Topmost (in use)

Archive | Joel Johannesen

ProudToBeCanadian is undergoing a rebirth

STICKY POST – Fresh new posts below

Since we’re between elections, and other distractions have been largely shoved aside, it’s a great time to rebuild this site. Competing plans are being analysed, and through the rest of spring and into summer, a new plan will be chosen and work will begin.

Meantime, there’s lots of articles to catch up on (thousands!), starting below this article, and some new articles will be added when time permits.

Please keep in touch!

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

Other. Neither. Both. None. All of the above.

Hey boys and girls! I’ve done this before but it hasn’t ceased to amaze me yet. Which I think is a good thing.

First question in a survey I did this week:

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


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

Conservative Party leadership ballot — and how I’m ranking my vote

How did I decide how to mark my Conservative Party leadership ballot?

Virtually all the candidates spout the same lines on personal and corporate taxes (lowering them), and some other key issues.

So I judged based a variety of other factors where the candidates’ position on issues were actually different: abortion, gun rights, supply management, ending the CBC, carbon tax; and the more esoteric things like their the detail of their plans, their web site and the information contained therein, history, how they managed the narrative, and a host of other things.

The fact that there were 14 candidates, and so the attendant lack of my time for this, and the confusion and laziness that such a big roster brings to my table — also played a pretty big role in my balloting, especially after rank 5. That, and enormous boredom after this seemingly 58-year-long leadership process.

1. Maxime Bernier
2. Brad Trost
3. Pierre Lemieux
4. Andrew Scheer
5. Erin O’Toole
6. Steven Blaney
7. Andrew Saxton
8. Chris Alexander
9. Kellie Leitch
10. Deepak Obhrai

—- Voters only get 10 choices —-

11. Rick Peterson
12. Lisa Raitt
13. Michael Chong

Kevin O’Leary would have been #10 or so.

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

Foreign aid is not aid, it’s a rip-off

I’ve made clear the position of this website on the candidates for leader of the Conservative Party (Maxime Bernier). So I’ll go ahead and share another reason why: it comes from this latest emailout by his team. In it he talks about foreign affairs, or at least foreign aid, and how it should really be called failure aid.

It is spot on.

As an aside, I have noticed a weird affliction among political campaign support teams and their mailout writers: someone must have told them that when doing a mass mailing, it’s best to make every sentence have its own zip code.

Each sentence contains within it a fresh new declarative doctrine, and its own paragraph.

And each sentence is made to stand out as another fresh bold take.

It’s as if they made an allowance for applause time at the end of each line.

And they think it makes each notion appear somehow august by doing this.

To wit:

Friend, Canadians are being ripped off by Justin Trudeau.

He’s trying to buy a seat at the UN by sending aid money around the world.

He’s building roads in Africa with your tax dollars.

He pledged $2.6 billion to fight climate change in developing countries.

And last month, he announced millions more to fund abortions abroad.

My position on foreign aid is clear:

Canada should not fund economic development abroad, and humanitarian aid should be given only to help save lives in crisis situations.

No country has ever been lifted out of poverty by handouts.

They need to reform their economy, free their entrepreneurs from bureaucratic shackles, respect the rule of law, and trade.

We have people who struggle here. We can’t send billions in tax dollars overseas when there is no tangible benefit to Canadians.

Foreign aid should be given only when there is a genuine humanitarian crisis.

Famine. Rapid outbreak of disease. War. Natural disasters. These are real problems.

In times of real need, Canada can and will do its part.

But we must stop funding things based on a flawed left-wing ideology.

(From Maxime Bernier emailout, April 13, 2017)

I hope you get the point. Because if you didn’t, your reading skills may need some aid from a foreign country.

America has it even worse, both debt-wise and foreign aid-wise (“wise” being an ironic suffix to use in each of these cases). Bernier has it right all on his own, I’m sure, as I’ve heard him speak this way for ages, but down south, Donald trump got elected partly on this same footing. For example he once said,

This country is a great country but we are a debtor nation. We borrow money from Japan in order to defend Japan and we pay interest on that money and I think it’s just ridiculous. The country, the United States, is being ripped off and it shouldn’t happen.

(Taken from The risk Trump takes in abandoning Steve Bannon, Washington Examiner, April 13 2017)

As different as both of these men are, both are absolutely correct, including their shared usage of the term “ripped-off.” And whether both said it or not, it’s all left-wing ideology at work, here, to be sure.

And here’s another thought:

Canada is a rich nation, and yet we know that Canada absolutely relies on the United States to help defend Canada, not unlike Japan. Canadians thus save billions every year simply by not spending the cash otherwise necessary for her own national defence. Canada in effect gets foreign aid from the United States, even while Canada gives out cash aid to other countries — for abortions and other such left-wing values.

Both Canada and the United States are getting ripped off. And I think it’s ridiculous.

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


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

Alt-right email. Alt-answered.

Mail delivered to me in a fashion at odds with the quaint traditional postal mail methods of yore. And then answered in a similar alternate fashion.

Hi Joseph,

I think what the “alt-right” folks intended to mean was “an alternative to the traditional, or ‘establishment,’ or commonly-known version of the right,” rather than anything like the opposite of the right.

As you know, nobody, not the right, not the left, not libertarians, not moderates, not the gay set, not Mexicans, not jihadists, not ‘working families’, not the ‘news’ media — nobody — even knew what in tarnation “alt-right” meant, until maybe a year ago.

Everybody immediately pretended they’d known the term for years and years, and knew just precisely what it meant because of course they’re so hip and smart. Nobody actually knew, and still don’t, because there is not “alt-right” manifesto or constitution or head office or clubhouse.

As soon as the cool kids started using it the term was brought into the sunlight and immediately used — by the left only — as a way to smear conservatives or Republicans who liked Donald Trump. They used the term as synonymous with “racist” or “Nazi” or “irredeemably deplorable” (or pick from the Left’s menu of other hate-smears).

If you’re like me, when I first heard it, I thought it meant more something along the lines of “neo-con” or just another version of the conservative-right, which was just as palatable as most of the other member-groups of the conservative family, like the Log Cabin Conservatives, but just with yet another distinct angle.

And since (a site I’ve visited since the day it was born because I hugely admired Andrew Breitbart and because the site is excellent) was touted as the home of the “alt-right,” I thought it, too, was perfectly mainstream and good. Because is generally that: mainstream and good.

I was always fully aware that Breitbart had some edgy — just edgy; no, not “racist” or “Nazi” — articles, but I always took them in the context in which they were intended to be taken, and read them as a grown adult with a half-ass brain, instead of an idiot man-child like so many on the Left and in their media division.

I still don’t know even remotely know what “alt-right” means.  I brush it off as another bullshit term invented by yahoos. Millennials. Or hippies. I don’t bother to call myself “alt-right” mostly because I refuse to let the idiots on the left define me, especially if they’re trying to define me as racist, or as a “Nazi” (even though it really just makes them look like the total imbeciles they are).

I’m a conservative and I like And that’s alt-OK.

Joel Johannesen

Also posted to

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


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

Email about CBC: Asked and Answered.

Hi Kent —

The CBC — and virtually everyone who works there — literally relies on a degree of socialism and a socialist mindset for the CBC’s very existence. Without their annual $1.5 billion of the taxpayers’ cash and all the market protections given to them by the state and the other state-mandated advantages, they would immediately die under the rules of actual life — the free market, free enterprise — ie., conservative rules. So that explains their love for and promotion of socialism; and by logical extension, their hate of free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, conservatism.

The benefit they get from exercising this perfidy is not just perceived — it’s a real benefit. The Liberals and further left NDP literally promise them more welfare if elected, and they deliver; while the right — real conservatives — threaten to withdraw funding or to even kill the CBC. (Bear in mind the Stephen Harper “Conservatives” fully supported the CBC).

Thus being a government-owned organization, they are subject to politics, and so will act out accordingly. That’s one of the (several) reasons I’ve always said that the state should not be involved in any business, and in fact that notion should be enshrined in our constitution.

Government of a free country — a democracy — should not be in the business of competing against its own citizens, as in the case with the CBC; or even of meddling in the free marketplace the way they do, because it wrecks the marketplace. Wrecks capitalism. Wrecks freedom. Wrecks countries.

I think somebody with standing — like a competitor (or all of them as a group) or a taxpayer group — should take such a case to the Supreme Court and they could win. But at least a politician should lead, and sell these principles to the people and win over the sentiment of the nation.

— Joel Johannesen

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

Tags: ,

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

Trudeau Liberals’ crony capitalism and hypocrisy is delivered by courier trucks, V8s, and jet engines

Not a day goes by wherein the uberliberal Liberals don’t meddle in the economy, engage in their croney capitalism, waste our taxpayer dollars, further wreck the free market, wreck capitalism, wreck businesses, negate any semblance of their own principles which are now demonstrably farcical, and gradually take Canada down with them as a general matter. 

Earlier this week I heard about Purolator, that state-owned courier company which competes against private business and Canadian citizens, going on strike. (Read my previous posts about Purolator being state-owned, etc).

Just yesterday I lamented the Trudeau Liberals’ idiocy in propping up Bombardier — that epic failure and chronic corporate welfare bum. That particular taxpayer largesse wasn’t the news yesterday — it was the fact that right after securing those hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars from the Trudeau Liberals, Bombardier executives laughed at us, spit in our faces, and awarded themselves a 50% pay raise, and raised their bonuses by up to double, in case we weren’t already insulted enough. Great dealmaking by Trudeau and Liberals, since that wasn’t preemptively disallowed in whatever crazy-ass deal they made with them. As I tweeted yesterday:

Today both the Trudeau Liberals and Ontario’s Wynne Liberals have propped up that newcomer FORD in Ontario. The Essex plant, which is getting the taxpayer funding, is where Ford produces enormous 5-liter V-8 engines. This should help the Liberals collect more carbon tax when they introduce that new tax, which they purport to be doing in order to “save the planet,” as we are in “an emergency climate crisis,” dontchaknow. Bombardier also causes few gazillion tons of carbon to be spewed, if my reading of climate science is correct. Purolator? Spewtastic.

For giggles, see CTV “News” article ‘Can’t stop a train’: Trump climate policies won’t deter Liberals, McKenna says.

And if my reading of Liberals’ “principles” — economic, philosophical, and political — is correct, the Trudeau Liberals are a disgrace. A farce.

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

National Post misleads on Leitch. Again.

The liberal mainstream media misreads, and it misleads. But now for some news:

Demonstrating the mainstream media’s amazing ability to misread public sentiment, notwithstanding their recent gigantic misses, I think the National Post thinks it is slamming Kellie Leitch today. But I suspect it’s actually going to help her. And that’s because readers are tired of being misled like this:

There is a lot of rational anti-radical-Islamist sentiment in Canada, and in fact it’s a now long-held official government policy in Canada and around the world. So it’s not insane for a politician to play to that precinct. Lots of Canadians gravitate toward Leitch for that very reason — she is the most outspoken Conservative leadership candidate on protecting Canadians and Canadian values against that real threat. Or are we still arguing about whether or not radical Islamists have shown themselves to be a real threat to Canada and Canadians — and globally? If so, you need to read a lot more than just the National Post and the state-owned CBC. You’re in the right place now, for example.

Still, those who delve into the article will be alarmed by the extreme message the group in question is sending, to wit:

The Rise Canada Twitter account has called Islam “a barbaric ideology of hate that must be banned,” and proposed “a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants PLUS mass deportation of existing Muslims.”

Ouch. Further reading suggests to me that they sound like a bunch of racist idiots. But does that mean Leitch agrees with them? No. In fact she has emphatically said the opposite. And after all, Justin Trudeau and other Liberals have attended lots of questionable meetings, and mosques widely believed to be possible centers of Islamist radicalization without Trudeau or any Liberals even remotely challenging their teachings — nor the media challenging those yummy liberals. Nobody in the media posits that Justin Trudeau or Liberals associate with radical Islamists on purpose. The media actually just swoons over Justin Trudeau and all liberals no matter what or who they meet with. Swoons.

Oh but also, by the way, if you’ve got the time, there’s this tidbit: this meeting wasn’t what the media just tried to make you think it was. Later in the article, after the extended quotes of predictable righteous outrage from a National Council of Canadian Muslims spokesman, the reporter allows this small detail thusly: it wasn’t that awful group’s meeting. At all. That tiny group of loons were merely in attendance — as demonstrators — without Leitch’s foreknowledge.

In a statement to the National Post on Wednesday, Leitch’s spokesman said the meeting was organized by a group that wants to keep religion out of public schools and that the Tory leadership hopeful was not sent a guest list in advance.

“This meeting was about the place of religion in public schools. That meeting was attended by a number of people from a number of different groups, including people from Rise Canada,” Michael Diamond said.

But Leitch was unaware the Rise Canada adviser would be there, he said. “Had she known she would not have attended. She wants to be very clear that this guy and his opinions are repugnant and do not reflect her own views.”

And further down, toward the end:

She said the event with Leitch was organized by another group called Concerned Parents of Canada, which said it was opposed to religious practices in Canadian public schools and was not associated with Rise Canada.

“We don’t support or promote activities/dialogue against any religion or faith. We respect all. This was a free event and everyone was free to ask questions. That should not be interpreted or projected as any one individual playing a prominent role,” Concerned Parents of Canada said in an email.

The headline obliquely promised a “troubling” link between racists and Leitch. The only thing that is “troubling” is the bullshit headline.

This reminds me of Donald Trump’s campaign coverage. Any time a radical person or group of people were caught attending a rally (and the media spent all their time searching for them, as they’re all but inevitable in all campaigns — including even at the sacred Hillary Clinton’s rallies), the news media would get apoplectic and write all about that group and Trump’s “troubling” association with them (but would write about none of the good stuff Donald Trump actually said at the rally). When Marxists and communists and radical atheists and extreme left-wing groups and extremist feminists and the many various left-wing haters attended Hillary Clinton rallies — and they surely did — nary a word was ever written. Just the incessant swooning.

So: poor choice for Leitch to attend this? Sure, maybe. So call it that — in an editorial: Suggested word choice: “A poor choice, maybe, but whatever, next.” (Also go ahead and call so many of Justin Trudeau’s and Katherine Wynn’s choices to attend various places and meetings “a very, very, poor choice.” And then do the NDP if space permits.)

But to imply — in a news article — that Leitch was cavorting with these idiots, and that she in any way agrees with them — is itself radical. Extremist. A leap way too far. Even for a media which has given up all pretence of fairness or objectivity toward conservatives.

And to plaster the story on the front page of the “news”paper the way they did is hideously unobjective, biased, and an extremely poor editorial choice — especially for a newspaper that still fancies itself a purveyor of truth and honesty and which still wishes to be taken seriously.


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

Everything that is wrong with liberals and Liberals: Bombardier.

Taxpayer protection against this sort of crap wasn’t written into the agreement to bail this chronic corporate welfare case out? Apparently not. The Trudeau Liberals are quite the dealmakers!

This is croney capitalism run amok. This liberal crap didn’t start with the Justin Trudeau Liberals. But it’s only liberals who engage in it; or people who don’t understand capitalism or economics generally. And it’s wrecking capitalism, free markets, and it’s wrecking Canada. Just as it is the United States and Europe.

I don’t care how much executives get paid — that’s up to the company’s owners to control.  But when the state “invests” billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out this chronic abuser of federal taxpayer largesse — this perpetual corporate welfare case — I do care.

The answer is for the state to stop meddling with the free market where it has no business. Largely because governments — politicians — don’t have the foggiest clue. But also because it isn’t how free markets and capitalism works. Nor how economic progress is made.

Since the Trudeau Liberals apparently made an amazingly bad deal, there may be no way out. So Bombardier will once again laugh at all of us stupid taxpayers. But if there is even the slightest provision in the deal to do so: demand immediate repayment. If it means the Bombardier welfare case fails, let that welfare case fail. Don’t let us take the fall for them and for the Trudeau Liberals’ stupidity.

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

“News” media can’t figure out the news. Even the fake news.

Aside from the problem that most “news” media outlets present hardly any actual news, and instead shove almost entirely left-wing, progressive, liberal, socialist, or downright communist opinion in your face every day (or fake news), my post today exemplifies another big part of the problem with the “news” media.

By the way I don’t do this to help the mainstream “news” media. I gave that up a long time ago. I do this to mock them. In my early days of political and media critical analysis, I actually did try to help. They failed to heed my advice. Now they’re failing even worse, and I relish their demise.

Note that the two stories I present here today are, ostensibly, “news” stories, so, if we are to take journalists at their word (don’t), this means that they are based on research and presentation of the facts, and on science (they so luvs the science), and so on.

But the two narratives presented here are at odds with each other. How could that be, if they are applying their ever-so strict journalistic standards of truth? They can’t both be right — and spoiler alert: they aren’t. (Also note that they can, however, both be wrong, and they almost always are.)

The first one hails from the National Post, Canada’s even more liberal answer to USA Today — or something (even they don’t know what they are so don’t expect me to). The byline is Washinton Post, so they didn’t even write it — they bought the story from the obsessively and now actually ridiculously Trump-hating, Trump-bashing Washington Post. Interestingly, the Washington Post original is posted in their “Style” section along with movie reviews and arts reviews, as the fluff piece that it actually is; the NatPo proudly displays it as a “news” piece in their totally hard-news “World” section.

(And by way of example regarding how I might have tried to help newspapers not fail so badly, the kind of advice I’d offer is: don’t buy an anti-Trump fake news drive-by smear story or hit-job from a clearly left-wing Trump-hating newspaper, unless you want to be seen as equally left-wing and Trump-hating (and hey guess what? They do) — and as another fake new outlet. And I’d advise them that such a editorial or business decision was folly, and counter to the journalistic principles to which they are obliged to adhere. (And they wouldn’t give a crap what I had to say).

So here we are.

The article goes right ahead and admits that notwithstanding the whole “AWOL” angle, she’s at home with their young son in New York until the school year ends. That is, by definition, not “AWOL.” So “AWOL” my ass. But let’s not screw around. The National Post and the Washington Post know this very well. They’re just writing smeary, sneering, anti-Trump propaganda, here. It’s not “news.” It’s not even based on truth. It’s bullshit.

Same day, different take: had a decidedly different “news” story about Melania Trump.

How could this be? I thought she was “AWOL!” The Politico reporter seemed to have managed to find her and quote her and he wrote a pretty fair and straight-up news story about Mrs. Trump’s various outings and goings on these days. And let’s remind ourselves that Politico is no right-wing media source. They’re as left-wing as most of them. So three cheers for (for once) not doing a Trump hit piece. (And now back to their regular programing with, for example, “The best of late-night TV: Trump repeals the environment”).

The lesson here is that when you abridge the truth, or outright lie as a “news” source, you’re going to make a total ass of yourselves and lose the people’s trust. Most people with the intelligence of a frying pan would know this.

Among other things this speaks to the value of reading more than one source — like maybe ten — to get an semblance of where the truth lies; but really, no matter how many sources you read these days, even if you can sort it out, you’re rarely if ever getting “truth” or “facts” or “science,” you’re getting mostly left-wing opinion and propaganda and fake news from these “reporters.” And it’s mostly crap.

And they know how we the people feel about it, but don’t even care. Look: same day, same news source:

Poll: 6 in 10 Americans think traditional news outlets report fake news

03/29/17 11:21 AM EDTA majority of Americans believe traditional media outlets publish fake news reports, and Republicans are more likely to believe that fake news is being pushed to advance an agenda, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

The poll, which was conducted by phone during the first week of March, found that 80 percent of respondents believed online news sources reported fake news either regularly or occasionally. Fifty-four percent of respondents, including a majority of Republicans, independents and Democrats, said that fake news reports online were published on purpose in order to advance a specific agenda,

Respondents had only slightly more trust in traditional news outlets, with 60 percent of respondents believing that traditional news outlets reported fake news either regularly or occasionally and 40 percent saying that they believed traditional news outlets reported fake news on purpose to push an agenda. …

At least they reported it.

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

Make Canada Great Again — say liberal Canadians, apparently.

My morning’s first tweets were so much fun to write.




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

Maxime Bernier gets our endorsement for Conservative Party leadership

Since its launch in about 2000, has stood for solid true-blue conservatism. No, all you leftists reading this (and we know you’re there thanks to all your ever-so gracious and tolerant and inclusive emails), we’re not “alt-right” (whatever that means, and we know for certain you don’t); and no, we’re not “extreme right-wing” (whatever that means, and we know you call all right-wingers “extreme” — well either that or “Nazis” or “fascists”); and no, we’re not “you wanna put us back to the year 1950” (an era they have utterly no clue about since they were mostly born in the 1980s and think world history began just then).

Over the years, just being outspokenly conservative and speaking conservative in bold colors frequently put us at odds with the cool kids and the smart set (all self-described), who learned their values from the left-wing public school teachers and a government-mandated left-wing Canadian culture — as promulgated by the liberals’ state-owned CBC and its propagandist left-wing news division; and by the rest of the mainstream media in Canada (and with not just a little help from the left in America).

We didn’t care. We pressed on. In fact we just got more energy from the leftist onslaught, and from their emails sent immediately after we launched, angrily exclaiming “you’ve got to be joking,” and demanding we change our website’s name, and literally mocking us for standing up for plain old conservative values. We believe we helped the Conservatives win back in 2006, by emboldening conservatives across Canada with our dedication to speaking conservative in bold colors and advancing the irrefutable conservative facts of life. So we appreciate a candidate who has endured as we have, because it takes guts, it risks a lot on a personal level, and it takes a strong sense of principle.  Conservative principle.

You can then see why choosing which candidate to endorse for the new leader of the Conservative Party, seventeen or more years on from our start, is therefore largely based on the longevity of the candidates’ true-blue conservative credentials; and their long-held and outspoken conservative principles. For example, while he ultimately disappointed in some ways (nobody’s perfect), Stephen Harper passed the sniff test back in the day, while Peter MacKay and Belinda Stronach and others did not.

And since we think we’ve succeeded, we see the value in the ability of others — Conservative Party leaders — who can lead Canadians toward conservative principles with their conservative outspokenness and ability to communicate and promote solid conservative facts and values in a compelling way.

When it comes to maintaining a history of conservative values and speaking out for them in bold colors, one current candidate stands way above the rest: Maxime Bernier.

Bernier has a very long record of outspoken true-blue conservative values, very often (alas, unwittingly) positioning himself with the likes of us, and likewise being slammed by the leftists at the CBC, in Parliament, and everywhere else  — without skipping a beat, and just carrying on. Speaking in bold colors, and surviving, and winning.

No candidate comes close when you factor in the longevity of outspokenness about conservative values. But also importantly, Maxime Bernier has never wavered on his conservative values. Over the years Bernier has had, and still maintains, all of these values, and has plainly stated them in his current candidacy for leader of the Conservative Party:

  • Bernier is very pro gun and he (alone) gets an A+ rating from Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
  • Bernier is for ending state-controlled marketing boards and supply management in agriculture
  • Slashing the state-owned CBC, adopt a PBS model, refocus its mandate to end competition against private business
  • Keeping the state-run regulator behemoth, the CRTC, out of our lives; phase it out
  • Lowering our income taxes
  • Decentralizing and shrinking the federal government
  • Scrapping the idea of a carbon tax
  • Ending corporate welfare
  • Dropping the corporate tax rate
  • Ending the bribing of Canadians with boutique tax credits
  • Abolishing the capital gains tax
  • Privatizing the relic Canada Post
  • Getting Ottawa out of healthcare and shifting it back to the provinces
  • Ending the stupid provincial equalization program
  • Reducing immigration and limiting it to those who will help fulfill Canada’s economic needs
  • Reining-in the United Nations or as Bernier puts it: “Foreign policy must focus on the security and prosperity of Canadians — not pleasing the dysfunctional United Nations”

Maxime BernierThese are all things this web site and its many columnists over the years have spoken out for. Have we gone further on some of these issues? Yes — especially with regard to the state-owned CBC, where we (or at least I) have advanced the notion not of not only “ending” it, but enshrining a principle in our constitution prohibiting the state from even being in any business and competing against its own citizens.

And do we utterly oppose Bernier on any issues? Yes. On abortion, for example, he voted against Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth’s pro-life Motion 312 in 2012, but says he’s open to debate in Parliament. That’s a fail. On the other hand, he voted against Bill C-14, the Liberals’ 2016 bill to legalize doctor-assisted dying. If you think it seems like he’s a little conflicted on the subject of “life,” we agree.

And one picayune and possibly obtuse matter: Bernier speaks with a strong Quebec French accent. Not Jean Chretien strong, but it’s right out there. We view that as a negative in the English-speaking world insofar as electability, although it may assist him in Quebec.

(I imagine leftists out reflexively racing to call me a “racist” now, or some such banality, but actually I’m not against or “phobic” about people with French accents. My dad had a strong French accent until the day he died — he came from France and Belgium way back in 1959. He had a better vocabulary than anyone in English, but never lost the accent).

It’s not about being anti-French, or anti-Quebec, it’s about electability — particularly in the rural and suburban west where many people have some disdain for Quebec and thus Quebecers. Far be it for us to explain the idiosyncrasies of others, but the electability issue of a French-accented candidate is very real. Those who know my history know I admired, for a time, Pierre Trudeau. One of his foremost qualities was his ability to speak almost perfect English and French — with no accents in either language at all. Love it or hate it, that’s a Canadian quality nobody besides him has, in my lifetime, mastered. Bernier should work on speaking English without an accent.

As for experience, Bernier is once again tough to beat. He has Bachelor’s degree in Commerce, he is a lawyer, and he has two decades’ worth of private-sector business experience (mostly banking). He has also of course been in elected government — since 2006 — and has held cabinet positions in the Industry and Foreign Affairs ministries.

Maxime Bernier describes himself as a libertarian on most issues. All true conservatives have some libertarian bent.

Bernier will lead the party well, and can lead Canadians to a new appreciation for conservative economic principles, especially if he can adjust his accent. We think he can win the next election for conservatives and Conservatives.

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

Ivanka Trump fashion business booming after Nordstrom ban

I know what you’re thinking, but it is merely a coincidence that ever since our ad for the Ivanka Trump fashion line was put up on our site, her sales skyrocketed.

Ivanka Trump clothing line reports record sales

Ivanka Trump’s eponymous women’s fashion line is reporting record sales figures despite calls for a boycott and controversies surrounding President Trump.

“Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump fashion brand, tells Refinery29 in an interview published Tuesday. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.”

The news of a sales surge comes after Nordstrom announced in early February that it would no longer carry the 35-year-old’s clothing and accessories, citing poor product sales. …

Maybe we should advertise our own website on our website.

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

Trump Tower Vancouver opens; media promotion of massive protest: fails


Trump Tower Vancouver: the ever-so objective and trustworthy media “reported” that the number of protesters organized by two different left-wing groups and their web sites could climb into the thousands. Thousands. For example the Globe and Mail’s Frances Bula reported, “About 2,000 people have indicated on each site they are interested in attending.” And the media (generally) kept reporting that the massive protest was going to happen. Over and over. At some point it isn’t “news,” it’s a promotion.

They were all on scene with multiple reporters and cameras, tweeting the minute by minute action.

As I watched it unfold, perhaps 50 actual protesters showed up, the rest being media (but perhaps I repeat myself), security, and even some pro-Trump folks.

Gorgeous building — maybe the nicest building in Vancouver — a city full of ugly, mostly old, cheap-looking buildings.

Designed by the famed architect Arthur Erickson, as possibly his last major building design before his passing.

Owned and built by a family from Malaysia — a Muslim country for those of you on the left who are into identity politics, and we all know you are.

Its lobby is adorned with artwork featuring a major piece by a Mexican-born female artist Miriam Aroeste, from Vancouver, again for those of you on the left who are into identity politics.

The building employs over 300 locals, after employing hundreds during construction. Some are likely unionized too!

Construction costs were about a third of a billion dollars, largely benefitting the local community.

Taxes on the property will yield the city millions over its lifetime, to say nothing of the income taxes and other taxes (and there are lots, and lots, and lots of taxes in Vancouver, BC, Canada).

But yeah, protest it. Idiots.

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.