Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | Obama

I guess when you’re desperate, you resort to lies and fakery. Hey, CBC?

Man that Obama looks like he’s really hot! Look, Martha, he’s wiping his dang brow! Must be that man-made global warming!

Or the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC “News” just faked you out.

Spoiler alert: it’s exactly what you’ve come to expect from the CBC “News.”

In this example from one of the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC’s 8,000 Twitter accounts, which they use to advance their left-wing causes such as this, we see the Obama-fawning CBC “News” hyperventilating  —  or wiping their brow  —  over the Obama regime’s latest twitter_73x73_CBCalerts_biggerenvironmental-leftist-appeasing directive, which is yet another new EPA “rule” to cut coal emissions.

In order to bolster their their already beyond ridiculous advocacy of Obama, and whatever is his latest liberal-left big government boondoggle, CBC “News” obviously felt they needed to fake you out a little, and gin-up the news with a stock photo of Obama wiping his brow.

Let’s be clear: the picture is not representative of the story. The CBC “News,” which purports to never exaggerate or takes sides or tells lies, couldn’t find a photo of today’s announcement of their man Obama dramatically wiping his brow to exemplify all the “man-made global warming,” because he wasn’t even there at the news conference. So they made it up. They set about looked for just the perfect picture  —  something depicting the increasing warmth!  —  and found it. The photo is therefore only there to help CBC “News” enhance the Obama rhetoric; to “turn up the heat,” as it were. And in the process they hope to fake their readers out into buying the claptrap.

And that’s from a “news” organization.


The head of the EPA made the announcement. Obama was not there.

They could have put a photo of the lady who actually made the announcement. Indoors at an air-conditioned government building. Or, say, a photo of the hundreds of thousands who will lose their job, as a result of this new 645-page big-government rule; or a photo of someone who will sell their home instead of trying to pay their electrical bill which “will necessarily skyrocket”  —  to use Obama’s own 2008 hope ‘n change rhetoric.

CBC_fakery-2014-06-02_102224CBC “News” engaged in the same bit of fakery at their taxpayer-funded web site: The story’s attached photo is actually a bit of BS. It’s not representative of the real facts of this news story. It’s pure drama. Not news.

That photo also isn’t from today’s announcement. Again, Obama didn’t even make the announcement today. The photo is actually from a speech in 2013, in which Obama himself was clearly once again engaged in more than a little “drama.”  So it’s posted on the CBC News’ online story by CBC “News,” obviously only to help advance their own advocacy, and help to do the (other) progressives’ bidding.  Remember it’s “news.” Yet it’s not the reality. This is a news story colored by the CBC’s bias and advocacy. It’s actually kind of like the whole “man-made global warming” story.

How embarrassing.

Back to that tendentious CBC “News” tweet, in which they helpfully tweet that the rule is “touted by EPA as economically wise.”

This is the kind of idiocy we see on Twitter all day, but by partisan hacks and political butt-kissers. And now, apparently, the CBC.

It’s the EPA who invented the freaking rule and has been scrambling to rationalize it all day. And by the way, the EPA is not an economic think tank. The EPA’s currency isn’t money and goods and services and people’s jobs and people’s businesses, as most economists refer to when speaking of things that might be “economically wise.” The EPA’s currency is enviro hyper-rhetoric, symbolism, political ideology, mostly phony do-goodism, and invoking rules and regulations. So by that measure, this certainly is “economically wise.”

But by no other measure. See what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says about it: “Proposed Carbon Rules Would Deliver Blow to Economy“.

I don’t need an attached BS photo to convince you that this betrays the CBC’s lack of objectivity, their fakery, their liberal-left bias, and poor journalistic standards. Again.

Personally, looking at that picture of Obama, I think he really just saw the latest Gallup presidential approval poll, in which 52% disapprove of him, and only 43% approve. And looking at the CBC’s ratings and their annual billion-dollar bailout by taxpayers, it is the exact opposite of “economically wise.”



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

Tags: , , , ,

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

Canada’s jobs up, U.S. down. Media? Studiously ignoring the comparison.

Here’s something that won’t be played-up by the liberal mainstream media today like more Rob Ford jokes or the all-important David Letterman replacement pontification: Stephen Harper_at_swearing_in_2_AP_PHOTO_Tom Hanson_CPConservative/Harper-led Canada nearly doubled economists’ expectations and grew by 42,900 jobs in March.  Obama looking like a goofballEconomists had projected just 22,000 new jobs. And it’s the biggest job growth in seven months.

Canada historically shadows the U.S., the ties to which are absolutely of vital importance in every respect.

In the liberal/Obama-led U.S., economists had projected 200,000 new jobs, but only 190,000 were created. The U.S. jobs picture remains stagnant and is getting stale. America remains in the unemployment and economic doldrums.

Using the old standby comparison of America being ten times that of Canada in terms of population, the U.S. would have to have grown around 400,000 new jobs.

Canada nearly doubled its economists’ expectations, while the U.S. didn’t even meet its economists’ expectations, much less match Canada’s job growth. There’s far more too.

So I’m glad you came to visit today, because you won’t see this comparison anywhere in Canada or the U.S. by the liberal mainstream media. You know why. It’s because Harper is Conservative, and Obama is a liberal Democrat. That’s why.


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

Ukraine: Liberal media scatter like rats now, after first getting Obama elected

Notes on the news coverage of Ukraine crisis:Sarah_Palin_rifle_shot-reversed

As soon as this started happening, I recalled in my little noggin the words of straight-shooter Sarah Palin, from back in 2008. She warned that if Obama were elected, Putin might just try to take Ukraine. I mostly remember liberals and their media laughing like hyenas at her about that, as if she were stupid and they were smart — a notion which was actually funny.

Palin wrote this on her Facebook page last Friday:

Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

The Washington Post actually came to grips with this fact of life, unlike any other liberal mainstream media, even offering-up that same quote from Palin’s Facebook page. No mea culpas, though, as you might expect. They still think they’re smarter than Sarah Palin. They are not, or they would have agreed back then, instead of laughing.

I also remember the 2012 presidential debates, in which the liberals and their media all laughed like hyenas at what they tried very hard to get you to believe was the equally “stupid” and “insipid” Mitt Romney, when he said, in answer to a debate question, that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical adversary, and Iran the number one threat.

Romney and Palin were both spot on, and the liberals and their media were and are dead wrong. Again. Go ahead and laugh.

What I said, because it’s true:

(Typo, yes. I meant “this,” not “his.”) The question they’re asking is really a two-fer. By “what can we do at this point,” I think they mean both America, and themselves in the media. The reality is that the liberal media pushed and pushed, and continue to push Obama as the savior of the new world — the world as seen by what they tried to have us believe was the super-smart, great visionary thinker, and awesome speaker, Barack Obama. Now they fret over that faulty vision, and all the problems it is causing. And they fret that they are complicit. Which we, on the right side, all warned about.



The media cast aside all pretense of impartiality leading up to Obama’s election, and implored Americans to elect him. And yet today they act as if they have always been nothing but passive and objective observers, and earnest reporters on the political scene; like at the Washington Post, which has now offered some realistic analysis — about the past five years since readers took their advice and elected Obama! Here’s the hurt:

President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy

By Editorial Board, Published: March 2

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. …

… While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too….

That’s gonna leave a mark. On Obama and on themselves. Which makes me happy.

Obama’s New York Times division is the more insidious rat. Their editorial regarding the Ukraine crisis, headlined “Russia’s Aggression,” is an exercise in the effete. It reads like another liberal academic navel-gaze, without blaming their man Obama — in fact barely mentioning him three times, in passing, and offering only clueless bromides. I won’t even bother quoting it. I’ll just remind you of this instead:


On Twitter, amongst the maelstrom,’s obfuscation was fairly representative. They offered up a jokey picture. Ironically it actually makes a joke of themselves, betraying them as oblivious to reality, too weak to admit their cowardice; or just burying their head in the sand, instead of acknowledging the prescience of Romney and Palin — and the folly of their man Obama and themselves.

Yeah I guess Matt was right… but so was Mitt. And so was Sarah. And so was most every conservative. So many people were right, and you, media, were all wrong. That’s gotta be worth a laugh or two!

It is all a lot easier than the media are making it out to be. The economy is a mess, still, after five years. Millions are jobless. Americans are divided as never before. Race issues are being torqued by the administration, the race-baiting industry, and all liberals, as never before. Obamacare is a national disaster area. The debt is well over $17 TRILLION. And on the international stage, the world has, as is now blatantly obvious, lost respect for America, to say nothing of “liking” America, which, during the Bush years, was their ever so scientific measure of how the American president was doing.

The media failed.

The difference between right and wrong, good and evil, the right vision and the wrong one, the right instincts and the wrong instincts, fantasy versus reality: Ronald Reagan had it right even before Romney and Palin and most other contemporary conservatives, and the lesson is there for all of us to learn. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, and here we are today with Russian troops literally lining the border of Ukraine with their military poised to take over, possibly sewing the seeds of a new Cold War. Just as Reagan, and a couple others, warned.

Obama hasn’t learned. I hope Americans have.


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

Obama has struggled like an army vet who was nearly killed in his 10th deployment. Yup.

Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg

Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg, who was severely injured in Afghanistan during his 10th deployment, was honored in last night’s State of the Union.

I posted this at because it’s mostly an American story, but obviously there are tons of examples of this in Canada too, with its even more liberal-left media. In Canada’s case, the sycophantic luv is for any socialist NDP or Liberal member or leader, in case it wasn’t already totally obvious to all news viewers.

In case you didn’t know, 30-year-old Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg is a heroic veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He was nearly killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Barack Obama rightly honored him in last night’s State of the Union.

Some totally objective tweeps who are experts in objectively reporting politics then made the story clear for us with their expert analysis. Like Mark Murray.


As I said, huh?

Maybe Mark Murray is president of the Obama Cult?

Maybe he wasn’t serious?

The liberal media’s fan-boyism literally leaves some smart people speechless.

Perhaps the reporter is just an ass. Or an ass kisser. I don’t know. We should ask.

Here’s some much better comparative analysis than that which Mark Murray made:

We should consider his mental state:

Some more comparative analysis:

And it went on like this. Clearly, his tweet was hideous, and if its reception in the twitterverse is any indication, it was not well received.


I wonder why people have stopped trusting the liberal news media.

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

Of course Canada is more business-friendly than the United States

A recent report from Bloomberg News ranks Canada as the second-best country in which to do business, behind Hong Kong and ahead of the United States. This comes on the heels of a survey by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, in which Canada was rated sixth in economic freedom, while the United States came in twelfth.

To anyone who has done business in both countries, this comes as no shock.

Indeed, the only surprising thing about these reports and the surrounding analysis is that Americans continue to be flabbergasted each time their system of high taxes and crippling regulation, backed up by a draconian prosecution regime, is revealed not to be working.

As I explained to Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson last year, not only are Canada’s personal and corporate tax rates lower than those of the United States, the compliance burden of the American system – including the international theft perpetrated by the Internal Revenue Welcome_to_USA-border-403pxService in the form of its worldwide reporting requirements – makes serfs of its citizens and renders the country inhospitable to business.

Reports of Canada’s economic success usually give credit to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and that’s fair enough. But there is nothing novel to Harper’s approach. Politicians of many parties in numerous countries have opted to reduce tax rates as a means to increase revenue and entice capital. It is only relative to other modern Western leaders, to whom the concept of growing an economy by shrinking the government has seemingly never occurred, that Harper’s approach seems revolutionary.

From a policy perspective, Harper bears little resemblance to the hard-right, puppy-eating Sith Lord his liberal detractors imagine. As just one example, despite enjoying a Parliamentary majority – which amounts to near-dictatorial powers until the next election – Harper’s Conservatives have just enacted one of the environmental movement’s most absurd agenda items (and this is some distinction) in the form of a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Fair or not, Harper’s image is bloodless and cold. He is not a smiley sort, and this is perhaps a good thing as his attempts to seem cheerful result in a Bond-villain rictus that puts no one at ease. While this may satisfy some people’s notion of a heartless conservative, the test of a political leader is the effectiveness of his policies, not how chummy he comes off while spending other people’s money.

For the United States, this demonstrates that electing leaders on the basis of demographic superficialities and big government populism, even as their policies harm the same middle class they purport to help, is a path to economic mediocrity and worse.

But elected leaders are only part of the problem. America’s administrative state, wherein myriad regulations are drafted and enforced by anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats, smothers the prospects of small business. This distinction is important, as large corporations are better able to absorb the costs of massive regulation – and indeed, can lobby to have those regulations crafted in their favor – while small business is the lifeblood of a vibrant economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs in America.

An entrepreneur seeking access to North American markets would be positively loopy to choose the United States over Canada. Apart from America’s crushing regulatory and tax requirements, its fearsome prosecution apparatus stands ready to mete out harsh punishments for mistakes or non-compliance. This rapacious, unforgiving system, for which incarceration is the default solution, informs the cruel irony that the “Land of the Free” holds more prisoners than any other country on Earth.

As a matter of commerce, justice, or just day-to-day living, America is one of the least-free developed nations in the world. In almost every respect, not only is Canada a more liberty-minded environment than the United States, it isn’t even close.

Theo Caldwell

Theo Caldwell

Theo Caldwell, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment adviser in the United States and Canada.


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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Harper Explains Case for Syrian Attack While Obama Stutters

I personally lean toward simply allowing both sides in Syria to lose to each other in this civil war of Islamist extremists. But if I’m pressed to play nice-nice, I’d be in favor of a serious military strike against the regime, with vigor, as I like to say. Hit their air bases and other strategic military structures. And I’d like to have done it long syrian_rebelsago.

No, not the effete, symbolic gesture that is currently on the table, and will be for another week at least, thanks to the dithering, confused, unfocused Barack Hussein Obama. Had he acted two years ago when there was a clear option for democracy, he might not be the embarrassment of half his own party, the butt of late-night comedians’ jokes, and he wouldn’t need the pathetic pandering and rescue-attempts of the amazingly resilient liberal media sycophants.

Obama can’t sell his “limited, few-day-long, no boots on the ground, message” -type attack (it’s “not a war in the ‘classic’ sense”  —  John Kerry) to me. He can’t even sell it the American people he tries to lord over. Nor even the members of Congress in his own party. If it does pass the vote, it will only be because Obama’s indecision and inaction has left no better alternative.

Leading from behind is not a good way to lead the free world. How many times did we warn you liberals about this?

Jonah Goldberg is as frustrated as many Americans and in fact people the world over. He writes:

…So I am trying very hard to hold onto this perspective as I watch the president of the United States behave in a way you don’t have to be a pan-Arab autocrat to think is incredibly stupid.

Where to begin? Perhaps with Obama’s initial refusal to support the moderate rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a puppet of Iran and bagman for Hezbollah. Or we might start with Obama’s refusal to support the Green Movement in Iran, which sought to overthrow the Iranian regime, which would have been a triumph for both our principles and our national interests. …

More than any other politician in the US or Canada, it is none other than Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative, but only marginally) who has made the best case I’ve heard for attacking Syria, as per Obama’s plan.

Harper  —  not known as anything like the supposedly brilliant orator that Obama is cast as by the liberal press   —  did this this morning, in three minutes, totally off-the-cuff, while President Obama was still stuttering and muttering and “um”-ing and “aaaaand”-ing and “uh”-ing his way through some sort of seemingly tired, last-ditch attempt at a salient defense of his position.

See the video here:

And no, Barack (as he identifies himself to me in his smarmy, over-friendly, yet virulently anti-Republican and extremely-partisan, political snow sales-job emails), you cannot escape that “red line” idiocy of your own making by blaming either “the world,” as you’ve tried to do, or even George W. Bush, as I’m sure you’d love to do. (Although I admit, as you said, your credibility is not on the lines, as the fawning media will ensure.)

Both sides in Syria are dominated by radical Islamists, with one side being led by the same Baath party as Saddam Hussein. In fact I have no doubt that Syria’s WMDs came from Saddam Hussein and what used to be his authoritarian terrorist state, before George W. Bush rightfully changed history for the better. A welcoming and ever so friendly and like-minded Syria is where Hussein ditched his WMD stockpiles during the several-month-long run-up to what the liberals and their media division tried to sell us as George Bush’s “rush to war.” No wonder stockpiles of WMD weren’t found in Iraq (although we know he had them and used them to even more deadly effect than Assad has). I can’t believe I’m still having to make this argument, as, in 2013, even after we’ve learned lessons, Syria hides their WMDs and prepares, almost as per Obama’s instructions.

Again with Goldberg:

Meanwhile, according to numerous accounts, Assad is moving military assets into civilian areas and civilians into military areas, even as the Obama administration insists it makes no difference militarily to wait for Congress to debate. That’s not just stupid; it’s an outright lie that will be fact-checked with blood.

The “rebel” side in Syria is at best dominated by uncivilized, extremist mobs. The kind that hoot and holler and shoot machine guns and semi-automatic rifles in the air to express their… I don’t know what.

That rebel side may be currently controlled by, or could soon be controlled by al-Qaeda. I don’t feel the need to aid al-Qaeda after all the trouble we’ve all been through. Nor am I anxious to see any other Islamist jihadist extremists rise to power when Assad is ultimately offed in Syria, as happened in Egypt with their Muslim Brotherhood.

I obviously can’t count on Stephen Harper to sell my side of the argument. But do what I did: watch a few of the videos I’ve watched. Yes, I’ve watched the post-gas-attack videos which Obama supporters continually point me to and replay on their news programs. I also watched the Saddam Hussein gas attack videos, which apparently left the liberals unmoved. But you should watch the videos of the rebels or what the quixotic liberals still call “Arab Spring” fighters. Watch as they shoot Syrian soldiers in the the head as the Assad soldiers sit on their knees awaiting execution. In another video, watch as a rebel fighter, using his knife, literally carved the still warm heart right out of an Assad soldier, then put it in his mouth to eat it.  Then you might see my point about both sides losing being a win-win.


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

Tags: , , ,

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

Demohypocrisy Party

Those news reporters and agencies who stick to the most bare basics and simply report news without bias and without filtering it through their own ideological or cynical prism, may be excused from class today.

This rant is directed toward the majority of today’s liberal media. The 99%. What_Difference_FB_memeThose are the ones who are standing on their heads and performing whatever other acrobatics are required to avoid reporting on pertinent facts that go against their own ideological bias and narrative, like the hypocritical farce that is the Democratic Party, the Left, and progressives in general. The word hypocritical is only one word. “Unprincipled,” and “ideologically bankrupt,” are other appropriate words and terms which should be expected in any story concerning Democrats today.

Kerry tries to convince Senate hearing re Syria - Sept 3 2013Kerry tries to convince Senate hearing re Syria - Sept 3 2013

Today: Secretary of State Kerry tries to convince Senate striking Syria will make a difference. (USA TODAY photo)

The media are unwittingly revealing to the world their big “secret,” which is that they’ll lie, ignore. obfuscate, whitewash, cover-up, yell “SQUIRREL!” and do whatever they have to to defend the man they so have invested all their credibility and capital and reputation and themselves in, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Democrats. And when it’s impossible to defend the Left, as is so often the case, they simply smear and mock the Right, most often calling them “racists.” They don’t seem to have calculated just how stupid this makes them look, which helps explain why so many liberal media outlets are going bankrupt.

Hilarry Clinton yelling at hearing.

Hillary Clinton loses her head during the Benghazi hearings. Pretends the cause of American deaths is irrelevant. “What difference does it make?!” she yelled.

Aside from one of the main news events today — the question of a U.S. military strike on Syria — the most striking thing on display today is the abject hypocrisy of nearly all Democrats.

I’ll leave it to the people and web sites who have staffs and enough time on their side to compile the myriad examples of liberal hypocrisy concerning the Syria question. But watching my own twitter feed this morning during the hearings provided a few choice example of how sensible folks are seeing it.

…which made me laugh. I remember that far back. Way back when Obama and Democrats were decrying Bush’s coalition of dozens of countries, and his UN agreement. Then there’s this:

…which made me wonder if that YouTube guy was still locked up in jail. Then this:

…which is sad because it’s true. And this:

…which has GOT to leave a mark on liberals, since it’s the fact. If the Republicans do make that happen, watch as the media (and the rest of the left including Democrats) zig and zag and blame the Republicans for starting a meaningless war without the “global community” backing it.

But I loved how Jim Geraghty summed it up this morning in his daily Morning Jolt from

Democrats Suddenly Realize What They Miscalculated About the World: Everything

As we await Congress’s decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign-policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.

Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no “international community” ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.

You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess. We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, “smart power.” (These people can’t even label a foreign-policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.) They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn’t see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs. No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough. …

I was going to say this hypocrisy and inconsistency and the abject miscalculations of reality are all so very “staggering” or “hideous” or “amazing” or “risible,” but actually I’m not the least bit surprised. I’m actually bored by the Left’s farcical theater, now, and their compliant media almost proudly displaying it’s own perfidy.

Time for a change.

2016 can’t come soon enough.


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

QUACKS! Here come the race-baiters and their canards


As posted at


Let me get this out of the way just to help stymie the idiot race-baiters: Martin Luther King was an American and in fact a global hero, worthy of all the respect he receives; and a black man being elected as president is one of America’s greatest achievements, so far.

And by the way, nobody needed to tell me that. Least of all the race-baiting idiots and fascists.


Some of the speakers at this week’s MLK memorial (or what I call the August 28, 2013 edition of the near-daily public speaking series called “Race-Baiting Canards and Utter BS for Progressive Power and Democratic Party Votes”) have calculated that it is more politically expedient for them to regurgitate their victim card and their racial division card, and their income disparity card, and duck_canard_card_deck-4 other phony cards from their stacked deck of left-wing canards — than to speak the truth. And that goes for all of the race-baiting industry, like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, and most other Democrats and progressives — who were all in attendance.

Is it just me, or was that memorial almost identical to the last Democratic Party convention?

But at this actually important MLK event, the speakers (virtually all of whom were Democrats or progressives) missed the opportunity to become real heroes, once again. On purpose, in some cases.

On this historic 50th anniversary of MLK’s speech, the speakers could have used the opportunity to finally admit that the problems within the black community and the racial problems they incessantly caterwaul about are almost entirely of their own making — or at least that of their own making with the help of their brethren on the left — the progressive movement.

They could have used this historic occasion to become heroes to an entire nation (like MLK himself), rather than just heroes to the members of their well-nurtured and mollycoddled ministry (a word I used advisedly).

Instead of solidifying their status as annoying charlatans and shlubs according to most of right-thinking America (which I like to think is at least half of America), they could have made the historic announcement that they, and nearly everything they have stood for, have been an abject failure. They could have acknowledged their abject failure as leaders of the liberal or progressive politics that caused this, over the past half century.

But some of these people are just incapable of doing that — or they haven’t yet matured to the required level. Others purposely don’t do it.

For those “others,” this is business. It’s a race-baiting industrial complex of which they’re the captains. And as a part of their huge compensation packages, they’re taking home the same size piles of cash that the so-called “1%” — the real captains of real industry (who actually create jobs and GDP) that they so disrespect and despise, are earning.

As another part of their pay package, they continually have their egos stroked with the fawning, cheering accolades of the liberal white-guilt media, liberal Hollywood, liberal academia; and, alas, by what are ironically Obama-canard-speakthe modern day serfs — serfs of the government and of the myriad entitlements, which they helped create. These serfs are further beholden to these captains of the race-baiting industry.

The serfs have become reliant upon society, and moreover the left — the progressive — leaders within.

Progressives did this. And the captains perpetuate it.

The captains of the race-baiting industry don’t want this to end. They’re lying about wanting all the racial tensions and inequality to end. They need it to continue. They covet all this inequality and racial tension — they help build it, in fact. That’s why they’re called “race-baiters.” Sadly, they are so self-interested and greedy and scurrilous and nefarious that they seek only to continue this much ballyhooed racial animosity and disparity and inequality — to further their scornful careers.

This passage from Bernie Goldberg’s latest column revisiting some of the speeches, helps exemplify my rant.

… There was lots of talk about the progress that has been made over the years. And lots of talk about how the dream is still unrealized, how the struggle must continue. They talked a lot, too, about the great “wealth gap” between blacks and whites today. President Obama said, “The gap in wealth between races hasn’t lessened, it’s grown.” But neither he nor the other speakers talked about why, in Jesse Jackson’s words, “We’re freer [today] but less equal.”

And no one talked about what just may be the single most important explanation for poverty in America. A while back, William Galston, an advisor to President Bill Clinton, took a hard look at why some people are poor, and he came up with what appears to be a simple solution to avoid a life of poverty. Just do three things, he said: finish high school, marry before having a baby, and marry after the age of 20. Only 8 percent of families who do this are poor while 79 percent who don’t do these things are poor. …

Conservatives didn’t do this. We all know that. There is no argument. Democrats progressives caused people to become reliant upon and dependent upon the government. They taught people that there is no consequence to acting irresponsibly in their personal lives or within a family. In fact, they’ve so diminished the value of “family” that now, a huge number of people place no value whatsoever on the concept of or the institution of traditional marriage and family. It’s been cast as not fun, and not “cool” to them. Moreover, it’s not what their idols in the rap and R&B music industry do, or what the cool set in Hollywood do. Liberals actually see it as a badge of honor for women to have babies without fathers in the picture at all.

So they own this problem of 72% of black babies being born-out-of-wedlock, and the myriad social problems that naturally flow from that.

And they all know this, and they all hide it. They lie, obfuscate, and if you dare cross them, they of course call you a “racist,” which in the era of Obama, ironically, has become so overused and boring that it’s lost all meaning. Almost like the liberal-left version of marriage and family.

It it walks like a canard and quacks like a canard, it’s another canard.

See this video of Juan Williams and The Five discussing this issue almost exactly along the same lines as my rant here:


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

The better man lost the U.S. election

There will be scores of books written and words piled up alongside the mounting American debt to fathom the results and consequences of the 2012 U.S. election.

In columns of such limited space as these, one can only suggestively wink at, as I once wrote, the complexity of subjects such as this requiring treatment at much greater length to do them justice.

On Tuesday evening, American voters balked on seeing their republic at a fork in the road — one path sloping towards greater dependency of individuals on the big government welfare state, and the other towards keeping secure the American ideals of individual freedom and responsibility — and voted to maintain the status quo of the past two years.

Republicans remain in control of the House, Democrats in control of the Senate, and the incumbent returns to the White House after an estimated cost of nearly $6 billion spent on the election.

This status quo reflects a bitterly divided America.

The 2012 election turnout was lower than that of 2008. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, 131 million Americans voted in 2008; the 2012 election turnout is estimated to be around 119 million.

In 2008, Obama’s share of the popular vote was shy of 69.5 million, or 52.9% of the total vote cast. Though his share of the 2012 popular vote was significantly less at 60.7 million or 50.4% of the total, it allowed him to squeeze a win.

In 2008, John McCain, the Republican nominee, received 59.9 million votes or 45.7% of the total.

Mitt Romney received 48% of the total vote in 2012, and though his share of 57.8 million votes fell below McCain’s, he received more electoral college votes.

The difference in numbers between an Obama win and a Romney loss was approximately the difference in numbers between those who voted for McCain in 2008 but did not vote for Romney. These nominally Republican voters staying home in the 2012 election, whether they were discouraged conservatives or unenthused independents, left the better man as a loser.

The fundamentals of the American economy — the figures for unemployment, people on food stamps, debt burden, depressed income, gas prices, the cost of Obamacare — were indicative of a failed Obama presidency.

But most of us anticipating a Romney presidency misread how greatly the American electorate has changed over the past three decades.

Open immigration since the mid-’60s has altered America’s demographic profile, as it has Europe’s and ours in Canada. During these decades, multiculturalism, with its attendant political correctness, have also greatly affected, in my view for the worse, the values of work, thrift, freedom and responsibility at the heart of America’s great republican adventure.

I have received my share of vitriolic mail — the occupational hazard of standing in the public square — and likely more will come.

It is a bracing experience to take such mail as bird droppings, to wash them away without any disquiet, and move on with the task at hand.

I also know keeping faith in democracy is not forgetting, as Churchill with irony and given his bittersweet experience in politics observed, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

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

Tags: , ,

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

Good luck, America (you’ll need it)

And here I believed that Obamacare, chronic 8 percent unemployment, stagnant economic growth, crippling spending and the potential for more would sink a sitting president. Boy howdy, was I ever wrong. I take small comfort that people far smarter than I am were much more mistaken than I was – Michael Barone and George Will among them – but even so, I and my fellow crestfallen conservatives must ask ourselves just why we were so far off the mark.

My friend David Frum (also smarter than I am) has for years been urging Republicans to moderate if, in David’s parlance, they wish to orchestrate a “Comeback” in national politics. With a monsoon of respect for David’s intellect, I disagree with that notion.

Hi Barack!Our previous nominee, John McCain, was as moderate as they come – even downright lefty on some issues – and he got trounced. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, despite apparently successful efforts to paint him as a corporate pirate, swinging in from the hard right with a dagger in his mouth and a briefcase full of pink slips in his free hand, is and was a moderate, too.

This may seem like utter rhubarb to those who have been fed a steady diet of Romney’s supposed radicalism, but here is a man who spoke of tax cuts as “spending,” enacted gender quotas (see also, “binders”), and, not for nothing, constructed the state-level prototype for Obamacare.

Moderate or not, we have seen that GOP presidential candidates are painted as extreme. With that in mind, can Republicans reconcile their core beliefs with an electorate that thinks in completely different terms? For example, we believe that a simpler tax system with lower rates increases tax revenue, while causing the wealthy to pay a greater share, and we can prove it by citing presidencies all the way back to Calvin Coolidge (as economist Thomas Sowell has done). But what good does that do when the reflex of every journalist, politician and undecided voter is to refer to tax cuts as something you “pay for”?

On social issues, Republican candidates will always be asked the most difficult, gut-wrenching questions, regardless of whether they choose to campaign on such matters. In a way, this is a good thing, as it forces us to scrutinize our views. But Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock ought to have known that, sure as God made little green apples, Republicans running for office will be asked about abortion in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. If the best you can do is make Leviticus sound like a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, let someone else run.

To be sure, Democrats will almost never be asked to defend partial-birth abortion (or “late-term” abortion, as they insist it be called, along with attendant euphemisms like “evacuating the cranial cavity”), nor will they be asked just why an infant who survives an abortion should be denied medical care and left to die – as was Barack Obama’s policy as a member of the Illinois legislature.

But that’s just life on the right. There are many such unfair double standards; it’s why Republican Sharron Angle is supposedly too obtuse for the US Senate, yet a Democratic loony tune like Debbie “I can feel global warming when I fly” Stabenow cruises to re-election.

Republicans knew much of this going into the election, though. So again, why were we wrong and can we win without compromising our beliefs?

Columnist Andrew Klavan notes, “The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions.” But is it even a question of who is smarter than whom? For example, is Charles Krauthammer smarter than Paul Krugman? (Answer: Oh, yes). That said, Krugman was closer to calling this election than Krauthammer was.

Barone has been typically gentlemanly and philosophical in defeat: “So I was wrong. I take some pleasure in finding I have been wrong, because it’s an opportunity to learn more. As I prowl through the 2012 election statistics I will have an opportunity to learn much more about America and where we are today…Lots to learn for all of us.”

And perhaps therein lay the answer. Maybe we were so far off because the United States simply isn’t the country we thought it was.

As an American immigrant, I idealized this nation’s embodiment of liberty. Bit by bit, I have had to let go of those illusions. The Land of the Free locks people up at a rate 13 times faster than its population growth, and holds more prisoners than any other country on Earth. Its tax department treats citizens and their families as US government property, regardless of where they live in the world. And now that same IRS will be the arbiter of whether your health care meets the requirements of the federal government that ordered you to buy it.

Two years ago, I wrote that Americans would not stand for the excesses of a depraved organization like the TSA. And yet, polls show widespread support for that literal manifestation of government overreach, even as its perversions have spread beyond airports. Citizens born into freedom obediently line up to be molested and manhandled by government employees in the name of “safety.” No one wants to break from the herd. In truth, Americans would rather belong than be free.

Actually, it seems Americans rather like being told what to do. And that is what modern liberalism is all about – telling you what you can say, what you can eat, what kind of car you can drive, and whether you must wear a helmet while talking, eating or driving. The late William F. Buckley described a liberal as, “someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature of the water.” Americans have voted for just that kind of official officiousness.

I never would have thought it, and it flies in the face of convention to say so but, with lower tax rates, greater freedom of movement, and a more liberated view of industry and energy, Canadians are more attuned to freedom than their American cousins are (socialized medicine notwithstanding, but just wait…).

It is said that Americans will elect anyone to Congress – once (John Edwards, please call your office). Since 2008, I have wondered if the same is true of the presidency. Obama swept into his first term amid a unique confluence of events, including a financial crisis, a deeply unpopular incumbent party, and a somnambulant Republican opponent. It could have been a fluke.

And despite his liberal leanings, I thought it was possible Obama might pleasantly surprise. As I wrote at the time, “Here’s hoping that he is such a smashing success that he gets busted onto Mt. Rushmore and his face knocks Thomas Jefferson’s right off the nickel.”

But it was no fluke, and Obama was utterly unsurprising. As I said on radio after this year’s election, nothing would make me happier than to become a fan of Barack Obama. But this time, there is far less reason for hope. He has proven to be the hard-left, big-government liberal he seemed. And Americans seem to be okay with this.

I genuinely do not know if conservatism can win again, or what this will mean for the future of the nation. While others on the right have pronounced this to be the end of America, perhaps they’ll forgive me if I rage a little longer against the dying of the light.

Lord knows I have been wrong before (and recently), so I hesitate to make hard and fast predictions. Nevertheless, it seems that in re-electing Obama, the United States has ratified its own decline. Good luck, America. You’re going to need it.

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

Tags: , , , ,

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

Benghazi: Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dry

This past Friday the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hell’s corridor in Libya, begged Obama’s boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by “democracy seekers” from the “Religion of Peace” in the “liberated” nation of Libya.

As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosen’s findings in the newly released damning papers, it’s crap like …

· On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”

From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.

If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?

Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off.

Someone please forward this over to Romney’s campaign for talking points for [last] Monday night’s debate on “National Security.”


Check out my latest video, F.I.U. Lady Prof: “You Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Graduate if You Believe in Creationism.”


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

Tags: , , , ,

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

Bad egg about to roll out of White House

In less than two weeks, Americans will either elect a new president, or give the incumbent a second term.

In following the latest polls, one can observe that since the first debate on Oct. 3, support among likely voters across the country has shifted in favour of Mitt Romney.

The Gallup and Rasmussen polls have indicated Romney presently leads President Barack Obama nationally, and in the battleground states where the election will be decided, either Romney has pulled even with Obama or tending to take the lead. More importantly, Romney is ahead by double-digits over Obama among independent voters, and the gender gap in support of the incumbent has vanished.

Democrats are pretty much in a state of panic. The Obama administration and the campaign team for the president’s re-election appear to be a in a firefight of their own making and, likely for the first time, they are awakening to the realization that this election is theirs to lose.

What happened? The tide that brought the Republicans roaring back in the 2010 mid-term election to take control of the House in the U.S. Congress has not ebbed in American politics. This tide will likely take Romney into the White House.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, an increasing number of Americans began to slowly recognize that Obama was not the same individual they voted for in 2008. He appeared to be ideologically rigid, fiscally imprudent, bent upon spending as he recklessly added to the national debt already perilously high, and as a man of the left disdainful of his opponents.

The 2010 election was a referendum on the Obama administration’s inept handling of the economy. Yet Obama remained heedless of the Republican majority in the House, failed repeatedly to submit the annual budget or negotiate any compromise on spending. The economy continued to suffer, jobs vanished, unemployment figures remained unacceptably high, and the recovery has been anemic.

During the 2008 primary season, I wrote about candidate Obama as the Harold Hill of American politics. Harold Hill in the well-loved musical play The Music Man is a likeable flim-flam artist out to hustle the good simple folks of River City, Iowa, and they fall for him.

A significant number of Americans fell for candidate Obama in 2008, seduced by his charm and his slogans of hope and change.

But by 2010, as the mid-term election results showed, enough Americans realized their own responsibility in being misled. Then came the October surprise in September as Americans watched the Obama administration engage in lies and deceptions in informing them about the deaths of four Americans, including the ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists.

Thomas Sowell, the highly respected conservative economist and American of colour at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, wrote recently, “The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten.”

This sense of wrong surrounding the administration, and its failed attempt to depict Romney as a heartless plutocrat, not surprisingly might make Barack Hussein Obama a one-term president.

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

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Salim Mansur 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

The Emperor is naked

What a sheer bloody joy it was to see Barack Obama, peace be upon him, exposed as the mediocre, media-inflated, self-important regional politician he so obviously is.

The emperor was revealed as having no clothes at all, as being totally naked. In spite of the massive amounts of media spin and Hollywood slander, in spite of the pompous, smug, verbose and tendentious moderator, in spite of Obama’s blatant dishonesty, Mitt Romney looked the adult to the president’s child. A mature and responsible adult at that, to a petulant and angry child.

Perhaps the most startling moment of the debate was when Romney told Obama: “Listen, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. The idea that you get a break for taking jobs overseas is simply not the case.”

Obama was suddenly the community organizer playing with the big boys. He lowered his head, looked scared and tired, was clearly in enormous trouble.

Obama looking like a goofballBeyond Romney’s electoral gains after the debate, remember foreign policy is still to come, and that should leave the president drowning in a sea of accusations.

Why did he joke and laugh with donors hours after a U.S. ambassador had been murdered?

Why did he tell us a movie had caused that murder when he knew it was a planned terror attack?

Why has he insisted on apologizing to an Islamic world that sees compromise as weakness?

Why has he not supported foreign liberation movements in Iran that look to Washington for help, but aided revolutionaries in the Middle East who despise the United States? Does he realize that his policies have increased the chances of war between Iran and Israel? Does he know that Russia feels more enabled under him than it did under President Bush? Why do allies in Europe and Asia feel betrayed?

There are only so many ways and so many times you can tell people, “Yes we can,” when four years have shown, beyond doubt, that no, you can’t.

Whatever Bill Clinton’s moral failures, he was a well-travelled and informed politician when he came to the White House, and can boast some remarkable achievements in domestic and foreign policy while inside it. In comparison, Obama is a flickering shadow.

This may have been the worst defeat of an incumbent in the history of presidential debates. Challengers have been ripped apart in the past — nobody got the better of Ronald Reagan — but never has a sitting president done so badly. You know you’re in trouble when even your buddies in media and entertainment can’t joke and lie you out of defeat.

I almost forgot. [In Canada, whence Michael Coren hails  —  editor] a former substitute drama teacher announced he wanted to lead the Liberal party and become prime minister, because he loves his country and everybody else has got politics wrong. The theatrics of the banal; or, to put it another way, a downmarket Obama, but with even less gravitas and the speaking skills of an annoying 15-year-old agitator.

Mind you, my 14-year-old daughter’s school is putting on Romeo and Juliet and they do need an assistant stage manager.

Only part-time though.

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

Tags: ,

Posted under the categories(s): America, Canada, Columnists, Michael Coren 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.