awesome”. 

“After all,” said our source, “while the state can of course look after the nation’s children (formerly known as “your” children and “families”), which under our state-run daycare (and “early learning” —wink!) plans will be plugged into state-run daycares while their humanoid upbringing control units (formerly known as “mom and dad”) are at work in order to pay taxes, what about food for our nation’s children?!  And shelter and clothing?!  Those are even more important than rearing your kids for you, and they’re like awesome priorities!!  So after 13 years of Liberal incompetence and ineptitude on this priorities thing, we’re like taking action.  Stand up for Canada!/Changeons pour vrai!” 

Asked whether or not that sounded “communist”, I was simply told that I was “homophobic” and a “racist”, and it was strongly suggested I put my name on the eight-month waiting list to check into a state mental health facility staffed by federal government-paid liberals, for “rehab” and “reprogramming” by social workers.  Then I was told I was a “neo-con” and the spokesman/womanoid kicked me in the nuts.

“We best just get on with it, and not just be tolerant of the communism, but embrace the communism,” a different source said, quoting an unnamed Harper aid who was hired on the basis of her being a lesbian.

In another move to appease the far left, the Conservatives announced today they will withdraw from Afghanistan, and take the now relatively right-wing socialist NDP’s advice and simply wait for the Islamofascists to come to Canada, and hopefully take over Canada, which “Canada’s New Government” acknowledged won’t be possible without thousands or millions of Canadians being killed.  Therefore a state-run pilot project has been announced to provide grief counseling to non-Muslim Canadian women, and gays, and environmentalists, and of course non-Christians.  “Christians have that whole ‘God’ thing to take care of them, so the state needs to fill the equality gap”, our source, a vegan, proudly proclaimed.  Canadians are instructed to tune into the official informational TV ads which will be featured on the state-run CBC during the state-funded “Little Mosque on the Prairie” TV “information” and state “entertainment” series.

Sharia law for all of Canada will also now be formerly introduced by the newly appointed Minister of Appeasement, Jack Layton.  “Ramadanadingydong!” was all Layton could utter, fighting back the tears and adjusting his blouse while his “life partner” Olivia Chow adjusted her pants. 

“That whole ‘Stand up for Canada’ thing is passé!”, said the Conservative Party source, struggling to find the French word for “passé”, for bilingual purposes.  “Being all-inclusive and trendy, no matter how stupid”, is the new mantra of the Conservative Party of Canada, said another unnamed source, shouting down from the treehouse where she lives. 

As such, in an apparent move to literally kiss liberal-leftist butts and finally “fit in”, the Liberals’ Green Guru, Stephane Dion, was asked to welcome a just-announced full-on commitment to the Kyoto Accord, which will now become “Section Three” of our Constitution.  The Conservatives have agreed to commit up to but not ever exceeding somewhere around 186 BILLION dollars per year, give or take a few billion (depending on reports from government-funded leftist environmentalist “scientists” and far-leftist political “scientists”), to fight all the man-made global warming, which is, by the way, now also against the law to argue against lest we be charged under the revised Criminal Code (Cod Criminalle) of being a “climate change denier”, which is now a federal offence which the liberals’ Supreme Court division found hiding in the liberals’ Charter of Rights beside the part where it says “gay marriage is a God-given human right and makes perfect sense from a penis/vagina standpoint”. 

“There will be not reduction in hall the temperATures,” acknowledged Liberal Frenchman Dion, “but hatt least we will av… some eCONomic raison for all the socialiste program and we hwill HONN-er our KYO-to COMmitment… in the new millennium,” he said, before grabbing a bite of his cheese and nibbling on it for approximately ten minutes. 

On a related liberal-left and now Conservative Party front, abortion will not only continue to be taxpayer-paid and available to all women at any time in any pregnancy just as it is now, and just as liberals have demanded, but the Conservatives will now adopt the communist Chinese model, a high level government source known only as “Choix” said, citing the fact that “there are an awful lot of the Chinese people here already, so like what the hell, eh, dude!  As I always say, Gung Hey Fat Choix!”.  They will furthermore make it a law that like in China, all women must have an abortion after one baby, to allow time for Canada’s Muslim population to catch up, for equality and multicultural promotion purposes. 

But in a drive to make it a “Made In Canada” solution, women will be told to abort only if that baby is a boy—in a nod to Canada’s Marxist feminists, whom will also receive a 13 BILLION dollar court challenges, propaganda-spreading, and equality grant.  “It’s a start… a noble gesture to pick up where the Liberals left off,” said Mizzz Emma Greenvagina, “but of course we still say all Christian men should be duct-taped to the wall and mocked, and we expect the Harper Conservatives to act on that in the coming year.”  A committee has been struck, headed by socialist lesbian Libby Davies (rumored to be the next King of Canada and CBC president) to explore the idea of at least further hampering Christians in their drive to turn back the tide, by kicking them in the nuts real hard and rendering them impotent.  “We strive for balance and equality in all things, and therefore their weighty righteousness has to be reduced and mocked to the greatest extent possible so our comparatively hideously embarrassing licentious behavior can blossom in relative equalness,” she said while touring the new state-run condom factory called CBC-3.  Then she lit a doobie, then kicked me in the nuts.

Gay marriage will now be mandatory and will be officially proclaimed to be “the norm” in Canada.  “It’s traditional marriage that is so freaking bizarre,” said a source known only as “Mizz Brison”, an apparent transvestite, “and we intend to dismantle the traditional marriage monopoly in Canada.  It’s destroying gayness!,” she or whatever lamented, while wiping tears off his blouse. 

New federal Education Minister and Minister of State for Marginalizing Conservatives, Mizz Svendetta Robinson-(dash)___ (yes, that’s how it’s spelled: “Robinson-(dash)___”), said that finally, as they’ve been demanding all these years, kids of all ages, starting in the early learning component of the new state-run child care/day care and early learning secretariat level, will be taught how to have gay sex —properly— in a real classroom setting, using actual gay folk in addition to the more traditional cucumbers.  State-employed abortion advocates (called “family planning councilors”) will be on hand giving out free Google Canada (a CBC-owned division of the real Google) bike-riding route maps to the many state abortion clinics, and free state-supplied AIDS drugs will be given out to all, just as a necessary precaution, at recess and personal self-worth hour, along with a wad of cheese from the federal Cheese Marketing And Equality Board of Canada. 

Also, caving to demands from the liberals and their media, the mention of God will now finally be stricken from all things, according to the lengthy news release printed on recycled hemp paper using soy inks.  Taking His place:  Al Gore and his prophet, Michael Moore.  Sunday will be renamed Goreday.  Monday will be Mooreday.  The years (i.e., “2007”) will be renamed to “01”, since as the Godless atheists pointed out, “2007” refers directly to Jesus, and “01” more accurately reflects “the new reality” according to the United Nations and Al Gore.  (There’s only two digits because as is stated in the Gospels of “The Inconvenient Truth”, there’s only ten years left anyway, and this leaves room for up to 99 in any case, which is cited as “long-range planning” based on Kyoto targets being reached “maybe, fingers crossed, Gore willing”).  I inquired about the former Prophet David Suzuki, who was apparently overlooked, but he was reportedly found to actually be a fraud and will be sent to Israel to search for Jesus and his wife and kids’ tomb for a later series on the state-run CBC’s “The Passionate Eye”.  Then the spokesperson, a woman with armpit hairs extruding from under her muscle shirt, kicked me in the nuts.

I sought more news from Conservatives and was directed to an official spokesman, a fella named Marcelle, who had pierced nipples in addition to a tongue piercing and who stunk like a hippy.  He asked me on a date so I left.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

The CBC as Space Cadets

Duplicated from ProudToBeCanadian’s Blog section…

Satellite radio in Canada: Our Socialist CBC’s own Star Wars

Most people in Canada still aren’t on the satellite radio bandwagon, since here in Canada, everything we do or don’t see on TV and listen to on the radio is essentially determined by the magical formulas and ratios created by the state’s politicians and their political/bureaucratic appointments—all liberal—made over the years.  Ultimately it winds its way through to the liberal-left political machine’s very own CRTC—the liberals’ state-censor division.  Collectively, they quixotically call all this unsavory hegemony as “defenders of ‘Canadian Content’”—ostensibly as a way to make it all sound yummy instead of sounding North Korean. 

Recently, the state censor/regulator allowed Canadians to buy and listen to satellite radio.  This is of course years behind the Americans, as is nearly always the case in nations led by (quote/unquote) “progressive” governments, somewhat ironically given that cute “progressive” moniker.  (“Progressive” is code for liberal—a moniker they are currently running away from because they’re finally embarrassed, and “progressive” sounds more positive and trendy). 

Contrary to how the “progressives” would like you to think as a free person in a “strong and free” country, this audio/video Canadian world is not a free market by any stretch —you are not allowed to hear just anything you want to on the radio in this country.  Only what Mizz Nannystate and her liberal-left bureaucratic elites allow you to hear.  For example, the Canadian airwaves must contain certain things and exclude other things—by which they actually mean that it must contain more (government approved) Canadian stuff (that you wouldn’t otherwise choose to watch or hear for quality or style or whatever free will-type reasons you deem suitable for you and your tastes); and it must exclude other stuff, by which they actually in fact mean American stuff, again which, given free will, you’d tune into if only you could.  The television ratings charts in Canada bear this out every single week.  And that’s a scientific fact—an inconvenient truth, if you will—that even the man-made global warming “scientists” would sign off on.

This is part of their effort to try to create and then foist upon the citizenry, as “progressive” governments often do around the world, a national “culture” and “identity”, almost purely by government decree and your willing obedience, not unlike in North Korea or Iran, just more subtly.

Canada’s liberal-leftist elitists don’t trust you dumb citizens to evolve as a nation with a natural-born culture and identity, without their strict guidance, direction, and maternalism, and certainly not just “on your own”, in nutty willy-nilly “free” fashion.  Think of the Liberal Party’s official stance on spending your own money on your own child and family-raising, which I think they now secretly dub the “beer and popcorn quagmire of liberal-left Freudian slippage Hell which cost us the last election, oops” policy. The liberal-left’s hidden agenda was supposed to remain hidden.  Darn the luck.

They do all this culture-creating by state regulations and rules and quotas and formulas and licenses and grants and subsidies and sponsorships, and worse —by actual state-ownership of media, to wit the state-run CBC.

In simpler terms, it’s manifestly a phony pseudo-culture being created by and foisted on us by liberal-left government bureaucrats who literally pull facts and figures out of their fat backsides and make laws out of them, and then dub it “Canadian Culture”.  Or in the case of abortion, it’s called “Canadian values” by liberals and their media.

image As is the way of “progressives” and Fabian socialists, the state-owned CBC bought and paid for (with your cash) a huge chunk of a new Canadian subsidiary of the (American) SIRIUS Satellite Radio corporation to help form “SIRIUS Radio Canada”, during the “progressive” Liberal Party reign of horror just prior to the current Conservative rescue mission. 

This occurred for reasons which could only be explained by the liberal-left’s aforementioned Fabian socialist mission which is apparently to end capitalism in Canada as we know it, despite it proving itself and serving us rather well, making us a better and richer country than most in the world, and replacing it with Soviet-style socialism only with a happier face.  And perhaps it could also be explained by the left’s quest to control the medium and the message—as per the state-run CBC—in order to maintain control of the reigns of political power in this land by use of literally mind-numbing anti-conservative propaganda and re-runs of Michael Moore documentaries and “The Passionate Eye” series about how awful capitalism, conservatives, Americans, capitalists, Republicans, and Christians are.

Other private citizen-owned players in Canada applied to the state censor and regulator for the privilege of competing against the Canadian state for satellite radio profits, and one, a Canadian who created a company under license from American-based XM Satellite Radio Inc., was afforded that privilege.  Thus we have two major competing services for satellite radio currently:  XM Radio Canada and SIRIUS Canada, almost exactly as in the U.S., only they’re different.

Here, both companies are forced to provide Canadian content which you may or may not choose to hear—most probably not—through a regulation which is calculated and administered and I suppose monitored by liberal bureaucrats who literally created an arithmetic ratio out of their backsides and made it a “Canadian value”, in order to help create a “Canadian culture” by government decree.  And thus valuable—and popular—American content that you might otherwise—probably—have chosen to hear is excluded—including, by the way, most of the extremely popular conservative talk radio shows, of course. 

And one of those companies here, as I mentioned, is a partially state-owned company embarking on what they suddenly deem to be a perfectly acceptable “star wars” mission, which I thought they detested owing to its Republicanishness.

We chose to buy an XM satellite radio and subscription, ourselves.  Sorry if that shocked you out of your gourd. Then we canceled it after we found out that here, the conservative talk radio available down south was replaced by Canadian, well, nonsense (and more liberal-leftist CBC and CBC-like radio stations on top of the liberal-leftist BBC and CNN and the like).

In my endless quest to find ways for the Conservatives to get off the socialist paths that the liberal-left has set Canada on, I find that the recent business news out of the U.S. homeland about these two satellite radio companies is that they may in fact merge into one, which is what inspired this diatribe.  The merge down south would have to mean the same here.  That could provide a graceful means for the state to properly take its leave of what should obviously be a private citizen-run domain (the “domain” being business, profits, entrepreneurial risk, culture, and media, among other things which are left to citizens in free countries, and governments in communist countries). 

Taking the correct course of action might have otherwise seemed a tad inelegant. So here’s their lucky break, perhaps.

As I’ve repeated ad nauseam in my ProudToBeCanadian blog, state-run media should of course be banned in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution.  But my down-to-earth ramblings notwithstanding, I don’t doubt space cadet liberals will now begin their push for state-ownership of the newly merged and bigger and more powerful XM/SIRIUS Canada, just to “purify” it—and to sanctify their socialist cause. So let’s watch and listen for that.  I mean, if we’re allowed to.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone ** Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Canadian pride: Harper forces change of resolution at Francophonie summit

Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Harper invested some of Canada’s newfound global heft and growing global respect today, as he argued for, and succeeded, in causing a change in an important resolution.

The resolution as originally written—in typical liberal-left U.N.-like anti-Israel style, called for a recognition of the suffering of those in Lebanon this past summer.  Not in Israel—just Lebanon.  Israel presumably deserved to suffer through the slaughter that the terrorist Hezbollah Islamo-fascist savages imposed on them by lobbing bombs into civilian populations on purpose in order to kill as many innocent Jews as possible.

“Obviously, Canada believes…..we should recognize the victims in both Lebanon and Israel,” he said.  Obvious only if you’re not abjectly anti-Israel.

BUCHAREST, Romania (CP) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper has opposed a resolution at la Francophonie that would have recognized only the suffering of people in Lebanon following this summer’s conflict in the Middle East.

Most of the members at the summit of French-speaking countries supported the Egyptian-proposed resolution Friday, with the split forcing participants to continue their debate on the contentious issue.

Not reported in the above story [Editor’s note: link now broken], the debate continued and after our Canadian Prime Minister spoke, the wording was changed such that the suffering of all the people —including even the Jews in Israel —was recognized.

And if I may tip my hat and expose my pro-Canada bias at this point:

Yay Canada,  and yay Prime Minister Harper.   Go team!


Read the CTV’s report on this [Editor’s note: CTV article no longer available], which rightfully credits our Conservative Prime Minister Harper for the change.  And compare it to the state-run far-leftist CBC’s coverage.

After reading the state-run CBC anti-Canada bias, revert back to this
imageCTV video clip [Editor’s note: CTV article no longer available] on it—CTV reporter Rosemary Thompson is there reporting live. CBC is not, as far as I can tell. offers no video clip at all of this important pro-Canada, pro-Israel turn of events.

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen, World Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

ProudToBeCanadian makes CBC squirm

See this letter from the CBC making the rounds. (PDF file)

Click here to see this picture bigger

I originally blogged about this on January 26 2006.

Here’s a screen shot of the state-run CBC’s accidental graphical error which occurred despite having state-employed professional editors and graphics experts and such, and a taxpayer-funded budget in excess of one BILLION dollars per year.

The CBC letter to the citizen proves that simple letters of concern to the appropriate people make all the difference!

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

CBC suggests….“Heil Harper”? That’d be a Mistake.

The Liberal Party has officially completed its unsuccessful campaign of hate against all conservative Canadians, but the state-run CBC never finished its campaign—its mission—even if the election is over.

I captured a moment from the state-run media’s headline news show, through which they hope to educate the citizens with their official state-sponsored news and leftist muckraking and attitude adjustment of Canadians on behalf of, well, not conservative Canadians, it seems to me.

They claim they made a mistake.

Well they did.

UPDATE:  Video flick removed due to a legal threat from the CBC

Click to watch Watch the Heil Harper Mistake

UPDATE:  Catch the good write-up about our blog entry and comments at the very good

Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

It's a question.