Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | Globe and Mail

Unbalanced columnist lists Fox News as “far right,” the others as “balanced”

If I understand the Left (and the “far-left!”) correctly, anyone to the right of Maxine Waters is not merely “conservative,” “traditional,” “conventional,” or heaven forbid a “moderate,” no no no. You’re a fascist, and by golly, even if you’re black, you’re a “radical” “racist” “right-wing extremist,” a “white supremacist,” and parenthetically, a “Republican.” It’s hard to not laugh. And so I do.

Today’s laughable left-wing blather is from the Globe & Mail’s Lawrence Martin (my bolding):

…Hit hard by Charlottesville were far-right outlets that have supported Mr.Trump. With Fox News, whose support he desperately needs, Mr. Trump is losing ground as well. …

… James Murdoch is not about to turn it into a more balanced media vehicle like the traditional U.S. networks, but he is likely to move it in a more conventionally conservative direction…

Whoooboy. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, see — they’re “balanced” — notwithstanding their demonstrably left and far-left bias in actual fact. FNC is not merely “conservative-tolerant,” as I correctly — and in a balanced way — dub them, they’re actually “far-right.”  (Notice there’s rarely just a plain old “right” or a “center-right” — it’s always “far-right?” Also notice MSNBC and CNN are never described as “far-left.” There is no “far-left” to the “balanced” set.)

And so — again if I understand correctly — Lawrence Martin is “balanced,” while those to the right of him are “far-right” — even if they’re liberals. Like Maxine Waters, this is stupidity.

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

Tags: , , ,

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

Media: “Trump can’t win election!” (He won). “Can’t happen in Canada!” (Yes it can).

Gee liberals and media, thanks for all the free advice to Conservatives! But yeah, you can just keep it.

Whenever you see a liberal media article (columnist or reporter — they both do it) warn conservatives about their course of action, brace yourself — it’s bound to be lunacy. Or we have learned nothing.

Look at today’s Globe & Mail pedagoguery, “Note to Conservatives: There is no future in Donald Trump Lite,” without rolling your eyes and snickering. Can’t do it, can you?

Of course you can’t. The media — columnists and reporters — both in the U.S. and in Canada — really couldn’t have been more wrong about Trump and the sentiments prevailing in America, at least in the heartland. The media was, and still is, totally clueless about “flyover” USA, otherwise known as “most of America,” and “not California.” And virtually none of them took Donald Trump seriously; not the possibility of Donald Trump running, winning the Republican nomination, nor the election.

They were wrong about everything. Wrong about Hillary. Wrong about the people. Wrong about America. Yet the high esteem in which they hold themselves has diminished not one bit. They’re still dispensing advice.

I’m old enough to remember helping the Harper Conservatives start winning — from this perch — back in the first half of the 2000s by driving — hard — the conservative message, in “bold colors.” I was repeatedly lambasted as a Nazi and as part of a bunch of right-wing loons with no hope of driving Conservatives to victory. I was right. They were wrong.

Trump’s victory is deja vu.

The very liberal media (its columnists and reporters…) had no idea what the people wanted — not in 2006 in Canada, and not in 2016 in either country. And they know it. And yet they’re presuming to give advice, supposedly for the benefit of Conservatives. Here’s a little test of your sanity: do you trust them? After being so totally wrong about everything, and after ditching even the pretence of political balance?

Here’s an Ibbitson quote ostensible meant to steer Conservatives in the right direction by pointing out the difference between the American and Canadian electorate in terms of anger and trust:

“All in all, Canadian citizens trust the Canadian state.”

You’d be forgiven for thinking that was a statement pulled directly out of a Unicorn’s butt.

For the first time in Canada, a sitting prime minister — Liberal Justin Trudeau — is being investigated by ethics watchdogs for a serious conflict of interest and for breaking ethics guidelines — a serious breach of trust to say nothing of Trudeau putting a total lie to campaign promises of a new era of ethics and transparency. Some even suggest an RCMP probe is in order, not unlike the FBI investigations on Hillary Clinton and her illegal email server, and the ongoing FBI probes surrounding her alleged pay-to-play schemes and the Clinton Foundation. The similarity of the Justin Trudeau and Hillary Clinton scandals; and the American people’s lack of trust of Clinton helping cause her electoral loss, does not seem to faze Ibbitson.

Trust issues here in Canada are not limited to that growing conflict of interest scandal: it’s also the now massive and possibly out-of-control annual deficits versus those Trudeau campaign promises which we now know to be outright lies; Trudeau’s decision on pipelines, resulting in his losing the trust of the greenies; Trudeau’s abject failure to move on his promised electoral reform, which is another outright lie causing another trust deficit; the lack of any real aggressive involvement in helping end ISIS; his cabinet ineptitude; and more — and this after barely a year in office.

Trust?  I’m not feeling it.

On “anger,” Ibbitson also makes the exact same mistake the liberals all made down south: thinking only of the folks in the biggest cities and surrounding suburbs — ignoring “flyover” Canada just as they did the U.S., at their electoral peril:

There are doubtless some Canadians who are this angry. But you won’t find many of them in the suburban ridings of Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver, dominated by new Canadians. You won’t find many of them in Calgary and Edmonton. People are hurting there, but they know the downturn in oil and gas prices is to blame for the slump, not immigrants or low-wage factory workers overseas.

I don’t think folks anywhere blame immigrants — not for that. But they also don’t just blame the price of oil. I think they blame liberals and socialists for doubling the reasons for their anger and misery by increasing regulations and taxing carbon and killing a major pipeline and sending billions of our tax dollars to other countries to fight climate change, taking money from communist billionaires, vacationing with billionaire lobbyists, and taking asinine selfies all the time.

It’s not just Ibbitson — at the National Post a columnist lectures us in a remarkably similar manner: “Michael Den Tandt: Trump-style nativism is an electoral dead end for Canada’s Conservatives.

I tried to help:

Den Tandt wrote:

The Canadian Trumpist movement, led by the charisma-challenged Kellie Leitch, the oleaginous Steven Blaney and soon the trash-talking Kevin O’Leary, is unraveling Harper’s life’s work by the day. The electoral effects promise to be devastating.

He seems to have forgotten Stephen Harper and the Conservatives lost the last election. Badly. But anyway.

As if on cue, the King of Twitter, David Burge, picked up on a theme similar to mine, this morning, as the liberal media, who enjoy a whopping 9% approval rating — an almost complete mistrust and disapproval of the public — continue to lecture us about Trump — and continue to rail against him:

Trump supporters are “irredeemable” according to the failure Hillary Clinton. But the liberal media seem irreparable. Even after being totally wrong about these things, they — seemingly as a group — are still making out like they know best — and like they have conservatives’ best interests at heart.

So let’s get back to that question of “trust.” Here’s the scoop: they aren’t warning Conservatives against choosing “Trump” or “Trump light” because it won’t work, they fear that it is exactly what might work. That’s what I think. Trust me. I’ve actually been right.

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

Tags: , , ,

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

Special Delivery! One Piece of Non Junk Mail!

Every once in a while, a little truth about unions and their tactics leak out a tiny little bit. You have to look for it. It’s like sorting through your mail — there’s so much total crap and junk, but the odd time, you find an actual piece of legit mail.

It usually has to come by special delivery. Like in the comments to the Globe and Mail article today on Canada Post’s labor union strife:

I am a female Canada Post letter carrier and I find it insulting how our union has misrepresented the term pay equity. Letter carriers walk over 20 km a day carrying mail door-to-door. It is very physically demanding, as a result, as we get older many of the female carriers transfer to inside clerk positions. Male letter carriers often make it to retirement walking. Most of us however, retire with major physical issues. The Urban carriers who drive deal with heavy traffic and higher mail volume have a significantly more challenging workload than the rural routers. Remember “rural” means country roads, farms, small towns. It is a lot different from driving in downtown Toronto.

The strife was partly about pay equity —  with the union demanding that rural postal workers (who are mostly women for whatever reason) be paid the same as posties who work in the cities.

To a normal person, pay equity means pay equal to those doing the exact same work with the same seniority and experience offering the same value. But the big unions are not normal people. They are referring to pay equity more like in the communist model, wherein every worker (and they yearn for all workers to be state workers, much like yummy Canada Post workers are already) gets paid the same — no matter what the difference is in the job, or the value provided. That’s “pay equity” for them.

< And here’s a gratuitous picture of Karl Marx. Karl_Marx-color-small

Both the union and the reporters writing about this know what the commenter knows. The jobs are not the same. But they don’t care. they’re driving an agenda.

It’s no wonder near the end of the article, they (1) bother to include; and (2) breeze right by the pertinent facts about an organized campaign supporting the union’s position, included some of Canada’s just oh so totally normal folks like “author” Naomi Klein, and “social activists” Maude Barlow and Judy Rebick. If you don’t know who these women are, I’m glad, but I’ve said in posts over the years that each of these women sound very much like communists to me (Maude Barlow | Naomi Klein | Judy Rebick –all posted by me eight or ten years ago but still worth their weight in gold delivered by CanPar).


The Globe and Mail doesn’t even bother attaching a “left-wing” or “progressive” or “socialist” to their names. That’s what you call junk mail. But hey Ann Coulter’s got a new book out  — guess they’ll simply call her an “author” too, in their upcoming review. (1) Yeah, as if; and (2) there will be no review, ever.  Oh and I imagine they’ll stop being so careful to warn its readers that the venerable old Fraser Institute is the “right-wing” Fraser Institute (eg., “…the Fraser Institute (right-wing or libertarian, depending who you ask)…”).

But let’s open our special delivery: “The union misrepresented the term pay equity.” You’d think that would be a news story worth looking into. A union member — a woman — is claiming that her own union is misrepresenting the facts, on an issue which we have been led to believe through years of left-wing rhetoric and propaganda (by the likes of Klein, Barlow, and Rebick, labor unions, left-wing parties, and
the news media) is one of the most pressing issues facing the world today. Their multimillionaire Justin won’t stop talking about it, multimillionaire Hillary Clinton won’t either, and the you’ve got to be kidding party of Tom Mulcair won’t shut up (but then at least we’re on to them by now — they’re socialists; see above definition of “equal pay”).

So yeah, it’s a story.

But let’s not sit by the mailbox and wait for Mr. Postman to deliver us a letter. It will never be a story in any mainstream newspaper in this country, or on TV news. This is an industry totally consumed by liberal or even further left activists or sympathizers. All stories are written by one or more unionized reporters who belong to a massive and powerful union very sympathetic to liberals, socialists, or any left-wing, progressive politics generally. They are actually not mere unions but political parties. The Globe and Mail’s union, on a post at their union website: “As a Union, we worked hard to defeat the Harper conservatives…”. Think about that parcel post.

This is a story about a huge, unionized, state-owned, government-run operation, Canada Post, as written-up by unionized writers who belong to a huge left-wing union with an overtly left-wing, anti-conservative political agenda, in a typical liberal media newspaper. It’s a liberalfest.

Good thing there are still some union members willing to speak up and non-union websites (unlike news media sites) like PTBC, or we’d never get the whole truth delivered to our door.

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

Globe & Mail’s John Doyle in reruns

In yet another episode of spot the smug disingenuity, we find the Globe & Mail TV critic John Doyle wishing Stephen Harper well, then, next sentence, bashing him over the head on the way out as a “master of attack ads”. Hang on –this could be a rerun. It’s so hard to tell because every episode is almost the same!

John Doyle fares poorly

Based on this nastiness and several previous Doyle episodes I’ve seen, I remain extremely skeptical that Doyle cares a whit about Mr. Harper’s future —  Harper being a Conservative and all.

This episode opens with this cynical “farewell” to a Canadian Prime Minister:

So farewell then, Stephen Harper, once Our Glorious Leader and, once upon a time, known to the more cruel among us as the man who appeared to put his hair in the fridge at night.

Nice. So maybe it’s all a big joke to him. But nothing says funny like the liberal hypocrisy of commenting on a man’s looks and mocking him on it. Do that to his Hillary — and it’s suddenly all deadly serious misogyny. (But call Sarah Palin an Alaskan hillbilly, as he did, and that’s fine. It’s a confusing series.)

Then Doyle tries again to pretend to wish him well but then not. Next paragraph:

Farewell then, and let us consider the legacy. Attacks ads, mainly.

Really? That’s “mainly” the Harper legacy? Political ads that attack the Liberals Doyle adores? He might be taking this a tad personally. The legacy Doyle would describe as “nearly a quarter century of honorable service to Canada” if he were any random government worker, all boils down to “attack ads,” for conservative PM Harper, in his esteemed TV critic mind. No wonder TV critics can’t write history books or successfully run the country for a decade, or, say, for even five minutes.

At least Harper’s attack ads had a limited run. I first noticed John Doyle’s in 2004, and they’re still in reruns, over, and over again in almost every article he writes about anything conservative that pops up on his TV screen and ruins his day. 

Doyle has long been a hostile attack ad against anything conservative — be it a person (his newest target: Donald Trump of course); a business (Fox News Channel — hates ’em!); or a political party — Conservative, Republican (a recent column is cheerily entitled Hell looks an awful lot like the Republican convention). If something conservative is on TV, Doyle reflexively writes something negative and condescending about it, usually something including snarky remarks about the subjects’ lack of intellect, or their “racism” or “sexism.” Or as he describes Donald Trump in one of many multiple-insult-a-paloozas:

…an amateur, right-wing racist demagogue…

I think it’s like the liberal who keeps calling conservatives racist, not because they really think they are, but because the liberal thinks it shields them from being accused of being a racist. How could I be a racist if I’m calling you one?!

It goes on with John Doyle: Hockey’s falling TV ratings? Blame Harper! And Conservatism!

…Further, hockey has been oversold as an aspect of patriotism. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper attached itself to hockey as a way of presenting itself as benign and in touch with so-called “ordinary” Canadians. And the NHL went along with this.

The upshot is the younger demographic associating hockey with old age, conservatism and the past…

If this Harper theory really works, I hope Harper writes a book about the CBC!

Like the rest of the newsrooms in Canada, after constantly and increasingly hating on conservatives, Doyle then overtly blames conservatives for being hated by the liberal media — for example in today’s effort, describing the retiring Harper as “increasingly hostile to all reporters during his years as prime minister…”.

Golly I wonder where in tarnation any “hostility” toward the media could possibly have come from! What an arse!

I mentioned 2004 being the year I first noticed Doyle’s attacks on anything conservative: That was when he attacked Fox News Channel on the mere possibility of it being un-banned in Canada by the Liberals’ CRTC division. Example: Fox News. Not here yet, but already hilarious.” FNC’s Bill O’Reilly commented on-air about the Doyle hostility.  He had every right to after Doyle charmingly wrote of O’Reilly:

We’ll find out if this Bill O’Reilly fella is as stupendously pompous and preening as he appears to be in the rare clips we see of Fox News.

That “Bill O’Reilly fella” now has a legacy of being one of the most successful and enduring anchors, authors, documentary producers, and charity fundraisers in recent times. And there’s more TV facts sure to displease John Doyle: a full dozen years after the Doyle attacks against Fox News Channel started, FNC is by far the number one cable news channel in the U.S., often doubling CNN and MSNBC combined in viewership; and it is obviously still doing well enough in Canada to remain on air, despite Doyle’s laughter at the sheer prospect of it, and his useless attacks. I suppose he’s still laughing now, but it’s fake laughter. Oh come on it was then too.

So he might need to reflect a little longer on Stephen Harper’s actual legacy (and then keep it to himself because he’s a TV critic).

Meantime, in some circles (besides mine) Doyle and his paper aren’t faring very well at all after their long run. The website recently ran a (tongue-in-cheek) article ending with this lament:

There’s more to media in Canada than the Globe and Mail, and the Globe is fading away as the media that matters. John Doyle won’t stop the rot.

Ouch. Hoist by his own petard. Not a great John Doyle legacy-building slam there, and not really a fair comment (and possibly not even supposed to be taken seriously —  apparently I have no idea what “hilarious” is). Take the politics — and maybe the hockey —  off of John Doyle’s TV and he’s a fine enough TV critic. But if actual facts and serious stories about the trend of the dying newspaper industry are believed, we might soon be bidding a farewell of our own kind to John Doyle and all the other staff at the Globe & Mail.

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

Sneering Condescension From Globe & Mail’s Feminist Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Nazanin,

How are you, my dear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hideous Canadian Obama suck-up news media helps Obama mislead folks

In case you’ve been away for the past four years, let me fill you in: most of the Canadian lamestream Obamamania media is still backing their man. Nothing’s changed their blinkered outlook. Not even Obama’s failed record and his increasingly obvious promise of an American ruination. It’s just getting funnier now.

The President took to the stage today in Oklahoma, where he mendaciously spoke in favor of “the Keystone Pipeline”  —  err… the bottom quarter of it  —  and promised to, well, git ‘er done, to use a decidedly southern conservative tone, which Obama adopts whenever he’s in the south. And he did it as if he had anything to do with that portion of it.

CTV obamawashes facts

Just what do the news media think Obama is posing in front of? Apparently they're not at all curious as to why those pipes are there and what they're already planning on doing with them in a few weeks.

Which he doesn’t.

Of course being the brilliant Harvard-trained great speaker of all get out™ liberal media, he didn’t actually say “git ‘er done,” he actually said “The southern leg of (Keystone XL), we are going to make that a priority and go ahead and get that done.”

Well then.

That portion requires no federal approval. And “get[ting] that done” is already well underway. Thanks anyway, Mr. President.

He says he’s instructing his regime to “fast-track” that portion through all the massive bureaucracy, and all those nasty regulatory hurdles, and that government “red tape” (his words!).

For those of you playing the home game, yes, that’s the same massive bureaucracy and nasty regulatory hurdles and government “red tape” which he and his regime adore, and grow, and build upon, every single day.

And which is, in itself, shining testimony to the economy-slowing idiocy of big progressive governments and the regulatory hurdles they’ve set up. Naturally no media picked up on that shiny gem either. But don’t worry, I’m not calling them “sluts.”

Obama still hasn’t reversed his first massive error in judgement on this file, wherein he rejected the Keystone Pipeline writ large, earlier this year, in a pure ideological and power-seeking political play to his far-left base of enviro-nitwits.  That’s the only part which requires federal approval  —  the part from Canada   —  the one key component of the whole Keystone project.

So he takes to the stage and pretends as if he’s now giving approval to something which is already approved, and vows to somehow get through all that government red tape, which he grows exponentially all day long to prevent things like pipelines and refineries from ever being built.

And the media lap it up like the useful idiots they are.

The lamestream media (in both countries) took that stump speech (apparently totally oblivious to the specter of the enormous stacks of oil pipes behind him, ready to be laid) as a jumping off point, and leaped right into the great abyss of lies with their man Obama.  Take a look at liberalvision CTV’s headline at above-right: “Obama changes course, fast-tracks Keystone pipeline.”

The Globe and Mail did the same, tweeting this as soon as they could:

Globe and Mail tweet kiss to Obama

Globe and Mail tweet kiss to Obama

That’s a load of crap.

He’s reversed nothing, and has not fast-tracked the “Keystone pipeline.” The accompanying story written-up at  is equally appalling and galling in its blatant promotion of the Obama lie.

Other greasy lamestream media used a similar Obama ass-kiss tactic. The state-owned CBC (for whom Obama must surely be too right-wing, but he’s the best they’ve got down there in ugly gun-‘n-God-land), also seem oblivious to the mass of ready-to-bury oil pipes Obama was posing in front of, and goes with the Obama-speak effort to obfuscate the fact that Obama was only touting the extreme southern portion of the pipeline (for which he has no control anyway), and not the larger “Keystone” project as a whole, thereby misleading readers:

CBC fails to notice pipes

CBC fails to notice pipes

Exceptions? Sun News alone mocked the Obama effort to deceive voters with their reporting today, and included this quote-adorned chiron in their far more full, truthful, and therefore fair-to-viewers coverage, which was properly critical of Obama’s abject mendacity:

Sun News capture of Obama mendacity

Sun News captures Obama mendacity using quotes around the word APPROVES.

Here’s a snippet of Sun News’ reporting on the farce that was:

Obama expediting part of Keystone pipeline

By Bryn Weese, Senior Washington Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Using stacks of pipe as a backdrop, President Barack Obama told an Oklahoma audience that he is fast-tracking part of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

But the southern section he is touting — from Cushing, OK, to Houston refineries — does not need his approval and is scheduled to begin construction anyway this June. …

Just so.



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

Tags: , , , , ,

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

It's a question.