Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | liberals

Trudeau Foundation-Gate

By the way, why is it not called Trudeau Foundation-Gate? I remember when in 2008 I wrote about the Liberals’ CBC division calling something “NAFTA-Gate” — on that sound, scientific, evidence-based and ever-so journalistic basis of: “because that’s what it’s called” (Don Newman, CBC, actual words).

In fact that CBC host was joined by a (now) CTV host in calling that something — which was something comparatively quite banal — “NAFTA-Gate” (Don Martin, CTV, actual words). That press gallery pundit/columnist/host stated at the time that by golly he “hated” calling it that, but, like, he had no choice. Journalism. (Also known as Ass.) For their part, the Globe & Mail also called it NAFTA-Gate, “as the issue has been dubbed.” (Dubbed by them. They’re just reporting. On what they decided to call it.)

I don’t even remember what “NAFTA-Gate” was about — just that it was about nothing. It was another bit of mainstream (and taxpayer-funded) media B.S., designed only to kill Conservatives politically. This Media-Gate corruption continues today.

Today, the media is bending over backwards to protect their boy, Justin Trudeau, and the Liberals. If they weren’t, this would be a scandal at least as big as “Hidden Agenda” (remember that cute pile of liberal media lies that lasted for years and years?), or “Sweater-Vest-Gate” (oh that was ugly).

But now we are barely told, much to most people’s surprise (because it was never made an issue much less a “-Gate”), that among the many other things that stink today in the Trudeau government (and it is increasingly a very smelly place), the Trudeau Foundation is not really a Trudeau foundation at all. Normally, a charitable foundation in the name of someone is started by that someone’s own money, or at least money which they were responsible for raising in the private sector. Otherwise it’s just a branch of government. I know all about this as I have been involved in just such a process.  Also, I’m not a lying liar.

(I hate to confuse you, but this latest scandal should not be confused with the Liberal Party Foundation-Gate, circa 2005 — and the use of “-Gate” here is all mine – duh).

Federal taxpayer funding of the Trudeau Foundation, when it started in 2002, came in at $125 MILLION — from the ridiculous Industry Canada branch (which itself sounds like some sort of Soviet-era central-planning politburo). Industry Canada has no business donating our cash, on our behalf, to a charitable foundation started in the name of, and designed to please the ideological desires of, left-wing politicians. Especially when it’s staffed by and run by those left-wing politicians (named Trudeau, among others who are their friends). Of course taking our money and then giving it out — even as charity — is not charity at all — it’s theft. (See this excellent video explaining that concept). And when it’s Liberal governments giving our cash to Liberal foundations run by their Liberal friends, well that’s just corrupt. And that’s yet another tawdry aspect to this.

Wikipedia describes what was then known as Industry Canada as “the department of the Government of Canada with a mandate of fostering a growing, competitive, knowledge-based Canadian economy” and it supposedly “works with Canadians throughout the economy, and in all parts of the country, to improve conditions for investment, improve Canada’s innovation performance, increase Canada’s share of global trade and build an efficient and competitive marketplace.” (Clearly a Wiki entry written by Industry Canada).

Incongruity alert: “efficient and competitive marketplace” and the Alt-Left Trudeau Liberals do not exactly go together like a hammer and sickle. An “efficient and competitive marketplace” and the left are literally at odds with each other.

Even if the government massively failed in its pretend efforts to create this fancy capitalist marketplace back in 2002, and we all let them get away with it and continue to today, Justin Trudeau is today doubling-down on the perfidy and has clearly — obviously — violated his own ethics guidelines (much vaunted by the media). And this, by his own admission. This would be like Bill Clinton finally admitting he DID have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, and then the media clapping for him. The National Post (reluctantly, I think, because they called that nothingburger “NAFTA-Gate” too, back in ’08, but there’s nary a “gate” to be found today) writes it up today:

…Whether or not the foundation violates conflict-of-interest laws, its operations represent another challenge to the high ethical standard Trudeau has established for his government. The Open and Accountable Government guide, codified after Trudeau became prime minister in October 2015, specifies that when fundraising or dealing with lobbyists, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.” …

… The National Post’s analysis confirms about 40 per cent of 108 donors, directors and members of the foundation since 2014 — or one in six, if academic institutions are excluded — have affiliations with organizations that currently lobby the government, which could indeed create the perception of a conflict.

The NatPo calls Trudeau’s guidelines a “high ethical standard.” This is what the rest of us call “we’d be sentenced to a jail term in about 10 minutes if it were us.” The fact that Justin Trudeau has actually admitted — after first denying — to violating his guidelines (he DID have sex), should help you decide if there’s corruption here. In a separate article, columnist John Ivison says this about that:

During the press conference, he was asked if he had ever been approached about government policy at Liberal fundraisers.

He admitted he is lobbied at private cash-for-access events, but said that donors have no more influence or special access than other Canadians.

So like, I did have sex, but I did not have an orgasm. Or perhaps inserting a cigar in there is not sex. 

Liberal Party spokespeople have argued for weeks that no such lobbying takes place at these extremely lucrative fundraisers but they have now been contradicted by their own leader.

The matter might even veer into a breach of the criminal code, if the lobbying was not reported.

A blowjob is sex. And a “contradiction” in this case is lies and corruption; corporate elites and political elitists all working together with Liberals and Liberal governments — all to their own benefit, and lying about it. “Sunny ways” is apparently a euphemism for Liberals are in power, suckas.

The fact that this all sounds almost identical to the ongoing (and still under FBI criminal investigation — hint!) Hillary and Bill Clinton Foundation scandal — and how the American and Canadian media dealt (didn’t) with that — should get your attention.

There are so many “gates” here.

No wonder Trump won. A Trump should win here too.

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

Left-wing government news today: “It’s not looking good.”

Thanks to liberals/leftists worldwide, it really isn’t looking good.  We start from the left coast and this Globe & Mail article, and, well, actually we just keep moving left.


…“The count came in at the average that we’ve seen over the last 10 years,” Mr. Affleck told reporters. “The mayor made a commitment, a promise in 2008 to end homelessness. Clearly, he’s failed at that promise.” He said the consistent numbers on homelessness underlie the failings of the mayor’s Vision Vancouver party on the file. “It’s very disappointing.” …

Another article said it straight up:

…[homeless numbers are] still higher than they were back in 2008, when the mayor first promised to end homelessness in this city.

Gregor Robertson and city council have now reviewed a 34-page report breaking down the latest data, and it’s not looking good. …

And over in the newly far-left NDP-led Albertistan, they naturally raised corporate taxes, because that’s what left-wing governments all over the world do (and then turn into Greece). And what do you know? Their corporate cash cows like Westjet – which has dared to succeed and have the gall to actually make a profit – start to bleed.




And then there’s Greece, as led by a communist/socialist government.

And China and its state-controlled economy and state-controlled stock market, plunging.

No, it is not looking good for the world when liberals and leftists take the reins of power.


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

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

Liberal Party of Canada now the ABORTION PARTY; JT says candidates MUST embrace abortion.

What an abomination. The very concept of “liberal” is now unceremoniously aborted from the party, and tossed like garbage into the trash, exactly like so Justin_Trudeaumany real life abortions.

Abortion opponents not welcome to run for Liberals in 2015, Trudeau says

The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, May 7, 2014 3:26PM EDT

OTTAWA — Justin Trudeau says opponents of abortion need not apply to run for the Liberal party in the next election.

And if they do apply, the Liberal leader says they’ll be weeded out during the vetting process for nomination applications.

… Until two years ago, Liberals did not have a party position on abortion, considering it a matter of conscience that should be left to each individual. …

Abortion is, of course, the most disgusting thing ever thought of by humans. For a party leader to embrace it and dictate that candidates running under his leadership be banned from the party if they don’t embrace abortion, is simply otherworldly.

The Liberal Party will now be called The Abortion Party.

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

What we got here are nefarious ties to untruthiness, Tom

Politicians like the socialist NDP’s leader Tom Mulcair make the pedantic and excruciatingly boring claim that they need to be elected because they’re so, so honest, and the guy who’s in power now is so corrupt. Join me in a mass yawn. And so it’s weird to keep finding such blatant dishonesty in their ridiculous daily (or more) NDP mail-outs, in which they plead for money… presumably so that they can get scads of money and a “huge campaign war chest,” so they can buy their way to victory.


So Stephen Harper’s war chest is “courtesy of his friends with ties to big oil and other corporate interests”?  That’s not true. And by the way, what’s wrong with people in the oil business? Are they bad Canadians? Do the NDP hate them? Are the NDP conducting a war against oil, and a war against the good Canadians who work in the oil industry? Do they hate some Canadians, like those “corporate interests?” Are the NDP at war with business?  What the hell is the matter with these people, who are always dividing people in Canada and trying to set one sector off against another?

Thomas Mulcair

Thomas Mulcair, ever so honest leader

The fact is, the Conservatives have gotten to be the biggest fund-raisers by far, by appealing to the average guy. It’s also how they got elected. Time and again.  They get most of their cash from smaller donors  —   many more than any other party  —  and four times as many as the NDP. Like 100,000 people, per year. Those are Harper’s evil “friends.” This fact is readily available for the checking. The numbers are public, so you can go look yourself.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that corporations are in fact banned from donating to political parties, despite the insinuation by the NDP in their deceptive smear-mail. Corporations have been banned for donating to political parties in Canada since 2004, not that there isn’t organized corporate support anyway. But it’s the Liberals who have been, at least in modern Canadian and U.S. history, the bigger beneficiaries of that corporate support. Not the right.

Nathan Rotman

Nathan Rotman, NDP Director and emailer

But at least we know those massive labor unions don’t support the NDP, right? Well that’s a joke of course. The Liberals get most of the corporate support, and the NDP get all the union support, and not just in cash  —  in numerous other ways too. It’s the Conservatives who are up against it, and still come out ahead anyway.

One last fib: “…it’s the well-connected that really win”. Are they implying that those horrible people who they want you to join them in hating  —  “friends with ties to big oil and other corporate interests”  —  give the Conservatives campaign money, and then massive government corruption ensues, like in some socialist countries, Putin’s Russia, or like in Canada’s Liberal Party Sponsorship Scandal? That’s quite a charge of corruption, and it’s one that they obviously can’t make honestly, so they churlishly make it dishonestly. And in so doing, they knowingly smear Conservatives, including all of those 100,000-plus good Canadians who have contributed to that party.


Nice and honest.

Vote NDP.

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

Progressive Humongousitis

Jumpin’ Jehosafats. What the heck just took over my entire, hayuge computer screen?  Why it’s the leader of the you’ve got to be kidding party, Tom Mulcair! Hi Tom! Look how huge you are! I can see your skin pores! They’re very egalitarian!  Ya got some good “facial justice” going on there, Tom!

Can you see him? Look hard! He’s that ginormous guy right there dominating half your personal space.


I did what any normal, free human being would do, and quickly clicked something  —  anything   —  to get that hugenormous mug off my eye balls. And I got this on page two:


Dear God. Or in this case, Dear Leader! What is this  —  the state-owned CBC?  Get this largeosophus face outta my peepers! This enormity is actually not desirous for me as a common working man. Together, let’s build a smaller mug of “Tom.” I’d even be OK with it if their Canada Post division did the artwork and then used it for a national stamp honoring Tom and socialism. Well OK I wouldn’t like that at all, but maybe one of those taxpayer-subsidized “artists” from the National Film Board could do it for under a hundred grand! After it’s all organized, they could call it a “grassroots” project!

Anyway, so duh, I took an axe to my computer.

When I got a new computer with what was left of my after-tax dollars, I exercised my free market rights and went over to the central planning and revenue redistribution site, and saw red. Mao red.


I hoped, and worked hard, but all I got was this huge picture! I imagine there will soon be a new  —  even bigger  —  Imax-screen-sized pic to accommodate their newly larger-by-one family. Hint to the Liberal politburo (or the CBC): make the pic a smidge smaller, instead! Possibly balance the rest out with pics of doobies! It really doesn’t matter, for hope and hard work will allow for a magical web site that will balance itself!

I’m a sucker for kids and lots of ’em, and besides, the site put me in the mind of Chinese food for supper tonight, so I resisted the temptation to plop my new computer out the window of my once extravagant ProudToBeCanadian World Headquarters office window and risking hitting my middle-class car, below.  I simply surfed over to the Unicorns-‘n-Rainbows website, and holy shnikies….


In Your Face, DeniersHi Liz! I can literally see your greenies in your shnoz on account of your noggin-shot being so elephantine! This, again, is surely not the desired outcome. At least not without a Kleenex (or wad of grass, or whatever you earthers use instead of Kleenex these days). The Unicorns-‘n-Rainbows collective should really form a committee and make a smaller May. It might make for a smaller carbon footprint, ‘n junk. Possibly garner the financial support of some American-based “environmental” activists for your new front page! Get Suzuki on the horn!

I then checked out the less liberal but still progressive site. Surely it’d be more “conservative” than progressively enormous. Alas, more of the same ginormous huge-facious syndrome, albeit with lots of white space, obviously reflecting their racist tendencies  —  am I right, liberals and other folks who are patently full of crap?! Hey maybe the white space is a freakin’ “hidden agenda!”

It is generally smaller, more conservative than the others, yes. But yowza, baby! Just. Plain. Big.


For all of them, I might suggest a photo of, say, Canada, or Canadian families and Canadians and their businesses, instead of a gigantic mug of a political personality. This isn’t Stalin-era Soviet Union or Maoist China, tho I know some of you sneaky devils would just as soon it were! You know who you are, Justin! (One would hope.)

This idea of smaller pictures of a political figure might help indicate to us tiny minions who actually own this country that you acknowledge our lives don’t revolve around, and aren’t all about a big government boss, you know, like Stalin or Justin’s guy, Xi Jinping; but rather it’s about our country Canada. Us. Not government. Maybe they don’t acknowledge that. And that is problematic for us.

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

Conservatives raised more than the Libs & the even more socialist NDP, last quarter.

Once again, figures just released yesterday show that the Conservative Party of Canada has outdone their (even more) progressive opposition in second-quarter fundraising. And once again, they’ve beaten the competition, combined (“combined” is just a fun word I add to the end of a sentence when I’m glad it’s true, as I am).

The Conservatives raised nearly $5 million from over 30,000 donors, compared to nearly $3 million from 38,000 Liberal donors, and nearly $1.4 million from a mere 19,000 of Canada’s full-on socialist NDP donors.

The NDP frames it up in their latest of their insatiable money-seeking emails to me and what they presume to all be their other fans, whom they address as “friends,” but which in reality I, for one, am obviously not, because I don’t give them money.

Today’s email was benign.


The official fundraising numbers for our second quarter are in – here’s what you should know:

  • Between April 1st and June 30th, 18,846 people donated to Canada’s New Democrats – that’s incredible. Thank you for making this quarter such a great success.
  • Supporters like you made more than 35,000 total donations in only 12 weeks.
  • We are focused on building the most effective ground game in our Party’s history. We set big goals – and we’ll need to meet them in every quarter between now and the next election. This quarter, we beat our goal and raised over $1.4 million toward our grassroots campaign.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is – we were outdone by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. They outraised us, banking just under $5 million in the second quarter alone.

This isn’t a huge surprise, but it’s still tough to take – and we have to work every day to close the gap before the Conservatives pull too far ahead. […]

But as judged by the tone they use about the likes of me in other emails, I am actually the opposite of a “friend” to them. In fact I am an enemy. Now, in fairness, they are the political enemy to me, but I’m not running for office, see? To them, and they are running, I’m apparently fit to be cleansed of my Canadian-ness  —   divided-off  —  Canadian tho I am  —  and I am summarily seen by them as some sort of a pariah. “Deep-pocketed,” and somehow dirty. (I actually laugh at them  —  I’m not as insulted as they hope, and by behaving this way, they’re only dividing themselves from Canada and regular Canadians, in reality).

In today’s email, at least they didn’t imply, as they did recently, that they were the only party who raised money from “individual Canadians,” which was a dishonest assertion, on every level  —  an outright lie, actually. I still don’t know if what they’re saying is that it’s not individuals who donate to the Conservatives, or that if they do, they’re not “Canadians,” and moreover, “like you.” Here’s a bit from my recent post about their previous emails:

NDP-1C“Unlike the Conservatives, our support comes from individual Canadians like you.”

“Unlike the Conservatives?” Really?

The truth  —  the facts  —  the science  —  is actually that far, far more “individual Canadians” gave money to the Conservatives than the NDP. Like 50% more “individual Canadians.” So yeah, I guess in that way, they’re “unlike the Conservatives.” But not in a good way  —  at least to them.

But the sneering at fellow Canadians doesn’t start or stop there. You can actually hear it every day via their CBC media division, but here’s some other examples from my previous post about their emails:

NDP-1C“With the help of well-connected insiders and big corporate donors, the Conservatives don’t have trouble raising a lot of money.”

Here’s some other language used in emails to me in the past few days:

NDP-1C“New Democrats do things differently. We rely on the support of hard-working Canadians – one grassroots donation at a time.

Corporate donations are illegal. So, care to elaborate, NDP? Didn’t think so. You certainly don’t want to pull on that thread, hello public sector unions and your various and sundry “sponsorships” and “supports” for the NDP.

They also refer to Conservatives as a bunch of “deep-pocketed” folks. And by the way, only to a bunch of socialists does the term “deep pockets” mean something so negative. Except in the context of public-sector union workers and their sumptuous fur-lined, deep pockets.

And stating that “Conservatives don’t have trouble raising a lot of money” is (a) BS, and (b) cast by them as being somehow nefarious  —  like it’s (a) a bad thing and (b) due to some kind of dumb-ass luck, or something. But it actually just points to the Conservatives’ smart, hard work, and sorry NDP, but to their popularity. (And actually, no, I’m not sorry. I take that back.) Granted, this is not good news for the NDP and its political ambitions, but these folks (Conservatives) are Canadians too, the last time I checked. So why castigate them and cast aspersions on them like that? There goes any conversion! Maybe I should be glad they’re so ridiculous.

Their whole m.o. seems to be divisive and condescending and nearly insulting, unless you’re one of them. They need to remember that they’re running for public office, to represent not just their supporters but all Canadians, and to lead our entire country. They aught to show their greatest respect to all Canadians. Thery need to remember that, in other words, they should not be at all like their hero Barack Obama, whom they so often seem to try to replicate (even stealing their hero’s “war on women” B.S., his class warfare, his phoney and insulting catcalls of “racist” and “homophobe,” and other divisive canards).

And by the way, during just this latest quarter, I hung up on the Conservative Party (politely) at least once, and didn’t answer their phone calls to me a thousand other times, as I’m sure thousands of other actual conservatives did, and didn’t. So it was hardly “no trouble” for the Conservatives to raise cash. Especially from actual conservatives. They’re just better, smarter, more popular than the NDP. So own it, NDP.

All in all, what a load of dishonest crap from the NDP  —  “official opposition.”

Here’s a pro tip to the socialists at the NDP fundraising HQ: I think if you want to be a successful party and lead a successful campaign where you convert voters to your cause, and ultimately lead a successful, united country  —  which is my country as much as yours  —  you better start from a place of honesty and integrity, and not just with your own support base but all Canadians. Stop creating false Obama-like divisions, Obama-like animosity between Canadians, and Obama-like hatred toward what we all recognize as success. And stop disrespecting and insulting and being so condescending toward half of Canada. Stop being hypocrites. Practice what you preach: be “tolerant” and “inclusive” of your countrymen.

Oh I’ll still see you and treat you like the enemy. Because you are. But you shouldn’t do that. So at least fake it. You do know how to fake it.

You’re welcome.

Figures are from


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

Tags: , , ,

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

Fashion over debate: Sonny days ahead if Justin Trudeau gets Liberal leadership nod

The world didn’t end recently, and it’s unlikely to come to a conclusion in 2013 either.

Rumours of its demise tend to be greatly exaggerated, either from Christian fundamentalists, Latin American tribes, or assorted conspiracy theorists. Odd how all of these types claim supernatural wisdom but do so badly in their own lives!

What we will see in Canada is the triumph of the mediocre and the mob.

Justin Trudeau. Of course he will become Liberal leader, and in spite of the complacent boasts of his critics he may well become prime minister. And if he does, it will be a disaster not only for Canada but for democracy.

You see, Trudeau is extraordinarily unqualified and vacuous.

He’s not evil, not even malicious, perhaps even good and well-meaning in a suburban, banal, CBC type of way.

He has no ideology other than a vapid trendiness — he has never said anything fresh or even left-wing about economics, foreign policy or governance, but knows we have to marry gay people and abort babies. As I say, childish fashion over serious debate.

But if he wins, he will be a mere face for a more substantial and altogether more sinister body.

First are the old Liberal hacks who were brought to political maturity by his father, and who want to rule again vicariously through the meagre son. They are moderate pragmatists, but are also unscrupulous, cynical and care nothing for democratic opinion.

Next are altogether more worrying individuals; not careerists but driven partisans. They were the people determined that Trudeau should speak to a conference of Islamic radicals. Sources claim that while the old advisers were urging their boy to listen to moderate Muslims, Jewish groups and gay organizations, the young Turks — or would Iranian be a better word? — were obsessed with a “new alliance” of voters.

Any Trudeau victory will be little more than a preamble to the battle within for who controls the Liberal party and its new leader.

Trudeau has very few formed opinions, simply doesn’t understand world politics and chants “middle class, middle class” to any substantive question about the future of one of the greatest nations on earth.

One conservative Canadian television commentator has described him pejoratively as “our Obama.”


Conservatives may dislike Obama’s policies, and he is certainly not the intellectual his supporters claim, but the man does have experience beyond the drama class, and has studied and read hard.

Trudeau is in fact “our Trudeau,” the modern version of Pierre. Of course the father was bright and well-travelled, but his ideas were nothing more than an extension of his own hobbies and fetishes. Daddy controlled, Sonny is controlled. Daddy wanted change for change’s sake, Sonny wants change because his brother and some of his handlers want change.

Successive governments, Liberal as well as Tory, have worked to restore financial and political stability to Trudeau’s Canada, but his son as prime minister would govern in a far more fragile and dangerous age.

Vote even NDP rather than Liberal, and hope a coalition of silly girls, political fanatics and old men longing for former glories do not win the day.


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

Tags: ,

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

Bullies or victims? Fairness and proportionality strike out in sport and sexuality

So, a guy who plays pro sport is an idiot. Good Lord, I can’t believe it! I mean, who knew?

Yes, Yunel Escobar was dumb enough to write on his face in Spanish something akin to “You are a faggot,” thus enabling every hypocrite and self-indulgent victim fetishist to moan about the horrors of homophobia.

Big money and big entertainment will do pretty much anything to not offend the gay community these days, and in this case their acts of ostensible contrition were positively nauseating.

Frankly, I don’t think Escobar intended a slur on homosexuals, and was probably not even thinking of homosexuality when for some perverse reason he wrote these nasty words beneath his eyes. It was probably some silly, jock, inside joke.

When it’s used by teenage boys, the word faggot generally means idiot or loser. I’ve heard kids who are trendily pro-gay and pro-same-sex marriage use the term “fag” with no apparent understanding that there is a connection. I’ve also heard gay people use it about other gays. The word will disappear naturally, as is right.

It should never have been written, and no professional sports team should allow an employee to write anything, even innocuous, on his face.

But the story ends there really.

Rogers, the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays, fined the guy $90,000 and suspended him for three games, which is fair enough.

Unlike in 2011 when television sports anchor Damian Goddard was fired from Sportsnet, also owned by Rogers, just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage.” He had been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving death threats and abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

It could have been a coincidence of course, but we’ll leave that to the human-rights commission where it is being considered. Goddard never used an offensive word, and merely expressed his opinion of marriage. Perhaps he should have written it on his face — he may well still be employed!

As for Escobar — bad word, move on. Stop the grovelling, stop the nonsense, get it in proportion. After all, it’s nothing like what happened to Peter Vidmar. You didn’t know? OK, let me explain. Vidmar is one of the most successful athletes in U.S. history. He was chosen to be the chef de mission of the U.S. Olympic team in the last Olympics, as was gay activist Mark Tewksbury for Team Canada. But Vidmar is a Mormon, and it was discovered that he had made a small donation to the Proposition 8 campaign, enshrining marriage as the union of a man and woman. He has never called anyone a nasty name, never treated gay people badly, is an example of a gentleman in sport. But he opposed gay marriage, and after relentless pressure he was forced to resign.

So who are the bullies, who are the victims, in sport and sexuality? Nobody should face or feel discrimination in professional sport, but can we please stop magnifying a dumb gesture into an act of sociological and moral barbarism?

Oh, and as for compulsory sensitivity training, the Jays are in far greater need of baseball training. The genuine victims are the fans.


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

Tags: , ,

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

Islamist jihad against West rages

As Americans stopped to mark the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and ponder how much the world has changed during these years, an ocean away more terrorist attacks were mounted on American interests in the Middle East.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, with three members of his staff and several Libyans, was an act of war by men indoctrinated with the same ideology of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden is dead and so is Ayatollah Khomeini, but the war they declared against the “satanic” West continues. The West, on the other hand, has opted to be an ostrich.

The result is more than a decade after hijacked jetliners plowed into tall buildings in New York, Islamists are ascendant across the Middle East and hoisting their Shariah-based totalitarian ideology. The U.S. under the Obama administration stands instead as having reverted back to the pre-9/11 mentality.

The American election is barely seven weeks away and the Islamist jihad against the “Crusaders,” in the language of al-Qaida’s founder, will very likely get obscured in the fog of political debates and recriminations in the U.S.

But there is no mistaking that an apologetic West, as represented by President Obama, emboldened the Islamists, resulting in the manner in which the so-called Arab Spring unfolded.

The abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt accompanied by the embrace of Muslim Brotherhood is turning out to be a repeat of Iran in 1979 when Khomeini swept into power.

It is extraordinary that an apologetic America, as President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo symbolized, and Europe with its appeasement mind-set cannot get their act together in compelling a third world rogue state, Iran, to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability or face dire military consequences. This failure to disarm Iran while embracing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the political grandfather of all the various Islamist offsprings in the greater Middle East and beyond — makes the present situation eerily similar to the 1930s.

What needs to be done, and should have been done by the previous Bush administration, is to take a page from George Kennan — the architect of President Truman’s policy against the Soviet Union — and update his strategy of containment for the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab-Muslim world deserves to be isolated and contained, as was the former Soviet Union. An Iron Curtain, in Winston Churchill’s memorable words, should descend separating the West and its allies from the Arab-Muslim world until the latter has exhausted itself of its own demons.

The situation America, and by its default the West, finds itself in relation to the Arab-Muslim world is to a large extent, ironically, the result of its own guilt-ridden attitude and political correctness. This state of mind, or multiculturalism, gravely inhibits a realistic assessment of 9/11 and what has followed.

The explanation on offer that this new wave of Muslim rage was ignited by a crudely amateurish docu-drama about Islam’s prophet, and the individual responsible must be severely punished, is pathetic in describing a guilt-ridden West seeking to placate the Arab-Muslim world.

Islamists are at war, and the West needs to respond accordingly.


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

Tags: , , , ,

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

Justin’s not ready

Let’s be honest here. Justin Trudeau is not exactly the most intelligent guy in Ottawa.

Nice hair, good looking, cute smile, famous and clever dad, “interesting” mum, but he’s not likely to be passing any difficult exams in the near future, is he? He’s a lightweight, a privileged beneficiary of Canadian political nepotism, and he makes all the old guys in Canadian media feel good as they remember their sex and drugs days during father Pierre’s reign.

But he may well become leader of the Liberal Party, and perhaps even prime minister. Which is more than a little worrying because he is, as I say, not enormously bright.

A few days ago he went to speak at yet another school, because there is apparently no need to have lessons and learn things when you can hear a politician with a famous daddy and good hair prattle on. He was at A.Y. Jackson Secondary School in Ottawa, where he responded to a student’s question about “the Catholic backlash against provincial anti-bullying legislation.” The dauphin said Catholic opposition to gay-straight alliances was “repulsive.”

Now, you might disagree with the Catholic position, you might oppose it, but “repulsive?” The inescapable logic is that everybody who opposes gay-straight alliances is repulsive, which is not very inclusive or tolerant, Justin.

The boy wonder then went on to say: “There’s not a religion in the world that says ‘tolerate thy neighbour.’ No, they say ‘love thy neighbour.’ Acceptance, respect, building friendships, being open to each other, that’s what we have to build on in Canada.”

Not sure where to start. First, Justin clearly has no idea what religions teach and believe. Islam, for example, which is a pretty big religion, calls exactly for tolerance instead of love, and that’s if you’re lucky. Christians and Jews, people of the book, are to be tolerated as long as they pay a head tax and are obedient and respectful to Islam and Muslims. Hardly unconditional love. As for pagans, those who do not worship one God, they’re not even to be tolerated.

It’s only Christianity that clearly speaks of loving your neighbour, even if you disagree with him, and that doesn’t mean encouraging your neighbour to indulge in what you consider a dangerous and immoral lifestyle. That would not be love but convenient and sugary disregard.

Then there’s the obvious logical implosion of what Justin said next — accept each other, respect each other, be open to each other. But you just called your critics repulsive! Hardly encouraging of respect and friendship, and harshly intolerant and arrogant.

Which brings us to why Trudeau was there in the first place. Jamie Hubley, who was just 15 when he killed himself last year, attended the school. He was gay, but we now know the poor kid had suffered from depression for years, and while certainly feeling isolated as the only homosexual student at the school, the bullying was more because he was a figure skater and rather flamboyant. His father has said that gay-straight alliances would not have helped matters and would probably have made things worse. So, the father of the boy opposes GSAs, so he is repulsive.

Justin Trudeau. Not ready for prime time; actually, not really ready for playtime.

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

Tags: ,

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

BC Liberal premier boasts of increasing number of low income earners paying no tax.

I’m (a) sane, and (b) I’m a conservative rather than a communist, a socialist, a liberal, a fascist, a left-winger, or any other of the almost identically awful flavor of “progressive.” BC Liberals logoSo obviously I’m all for governments reducing costs and lowering taxes.

But Christy Clark, the all-in progressive BC Liberal Party premier of BC, takes a typical progressive fool’s stance on the current taxation situation in BC. Here’s an official announcement statement (which reads like a government statement directly from PRAVDA from the old Soviet Union). While promising more government spending on programs for what she calls the “needy,” which in this case is perfectly healthy happy students attending taxpayer-funded, state-owned colleges at relatively little cost, on government-sponsored student loans, Clark also boasts:

“…an additional 325,000 people no longer pay B.C. income tax, and a total of more than one million British Columbians pay no provincial income tax…”

A vast and growing number of lower income-earning people paying no income tax while higher income earners pay all the tax, is going to end badly. This is the kind of nonsensical progressive thinking fueling much of the left-wing progressive movement. And you can see the very definition of progressive at work here.

The fix is in. It’s nefarious like a pyramid scheme. Or a Ponzi scheme. And it’s stupid, and it doesn’t work.

Who wouldn’t be in favor of more government hand-outs, welfare, social housing, entitlements, so-called government “investment,” student loan welfare/aid, so-called “stimulus,” social programs galore, when you don’t pay taxes, and only those who work hard and earn more income pay all the taxes  —  and usually don’t get the benefits?

Moreover, when you don’t pay income taxes, who wouldn’t vote for the party which promises more “free” goodies, and to pay for it by raising income taxes (especially on “the rich”)?

People who don’t pay taxes will always be in favor of raising taxes, which they won’t be called upon to pay, and they’ll always be in favor of their government spending more of the other people’s money. They’ll always be in favor of more “free” social programs and entitlements and, therefore, an ever-growing government.

A gratuitous picture of Karl MarxIt’s the stuff the left-wing is made of. It’s like a pernicious weed or a cancer. It grows on itself. It’s progressive.

It’s great politics for stupid people. But it’s utterly stupid economic and social policy.

Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax now. And no, you folksy 99-percenter “occupy” hippies, it’s not the “rich” people who are paying no income taxes, it’s the bottom half. In Canada about 40% pay no income taxes. Is it any wonder the socialist NDP polls so well these days? Is it any wonder there’s anybody left who will vote for Obama even though he’s an almost total failure?

Everybody should pay income taxes. Then everybody will vote for the parties which limit government, spend efficiently, keep taxes low, and against those progressives who can’t restrain themselves and which actually want to grow government and keep on raising taxes on fewer and fewer people until there’s none left.

Somebody’s got to pay. And I assure you, it isn’t “the government.”

Yet that statement I quoted above, from Clark, the Nanny-in-Chief, is as I said actually taken from a prideful announcement referring to students “in need,” wherein the benevolent nanny-state government (actually, it’s not even her own provincial program but rather a federal one courtesy of the progressive “Conservative” government) promises more taxpayer support for all the whiny students who took out student loans and now say they can’t afford to pay them back. They’re students “in need,” see, which “the government” will rescue.

Here’s a clue:

The Government of Canada will cover the interest amount owing that the borrower’s affordable payment does not cover.

The Government of Canada will continue to cover the interest and begin to cover a portion of the student loan principal amount …

The “Government of Canada” will cover all of that cost, huh?

I call bull. Progressive bull.


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

Tags: ,

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

No, the state won’t provide you with a “Canada Day” flag. Buy your own.

A letter to the editor at the Edmonton Journal, June 24, 2012, exemplifies the increasingly do-nothing, expect everything to be given to you attitude of today’s mollycoddled-by-government, increasingly left-wing, growing entitlement-cultured liberals of today’s Canada.

This politically progressive sickness is a disease that like its name, is growing like a cancer in Canada thanks to letter-writers like this one, and a liberal media, academia, and government which advocates and nurtures it.

National pride on the cheap

Our federal MPs have initiated a Proud to Be Canadian campaign. For Canada Day, July 1, we are instructed to cut out a paper flag and place it in our window. I miss the days when our government gave us real flags.

This government may be proud, but it sure is cheap. The constituents who would cut out those paper flags are. unfortunately, not yet old enough to vote.

Randy B. Williams, St. Albert

Hi Randy B. Williams. I see the headline the Journal gave your letter was “National pride on the cheap.” They’re wrong as usual, being the liberal entitlement culture mongers that they are. You’re the cheap one. You’re also misguided. The heading should have been “Liberalism is a failure, and here’s proof.”  And I’d like to see an editor’s note following it reading “…and we’re so, so sorry, and we promise to change.”

Not only should the government not be involved in most any way (especially with taxpayer cash) with any Canada Day celebrations, which should be left almost entirely to the people on their own, they damn sure shouldn’t provide you with a flag.

I run a web site called “Proud To Be Canadian”, at my own expense. The government never “gave” it to me, although I guess you think they should have. In fact I bet you wish they owned this particular means of production.

The government can’t “give” anybody anything, see, as they have nothing of their own to give. They only have taxpayers’ money, like mine, which they took from Canadians like me. And the government shouldn’t take money from people who are smart and work hard and give it to dumb lazy people who are cheap and are possibly sitting at their computers writing dumb letters and waiting for my money to be delivered to them. People apparently like you.

The government also didn’t “instruct me” to start ProudToBeCanadian, by the way. Because they can’t. It’s a free country. A free country means you’re free to be a total failure and a loser if you chose to. Lamenting not getting a “free” flag from the government is a clue that you’re a loser.

I buy my own flags. You should too. It’s not the government’s role  —  or more accurately, mine as a taxpayer  —  to provide flags  —  or most anything else  —  to you or anybody. It’s your role to provide goods for your own self and your family. And if you can’t, then tough. You can’t have them.

Buy your own damn flags. And although your sentence about those “not yet old enough to vote” is a bizarre non sequitur, buy some for your children and all the neighborhood kids too, if it means so much to you. And if you can’t, then don’t. There’s another clue.

Click to buy a PTBC lapel pin

Click to buy a $10 PTBC lapel pin, the profit from which is mine, not yours.

Also, buy some of my $10 PTBC (ProudToBeCanadian) lapel pins, wherein nearly all of the money you pay me is pure profit for me. And you aren’t entitled to any of it either, by the way, on account of the fact that you didn’t earn it and it’s not yours, it’s mine.

I’m a conservative. A small-c conservative Canadian, and of course I’m proud of it.

And I work for my money. I buy my own stuff with my own money. You should too.

Happy “Canada Day”,
Joel Johannesen

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

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

The Quebec mobs explained in 16 words.

The mobs of spoiled pseudo-students in The Nation Of Quebec?

They’re liberals*, raised by liberal parents, taught by liberals, and entertained and informed by the CBC.

And now you know the truth.


* the word “liberal” is interchangeable with progressive, and in many cases socialist. Some are Marxists.

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

Tags: , , ,

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

It's a question.