Trump’s inauguration numbers prove conservatives must fight dishonest media

screenshot-inaugurationThe photo image to the left is of the actual crowd that viewed Donald J. Trump’s inauguration speech on Friday, January 20th at approximately 12 noon. In other words, the National Mall in Washington was packed.

Yet, right after the Trump inaugural address, tweets started coming out that claimed the Obama 2009 numbers were significantly higher than the Trump 2017 numbers.

The double image below is indicative of that early claim. While you can’t move my image, here is the CNN link to do so. How long that image remains online I don’t know but it was there when I wrote this.

Click for the actual CNN comparison.
Click for the actual CNN comparison.

Anyway, I retweeted repeatedly that the 2017 image was taken around 9 or 9:30am in the morning. I knew that because I had my TV on all day and personally saw that view at around that earlier time period.

That inaccurate image stayed on Twitter and the Internet for a couple of days — allowing thousands if not millions to call Trump a liar — until CNN released this gigapixel image which began to prove the truth about the actual numbers.

Interestingly, today CNN released (H/T Gateway Pundit) another set of images which, once and for all, shows that as many people heard the Trump inauguration speech in 2017 as those who heard Obama in 2009. In fact, it could be argued that even more heard Mr. Trump.

Unfortunately, such anti-conservative bias is not new to conservative Canadians. For ten years, the entire time the Stephen Harper Conservatives were in power, I wrote about what we called the Harper Derangement Syndrome. It now seems obvious that the US is experiencing a similar Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Which means that whether you live in the U.S. or Canada, conservatives are believed to be bigoted, racist and intolerant.

On Saturday, for example, a Conservative Rebel Media journalist was roughed up at a women’s rally in Edmonton — by a so-called male feminist who was then hustled away by so-called female feminists. Watching the speeches and mayhem in Washington also showed just who is truly intolerant.

In other words, the very hateful words screamed at conservative women, particularly pro-life women, is a reflection of the hateful intolerance of any point of view that is not the one held by progressives and liberals.

The odd thing is today’s feminists are not really feminists. In the 1960s many of us now of retirement age, fought for equality and choice for both men and women. Real choice. Not one point of view.

  • Women could choose to work in the home full time.
  • Women could choose to get a job.
  • Women could choose to go back to school.
  • Women could choose to have children and work.
  • Men could choose to be the one to stay at home if they wanted.
  • And, women could choose to take birth control pills because they were then accessible.

In the early days of feminism, we also didn’t call abortion a right to “reproductive choice” because that is what birth control was. Remember, prior to the “pill,” women did not have much control over whether they got pregnant, something young women today forget or don’t know.

Anyway, this is all connected in that progressives and liberals hate anyone who doesn’t think like they do and that includes the similarly minded mainstream media.

So, what can conservative thinkers do? They can:

  • Read conservative oriented news sites,
  • Write on or start a conservative blog,
  • Comment regularly on Twitter and conservative blogs,
  • Get involved in the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Leadership contest,
  • Join and volunteer in a CPC riding association, and
  • Donate money to the CPC directly or a leadership candidate.

In other words, the crux of the matter is that the best way to fight the dishonest liberal media is to ignore them as Mr. Trump does and get involved in conservative politics — whether you are a former reform conservative, a progressive conservative or a conservative leaning libertarian.

Lisa Raitt’s condemnation of Kellie Leitch a disappointment

lisa-raitt-2What in heavens name is wrong with Conservative MP Lisa Raitt that she doesn’t see that Canadian conservatives are just as disgusted and fed up with political correctness as our cousins in the U.S.?

Believe it or not, Raitt is actually quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying that Leitch was race baiting and using cheap talk by insisting on the individual vetting of newcomers from Middle East countries — particularly refugees who have no papers! (H/T NewsWatchCanada)

Race baiting? Cheap talk?

Here is what Leitch actually says: (H/T Jack’s Newswatch)

All I’m advocating for is that when you go back to what we used to do in this country, that we meet every immigrant coming to the country, have a face to face interview, and ask them about Canadian values. I don’t think that’s asking too much and two-thirds of Canadians, average Canadians, agree with me…..

I don’t see any race baiting in that statement. Which makes me wonder how on Earth Raitt can make such arrogant and disgusting remarks about her colleague and fellow contestant Leitch.

Our world is under siege by Islamic terrorists and Raitt doesn’t think we should screen for those who might want to do us harm. I mean, there are millions of Muslims living peacefully in Canada. That’s fine. They know who they are. However, that doesn’t mean that Muslims coming into this country from the Middle East today want to live the same way.

Anyway, listen to what Raitt says to the Sun’s Bonokowski:

According to Raitt, Harper did not become the longest-serving Conservative prime minister since John A. Macdonald by being out of touch with the values and concerns of Canadian families.

“We were also thoughtful about how Canadians would hear our words,” Raitt said.

“We knew that the only path to victory was a united and inclusive party focused on improving the lives of ordinary Canadians….”

“If we want to bring conservative ideas back to government in 2019, we need a leader who can beat Justin Trudeau,” Raitt said.

“…Leitch can’t.

So Canadians deserve a candidate who is willing to stand up to them and their cheap talk.

“I will,” she vowed.

The crux of the matter is that most of the Conservative Leadership candidates are like the Democrats in the U.S. They have not only bought into identity politics and political correctness, they are living in an Ottawa bubble, completely unaware of what Canadian conservatives want in their next leader — someone who is sufficiently different from Justin Trudeau that they can offer a winnable alternative message.

What we don’t need is another “sunny ways” leader who ignores our need for security and safety so as not to offend anyone.

One thing is for sure, Lisa Raitt just lost my May 27th, 2017 vote for the leadership. While I like Kellie Leitch for the very reasons Raitt condemns her, I really hope that there is a “race” and that candidates like Erin O’Toole and Andrew Scheer do not fall into the same Liberal Lite politically correct rabbit hole as Raitt.

 

Chantal Hébert on alleged Conservative threats to PM Justin Trudeau’s person

Republican ConventionChantal Hébert writes in her latest Toronto Star column that: “While scores of Canadians were spending the summer smugly lamenting the ugly tone of the American presidential campaign, Canada’s Conservative party was allowing calls for the assassination of Justin Trudeau to be posted on its Facebook page.”

Canada’s Conservative Party (CPC) allowed threats to PM Trudeau’s person?  The clear allegation in that sentence is that the CPC was to blame. Which, in a sense, it was because the Facebook page was theirs.

Which brings us to the problem with social media in general. Any institution or individual who opens a Twitter, Facebook or Blog account is suddenly responsible for whatever a tweeter or commenter writes. Of course, you can block or delete such comments but you have to see them first.

What I found most interesting, however, is how Hébert minimizes the venom and similar threats Stephen Harper experienced on social media over his decade in power. On that, she admits: “One could fill a library shelf with a collection of the derogatory comments Stephen Harper inspired over his decade in power. But to openly call for the death of a prime minister goes way beyond venting.”

However, while Hébert is acknowledging that people wrote nasty comments about Stephen Harper, she seems to think that they did not call for his death.

Wrong! There were many such threats against Stephen Harper and in fact, many of them I got on this blog — from progressives and liberal supporters. If they were unpublished, I simply deleted them or sent them to the blog`s comment trash. Or, if they did get published, I removed them as soon as I saw them.

And, while not a direct threat to Mr. Harper’s person, there is a current example of the mainstream media`s double standard between Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau.

On the announcement of Harper`s stepping down from politics on Friday, August 26, 2016, for example, Mark Critch of CBC`s “This hour has 22 Minutes,” mocks Mr. Harper for hiding in a so-called closet.

The implication of Critch’s mocking is, of course, that Mr Harper hid like a coward.  Which wasn’t true at all. Conservative colleagues have said Mr. Harper was heading for the main door to find out what was going on, when the RCMP stopped him and literally shoved him into the utility area.

Which begs the question: What would Critch have had Mr. Harper do? Run out into the hall so he could get shot? Can you even imagine Critch mocking Trudeau in such a fashion?

The crux of the matter is that partisans of “all” political stripes, including liberal media, have to stop the ugly rhetoric if open debate and discussion is going to be possible. And, as we saw with what Critch thought was satire or comedy, Hébert has to understand that such an ugly tone was not just caused by partisan conservatives.

Former PM Stephen Harper thanks Canada & reminds CPC of their roots

Here is a YouTube video of a slightly shorter version of the fantastic final speech Mr. Harper gave last night at the Conservative Convention in Vancouver, as well as a full Transcript at the National Observer. In his speech Mr. Harper used the opportunity to thank Canadian voters and the many who contributed to a decade of successful Conservative governments.

When watching Mr. Harper give this final political speech, I was reminded what an amazing statesman he is. Unlike PM Justin Trudeau, he is not into selfies, nor is he a sunny ways type of personality. Yet, when he said that his wife “Laureen” was the love of his life, it confirmed that he is and was — authentic. What you saw was what you got!

Yet, as he said, there is no doubt that during the fall of 2015, the mood in Canada changed and, on October 19, 2015, more Canadians voted for Liberal candidates than they did the other political parties — bringing in a four-year period of change. The exact percentage of the popular vote was 39.5% for the Liberals in 2015 compared to 39.6%% for the Conservatives in 2011.

Meaning, contrary to the mainstream media and liberal narrative that followed the Conservative election defeat, the fact that the federal Liberals, under Justin Trudeau won, did not mean the ten Harper years were being rejected. Voters simply wanted change.

In fact, if you look at the actual numbers, you get a different picture altogether. For example, the Conservatives won a majority government in 2011 with 5,835,270 votes compared to 5,600,496 votes in 2015 (which was just over 200,000 fewer votes than in 2011).

Yet, the Liberals won in 2015 with 6,930,136 votes, which was approximately 1,300,000 votes more than the Conservatives. So, to put it bluntly, the Liberals won a “majority” in 2015, “not” because the Conservative “tone” was negative ( e.g., banning the niqab at citizenship ceremonies or suggesting a barbaric practices snitch line) but because the NDP vote collapsed from 2011 by over one million votes!

That’s the reality!

In the final analysis, however, what is especially interesting is that the Trudeau Liberals won a majority government with the exact same 39% of the vote as the Harper Conservatives did in 2011! Yet, I hear no complaints about the Liberal Government of Justin Trudeau being illegitimate as so many progressives claimed of the Harper Government.

In any case, I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Harper and all those who had a part in keeping Canada safe and fiscally sound for a decade. I also want to remind Canadians of the many accomplishments of the Conservative Government, not all of which the Liberals are planning to undo.

The crux of the matter is that Mr. Harper and his Conservative team won three governments, two minorities and one majority, because they campaigned and led from the centre, not as CINOs (conservative in name only) as some far-right advocates like to complain about, but simply as conservatives who understood their blended Reform PC roots.

Remember, like it or not, the most seats either the Reform Party or the NDP has ever won, has been Official Opposition status. Canada is a middle of the road country and Mr. Harper understood that.

John Ivison claims CPC would split if PCr won Conservative leadership

I missed this John Ivison column on April 5th (H/T Jack’s Newswatch).  He talks about there going to be a split in the Conservative Party of Canada unless Brad Wall decides to run (even though Wall has repeatedly said he is not interested), or if any former PC wins the race — like Peter MacKay. I sure hope Ivison is wrong.

Updated & shortened April 24th, 2016.

Conservatives should stop apologizing for the Harper Government.

I had planned to retire Cotm after October 19th and I still plan to stand back. However, I just had to say something about the attitude among some conservatives that really sucks — be they small “c” or capital “C” — particularly those who are or were in the Conservative caucus, as well as those claiming to be “Blogging Tories.”

Stop apologizing for the so-called “negative and partisan tone” of the Harper Conservative Government.

If the tone in Ottawa was particularly nasty between 2011 and 2015, all the political parties contributed to that. And, if there is any record of nastiness, it was fuelled by the same mainstream media who is fanning the flames now. It is like they can’t help themselves.

Yesterday, for example, Rosie Barton (who I like) at P & P on CBC brought up the “barbaric practices snitch line” and had the Power Panel debate it to death. It is like they just can’t find enough reasons to bash anything conservative. I don’t even think Barton is aware of her bias at times. Yes, it was a strange idea and should never have come up. But, it was never Conservative policy and not part of the actual Harper Government record.

So, what is the media narrative about anything Conservative? That somehow former PM Stephen Harper was mean and nasty and a liar — and by default all his caucus as well.

Well, I’m sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

  • Stephen Harper was not mean or nasty. Stephen Harper was an introvert and therefore not always showing “sunny ways.” But he was always friendly and prime ministerial. Meaning, he did not do many “selfies” (but he did do them because I have a such photo with him ) which our media seem to think is so cute about PM Justin Trudeau.
  • And, I never ever heard Stephen Harper lie. Ever. Yes, sometimes he had to correct time lines but those statements were never deliberate lies no matter how many false claims to the contrary. In fact, all PMs occasionally have to correct the record.

Oh, and, a couple of things the media and the Liberals like to ignore.

  • The Tories would have won another majority government on October 19th, 2015 had the strategic voting not caused the NDP to collapse.
  • The Trudeau Liberals won a majority government with the same 39% plurality that the Harper Conservatives won in 2011. Yet, I hear nothing about the Trudeau Liberals having cheated, are illegitimate or that 60% didn’t vote for them. Funny that.

All that said, what I don’t understand is why I was one of the few people who came up with lists of accomplishments, particularly the 100 reasons to vote Conservative. That post got up to 50,000 hits over the course of the election. What that tells me is that the Conservative Party let all Canadians down because they didn’t give 4 or 5 reasons for people to vote Conservative.

The crux of the matter is that Stephen Harper was one of the best PMs Canada has ever had and history will prove that point. So conservatives need to stand firm and be proud of the Harper Government record. They also need to stop agreeing with a false media narrative that the partisan nasty tone in Ottawa in recent years was all the Conservatives fault.

100 reasons to vote for Harper Conservatives on Oct. 19, 2015!

happy-canadian-beaver
H/T NewsWatchCanada.ca

Here is a link to my post on the “100 reasons to vote for the Harper Conservatives on October 19th, 2015. And, no, I am not connected in any way to the Conservative Party of Canada, be it as a staffer, volunteer or contributor. I am just an ordinary retirement aged citizen who has seen a lot of governments come and go over the years.

Why am I doing this? I am doing this to set the record straight as there is a lot of misinformation out there. For example, contrary to what many think, the Harper PMO is no different in terms of “caucus discipline,”  “issues management” or “messaging” than any other PMO, no matter which political party was in power. To think otherwise is just plain naïve.

Please note that I will not approve comments that are not polite and productive because none of the items on my list reflect my personal opinion. In fact, each is linked to a non-partisan source, or sources, that explains what that item is about. I realize I have left out some good points but I had to stop somewhere.

In my riding of Niagara Falls, Ontario, I plan to vote for Conservative MP Rob Nicholson.

Conservative Party of Canada responds to email with platitudinous twaddle?

Dismissive and platitudinous twaddle describes exactly the response I received yesterday from the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) regarding a personal email I wrote to them on December 9th, 2013. I was very pleased at the time that the party had released the ten Harper Government’s accomplishments on the party’s tenth anniversary. But, of course, I wondered why they didn’t have other longer accomplishment lists.

Here is what I wrote:

I wanted to thank you for the 10 accomplishments published today but wonder why you don’t have a list that is longer. I made such a list, between 2006 and 2011, that was used by thousands of people during the 2008 and 2011 elections. That should be your job. Get the message out there, please. You are welcome to use my list. I stopped in 2011 but plan to start again now with the WheatBoard changes and the EU trade deal.
http://cotmblog.com/2011/03/28/the-accomplishments-2/

Notice I included a link to the “Accomplishments List” I have on this blog’s header bar and told the party that it was free to use it. I had also included my full name, municipal address and postal code and phone number. So, you would think that whoever was assigned to read and respond to the CPC’s email would reflect what I wrote in their reply.

Yet, here is the response I received last night:

Dear Mrs. Crux,
Thank you for taking the time to contact the Conservative Party of Canada and for sharing your kind words of support with us; we truly appreciate your input as a concerned Canadian. Please be assured that your comments have been noted. Once again, thank you for taking the time to write and for your continued support.

Yours truly, Jesse
Fundraising & Membership Services Department
Sections des Activités de Financement et des Services aux Membres
Conservative Party of Canada
Parti conservateur du Canada
Tel/Tél. 1-866-808-8407
Fax/Télec. 613-755-2001

Which makes me wonder:

  1. Does anyone at the CPC actually read the email?
  2. Why did it take ten days to answer an email that was current?
  3. When they finally did reply, why is the reply from what is, essentially, an anonymous writer?
  4. When “Jesse” did respond, why did he or she use what is essentially a dismissive form letter?
  5. Lastly, if the staff or volunteers at the CPC cannot take the time to respond to what is actually written in an email from a known supporter, how do they respond to Canadians who have concerns or complaints?

Needless to say I am annoyed and disappointed. In a political climate that is currently so partisan, form letter responses from the CPC that reflect platitudinous twaddle just don’t cut it!