Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | liberal media lies

Media reporting: easy to spot the abject dishonesty with comparisons

There’s honest reporting and there’s dishonest reporting. Today, once again, the dishonesty is obvious to anyone who actually knows the facts, like me. This is all American media, because Canadian front pages didn’t touch it.

Here’s honest reporting from the Wall Street Journal on the appeal before the (very liberal) 9th Circuit Court regarding the Trump administration’s temporary immigration restrictions from seven countries, in which the judges grilled the lawyers from both sides:

And here’s dishonest reporting from the liberals’ New York Times division, in which they report that “JUDGES QUESTION GOVERNMENT CASE FOR TRAVEL BAN” — as in just the government’s case, not the opposition. They are trying to imply that the lawyer arguing against the Trump action was not questioned, which is a total lie, as his case was in fact challenged by the judges aggressively.

The dishonest USA Today went the same way: totally dishonest, in what I think is an obvious and ongoing effort by the likes of these newspapers to drive an anti-Trump agenda. The judges didn’t just “slam” the defence (The Trump administration), they slammed the opponents — the plaintiffs — too. I listened to the entire thing, so I know this is a lie:

The Washington Post took a middle ground, surprisingly, since they rarely do anything but unfairly attack President Trump. The sub-headline reads “Appellate judges interrogate both sides on Trump travel order”. So that pits them against USA Today and the New York Times which said something really completely different.

I think in Seattle or at least Washington state, where this court challenge started, the big newspaper there also took a fairer approach, perhaps knowing that their readers, being mostly local, are likely well attuned to the actual truth, and mindful of the taxpayer cash being thrown out the window to pursue their government’s anti-Trump political goals. So they had to go with honest:

I guess if there’s a plus to all of this, it’s that there obviously isn’t overt coordination or a conspiracy between the various media outlets, as they are clearly telling quite different — almost opposite — stories. At least two of them are telling a lie as I see 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

Trudeau Liberals’ Press Secretary Caught in a Cheap Lie?

Calling it a “Cheap Lie” is a bit of a misnomer since this is all costing all of us tons of taxpayer cash. But anyway. The Libs seem to be taking their cues from CNN now.

Even the Liberals’ minister of finance, who can’t balance a budget, could count better than Justin Trudeau’s allegedly lying press secretary. You only have to look at the photo they attached (all of this at taxpayer expense).

The ever-present David Akin begs to differ…

And yet they’re stickin’ with what appears, from their own photo and Akin’s reporting, to be a lie. I anticipate no “fact-check” from the Libs’ CBC division (number one, because he’s a lib and they luv their boy). But on the plus side, CBC ignoring this alleged lie means fewer tax dollars will be blown reporting on it than what already has been blown on this BS boondoggle. Wait. Is not reporting on it actually a good thing? OK nevermind. You can’t really make sense of a thing when there’s so much left-wing perfidy involved.

I normally dub them as “liberalvision” because they are, but CTV had me chuckling a little this morning when they tweeted about it as a “taxpayer-funded” “outreach tour.”

I call it a taxpayer-funded Liberal Party PR and support-building charade, disguised as an altruistic outreach tour in order to con Canadians whom they apparently think are complete idiots, but at least they said “taxpayer-funded.”


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

Washington Post leads the pack in false/fake news — irony undetected by them


Nobody is doing a better job of deciphering and explaining the latest round of false/fake, totally biased, and just plain bad journalism, than the left’s very own star reporter, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept.

I first read the facts behind the false news about the supposed Russian hacking over the Christmas holiday, when Wordfence (a security app for WordPress users like us) boss Mark Maunder completed a detailed review of the hack, and of the information provided by the FBI and DHS, as filtered by Obama spokesmen.

As soon as I read Maunder’s work I knew there was going to be a media shitstorm — the media would be lying to you again. And there was.

Obama’s spokesmen took the information for a spin — “literally, not just figuratively,” as Joe Biden would say. The obedient left-wing media, led by the Washington Post, thereby began telling what quickly devolved into a massive viral lie around the information the FBI/DHS released in December about hacking. Much of the media is still going with this lie. I’m looking at you, CNN, MSNBC, and pretty much all the rest.

This was easily predictable. Maunder had to issue another newsletter to clarify, including this FAQ point:

Does the report prove that Russia Hacked the 2016 US Election?

No it does not. What Wordfence revealed on Friday is that the PHP malware sample that the US government provided is:

  • An old version of malware. The sample was version 3.1.0 and the current version is 3.1.7 with 4.1.1 beta also available.
  • Freely available to anyone who wants it.
  • The authors claim they are Ukrainian, not Russian.
  • The malware is an administrative tool used by hackers to upload files, view files on a hacked website, download database contents and so on. It is used as one step in a series of steps that would occur during an attack.
    […and much more…]

Mark Maunder pointed us in the direction of Glenn Greenwald’s writing on the subject, saying, well, let’s quote him directly: “Glenn Greenwald has provided some magnificent reporting on this incident and the response from the media and from US senators.”

Greenwald has since followed himself up too:

IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom. …

If I had one complaint about Greenwald’s take, it’s that he washes over what I think is the sole reason for this DNC/Obama/media perfidy. Greenwald seems to blame the media’s lies on the notion that they were all about bitch-slapping Russia simply because “DC” wants a foreign bogeyman — as if it might just as easily be any other foreign land, or as he says, “Scary Foreign Threat.”

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

He buries the lede here I think. “[T]he obvious reasons” is the main point of it — it’s really the whole point of this DNC/Obama/media lie-fest. For example, China has been hacking for years — including hacking the White House itself (and yet Hillary’s private email server couldn’t possibly have been hacked!), and there have been reports of Russian and other state-sponsored hacking for ages. So why fret now, suddenly, about Russia alone?

Let’s spell out “the obvious reason” instead of washing over it: it is that the Democratic Party (and team Obama Legacy and team Hillary Poor Loser) and the media are in cahoots, nefariously (that they are in cahoots is already nefarious, but that they are doing it for these reasons doubles the wickedness); and the target of their derision — and of their agenda — is not Russia, but rather the President elect of the United States, a Republican, Donald Trump.

That makes it political and media corruption at the highest level (“literally…”). And it stinks to high heaven. They are, together — a political party and the media — trying to delegitimize and take down Donald Trump, and they’re using a series of lies — the latest being the false narrative about Russian hacking of the election to cause the Trump victory — to help them do so.

Among the other damage they are causing (journalistically, to the trust in the news media, to trust in political process, to trust in political parties, to themselves…), they are causing harm to democracy and to the strength of the nation itself. You’d think they would be aware of that — or would cast politics aside and care about that rather than treat the nation as mere collateral damage of their more important goals.

They’d like you to think the corruption is between Trump and Vladimir Putin. They whine all day long about “church and state” and other phony canards such as the one about “the rich” and “big business” being in bed with Republicans when it’s actually, factually, the Democrats with whom they spoon. But the most real and most dangerous collusion is between the Democrats and the media — even more so than the Democrats and academia.

This political and media perfidy is a huge story in and of itself. And “for obvious reasons” it can’t even be covered by the Washington Post.

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

Tags: , , , ,

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

State-owned CBC NEWS tips readers to virulently anti-Trump OPINION piece — at their NEWS site. (Again).


CBC News (@CBCNewsBC) tweeted this out, this morning:

Note that it was CBC News (@CBCnewsBC) that tweeted the link to their article. The article began like this:

Donald Trump’s victory was the most dramatic demonstration yet that liars can win elections. All he had to do was demonize reason and fact as the province of hated “elites.”

This is scary, for all countries and for reasons beyond the frightening contents of the Trump platform itself.

It’s an opinion piece. It’s not a news story. But I do understand your confusion given it’s from the CBC News. So do they. They know exactly what they’re doing. They were trying to confuse you. Have you heard the term “Rick-rolled?” It’s a lie, really, but in this case an especially egregious one because it’s the state-owned media who’s doing it to its citizens. It’s either that or they’re all utterly bereft of any understanding about what real fair and balanced and honest journalism is, which after all the money we’ve given up to them, they should better understand by now, don’t you think?

For all the writer’s haughty talk of Trump’s “lies,” it’s a tad ironic isn’t it?

Oh and why does state-owned media even have political opinion pieces — especially when they’re almost universally left-wing opinions? Who knows?! That’s the only thing I find “scary” and “frightening,” to use the writer’s own words about Trump.

Anyway, it’s written by someone (Kate Heartfield — “for CBC News,” mind you) who is apparently (to me, anyway) a Trump hater. Read on, and you’ll find she’s just as suspicious of Canadian Conservatives too, warning them and all of us, thusly:

Perhaps there’s a way for the Conservatives to honour both head and heart – to appeal to values without abandoning reason and embracing bigotry. The Conservatives can say “no” to a lazy dependence on slogans, on the nearest convenient enemy – a dependence they know full well encourages racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. They can try to come up with a less destructive appeal to “common sense.”

Sounds like the “Basket of Deplorables” crap all over again. I’m quite sure the state-owned CBC would adore the moniker “Basket of Deplorables – North.”

But back to the bigger point, which is that the deplorable CBC and its left-wing opinion contributors might want to summon-up a modicum of honesty and at least take a cue from their bible, the New York Times, who, even though they likewise lie all day long in their reporting and columns and op-eds, do try to sometimes differentiate their opinion pieces from the news with a separate Twitter OPINION account.  Here’s an example wherein they smear Trump, as usual, because that’s all they do, but at least they’re not trying to fake you out like the CBC:

With that, we have no trouble understanding it’s more anti-Trump whiney-crap bloviating — and go ahead and avoid it. Again I do understand your confusion when reading anything from the left-wing media today, inasmuch as it’s mostly lies and left-wing bias whether contained within their “news” stories or opinions.

State-owned media should be banned in this country, and that notion should be enshrined in our constitution. That’s truth.


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

BRILLIANT take-down of CNN, a CNN reporter, a CNN anchor, and its hideously biased agenda-driven editing

I’ll get to the point in a second. But first (and I promise this is related), I read my usual National Review articles this morning and copied this nugget:

Conservatism must be about explaining to non-conservatives why they should be conservative not why they can’t be. This is politics 101 going back to Aristotle: Persuasion.

~ by JONAH GOLDBERG, August 18, 2016

I’ll take that as good advice from someone (Goldberg, I mean, but yeah also Aristotle, whoever he is) who definitely practices what he preaches; and as a reminder that I should do more of it here.

If you read that NP article and the others I read over the past couple of days (see short list below), you’ll see they’re all related, and they all lend themselves to the video that I’m on about here (which is actually unrelated to the articles). See how I tied that all together? Well I think it’s a good package.

So if I’m doing my homework correctly, I’m at least persuading non-conservatives to see that (1) we’re a diverse group of actual thinking people, often self-critical among other things, and (2) what we’re up against is huge and it isn’t actually made up or delusional. I’m trying to engage some of Aristotle’s (whoever he is) logos, pathos, and ethos (look it up like I did).

The video is done-up by Anthony Brian Logan. He describes his YouTube channel as  “Current events from the perspective of a young black male conservative and news/political junkie.” I like his perspective. It’s truth.

This CNN anchor, above even their others, should be one of the most prolific apologizers on air today, but 99.9% of the time she fails to apologize for anything. I suppose she thinks she’s simply “sticking to her guns” — well OK actually that brings up a great point (thanks, me): she’s plainly, rabidly anti-gun, so she’s literally “sticking to her anti-gun rhetoric,” or something  –which she seems to find to be a good quality in a supposedly unbiased journalist. (Sidebar: See an interesting article here about how one news station legitimately stuck to their guns.)

I’ve written her up in my own effort at exposing her bias, but I’m pretty sure someone could make a go of a website devoted just to daily examples. Her anchoring is replete with self-satisfied, anti-conservative bias both in undertone, and hell, sometimes right-in-your-face conservative mockery (for which she never apologizes, even in the face of a Twitter onslaught). But quite apart from her anchoring, as I recall them, her all-too-few trite apologizes are smug, insincere, and serve only to increase the aggravation level generated in me by the bad reporting for which she is supposedly apologizing. Nothing in her “apologetic” delivery speaks to her sincerity, and in fact quite the opposite. Every apology comes off as forced, delivered extremely begrudgingly, and quickly read off a teleprompter as written by some poor CNN schlub who was forced to write it equally as begrudgingly. Gosh it’s shocking that CNN ratings are still faltering.

I’m just glad Costello is white, since it shields me from being called a racist. Oh who am I kidding. I’ll be called one anyway.

National Review Short List for Friday August 19 2016:

  1. ‘New Nationalism’ Amounts to Generic White-Identity Politics
  2. Trump’s Coalition: Nationalism, White-Identity Politics, or Justice-Seeking?
  3. The Folly of White Identity Politics
  4. Up From White Identity Politics
  5. Equal Justice, White Identity Politics, and the Battle for the GOP’s Future


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

Tags: , , ,

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

Liberal-Left RUSH to import refugees: facts refute liberal ideology and their “evidence-based” twaddle

These Liberals are all about the science and the evidence, you see. They’re ever so erudite! And this newfangled evidence-based governing system was to be understood by you and me as a radical (no sorry, progressive) and ever so positive a change in Canada’s governance. So, or ipso facto if you will, rushing exactly 25,000 refugees to Canada within precisely five or six Liberals Evidently 4 Pinocciosweeks, or more specifically by exactly December 31 of 2015, from Islamist terrorist-riddled (sorry, those people of other values-riddled) Syria and other countries, was based on evidentiary, or dare we say scientific proof. Yessir.

Being all science-y and evidence-based is what a pedagogic Justin Trudeau and his loyal fawning acolytes (their backers in the mainstream media) kept insisting they were all about. Over and over. They wanted you to believe it so bad that they appointed two science ministers. See, the Liberals are not about the politics and ideology, you know, like those awful anti-science Conservative Party knuckle-draggers who uniformly believe in their christian fairy god and did stuff just to turn Canada into a christian Conservative theocratic dictatorship. Over to you, Peter Mansbridge. 

But actually, most Canadians, when asked both during and after the election, said that they didn’t think the Liberals should rush into importing all those Syrian refugees. Four PinocciosThere was no need to rush, and besides, we uneducated Canadian Neanderthals pointed out that there were grave and real Islamist terrorist security concerns involved with rushing the Left’s irrational plan. For which we were shamed and called “racists.” The refugees, we also said, need to be screened to ensure they weren’t just country-shopping. That was all an important chunk of the easily available evidence that the Trudeau Liberals (and all their media) chose to almost fully ignore, in favor of… politics. Their ideology.

Oh and then there’s this. It seems even the Syrian refugees agree. This according to the Liberals’ own National Post division, which never saw this coming, because they purposely didn’t look:

… Even then, only 3,049 [of 28,000 possible refugees contacted by cell phone] agreed to meet with UN officials for an interview. And of those, only 1,801 – or less than five per cent of those the UN initially tried to contact – said they wanted to come to Canada. Those refugees have since been referred to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for screening.

Immigration officials said part of the reason for the seemingly lukewarm response was because many of the refugees were not prepared to move so quickly. They said such response rates are typical, and that applications had started to pick up as prospective refugees were given until the end of February to make the move.

De Angelis said there are several reasons many of those identified by the UN for possible resettlement would be unwilling or unable to leave for Canada at the drop of the hat. The first and most important factor, he said, is their family situation.

“Due to their culture and society, families are very bound together,” he said. “One family may be a father, mother and children, but they will not take such a drastic decision without consulting the larger family links. And this may take some time and may also need some more reflection in terms of the different options.”

Those options could involve seeing if the entire extended family can stay together or has a better chance of making a new life elsewhere. …

So evidently, not only are many of the refugees in no hurry (raising the additional question of just how refugee-y they are), but evidently, the potential refugees themselves seem to be admitting that they are in fact country-shopping, just as White_lab_coat_peace_signmany Canadians had warned. And country-shopping is also arguably un-refugee-ish, and it certainly speaks to the fact that there is no rush

But they aren’t country shopping! We went to university and discussed it! They’re desperate to come here! Now! They need to get here fast!  Yeah whatever. Evidence shmevidence.

Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Liberals and all of their sycophants in the media, knowing they didn’t actually know the facts – the evidence; the science – insisted that they did know, and they made up what they pretended to know. This is known as an outright lie in any other country. It’s also insulting, and it’s disrespectful. And it’s largely premised in pure liberal politics and liberal ideology. Demagoguery. Not compassion, not common sense, not “it’s the Canadian thing to do,” just actually a lie.

And now nearly 400 of these ever so science-y liberals are in Paris – discussing amongst themselves the “man-made global warming,” and how the “science is settled.” A statement which is itself utterly anti-science.

Sunny ways. Vote Liberal.


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

Update on Liberals’ War on Women & Truth: Liberal Senator in Alleged Sexual Harassment.

Maybe it doesn’t make sense. But when you think of Liberal senator Colin Kenny, who is now facing a sexual harassment complaint, weirdly, sexual harassment is the first thing that comes to mind. It shouldn’t be.

Harassment at the RCMP: Sex is Just the Tip of the Iceberg.

by Colin Kenny
August 2013

Sex gets the headlines. So when Canadians think about harassment at the RCMP, sexual harassment is the first thing that comes to mind. It shouldn’t be.

No question, sexual harassment is a problem within the RCMP. But when it comes to harassment, sex is only the tip of the iceberg.

Female members are prime targets in all these categories, which isn’t exactly surprising, given the RCMP’s long-standing macho culture.


Unwanted sexual advances? They’re bad – terrible, really. But so is all this other crap that bubbles up from one common sinkhole – an institutional lack of respect. …


Allegations against him are just that, at this point  — allegations. He has not been charged by police. This could all be bogus, and actually, given the level of idiocy that liberals and progressives generally have inspired among their “feminist” division, I assume it is until I hear otherwise (and I won’t be relying on the progressives’ liberal media division for the news).

This article of his was posted at his web site and remains today. It was also published in several newspapers.

  • Ottawa Citizen – August 1, 2012
  • Calgary Herald – August 2, 2012
  • The Province – August 3, 2012
  • Victoria Times-Colonist – August 4, 2012

More to the point, it was written just before Kenny’s female senate employee had gone to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s office to advise the Liberal leader about 20131122-103927-gthe alleged harassment. And it was written after other sexual misconduct allegations have been made over the years, including serious sexual allegations made by an employee of Kenny’s tanning salon, and two complaints made by women while working within the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Remember hearing about all that? Yeah, me neither.

What’s also hard to make sense of, though is, well, lots of things. First, the Liberal leader, Justin “I demand Transparency!” Trudeau said nothing about it back in August when the complainant first made her allegations; and apparently the Libs did nothing about it, and certainly didn’t inform Canadians.

Since nothing was being done about it, the senate employee had to go back to the Liberal leader’s office and complain again a couple of months later, in October.

And then still nothing was done with Kenny, and nothing was said about it to Canadians. Certainly nothing was reported in the liberal media division, anyway. I honestly don’t know what the media knew. I’m smart enough to not trust them.

It was only yesterday, Thursday November 21, 2013, that the Liberal senator left the liberal caucus.tanning-salon-1 You may not have even heard about this, because the Liberal Party’s news media division is keeping a very tight lid on it. I’ve been watching their state-owned CBC division all day, and while the CBC spends a huge amount of time on the Conservative senate scandal, they’ve said nothing on the Liberal sexual harassment complaint.  Right now they’re reviewing a “film” on the news channel (it’s a “Low-key drama about three generations of Cree,” so thank God we’re fully informed).

Apparently Trudeau was informed just yesterday that Kenny was withdrawing from the caucus  —  effective November 13.  Eight days ago? Why that date? Is that when the investigations started? Moreover, then, this happened over a week ago without Trudeau  —  or his news media acolytes  —  knowing about it? Huh? They expect me and you to believe that? How insulting.

That lack of transparency  —  and let’s call a spade a spade: it’s a cover-up  —  is pretty big news in and of itself. It’s also not just simple hypocrisy. It’s the liberals who declare ownership of the women’s vote. Or is it that they declare ownership of women? Given stories like this, I’m never sure. And its liberals who pretend there’s a conservative “war on women.”

This is hypocrisy, deep-fried, on a stick.

So while Trudeau and all the Liberals and all the liberal media were blasting the Conservatives for its senate scandal up to and including today, the Liberals and their cabal were mum about this alleged sexual harassment scandal of their own. Didn’t even tell Canadians there was a problem.

What’s even harder to make sense of is that the self-described objective and honest liberal media, has, for the past number of weeks, been engaged in an investigation and speculation “surge” of historic, epic proportions, regarding the Conservatives’ senate scandal  —  questioning and writing-up and opining and Tweeting like never before. Well OK, at least not since their “reporting” about Conservative abortion policy, and the liberal media’s infamous and cult-like “Conservative hidden agenda” hoax. Yet they haven’t managed to uncover one single thing about this alleged sex scandal, in months?

Hard to believe. Really hard to make sense of any of this.

Extra! Extra!

I saw lots of tweets on my Twitter feed today about this mocking CBC’s “Kady” for holding back her usual too clever by half, passive-aggressive Twittersnark, in this one Colin Kenny scandal instance. She feigned shock and surprise, but ultimately retweeted another CBC reporter’s tweet, who’d thrown up a story earlier today which compiles all the many allegations of sexual harassment against Liberal Senator Colin Kenny in one neat package. Phew. Dodged a bullet there, huh CBC? Now you can say y’all “covered it.”

But then “Kady” finally had a bit of a meltdown, claiming, all at once, she’s done (“Fini”!) with questions pointed at her for not asking asking normal reporter questions, or actually reporting, almost like she forgot it’s her job to also report on LIBERAL scandals too. And also, yeah, she said she didn’t know nuttin’.

(Note that she’s so unfamiliar with the Kenny story that she can’t even spell Kenny.)

National Post’s and Postmedia’s liberal columnist and media club member Andrew Coyne (whom CNN recently described as “Andrew Coyle” from “Nationalmedia”) rushed to her defense with this we’re all in this together, and I’ve got your back, liberal media group-hug hilarity:

I’m old enough to remember when Liberals Jean Chretien and Paul Martin didn’t know nuttin’ about their adscam sponsorship scandals.

By the way, it all makes sense. I’m just playing with you.

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

Irony: the Province newspaper misleads readers on senate scandal with fake photo

The irony of this terrible reporting obviously flies right over their heads, at the Postmedia-owned Province newspaper in Vancouver.

Even while reporting about the senate scandal, in which we normal citizens and all responsible media lament the fact that nobody knows who to believe (Harper or Duffy…), on account of there being so many underhanded shenanigans, the Province doubles-down and commits what some might call a worse perfidy and its own underhanded shenanigans. The Province Misleads on Purpose

Look at the picture the Province searched for and then chose to attach to their story on the senate scandal today. It is obviously an official-looking police “evidence bag,” full of cash.

Trouble is, that “evidence bag” of money has utterly nothing to do with the senate story. It even has utterly nothing to do with the many ginned-up fantasy versions of the story. There simply is no “evidence bag” full of cash in this case. No cash was even alleged to have been passed, and what money was passed is not alleged to be illegal.

You’ve been duped. The photo is a fake, of sorts. It’s actually misappropriated  —  a word which speaks perfectly to the delicious irony, which I’ll expand on in a bit.

So what’s up here? Is the Province mendaciously advancing a political message to its readers?  An anti-Conservative narrative? An underhanded meme, of sorts?

Ya think?

The Province, in an exercise of slimy, deceitful innuendo, put that photo there to make a quick visual insinuation of criminal activity. They presented for its readers visual “evidence” of such. They did it to tendentiously stink the story up with the illusions of mafia-like bags of cash being passed between Conservatives.

It’s a lie.

Hang on  —  maybe it was just an innocent, albeit ignorant blunder of mammoth proportions insofar as journalistic standards are concerned.

Yeah…no, it was just on purpose. And that, believe it or not, is worse.

The purpose is to lead some readers   —  as many as possible (they even tweeted about it to get more attention)  —  to think even more negatively than they already might about the story, and about the Harper Conservatives. The bar is already set low, to be sure, so it takes quite the limbo. But low-information readers, who became that way thanks largely to deceptive media stories like this one, will surely take that bait and run –err vote– with it.  With ginned-up stories like this, lots of other voters will switch their vote to the media-supported NDP, or to their Liberal Party division, next time around. The media knows that after seeing evidence bags of cash connected to the Liberal Party’s sponsorship scandal, voters did switch their votes to the Conservatives. The media has never forgiven themselves. So here, since none exist, they simply created a fake “evidence bag” of cash. Lots of neat anti-conservative water-cooler banter will ensue.  And there will be high-fives among reporters and editors.

The Province Misleads on PurposeHere’s how the Province misappropriated that “evidence bag” of cash. And how the Province knows darn well it did. Postmedia used that photo  —  correctly  —  before.

The Montreal Gazette (also Postmedia-owned) had that exact same evidence bag of money photo attached to a story a little more than a year ago (October 22, 2012) — a completely different story.

In that story, that same photo (as seen again at left) is the correct photo  —  it’s the actual RCMP evidence bag full of cash, which the police secured in their criminal investigation of the infamous mafia-linked construction industry corruption in Montreal  —  a real, truly criminal corruption story, which included that real evidence bag of cash.

The caption under that photo reads:

A bag containing $123,000 returned by ex-city engineer Gilles Surprenant, on display at the Charbonneau Commission.

Photograph by: HO , THE CANADIAN PRESS

The caption under the Province story’s photo?


So the Province knew the photo was unrelated to their senate story. But they chose to attach that same photo depicting actual evidence and that photo’s deep, nefarious, criminal implications, on the completely unrelated senate story.

I’m not sure how Canadian Press will feel about their photo being used that way, but I’d personally be pissed if the the news media were wrongly using my photos like that, implicating me in their devious deception of readers. Oh who am I kidding? Postmedia is one of the owners of CANADIAN PRESS. But don’t worry  —  there is no corruption there.

Irony abounds. But that’s not what’s important. It’s far more important to set the media narrative right. I’ve done my best. Before writing this, I called them out with a couple of tweets including this:

I got no reply from them. They don’t care because despite their egregious deceit, I was the only one complaining. That’s some more bitter irony for me.


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

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

“News” radio station CKWX 1130 misinforms re politics; no correction despite my honest efforts.


This is how it happens. Drip by drip.

Vancouver’s biggest all-news radio station, CKWX News 1130, blurted out a big fat lie this morning, on Twitter:

It was re-tweeted by @News1130radio and their 22,000 + followers. Is there no checking of facts there? No editors? Without even researching this information I knew it to be false, simply because I know the news facts. Huh.

Thinking they made an honest error, I first re-tweeted it with the word “WRONG” in front, so they could correct it with the right information:

But that didn’t move them. So I replied with the question:

Still no write-thru or acknowledgement regarding their misinformation.

One last try:

Nothing. So now I have no choice but to assume they want that wrong information to be out there, in order to fit a false, tendentious narrative of the Republican Party that they are trying to advance to Vancouverites and Canadians. I can then extend the logic to conclude that they want to denigrate conservatives, in any way they think they can get away with, hoping it will serve their political interests here at home. In their news reporting. In their news reporting! 

As most people who are even semi-clued-in on the news of the day, the 5% figure only ever came up in any news reporting with regard to the CONGRESS, not the “GOP.” For the benefit of the smart set at CKWX News 1130, Congress is made up of a Senate, currently dominated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic party; and a House, currently dominated by the Republicans under Speaker John Boehner.

On top of that, it wasn’t Gallup who arrived at the 5% result, it was an AP/GfK poll. Gallup came in at 11%. America’s favorability of the GOP is even or nearly even with the Democrats, but even according to Gallup, it’s nearly 500% higher than what the CKWX News 1130 reporters reported. So that’s quite a muddling and misstatement of the facts.

Also doing historically badly is Barack Hussein Obama. He’s at or near his lowest favorability on record  —  down around 37% according to the latest poll from AP/Gfk (which I’m using to be consistent). Even their beloved Gallup has him at an approval of only 44%, and a DISAPPROVAL rate of 50% today.  George W. Bush currently has higher favorability numbers (according to Gallup!) than Obama, and did have higher numbers than Obama at this point in his presidency  —  and he’s the one liberals love to paint as horribly unpopular.

I wonder why they don’t tweet about all that.

In any case, the damage is now done. So, heckuvajob, CKWX News 1130. And I suppose they could use the idiotic excuse one of their idols, the progressive Democrat Hillary Clinton, infamously yelled at the top of her lungs with arms flailing about, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!!”


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

Tags: , ,

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

“Guns are people too!”

“Gun are people too!” sounds like a turn on the idiotic PETA memes where they raise the status of a lowly farm animal like a chicken to that of a real person.

Except we’re not talking about PETA or chickens, we’re talking about LIBERALS and guns. I do understand the confusion. Chickens are not people, and guns are not people. Liberal are only marginally people. I joke.

When problems arise, most people blame that which actually caused the PETA idiocyproblem. This is a habit of pure logic that liberals like President Barack Obama could learn, inasmuch as they and he are the cause of most of the problems, yet they and he choose instead to blame “Bush.” Or Fox News. Or “the 1%,” or the banks, a tsunami, Europe, or the weather.

The last time you read about a drunk driver careening into a crowd of people and killing them all… well I just gave away the ending, didn’t I? The point is that the skillful reporter who is not drunk blames the DRIVER. Not the CAR.

That’s manifestly because the driver killed the folks. Cars don’t suffer mental maladies, and cannot make poor choices. Which is why I’d rather see cars in office than Obama and his administration. But I digress.

When it comes to gun-related violence, the liberals like Obama (he’s the AR-15 of liberals — snarf!) and his absolutely like-minded fan-boy media reflexively blame the gun instead of the usually mentally-deranged shooter. Well actually they blame Sarah Palin, the NRA, conservatives, gun “clingers” (hi Barack!), Republicans, and even gun manufacturers (kind of like blaming GM for the drunk-driver slaughter — and then Barack Obama for bailing them out!). And others too numerous to mention. But mostly the gun. It’s like they’re idiots.

Nate Beeler, cartoonist for the Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), was bang on with this editorial cartoon, today. At the risk of putting words in Nate Beller’s mouth, it seems to me he’s mocking the asinine group-think liberal mainstream media for what is really their obvious liberal-left, agenda-ridden reporting. This style of reporting, which I like to call total, unadulterated BS reporting, is a result of their mindless group-think adherence to the idiotic talking points of the Democratic Party and sundry liberal fascists’, and their gun-control fetish. As you can tell, my own cartoons would be a lot more wordy than Nate Beeler’s.


Damn that’s a funny cartoon! Now, I don’t want to turn this into a downer, but it’s dark humor. It’s funny because it’s an absolutely true depiction of the liberals and their media, and the logic portrayed here is so totally absurd. Logic dictates that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns are not people, and yet liberals make out like guns are people too. They’re a little like PETA!

The funny bit (is it still funny, really?) includes the subversive notion that that liberals are now so heavily invested in this gun-control lunacy — politically and within the media — that simply in order to appear consistent and decisive, they now have to accept regularly appearing as idiots — just like in the life-like cartoon by Nate Beeler. Every time there’s a shooting, we’re off to the races — or the funny pages — again. Like the annoying TV ad that’s repeated way too often, liberals hope eventually people will buy their crap.

The problem may be history itself. Liberals and progressives can be credibly held to account for being partially responsible for the societal root cause of these tragedies, which we all know, whether liberals admit it or not (not), is mental health issues.

In the 1970s, liberals tackled this problem as they often do — with pure emotion rather than reason and hard empirical or scientific facts. It was entirely ill-conceived. It was an experiment. They closed mental health institutions, forcing the erstwhile institutionalized mentally ill to somehow magically blend into society, which would somehow deal with it. Somehow. Well it failed. That’s your hope ‘n change philosophy at work again.

It has resulted, I think, in homelessness, poverty, crime, drug abuse, family break-down, and more.

Their experimental feel-good policy on the mentally ill was another failed liberal experiment, using human lives as if they were lab rats or PETA’s sacred chickens. And yet liberals are still experimenting in other similar and potentially disastrous ways.

So this gun-control canard is to deflect from their massive, historic, and what is very much their liberal philosophy-rooted gaffe.

Instead, liberals including Barack Obama should be admitting that liberalism has proved to be an abject failure. That’s right, admit it, and move on. But no. They blame the shooter’s problem on the idiotic, unscientific idea that guns are going around wielding mentally-deranged individuals, and killing people. This, to maintain face, and gain power. That’s their ultimate objective. Power over the people. A notably unarmed people.

Sadly, that’s the joke.

Oh my sides ache with all the funny. No not really. Wow. I bummed myself out! Or should I pass the buck and say liberals bummed me out?

For more on this, see my article from yesterday, The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too. Here’s my PTBC Facebook page meme for that one:

Sandie_Rinaldo_misinforms_re_shooting_AR-15(sq-403px fb-meme)The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies, Too.

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

The Problem: Gun Violence? Yeah, But Liberal Media Lies Too.

The incessant, hysterical cries from the left about more gun control (sorry  — let’s say it the way they do: “GUN CONTROL!!! OMG!!!”), using the ever-so scary term “AR-15!!!” as a backdrop, tends to lose a little of its steam when in fact an “AR-15!!!” has utterly nothing to do with the story at hand  —  in this case the shooting yesterday at the Washington DC navy yard.

The media all know by now that an “AR-15!!!”, um, “assault weapon,” was not used.  Yet there’s this BS this afternoon:

Some liberal media like CTV in Canada find it impossible to acknowledge the facts. First of all, “RACISM!!!” is curiously absent from their narrative  —  I mean seeing as it was so important in other stories; but on the other hand the term “AR-15!!!” is curiously present, even though no “AR-15!!!” was used.

Why do they do this? It wrecks their liberal left, gun control-pushing and phoney racism narratives. That’s why.

Even an hour later, when interviewing another expert, the CTV News anchor Sandie Rinaldo repeated the misinformation. This time, the guest corrected her, but even he got it wrong, saying that the shooter entered the building with a shotgun… and two pistols.

An astute anchor who is interested in reporting accurate facts instead of misinformation would have stopped the guest and corrected him for the benefit of the viewers. Alas, not this one.

That’s why citizens like me have to do it for you. You can’t trust them to do it.

Reporting like this is a little like the cries of “RACISM!!!” and of the need to quash the “STAND YOUR GROUND!!!” laws in Florida, even after the “WHITE!!!” Hispanic George Zimmerman was found not guilty. (Do note that Zimmerman was also not found to be a racist  —  far from it  —  nor was “stand your ground” ever used in the case as a defense. And I’ve never heard of a “WHITE!!!” Hispanic before). The fact is, Zimmerman was found to have legally defended himself when attacked by Trayvon Martin. Liberal media find it impossible to truthfully and transparently acknowledge any these facts, choosing instead to push their typically left-wing narrative.

In fact, in the DC navy yard case, the shooter’s weapon of choice was the one Vice President Joe Obama_shoots_rifleBiden suggested that Americans be armed with — a plain old shotgun  —  during one of the recent “GUN CONTROL!!!” freakouts. And it was not unlike the one used by President Barack Hussein Obama as he pushed out this photo (left) to the media, to make out like he was a common American who loves his right to have guns (sadly, or happily, he was laughed at after this media BS stunt).

But yesterday and today the left are most animated by the (phoney) idea that the shooter carried an “AR-15!!!” into the building and shot-up the innocent people with it, on account of… it’s scary looking!

That’s scientific!

It always amazes me that either leftists are totally clueless about guns, or they continue to get away with lying about them the way they do. For example, an AR-15 is little more than a scary -looking semi-automatic rifle, which kills just like any other semi-automatic rifle kills. I always think of it as one of those old Pontiac Firebirds, but the one with the massive plastic “firebird” wings decals on the hood and those fake flames and exhaust pipes along the sides. (Except for the fact that an AR-15 is actually a mechanical engineering marvel, in contradistinction from the Pontiac Firebird with the decals and useless plastic exhaust pipes.)

Here’s a tweet from RBPundit (note the hashtag just for giggles):

But what happens when you take that away? Well RBPundit summed it up beautifully again, by catching a leftists ass in the act:

Daily_News_BS-Cover(300)One of the best examples of misinformation was found in the Daily News, which failed massively on reporting the truth, as exemplified at left.

Noah Rothman wrote-up this massive media fail nicely with this article:

The Media on Activist Autopilot with Embarrassing, Preemptive AR-15 Bashing

It is ridiculous that the media continues this misinformation, and yet we continue to buy it and not yell even louder than they yell about “RACISM!!!” and “GUN CONTROL OMG!!!”, etc., to be truthful, and objective, and fair, and decent, and not agenda-pushing and corrupt.

The infamous left-wing MSNBC did much the same as the others. As reported by John Nolte at in his article:

MSNBC Still Airing Debunked Graphic Showing Navy Yard Shooter With AR-15:

… Regardless of these facts, MSNBC continues to use a computer graphic that clearly shows the shooter with an AR-15.

MSNBC is openly left-wing, and as desperate as the rest of the media to propagandize against our Second Amendment civil rights. But to continue to use a debunked computer graphic, hours after the media’s false AR-15 narrative was proven wrong, is an act of outright dishonestly. MSNBC is misleading its viewers.

A quick look at the NBC and MSNBC websites shows nothing about the latest news about the actual firearms used by the shooter. This fact, which is inconvenient to the NBC family’s anti-gun agenda, is apparently something they just don’t consider news.

Some of the best stories have come from others who, like me, know more than the mainstream agenda-pushing and false information and propaganda-pushing media. For example Charles C. W. Cooke‘s article at National Review online:

Gun Control’s Dead End

… We now know that the perpetrator owned only a Remington 870 shotgun, and that he murdered and maimed his way into possession of the two other weapons that he used in his attack. Those weapons were two standard 9mm handguns — not, as the media tripped over itself prematurely to report, a much-maligned AR-15 “assault rifle.” On his show last night, unrelenting bore Piers Morgan spent a great deal of time spreading misinformation about the role of the AR-15 in the shooting, a theme that the New York Daily News has rather embarrassingly continued on its front cover this morning. Although retractions will presumably be forthcoming in the usual tiny print, it is probably too late to remove completely the impression that the headlines will have left in the imaginations of many Americans. …

Some liberals have been forced to face facts, and are finally actually addressing the root of the problem, which isn’t a lack of the massive gun control that the left and its media fantasize over. It’s the fact that in virtually every one of these cases, the root issue is a mental health issue.  And so, it’s about how society deals with that.

AP reports:

… He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs for his mental problems, the officials said.

The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

“Our” Ann Coulter has been on this beat for ages. See her columns LIBERALS GO CRAZY FOR THE MENTALLY ILL, and GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, THE MENTALLY ILL DO.

Of course there again, on the mental health issues, largely I blame liberals, the left, progressives writ large: I recall the liberal-left push, back in the 1970s, to close mental institutions and hope ‘n change our entire way of dealing with the mentally ill, such that we must treat mentally ill people exactly as if they were “just like us,” and let them live among us as if nothing were wrong, etc., so as not to make them (the mentally ill or moreover, the emotional, unscientific, bleeding heart liberal ideologues) feel bad, or some such ridiculous left-wing or progressive dogma.

This liberal mindset has cost society plenty  — in lives, money; in myriad ways.

The mainstream media ought to start shrieking about the real facts of life. “LIBERALISM HAS FAILED!!!”  That would be some honest reporting.

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

Protect freedom; call-out the mainstream media

As posted at

Here’s a double dose of grassroots: a reader comment made by a grassroots citizen after reading Michelle Malkin’s latest column at, called Colorado’s Grassroots Revolt Against Gun-Grabbers.

Malkin’s readers are like Malkin and the Coloradans she writes about: they’re revolted by the Award-grassrootsmindless excesses and extremism of today’s liberals, socialists, left-wing fascists — progressives generally — including those within the mainstream media. This reader comment gets the award:

Moonbat Exterminator wrote:
The media tailors its coverage to match the ever changing agenda of the progs. Actually, I think they must have a scorecard that lists facts vs how to cover them. To wit

Black victim, white or hispanic perp = Racism!!!!
White victim, black perp, gun = Gun violence
White victim, any perp, no gun = no coverage
White blonde little girl kidnapped and or murdered = 24/7 coverage wall to wall, but only if the victim is cute.

That pretty much covers it.

Call it a scorecard, or call it a manual. The liberal-left mainstream media use a kind of style guide or code, whether it’s in the form of a written manual or the code is simply wafting around in their media clubhouse’s ether. This code determines their level of coverage, tone of coverage, and even the words used in their coverage of events.

Usually, the determination of how, when, or whether to cover any story, just glibly goes without saying in mainstream media newsrooms and editorial offices. The rules are usually unwritten simply because they need not be written. How and when or if to cover a story, and the words used, is all obvious to them. The newsroom is of like minds. No manual is required.

And that’d be great if their agenda was to fully, truthfully, and without bias, inform citizens. The problem is that mainstream media is not an objective place anymore. They’re now more like campaign offices for the progressive movement.

The mainstream media is now systemically infected by liberals, or even further leftists, and so a sort of automated, reflexive liberal-left group-think takes place in media bullpens and offices in response to events. They all reflexively follow — sometimes unconsciously, sometimes not — the kind of code spelled-out more succinctly than me, by Moonbat Exterminator.

Like all liberals, no matter where they are — somebody’s house, a restaurant or bar, anywhere — when they say something, they think everybody in the room agrees with them. But in the case of the media, it’s actually true.

The brutal reality is this: the mainstream media generally cast aspersions, scandalize, hammer, smear, castigate, and mock the Right, whatever the truth; but they aggrandize, iconize, coddle and featherbed the Left, and whitewash their scandals (i.e., calling them “phony scandals”), in order to advance their progressive agenda. They are progressives.

Because they’re so stuck in that liberal-left mindset, or they’re peer-pressured by their co-workers, they also habitually, robotically, reprint — like they’re Obama’s own steno pool — the talking points of the Obama administration, or any left-wing organization, for that matter. And speaking of “matter”, the far-left and rabidly anti-conservative organization Media Matters is a favorite source of info and quotes for the mainstream media steno pool. Mainstream media also refer to the reliably pro-Obama, progressive mouthpieces like the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC,, Barack Obama’s cult-like Organizing for Action, or any number of other systemically infected liberal-left-advocating outfits.

And they’ll do it without question. Gone are the intrepid investigative, prodding, or even the mildly curious journalists — unless of course the story concerns, as Moonbat Exterminator said, a white-on-black crime, any gun crime, any conservative — a Republican, or worse, a tea party patriot.

For example, virtually no (non-Fox News Channel) mainstream media dare question Obama on any of his radical left-wing policies, his obvious hypocrisy, his blatant, outright lies, or the many stupid things he says or does, least of all the biggest and stupidest thing of them all, Obamacare; or about the stagnant economy, post the economy-wrecking trillion-dollar “stimulus” that we were assured would cure it. Yet Associated Press relied on a team of 11 reporters to try to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin and her best-selling book. Mark Steyn explained at the time:

Rogue’s Eleven

By Mark Steyn
November 14, 2009 7:19 AM

If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:

AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s eleven writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

No, the Associated Press assigned eleven writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the eleven fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. …

…and the “errors” were hideously inconsequential.

With few exceptions, the only people who “fact-check” Obama or the Democrats or any in their mob of sycophantic media, are grassroots, non-mainstream media folks. Or at least that’s all who actually commit their findings to words or print. So keep doing it, people.

Everybody knows all of this, which, if you’re keeping score at home, makes this article pretty redundant. But redundancy works well for the Left who shout “RACIST!” all day long at any Obama or left-wing opponent, to the point where the liberal media has now become emboldened by the phony mantra, and glibly, routinely, call conservative groups like the tea party “racist.” So more people need to write the truth about the corrupt media, and say it out loud, and turn the tide.

As Michelle Malkin points out in her column, it’s freedom which is at stake, and it’s the grassroots that need to rise up to protect it. Forget the mainstream media. They’re against you.


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

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

Cross-posted at and


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

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

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

CNN's Candy Crowley

CNN’s Candy Crowley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Tags: , ,

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

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

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


But lo and behold, today, this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a snippet:

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

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

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

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

Tags: , , , , ,

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

It's a question.