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.

Canada’s Conservative leadership race a crowded field

conservative-french-debate-20170117

Click for CBC column.

The current Conservative Party of Canada’s (CPC) leadership race is quickly becoming a crowded field. For starters, at 13, there are too many candidates, many of whom have no chance of winning.  As well, as Tuesday’s French debate showed, many of the candidates don’t speak even passable French, which is an essential skill in order to lead Canada.

Worst of all though, is the infighting. For example, as I wrote recently, it was completely unnecessary for Lisa Raitt to lash out at Kellie Leitch just because Leitch wants to screen  for Canadian values refugees and immigrants coming from countries where there is terrorism.

Still others, like Kevin O’Leary are, in my opinion, just trying to get attention and latch on to Donald Trump’s popularity to the south. Believe me, O’Leary is not like Trump, who praises all veterans and the military. O’Leary says that while peacekeeping is an honour, being a warrior is not.  Meaning, that to actually fight is not an honour. Well, excuse me. Try telling that to the thousands of men and women who fought, were maimed or gave their lives in World Wars I, II and Korea.

Anyway, at the moment, given all the factors, including passable French, I am leaning towards Andrew Scheer. I also like Leitch, Chong and O’Toole and hope that their French improves. In fact, I have joined the CPC so that I can vote in May when the leadership vote is held. However, that said, I am still willing to look at other candidates.

To me, the key to who has the best chance of running against Justin Trudeau and winning is the candidate who can match Trudeau’s “sunny ways.” Scheer would definitely be equal in that regard as he is young, experienced, personable and has a young family as well. Similarly, O’Toole has presence. Yes, I know they don’t have the charisma of Trudeau but if Canadians get fed up enough with the direction the Liberals are taking the country, I believe that, by 2019, a majority would look carefully at the CPC leader.

The crux of the matter however, is that, for the good the party and country, some of the current candidates need to get out of the race and those who are left need to criticize the Liberals rather than each other.

CRA employee got $538,549 for move from Richmond Hill to Belleville

Click for Taxpayers Federal website.

Click for Taxpayers Federation.

Can you believe it? A Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employee billed the federal government, his employer (which is indirectly the Canadian taxpayer) for $538,549.00 to move 118 miles from Richmond Hill to Belleville, ON.

Meaning, ordinary hard-working Canadians paid for that two-hour move. In fact, according to Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, just with the access to information they have received so far, at least 16 employees were paid over $100,000 including a second CRA employee, who moved from Mississauga to Ottawa. That rebate was for $113,608.00.

Which makes you wonder why the much shorter move was $400,000 less. I mean, even if the Richmond Hill property was worth a million dollars, the 5 or 6% real estate fee would only have been in the $60,000 range.

And, no, I know this is not a new issue. Reimbursing federal employee moves has been going on for a long time. But, surely, if the country is now in a period of structural deficit, this perk can be capped at an amount we taxpayers would think is fair — like up to a maximum of $10,000 a move which would pay for the actual move and not the real estate and legal fees.

The crux of the matter is that Canadians simply can’t afford to pay for such unreasonable public servant benefits — benefits that few other Canadians enjoy.

What does Trudeau’s sneaky “principal residence” tax change mean?

Update March 8, 2017:

This post was published on January 13th, 2017 and went viral shortly after. In fact, my last check of the numbers of readers was 100,000+. As a result, it is obvious that some readers pressured the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) to clarify Item 8 for Reporting the Sale of a Principal Residence. As I just learned today, apparently, that whole section was updated by the CRA on February 28th, 2017.

As a result, it appears that the potential problems discussed in this post no longer applies. However, I have re-read Item 8 and, while I note minor editing, I am still unsure what the change means for self-employed Canadians who use part of their principal residence to earn income. Nevertheless, I will defer to the many tax professionals who commented here that the change is minor. (H/T to Frances and Sarah).

What I also learned since I initially posted this article is not to claim CCA (Capital Cost Allowance) because if you do, when you sell your principal residence, you might owe taxes to CRA. (Sandy Crux)

I wonder how many Canadians know that, as of the taxation year 2016, if they conduct self-employment activities from their principal residence, they may have to report the sale of their principal residence to Revenue Canada.

Justin Trudeau at Winnipeg Convention 1030Yup. PM Justin Trudeau, the PM that continually tells us he is trying to help the middle class, has quietly and sneakily changed that provision as of early October 2016.

Why? Because it appears that anyone who runs a small business out of their home and uses part of their principal residence expenses to write down that self-employment income, is going to get hit big time.

For example, I know people who run day cares out of their home. I also know of firefighters, police officers, teachers and government workers who run landscaping or other similar businesses in the summer. In fact, I know one firefighter in my community who works for 4 twelve-hour days and then is off for 3 or 4 days (or some combination of work/off schedule like that), and sells real estate on his off days. (This sentence added on January 17th at 11am because of a Tweeted question.)

Read this page on the Revenue Canada Agency website. Go to Item # 8. It reads that:

If only a part of your home qualifies as your principal residence and you used the other part to earn or produce income, you may have to split the selling price and the adjusted cost base between the part you used for your principal residence and the part you used for other purposes (for example, rental or business). You can do this by using square metres or the number of rooms, as long as the split is reasonable. Instructions will be provided in the guide T4037, Capital Gains 2016, on how to report the sale of your principal residence in this situation.” (My highlighting.)

In other words, if you have been conducting and claiming self-employment activities at any time you owned your property, are you going to have to pay some tax when you sell it?

Clarifiction Sat. January 17th, 2017:

I would recommend visitors read all the comments, but particularly this one from a qualified accountant with the sign-in name Frances.  He says the new change means that effective 2016, all Canadians, not only the self-employed, will need to let the CRA know that they sold their principal residence (PR) during that year and how much profit they realized. If that does not qualify as sneaky by the CRA and the Trudeau government, I don’t know what does? What it says to me is the same thing it said to Frances — that at some point in the years ahead, profits made in 2016 might conceivably be hit with a tax adjustment.

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.

 

Happy New Year Canada in spite of “10 Leading Misfires” by Trudeau Gov’t in 2016

trudeau-misfiresHappy New Year, Canada, in spite of the following ten leading misfires by the Trudeau Government in 2016. Are the CPC Leadership candidates paying attention?

 

# 10. Trudeau’s failure to show up for work. (If the Opposition was going to hold the PM accountable, Trudeau would make appointments at the same time as Question Period so that he didn’t have to be accountable.)

# 9. The massive Paris delegation. (Canadian taxpayers paid for 383 people to attend.)

# 8. The moving scandal. (Canadian taxpayers paid for Trudeau’s PMO staff to move to Ottawa. I can understand some expenses being paid, but $200,000?)

# 7. Cancelling Conservative tax breaks. (Ah yes, Conservative tax breaks are bad while Liberal ones are good.)

# 6. Refusing to call ISIS atrocities a genocide or Islamic terrorism. (Sure sounds like Barak Obama. Remember the Barbaric Practices Help line that Kellie Leitch was trashed in the mainstream media for, no one, that I know of, ever mentioned the reality that young girls were, and are, being mutilated.)

# 5. Praise for Fidel Castro. (I believe the satire Twitter page handled that issue perfectly. Trudeau learned that his cult of personality can disappear in a flash. Now, maybe we can read and hear the truth from our media about the dumb things Trudeau says and does. Well, at least I can hope!)

# 4. The reckless spending by Trudeau Ministers. (Not surprising, I suppose, as the Liberal Party are the Party of “I’m entitled to my entitlements.”)

# 3. Refusing to hold a referendum on our voting system. (May I remind Liberals, 39.5% of the popular vote does not give them a mandate to change anything without a referendum? Remember, Stephen Harper won with 39.6% of the vote and progressives and liberals would never have stood for such arrogance.)

# 2. The Cash for Access scandal (So much for a Trudeau Government doing things differently. Same old, same old. Just like in Ontario with the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals.  They are answerable to no one.)

# 1. The Crippling Liberal Deficit and Debt. (Nothing needs to be said here. Canadian voters should have known the Liberals would tax and spend their way forward.)

The crux of the matter is whether the CPC Leadership candidates are paying attention to the Trudeau misfires and deciding what they stand for as a political party. Because, come May, 2017, what we don’t need is another politically correct party and Liberal Lite Leader. There is a reason Kellie Leitch is ahead at the moment. She gets it. She is willing to name the reality facing us in 2017 — Islamic terrorism.

Think about it. Most of us older than 50 grew up with neighbours and friends from all over the world, from different cultures and different religions. We didn’t even use the words diverse and inclusive then. For the most part, we simply accepted our differences. Now, it has changed as some new Canadians want us to change to conform to the world view of their country of origin. That is something we cannot and should not do and the candidates should not be afraid to say so.

Yes, the Liberals have misfired. Yes, for the most part, the media overlooks all those misfires. But Conservative voters have not overlooked them, something the candidates should keep in mind.

Trudeau Liberals returning to “entitlement” roots in just over a year?

piggy-bank-3Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Ministers have been having questionable fundraising activities and the media basically yawns.

Not only that, Mary Dawson, the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner, who so easily and quickly went after the Conservatives, symbolically yawns as well when she suggests there is no obvious reason for an investigation into those activities.

For example, a CBC column states (H/T NewsWatchCanada): “In a letter responding to requests for an inquiry from the Conservatives and the NDP, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson said there is no evidence to date that demonstrates Trudeau … violated the Conflict of Interest Act.

‘While the information provided in support of the allegations is not sufficient to cause me to initiate an examination under the act at this time, your letter and media articles leave me with concerns …. Consequently, I will follow up with Mr. Trudeau regarding his involvement with the fundraising events …. I will inform you of the outcome in due course.

So, Dawson will do an Opposition “follow-up” but not an investigation under the Conflict of Interest Act? Why not? Is not following up on the allegations an investigation?

Let me help the Dawson Ethics researchers with facts that we know.

(1) We know that PM Trudeau attends fundraising receptions that, according to a Globe and Mail article, cost $1,500 a ticket and are held in homes of well-heeled business executives where up to $120,000 can be collected in a single reception. As the Sun’s Lorrie Goldstein writes, Mr. Trudeau has admitted that he is lobbied  (H/T NewsWatchCanada) at those events.

As Rona Ambrose, the Conservative Interim Opposition Leader says in the Globe column: “Everyone knows they [the donors] are not writing … cheques out of the goodness of their hearts … [but] to buy access to him.”

(2) We also know that some Chinese billionaires are donating to the Trudeau Foundation because, not being Canadian citizens, they cannot donate to the Liberal Party. Why would they do that suddenly now? In the Globe column linked above, Ambrose says she believes it is so that they can gain influence with the government.  

Paying for access? Sounds very close to similar allegations against the Clinton Foundation in the U.S. when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. See this link, for example, at JacksNewswatch.

Pathetic whatever it is and shades of Ontario Liberal arrogance. Remember, right after being elected, Trudeau said his Liberal Government would do things differently. Now we know that is not true and actually was never intended to be true given Trudeau’s expectations for the Foundation prior to his party even becoming the governing party. On that earlier history, J.J. McCullough has something to say at Loonie Politics. 

Anyway, talk about double standards! Can you just imagine if the government involved in this sordidness was the Conservative Party of Canada and the PM was Stephen Harper? There would be non-stop 24/7 hysteria — as this Google page reminds us.

The crux of the matter is that there is obviously one standard of ethics for Conservatives and another, much lower standard for Liberals — which might explain why Mary Dawson doesn’t see the need for an investigation yet.

As the popular expression goes — “same old, same old.” I can only hope that Canadian voters will not be fooled in 2019 and will reject Trudeau and his Liberals, not only for his and their arrogant entitled attitude once in power, but their lies to get and stay there as well.