Site rethink I think.

I’m rethinking what to do with this space. It is boring me to just cross-post articles here, which I’ve written elsewhere.  I used to see the point of it, but I’m losing that point now.

I hear there is other stuff going on in the world besides politics, so maybe I’ll start posting things of a more general nature here. I mean I paid for the domain name and everything, so I better use it or give it one of the other Joel Johannesens in the world.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

And here’s a picture of my dog Sammy snoozing:

Sammy snoozing-20140721_132123

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


As published at

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

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

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

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

Dear Nazanin,

How are you, my dear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State-owned CBC “analysis” of tea party: black-hating, “rape-denying,” “neo-confederates.”

As published at


ANALYSIS  – Possibly the stupidest column of 2014, so far: a breathless, hate-filled “analysis” of the tea party from one of the most arrogant, conservative-hating “reporters” with the far-left, state-owned CBC – Neil Macdonald.


Neil Macdonald, a tea-party hater, and a reporter for the state-owned CBC

Tea party-hater and CBC reporter Neil MacDonald loads a new bullet in the far-left’s “racist dog whistle” magazine. The term “Liberal Democrats,” according to tea party expert Neil Macdonald’s CBC “analysis,” is a racist code-word for “blacks!” (Which is bad! On account of the tea party being “racist” and hating all the blacks!)

“ANALYSIS” – Mississippi Tea Party enraged by blacks voting Republican

Kay Coles James, a Heritage Foundation Trustee

Kay Coles James, a Heritage Foundation Trustee

The obtuse Macdonald (he may not actually be obtuse, he just plays one on TV and at has no explanation for the reality – the empirical fact – that there are many black tea partiers; nor any explanation for the countless black citizens who support and vote for tea party-backed candidates in the Republican party. Has he ever visited Or actually watched Fox News (which he incessantly denigrates, just because)? Or reviewed the “far-right” Heritage Foundation, which he smears just in case, being “far-right,” they hate blacks? What kind of BS “analysis” is that?

Macdonald describes – sorry analyzes – tea party supporters (like me) as “rape-denying, no-abortion-under-any-circumstances, anti-immigration reform, Confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting…”

I’m only surprised he left out “bible-thumping” or as those who “cling to their bibles.” He might have added “beat their women.”

But don’t worry  —  the state-owned CBC isn’t “biased.” It isn’t an extreme left-wing, agenda-driven outfit. It’s perfectly objective.

Beyond “controversial,” Macdonald’s sort of attempted smear is insulting and demeaning, not just to conservatives, but all other normal, sane people. It is mindless tripe. It’s “analysis” of the worst kind, because it’s agenda-driven. It’s lies, actually, and sadly, it’s being told to you by Canada’s state-owned media, which we all pay for, and which is protected and virtually forced into our homes by laws.

More generally, the far-left’s insidious, unethical effort to castigate random words spoken by conservatives  —  especially tea party supporters, which MacDonald clearly despises and he demonstrates this often —  as “racist” or “rape-denying,” is reprehensible.

Why does the state-owned CBC even have political analysis? Why does the government pay for this? Why do you? Why do you allow this to be?

Democrat to IRS Commissioner: “We just upgraded to Windows 2010″

The IRS hearings today are revealing a lot more about the IRS, Democrats, and big government, than the IRS, Democrats, and big government might have wanted.

IRS hearings today:

  • The IRS has “model T”-era computers, according to the Commissioner, Mr. Koskinen. Which is a claim he made as a way to defend the IRS “losing” Lois Lerner’s emails.And which he obviously thinks is an acceptable answer.
  • IRS-2014-06-20_075220One Democrat Congressman said, in his apparent defense of the IRS (the propriety of which should itself be the subject of our scorn, since this is a search for the truth), that his office “just upgraded to Windows 2010.” This is a product which doesn’t exist.
  • Why in tarnation does any government, which spends two trillion dollars per year, fail to implement a computer backup, maintenance, and upgrade program? The IRS has “Model T computers?” Should this massive failure of government not be the subject of another congressional inquiry? Should Mr. Science ‘n Spend-A-Lot Obama be asked about this?
  • IRS Commissioner: “The problem right now is when someone wants information, we have to pull from 90,000 employees,” unwittingly admitting that the IRS is way, way, too big.
  • Another Democrat said he wants to thank the IRS Commissioner “for his service.” Like he’s a brave heroic soldier. Why do liberals thank extremely well-paid public servants who can’t be fired and have Cadillac pension plans “for their service,” as if it’s volunteer work for the handicapped?
  • One Democrat complains that the IRS shouldn’t be forced to respond to these questions, because it keeps them from doing their job. Which he thinks is a bad thing.
  • Democrats repeatedly apologized to the IRS Commissioner, for the way the hearings are being conducted. “Like an inquisition rather than a hearing.” This is delightful inasmuch as an IRS audit is not commonly described as a “day in the park,” and certainly not as a “tea party.”
  • Dana Bash, on CNN’s scant report on the hearing, just said that “Congress” – then corrected herself – “Republicans” are so mad about it. It’s true. Dems don’t care/defend.
  • The IRS Commissioner said that maybe if the NSA was monitoring all of our emails, they have copies of the Lois Lerner emails. Wow. Big, huge, intrusive, meddling government, run amok.


Militant left-wing BC teachers union advocates against Canada’s military recruiting

Math, science, and actively advocating against joining the Canadian military? Well yes, and “man-made global warming,” and business is bad, government is good, and socialism is the way to go, and unions are the best, and its for the kids, etc. Also LGBQT of course — that other stuff is only if there’s time.

512px-Red_stylized_fist.svgFeatured as one of their “Lesson Ideas” on their union web site (in their “Social Justice” section, like good leftists), they suggest the teachers in the classroom teach our sons and daughters a load of left-wing propaganda points, including advocating against Canada’s national military defense and opposing any recruitment efforts; urging that kids act as spies and “inform” on the Canadian military to the appropriate authorities (teachers and their militant left-wing union) should they witness any recruitment efforts by our evil Canadian military defense.

Ask your local to pass a motion opposing recruiting in the schools.
Ask your board to pass a motion opposing recruiting in the schools.
Encourage industry and workers in your community to resist military contracts, and ask local politicians to work with you on this. Take this issue to your labour council as well.
• Let teachers know to inform the union and/or your social justice committee when they see recruiters in the schools.
Let students know to inform teachers when they are approached by recruiters.
• Ensure that students are being informed of every side of the story about current events, Afghanistan, and the statistics about military casualties, liabilities, and suicides.
• Support counter-recruitment messages and programs in schools.
• Make materials available to teachers in your local to help counter-recruiting messages.
Go to the Operation Objection website for kits:
• Call in to television and radio, and write to your local papers to counter military propaganda.

Whose side on they on? Obviously not our national defense.

Their ironically militant left-wing anti-Canadian propaganda materials includes this helpful poster, designed to raise all manner of questions and cast a negative shadow with regard to joining our national military defense effort.


But as you saw with their own printed words, they’re not merely be altruistic here. They’re casting aspersions, planting the seeds of doubt, and hoping to discourage our young people from joining the Canadian Forces. They want to arm our youth not with guns, but with left-wing propaganda. Al-Qaeda loves it when we do that.

BCTF union boss. It's for the kids

BCTF union boss. It’s for the kids. Wink.

That makes the BCTF anti-military and against the defense of our country. How else can you describe “Encourage industry and workers in your community to resist military contracts“? They want to actively ensure that our military fails — starved of supply and equipment. Food. Medical supplies. Gas masks.

How can you describe them asking that union locals and school boards oppose military recruitment efforts? They don’t want people to join the military. So it fails. And we have no effective defense.

Let students know to inform teachers when they are approached by recruiters.” They want your kids to act as militant leftists on the union’s behalf. Little soldiers for their far-left extremist cause.

Support counter-recruitment messages and programs in schools“? Huh? Why? They want our military to be as ineffective as possible in defending Canada and its interests.

Who are these people?

What country is this?

Who thinks like that?

Why are they even remotely allowed to do this?

I suppose it’s no real surprise that a far-left militant union, deeply ensconced in socialist politics, would act in this way. It’s a free country and they can be as extremist as they want to be (thanks to our military and sane people who support a national defense). They can be as loony as they want, and be as ostracized as they will be. That’s their problem — or at least it should be. But these people are public servants. Being paid by your tax dollars and mine. These people are working against you. They’re aiding the enemy more than Canada with this anti-Canadian propaganda.

I could not find any teaching “resources” like the one above, advocating teaching the students about the radical Islamist jihadist threat. Nor about the failings of socialism/communism. Nor about the benefits of free enterprise and free markets and freedom generally. No, they only advocate for far-left nonsense like destroying our Canadian Forces.

Are these teachers? Or left-wing propagandists?

Whatever they are, I’m the exact opposite. I strongly support the military — all military. I’m a normal conservative Canadian.

Call 1-800-856-8488 to reach a recruitment center in your community.

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

As published at

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.”



NOW the Conservatives want ME to donate to THEM to help THEM hammer the CBC?

cbc-square logoAs posted at

I have to view this fight between the Conservative government and the state-owned CBC with a little bit of a head-shake.

I’ve been harping about the CBC’s anti-conservative bias loudly and publicly and consistently for 15 years.

In those 15 years, the CBC has threatened to sue me to kingdom come, threatened to “monitor” this web site, and more.

The big, huge, Conservative government won’t get rid of its ownership and taxpayer-funding of this left-wing media behemoth, as I’ve said they should do for the past 15 years, so I won’t be rushing to donate $5 today to help them out.

From my email:

Conservative Party of Canada

Friend, Did you know the CBC tried to prevent the Conservative Party from writing and emailing Canadians about CBC bias?

They don’t want Canadians to know how they’re spending the $1 billion in taxpayer money they’re getting every year.

The CBC chairman attacks all Conservatives in a letter to the Prime Minister, saying our letters and emails are “unfounded” and “disparaged” the CBC. They feel that you don’t have the right to be informed of their bias against our Party and our cause.

We refused to be strong-armed by the CBC boss and ignored their letter.

This isn’t the first time that the CBC has shown their disapproval of Conservatives and our views. Do you remember when a CBC reporter was caught helping the Liberals? Or the time that the CBC used a pollster who advised the Liberal Party to start a “culture war”?

Let me be clear — the CBC cannot dictate what we as Conservatives can say or do. When the CBC is being biased against our party in their “news” coverage, we will never hesitate to inform Canadians.

We will continue insisting the CBC focus on providing value for taxpayers. Our commitment as a government is to stand up for you – not for those Ottawa media elites who think they know what’s best for Canadians.

Help us stand up against these attacks and donate $5 today.

Sincerely, Fred DeLorey Director, Political Operations Conservative Party of Canada

P.S. If you wish to complain to the CBC about their media bias, you can file your complaint here:


State-owned media should be banned in this country, and that notion should be enshrined in our constitution. And I’ve been saying that for 15 years.

ALSO SEE: BC Blue blog – CBC fed Canadian Press reporter letter to attack Conservatives


BAD DAY FOR OBAMA; rest of America shakes head

As posted at

Obama’s VA Secretary Shinseki resigns; Obama’s spokesmodel Jay Carney resigns.

Shinseki resigns

Eric_ShinsekiZeke_Miller-2014-05-30_084042- Obama claims that he’s accepting Shinseki’s resignation “because he would be a distraction.” (THAT’s why?)

- Claims the problem “predates his presidency” (AKA blame Bush). Thinks that excuses him from responsibility, after campaigning in 2008 on being the guy who could fix the VA, and a full six years later, seeing it all fall apart under his own management.

- Asked by a reporter why he didn’t accept Tammy_Bruce-2014-05-30_083726Sebelius’s resignation too — asks if this isn’t a “political” calculation. Whether Shinseki is simply a “scape goat.” Obama’s answer: gobbledegook.

- Obama appears even to the media asking questions to have lost all credibility.


Jay Carney also quits

Jay_CarneyObama announces Carney is out, to be replaced by Josh Earnest.

Considered Jack Truth, but too obvious.

Far-left Seattle council delays its Socialist Alternative plan to raise minimum wage to $15

As published at

Seattle, now led by far-leftists, had a plan to raise the minimum wage to $15. Now they’ve delayed it.

Council member Kshama Sawant’s Socialist Alternative Party (among their policies: “Take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy… For a socialist United States and a socialist world.”) got the ball rolling, and later the left-wing mayor ran with it. Now he is delaying “to allow the extra time for outreach and education to local businesses.”

Crowds of socialists are stuffing the forums and committee meetings, trying to advance, well, socialism in Seattle. And America. And the world.

Excerpts from a (NBC) story:

Crowd boos as Seattle council delays minimum wage plan

- A standing-room only crowd in the city council chambers booed as the committee voted 4-to-3 to change the start date from January 1 to April 1…

- The vote was met with another chorus of boos in the crowd…

- The sound of boos again filled the air.

Yet a left-wing organization called Fuse (“Help us build a progressive network in Washington State!”) has the balls to put this out (a preamble to yet another of those bromidic Marxist or petitions):

…the outcome is still in doubt. With less than 24 hours to go, greedy corporations are lobbying hard to open special loopholes and delay the Mayor’s $15 minimum wage plan..

Well I guess “greedy corporations,” or “your own candidates.” In any case, some still-sane Seattleites are not all glum. Here’s one commenter to a Seattle Times story:

forgiven scholar
“That gives us 4 extra months to move out of seattle. Awesome”

Also, another four months to organize a get-out-the-conservative-vote campaign.


@forgiven scholar Seattle isn’t lost yet! What if we elected more common-sense citizens to the Seattle City Council with a business background? No lawyers, no ‘activists’, no ‘social justice’ people.

agm1947 8 minutes ago
@HFNY @forgiven scholar Elect “more” common sense citizens to the Seattle City Council?? How about even ONE?

alvinalvin 38 minutes ago
I can understand their hesitation. When the negative effects of this ill-conceived law take effect they will all look like idiots. Fortunately for them, in Seattle being an idiot doesn’t preclude one from holding elected office.

Better get out the old billboard, so the lights get turned-out.
Seattle will become a small business ghost town in under 2 years.
A most accountants understand, businesses cannot withstand a 40% increase in labor cost (from $9.35 to $15)
Do you think customers are going to want to pay 40% more for their purchases? Hell no!
Our city council doesn’t have a clue. This town needs an enema. Fire them all, exercise your voting rights

ThePessimist 34 minutes ago
@Scorekeeper 2 And as anyone with any business or accounting experience knows, when you increase a component of cost by 40%, the total cost doesn’t go up by 40%. Thanks for playing.

…And more.

Let me just reiterate where this comes from:

Socialist_AlternativeCity Councillor Kshama Sawant’s Socialist Alternative Partywhose policies include (and these are direct quotes):

  • Public ownership of the big energy companies;
  • Public ownership of the major banks.
  • Take into public ownership the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy
  • No more layoffs! Take bankrupt and failing companies into public ownership and retool them for socially necessary green production.
  • … For a socialist United States and a socialist world.
  • Full legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrant workers.
  • Defend a woman’s right to choose whether and when to have children. Publicly funded, single-payer health care system with free reproductive services, including all forms of birth control and safe, accessible abortions. Comprehensive sex education. Paid maternity and paternity leave.
  • Create living-wage union jobs for all the unemployed through a massive public works program
  • Slash the military budget.
  • Free, high quality healthcare for all. Replace the failed for-profit insurance companies with a publicly funded single-payer system as a step towards fully socialized medicine.
  • No budget cuts to education & social services! Full funding for all community needs. The federal government should bail out states to prevent cuts and layoffs. A massive increase in taxes on the rich and big business, not working people.

And here’s a picture of Karl Marx.

Karl Marx



Hideous anti-Fox News Channel, liberal bias exposed at National Post

This is real.

This actually happened.

No, this isn’t about the far-left CBC, but I do understand the confusion. Yes, Canada, this is what passes for objective news reporting, today, from what is purportedly a reputable, supposedly neutral or objective, national newspaper. And it’s also an excellent explanation for why the liberal-left news media is going bankrupt — financially if not journalistically.

'Fox News anchor stops ragging on Obama long enough to get arrested in drunken airport encounter'

It’s an Associated Press story brought to you by the National Post, which clearly spun it by pulling that headline out of their nether regions, to make it more to their liking. The National Post is displaying some of the same juvenile proclivities it displayed when “reporting” on Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and the tea party, and anything else remotely conservative (or, in the case of Fox News, tolerant of conservatives). Maybe we can just blame it on some unpaid summer interns or students who are apparently running the place right now. Or maybe they’ve just given up over there. I don’t know.

AP didn’t create that headline. Here’s how the AP delivered the story:

'Fox News Anchor Charged After Airport Arrest'

From “Fox News Anchor Charged After Airport Arrest,” to “Fox News anchor stops ragging on Obama long enough to get arrested in drunken airport encounter.”

I imagine this will eventually be seen by one of the grownups at the National Post — or a shareholder, or something. Perhaps Andrew Coyne or Kelly McParland or Terence Corcoran will tap one of the kids on the shoulder, and the headline will be corrected, since opinion is really their domain, not the news department’s.

It should be noted that the National Post’s parent, Postmedia, is struggling, certainly journalistically if not financially (it lost $25.3-million in just this year’s second quarter), and in terms of readership (NP is ninth in Canadian circulation); while Fox News Channel is by far the most-watched cable news channel in America — usually doubling the audience of CNN and MSNBC combined, in every hour of every day. Oh and also, FNC is the only major news outlet that doesn’t give President Obama a tongue bath all day long. Obviously that deeply offends the balanced set at the National Post, who might want to get a clue.

So for their own good, the National Post should stop ragging on Fox News Channel like obstinate children of liberal parents — and actually, stop ragging on all conservatives and conservative-tolerant organizations — since it’s really just embarrassing for them, and stupid in every way I can think of for a newspaper today. It’s like they’re drunk.


Ontario Libs tout giving more cash to auto giants; Progressive Conservatives tout sanity

As posted at

Ontario election (and corporate welfare) watch:
The auto industry (also known as the corporate welfare industry)

  • Progressive Conservatives tout tax cuts instead of throwing taxpayer cash at them.
  • Liberals tout throwing taxpayer cash at them, so, more government spending and thus higher taxes for all (or as their Globe & Mail division kindly puts it… “injecting money…to stimulate the sector…”)

As the Globe‘s own headline admits just for a second, for the Liberals it’s just spending, Kathleen_Wynnebut then the Globe’s reporters revert right back into their left-wing happy-face code-speak:

Liberals tout spending, PCs push lower taxes for Ontario auto industry
Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne says injecting money into the auto industry is the only way to stimulate the sector, while the Progressive Conservatives are arguing lower taxes would be more effective.

The Globe should get a political donation receipt from the Libs for that wordcraft.

Liberal welfare monger Kathleen Wynne also said Tim Hudak would “destroy the auto industry,” by ending government funding to the sector.

“Destroy” it? By “ending government funding”? What is this — the CBC? Even the liberals’ Toronto Star division put that word in scare quotes in their headline:

“Kathleen Wynne warns Tim Hudak would ‘destroy’ auto industry”

Tim_HudakAlternate reality: Wynne has utterly no clue about economics and business. Or worse, she does, and she’s a socialist.

Wynne believes unless government gives businesses money, the whole industry will be “destroyed.” Or she doesn’t believe that, but wants to control business. What form of government does that sound like to you? It’s not capitalist. It’s not free enterprise or free market. And that’s all we really need to know to not vote for her and her party.

The you’ve got to be kidding party’s Andrea Horwath spoke in the same socialist dialect as fellow leftist Wynne, not surprisingly, warning that Ontario must be willing to (get this socialist code-speak) “offer financial incentives to auto companies…” but didn’t stop at just auto companies: “…and other manufacturers.”

The expanse of “financial incentives” is limitless, to socialists. Until everybody in “incentivized” equally, thus rendering the whole exercise moot. No, they will not get a clue and figure this out (or worse, they already know).

Just to help clarify, “financial incentives” are also known by liberals, socialists, and other progressives by the phony left-wing code-speak term “investments” Andrea_Horwathand “stimulus” and “sponsorship,” oh yeah and also “socialism,” but they don’t use that latter word, because they aim to fake you out. And the media advance the left-wing advocacy by not even once raising the specter of what will happen if the Liberals and the NDP “provide” “financial incentives” to “stimulate” the auto sector; that taxes will by necessity have to rise. Again. And/or the enormous debt of Ontario will increase, even more.

Here’s more such nonsense from the NDP’s Horvack with my emphasis:

“We…have to make sure we’re providing the partnerships necessary…”

“Partnership.” Dear God. Only to a socialist intent on controlling business, and the marketplace in which it operates, would government cash being given to a business mean a “partnership.”

Maybe they should try not giving the auto giants more cash. I don’t want to bore you with the old bromide about the definition of insanity, but really.


It happened while I was eating a sandwich. I’ll remember what I was doing at the time.

As published at

So what happened? Where to begin….

It’s a tradition. The only one leftists love. I think it’s also in the constitution. Plus the geniuses at that UN “man-made global warming” department have written a big report signed by 8 cajillion teachers and lawyers, thus ending the debate as the science on this thing is settled. Also, the smart-set, led by the scientist David Suzuki at the state-owned CBC, all embrace it: Spending promises, and more spending promises, and promises of new government programs, and more government programs, and then also more government “services,” requiring even more public servants.

It hurts my brain.

As a normal, alert and informed Canadian and a conservative who isn’t high on crack, I’ve always mused at the possibility of a politician actually having the balls run on a platform of spending less. And then of course I cry myself to sleep.

220px-Tim_Hudak_(cropped)And then whatdoyaknow, Tim Hudak of the province of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party (ugh — the “Progressive” part hurts my very soul) surprised me as he laid this one on us today:

“I’m not going to be the leader that promises you more and more spending,” Hudak said Friday. “There’s no compassion in borrowing money on your credit card and handing it over to you. I’m actually promising less spending.”
— Read more:

Needless to say I put down my sandwich.

While he was at it, he promised to cut 100,000 public service jobs. And freeze public service wages for two years.

What a nut. Spending less taxpayer cash. Reducing the size of the pathologically bloated government. Freezing their own often exuberant wages. Working toward eliminating a $12.5 BILLION deficit ASAP. It’s like he’s high on sound economics or common sense or just met Ted Cruz or something.

I also read this:

The Tory leader has already said that teachers will be targeted. He also vowed to eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks and the College of Trades.

Flo_now_thats_progressiveHe had me at teachers.

Of course the even more progressive parties are against this platform. The socialists of both the Ontario Liberals and the NDP castigated it. Mocked it. The news media helped them mock it by providing them copious face time on TV to renounce this blasphemy against the progressive state. Headline for the above article? “Ontario Tories draw fire with plan to cut 100,000 public sector jobs”.

The progressives all think government is not too big — in fact they promise more government, so they think government is too small right now. They think you can never reduce the size of government, no, you can’t cut even one government job. I think that’s also in the constitution, etc — at least it’s obviously in their respective political manifestos. If you’re a left-winger, you can only grow government bigger. Now that’s progressive, as Flo might say if she were a socialist running to be premier of Ontario.

For the fanatical public-sector union loving Liberal Party and the NDP, a funny thing happened on the way to their hypocrisy: This:


Funny how that works, isn’t it? The left’s hypocrisy, I mean.

I don’t have much faith in a party which calls itself “Progressive” anything, even if the other word is Conservative. But this promise is the most refreshing and intelligent thing I’ve heard in this country, in too long.

I’m going to finish my sandwich now, and remember this promise — and the caterwauling from the far-left and further-left about it.



Communist Party of Canada sounds fun! If you’re a commie.

As published at

Got my regular snail mail from the Communist Party of Canada. It comes from the “Centre for Socialist Education” in Vancouver. Sort of puts the lie to the socialists’ contention that there’s a big difference between socialism and communism, as the Communists constantly conflate those two words, with “progressive” also thrown in, on an egalitarian basis.

Commie-Socialist-Progressive_May_eventsThey’re updating me on upcoming commie/socialist events.

“Dinner and Songs” celebrating the 93rd anniversary of the commies of Canada, with special guest Communist Party of Canada leader Miguel Figueroa. $15. It’s at the Centre for Socialist Education. Sounds like a hoot.

Then there’s a “People’s Voice Victory Banquet.” I gather this is named after the Soviet/Russian Victory Day which they hold every May 9. Tickets are $20, but, they note, “unwaged $10.” Unwaged. I guess unwaged means unemployed. I guess this crowd believes everyone should be paid a wage, no matter what they are, or are not, doing for a living. So if you’re unemployed, you’re merely “unwaged” — until the Miguel Figueroa is elected, and he pays you with other people’s money. Anyway, it’s at the Russian Hall in Vancouver. Huh.

They also have a mother’s day pancake breakfast (hey I thought that was merely a “Hallmark holiday,” but I guess as long as they write (as they did) “proceeds to People’s Voice” (their newspaper), then it’s OK to fund raise off of capitalist ventures.

And a “Left Film Night” at their Centre for Socialist Education. “Love in the Time of Cholera.” Written by a socialist author. Because as socialists, they obviously write better romantic literary works than, say, Shakespeare, that capitalist nut.

Anyway it all sounds like a raucous May if you’re a commie/socialist/progressive/worker, even for the unwaged.

State-owned CBC “news” report on gov wireless ads: full spectrum of BS

As published at

I love it when the CBC reports news on the Conservative government, because it’s so fanciful and full of color!

Not that I’m excusing the government for anything. Or am I being redundant? The state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC vs the government… progressives and their government and their so-called “corporations” are so confusing. What I mean is that I cast the government’s ads about their efforts to reduce wireless costs and increase competition, into the same slop bucket as nearly all government advertising.

But today, we have a story which appears to me to be mostly made-up slop by the CBC. And it’s about pretty much nothing, except being another gratuitous Conservative government hit piece. So I delved to find the CBC’s poorly hidden agenda. Here’s the main takeaway: “Fail,” “Angry Canadians,” and “Want Change.”

They’ve been tweeting this out this morning to try to get as much attention to their made-up story as possible.

Watch the CBC News channel and you’ll think this is a serious story about government ineptitude and waste (ironic, as it is, that it is being reported by the biggest government waste of them all, the CBC).

Watch their CBC News channel report and it is ominous sounding, complete with Susan Bonner using the now ubiquitous phrase which is always cast by tendentious reporters as an alarming “smoking gun” revelation, resolutely implicating their ideological enemy:

CBC_Susan_Bonner_invents_story_on_wireless_poll“CBC has obtained the government’s own research! – a poll on the effects of the advertising campaign!”

Big whoop. Joel Johannesen has “obtained” it too.

But then state-owned CBC reporter Susan Bonner breathlessly explains:

“The main takeaway? The ad left Canadians ANGRY, and wanting change in wireless service!”

The main takeaway is… what? As far as I can tell from reading the actual poll “obtained,” ominously, “by CBC,” and by me too (the questions of which I’ve reproduced below), the poll says nothing of the sort. Nothing even remotely like “angry” appears in the poll or its results.

So the reporter, Susan Bonner, simply injected that emotion into the story. Of course Bonner is the one who reported that “Sarah Palin must share part of the blame!” — for the shooting of Congressman Kathy Giffords.

Yeah this is a story which CBC and Bonner are trying to reshape into one condemning the Conservative government for (a) spending taxpayer money on ads informing consumers of the government’s intentions (instead of spending it on the CBC); and (b) not living up to the ad campaign’s stated promises, thus wasting money and, well, all manner of bad. (Neglect, for a moment, the CBC’s massive failure to live up to its stated promises, and their monumental waste of billions of taxpayer dollars, and their dreadful, left-wing-biased news reporting.)

It’s not simply that “angry” doesn’t appear in the poll or its responses — it’s that Bonner said “angry” Canadians was “the main takeaway” from the poll.

Well I guess “takeaway” is one way to say “I’m makin’ this crap up.”

Nor do the words “wanting change” appear. The closest we come to that actually proves Susan Bonner is making more stuff up: the word “change” appears only twice — once as the least favored answer to question Q1B:

“What can you remember about this advertising? What words, sounds or images come to mind?”

Only 56 people out of nearly 1400 polled answer that “change” — or more precisely “Change in the laws regarding contracts/shorter contracts” — was what they “remembered about this advertising”not that they personally wanted change themselves.

Is Bonner incapable of a simple interpretation of a simple survey results? That would be my main takeaway. Or that she’s full of it.

The only other time the word “change” appears is in answer to another question, (Q3):

“Thinking about the advertising that you saw, heard or read, what do you think was the main point these advertisements were trying to get across?”

Again, just about the least favored of several answers was “Change in the laws regarding contracts/packages/fees,” with only 36 out of 1400 responses. As even a government “man-made climate change” “scientist” can glean, the respondents are not saying what THEY felt about wireless services, or stating their new found desire for change. They’re simply reporting what they thought “was the main point these advertisements were trying to get across.”

So apparently Bonner just made that part up, too. Or again, she utterly misunderstands poll results. Or, you know, that imagination of hers, or perhaps it’s her tendentious Sarah Palin must share part of the blame reporting style.

The poll isn’t about the wireless fees or the government’s action/inaction on the file. It’s about the ads. Just about the ads. It’s an common accountability check on the effectiveness of the ad campaign, which one would expect after spending $9 million of taxpayers’ cash on a government ad campaign; much like when the government blows $1.2 BILLION per year on the failed CBC (accountability not allowed in that case, howevs, as per the awesome CBC’s selective reporting).


The only guy the CBC managed to find to whine about the government’s ad campaign in their lame effort at smearing the government they hold in contempt. The “main takeaway” is that the dude has a pony tail… on his beard.

Their tweet about “How Ottawa’s bashing of Big 3 cellphone giants failed” is (once again ironic since it comes from the failed CBC) also nonsense. “Bashing” is not an objective, balanced word for a news organization to use to convey facts, it’s just the word the CBC chose to use to convey their contempt for the Conservatives. But moreover, it is not what the story is about. The poll isn’t about whether “bashing the cellphone giants” failed or succeeded. And love them or hate them, nor was that the government’s objective.

And anyway who does the CBC think it is fooling — are we to believe the far-left CBC is suddenly disdainful of government “bashing” of giant private corporations? Are they supposedly now on board the good ship “Free Enterprise and Free Market and Stopping Governments’ Intrusion into the Marketplace and our Lives”? Of course not. I’m quite sure the CBC would just as soon see a state-owned, state-run cell phone and cable TV “corporation,” just like the CBC.

Like so many government debacles, the Conservatives’ effort at taming the consumer outcry about mobile phones is laden with stupidity — idiotic government ads (I loathe thee), and vacuous promises. But I blame the wireless costs/competition problem on decades of liberals and leftists — progressives — who increasingly intruded into our lives and that of the free market, and tried to control it all — the wireless market and us — as part of their ongoing effort to government control the entire (erstwhile) free market, and ultimately our entire lives. The fact that the Conservatives are trying to wrest their way out of this progressive morass, is laudable. And it’s not all their fault that things aren’t going as well as, or as fast as, they and we would all like.


Industry Canada Wireless 2013 ACET – Tables – December 2013 12/18/13

Have heard or read advertising about competition in Canada’s wireless industry
Q1A: Over the past few months or so, have you seen, heard or read any advertising about competition in Canada’s wireless industry?

Elements that are remembered about the advertising (unaided)
Q1B: What can you remember about this advertising? What words, sounds or images come to mind?
BASE: Have seen, heard or read advertising about competition in Canada’s wireless industry over the past few months or so

Elements that are remembered about the advertising (unaided)
Q1B: What can you remember about this advertising? What words, sounds or images come to mind?
BASE: Have seen, heard or read advertising about competition in Canada’s wireless industry over the past few months or so

Television ad recall
Q2a: Do you remember seeing a television ad over the past few weeks or so showing a man standing in front of a phone display, a woman sitting at the kitchen table looking at her cell phone bill and a mother parked by the side of the road, lost, without cell phone service. The ad mentions that the largest wireless companies in Canada hold over 85% of the airwaves and Canadians pay some of the highest wireless rates in the developed world.

Internet ad recall
Q2b: Do you remember seeing an advertisement on the Internet over the past few weeks or so about Canada’s policy related to competition in the wireless industry?

Radio ad recall
Q2c: Do you remember hearing a radio ad over the past few months or so about Canada’s policy related to competition in the wireless industry? The ad mentions that the largest wireless companies in Canada hold over 85% of the airwaves and Canadians pay some of the highest wireless rates in the developed world.

Newspaper ad recall
Q2d: Do you remember seeing an ad in the newspaper over the past few months or so about Canada’s policy related to competition in the wireless industry? The ad mentions that the largest wireless companies in Canada hold over 85% of the airwaves and Canadians pay some of the highest wireless rates in the developed world.

Message comprehension
Q3: Thinking about the advertising that you saw, heard or read, what do you think was the main point these advertisements were trying to get across?
BASE: Recall any of the ads in Q2a – Q2d serie [sic] of questions

Message comprehension
Q3: Thinking about the advertising that you saw, heard or read, what do you think was the main point these advertisements were trying to get across?
BASE: Recall any of the ads in Q2a – Q2d serie of questions

Identification of the advertiser
Q5A/Q5B: Who do you think produced those ads? In other words, who funded them?

Employment status
D1: Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you…?

D2: What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed to date?

Age group
D3: In what year were you born?

Children under 18 currently living in household
D4: Are there any children under the age of 18 currently living in your household?

Household income
D5: Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household, before taxes?

Own a cellular phone
D6A: Do you own a cellular phone?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
a. Read a daily newspaper?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
b. Read a weekly newspaper?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
c. Watched television?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
d. Listened to the radio?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
e. Used public transit?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
f. Read a magazine?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
g. Used the Internet?

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
h. Used Facebook?
BASE: Used the Internet
Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
i. Watched videos on YouTube?
BASE: Used the Internet

Media consulted in the last two weeks
D7: In the last two weeks, have you…
j. Watched a movie at a movie theatre?

In which province or territory do you live?





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

As published at

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.