Liberal media narrative pushing alternate reality on western society

An example of a conservative commentator trashed by the liberal media.

Like a lot of people who like to think for themselves, I am sick and tired of the 24/7 narrative coming from the liberal mainstream media and like-minded politicians that anyone who holds traditional conservative views is hateful in every respect, or in the case of Sean Hannity above, bad for America.

Yes, that is biased and narrow-minded thinking but what is especially problematic about it is that it is pushing an alternate reality onto Western society. I mean, when I turn on the CBC (which isn’t often) it is like the journalists and commentators are living in a different country than I am. Which is probably why I watch a lot of Fox News these days. At least there, for the most part, you get a balanced presentation. I mean, they always have both Republican and Democratic pundits on to debate the issues.

Anyway, this week the American media published an old quote from U.S. Vice- President Mike Pence — that he didn’t have lunch with women other than his wife . You would have thought he was some kind of monster given the hysterical response. The assumption was that he had to be anti-woman. Nonsense. All of it. From what I have read, Pence is surrounded by competent women.

Then, there is Brexit across the pond. In the UK, the “leavers” are called every negative name that can be said publicly on the BBC. It is as though the 52% who voted for Brexit are from another planet. Never mind that those 52% were simply tired of having no borders or their laws overridden by Brussels.

Similarly in the US, nearly half the country voted for Donald Trump and yet, those pockets of Democratic blue feel because they represented the popular vote, they should run the country regardless of Electoral College rules and the U.S.Constitution. In fact, Democratic outrage is off the charts. Yet, just imagine if the vote had been the reverse and Hillary Clinton had won the College vote and Trump the popular vote. Who do you think would be president right now? Right. Clinton.

Years ago, I experienced this kind of social and media bias first hand. I had helped an Ontario PC (Progressive Conservative) candidate win the 1995 provincial election. He was a member of the Mike Harris Conservative caucus. I accompanied him, his wife and their family to the swearing-in ceremony two weeks after the vote. What greeted us were thousands of protesters and a bomb scare — and the Conservatives hadn’t even done anything yet. Nevertheless, for the entire four years of Harris’ first mandate, the protests and the media were hysterical about everything in spite of the fact that Ontario boomed — with 100,000 people able to get off welfare and nearly one million good paying full time jobs being created.

Speaking of protests, in the U.S. when you watch the tape of the Berkeley fiasco, it is the professor who is screaming profanities. Same at Middlebury College where even a professor was injured. Sure, I don’t agree with much of what Milo Yiannopoulos or Charles Murray say, but so what? They should be able to talk freely and students and faculty should be able to debate why they disagree with them. Causing and allowing mayhem, on the other hand, is simply teaching young adults that temper tantrums work.

Which brings me to Canada and its liberal media snowflakes. For ten years we read and heard that the Stephen Harper Conservatives were bad and Harper was a dictator. Why? Because one of his staffers had the gall to pay $90,000 back to the public treasury to help a Senator that the media didn’t like because he had been one of them and, in their opinion, didn’t know his place.  As with Mike Harris twenty years ago, there was little mention in the media about how much the Conservative Government was accomplishing.

Yet, now that we have the Justin Trudeau Liberals in power, as with Obama in the U.S. when he was in power, the media fawning never stops.  There are scandals every single day and the media reports on them. However, given the image to the left, the venom they saved for Harper just isn’t there for Trudeau.

The crux of the matter is that the media and liberal narrative that anything we say that disagrees with a liberal worldview should be considered “hate speech” or “bad” for our country is a view that we have to fight 24/7. How? By debating ideas with family, neighbours and friends or by volunteering for a conservative oriented politician.

Anti Trump & CPC leadership media bias in Canada & US

conservative-french-debate-20170117

Click for image.

The media and Left inspired nastiness regarding all things Trump and conservative politics these days is horrendous and non-stop.

Turn on the TV or your Twitter feed or pick up any newspaper, and the headlines say it all.

For example, on Twitter I read that a Liberal MP believes that Canada’s Conservative Party was responsible for the Quebec Mosque massacre. Politicizing the deaths is, of course, disgusting. Luckily former Conservative Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, corrected that faulty information.

As well, I have read and heard for months now,  that Conservative Leadership Candidate Kellie Leitch is anti-Canadian because she wants to vet newcomers from Muslim countries.

Of course, anything I hear or read about President Trump I take with a grain of sale — such as his latest behaviour at his most recent Press Conference. The media said he was unhinged whereas I thought the reverse.

Blah, blah, blah.

trumps-press-conference

Click for image.

In the US of course it is anti-Trump 24/7. In fact, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the mainstream journalists there are the ones who are “unhinged.”

President Trump is simply a showman, always has been and always will be.

Trump is also not beholden to anyone for anything. As a result, the media need to get used to him “telling it like it is” because it is his authenticity that supporters like about him.

As to Kellie Leitch and the Canadian Conservative Leadership campaign, there is, unfortunately some nastiness going on within the campaign. As I wrote here, Leitch has been attacked by several of her fellow Conservative leadership candidates, including Lisa Raitt.

In any event, while I like Leitch, I am leaning towards Andrew Scheer. Why? Because he is a young family man, much like PM Trudeau. As a result, I believe the media’s comparison to the current PM will be more favourable.

Scheer is also not going to be controversial because he is a known personality, having been Speaker of the House of Commons. Besides, in my opinion, Scheer is most like a young Stephen Harper. Meaning, while he does not glow with charisma, he has experience and statesman-like dignity.

The crux of the matter is that I will leave this thread open to provide a space where regular readers can discuss and debate the CPC leadership contest in the weeks and days leading up to the May 2017 vote.

Page separator

Endnote: If readers want to find this site after early May, 2017, I would recommend they change your “favorites list” for CotM to http://www.cruxpolitics.wordpress.com soon as I don’t plan on renewing cotmblog.com in August, 2017. Similarly, the domain crux-of-the-matter.com will expire in the near future because it has not worked for some time now due to the “dashes” between words.

Trudeau Liberals & CPC leadership candidates misread Trump win at their peril

trump-wins-the-us-electionI found it interesting that Canada’s current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, our selfie and sunny ways PM, thinks he will get along with U.S. President Elect Donald Trump, no problem.

Talk about naivety and arrogance!

In fact, just visualizing the two of them together makes me smile — a mature accomplished billionaire versus a trust-fund middle aged man who got to be our PM because of his last name and through the same type of media manipulation that the U.S. media used for Barack Obama — but failed to do for Hillary Clinton.

However, most of the Canadian media doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the Trump vote result. For example, I watched Rosie Barton (who I like) and her Power Panel on CBC’s Power and Politics last night just to see what they took from the Trump election result.

Well, her liberal and progressive partisan guest panelists (Ian Capstick and Amanda Alvaro) seemed to be absolutely gob smacked. Tim Powers, the token conservative on the panel, did well however, explaining what the Trump could mean for Canadians. But Capstick seemed to have an overblown emotional breakdown right there on live TV. In fact, Rosie herself seemed positively stunned and seemed to tear up when she watched a few seconds of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech.

Good grief! The sky in North America is not falling!

Interestingly, I can still remember that some of those same panelists constantly suggested, even after they got a majority in May of 2011, that the Harper Conservatives were illegitimate because they only had 39.6% of the popular vote.

Yet, somehow the Liberals under Justin Trudeau received a “mandate” to do whatever they want — including completely changing the way we vote —  with 39.5% of the popular vote — a point less than the Conservatives got.

It’s called bias and intolerance because liberals and progressives truly believe they are right about everything. So, anyone who holds a different vision to theirs is unjust, racist, misogynist, bigoted, narrow minded and hateful.

Meaning, that when anyone holds a different view, they are supposedly guilty of spewing hate speech. For example, Vox writes that the Globe and Mail actually wrote a “Dear America” piece asking Americans not to vote for Donald Trump. And, I have heard that some university students in California had to skip classes they were so upset.

Good grief! As a former academic all I can do is scratch my head. Do their professors not teach them how to debate any more? Obviously not.

True, Trump has made lewd comments. But all the complaints against him regarding sexual misconduct are allegations and nothing more — complaints alleged to have been instigated by the Democratic National Committee.

Regardless, in spite of those questionable complaints, millions of American women voted for Trump because of his message of hope for jobs, as well as his rejection of elites and insiders. Frankly, I also think the women who voted for Trump looked at his children and figured the way they turned out was more of a true measure of the man than off hand comments he made years ago.

Anyway, the metaphor that comes to mind regarding that kind of liberal peripheral blindness is a group of horses with blinkers on hauling a large group of people in a wagon. Since the horses can only look straight ahead and don’t see what is actually going on around them or what is happening to the people in the wagon, they push ahead regardless.

Which brings me to the current lackadaisical Conservative leadership race. Apart from Kellie Leitch, who is thankfully ignoring a trashing by the Canadian media for her stance on Canadian values, most candidates seem oblivious to the reality that what conservative leaning Canadian voters want —  a leader that is VERY different from Trudeau. Yet, read this Brampton Guardian piece and it seems that what bothers most of the CPC candidates is not what the Liberals are doing but fear of offending anyone.

The crux of the matter is that I am sick and tired of liberals crying shame whenever a woman openly supports Trump. I am also sick and tired of PM Trudeau and his caucus claiming they have a mandate to do whatever they want and the Canadian liberal loving media usually agreeing with them.

Millions of Canadian conservatives are watching and waiting. Whether it be the First Passed the Post voting system (FPTP) or some other Canadian system, 2019 can’t come soon enough! I can only hope that the CPC leader elected in 2017 is ready to do and say what is necessary to win.

Page separator

Endnote: Welcome Jacksnewswatch and NewsWatchCanada readers. Want to read a liberal media hatched job on President Elect Trump? Read Andrew Coyne’s column in today’s National Post.  I used to like Coyne’s columns but unfortunately he has become a liberal shrill.

What Canada can learn from #DNCleaks re media bias & collusion

Philly protest via NWC 1030There is no doubt about it. Canadians can learn something from the #DNCleaks about pro-liberal bias and collusion between political organisations and the media.

The Merriam Webster dictionary describes bias as “a tendency to believe some peoples ideas are better than others” and “collusion” as “secret co-operation for a dishonest purpose.

And, thanks to those leaks, we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that staff and officials at the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC), have shown repeatedly that they were biased in favour of Hillary Clinton (over Bernie Sanders) and had secret co-operation with certain mainstream journalists.

Certainly, the U.S. is not alone in that regard. I mean, I have frequently wondered if there was collusion between the Liberal Party of Canada and the CBC. During the 2015 federal election campaign, for example, I used to compare media releases on the LPC website to what I heard on TV and read in print.
Continue reading

How the media use pollsters as propagandists for Canada’s Liberals

Read this Canadian Press article dated December 1st, 2013 with the misleading title: “Liberal lead solidifies as pollsters predict significant voter shift underway.” Wow! Talk about media and Harris Decima propaganda. The Justin Trudeau Liberals are not solidifying their lead.

In fact, one of the first sentences in the article, regarding the pollster, the writer admits that the Liberals have dropped from a high of 37% support prior to the recent by-elections to 34% now. So, how does a drop of 3% voter support show a voter shift towards the Liberals is underway — regardless of the 3% being within Decima’s claimed margin of error.

Plus, in the recent by-elections, the Liberals won only the two seats they have held for decades. Sure, they came second in Brandon Souris (Manitoba). But, sorry, second doesn’t count, particularly when the Liberal candidate (Rolf Dinsdale) had a very popular, beloved name. His father Walter served 11 terms as a Conservative MP.  Meaning, the only thing the increase in Liberal vote in that riding indicates, is that many of the voters supported the Dinsdale family.

So, no, there is absolutely no evidence that Liberal support is solidifying — particularly west of the Ontario border!

Then, there is the ridiculous claim in the article that the Harris Decima poll shows that the Conservative base are deserting the Conservative Party of Canada and the Conservative Government in Ottawa. Specifically: “He [Gregg] says traditional Liberals — the so-called professional class and women — are returning to the fold, while stalwart Conservatives — men and rural voters — appear to be wavering and expressing disappointment with the Harper government.”

Balderdash!!!!

As a former researcher myself, I have to say that there is no way any pollster can extrapolate the personal intentions they claim to have done from a few questions. So, it seems to me that this article and the Harris Decima poll are something else entirely.

Merriam Webster defines propaganda as “ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, or a government.”

Does this poll truly indicate what the pollster claims? Or, is the media simply using its questionable generalizations to develop a positive Liberal and Justin Trudeau narrative in an attempt to influence voter intentions for 2015?

Obviously the answer is yes, it is pure pro-Liberal propaganda, since, as I said at the start of this post,  a decline of 3% Liberal support is not an improvement. In fact, even if we were to accept the 3% margin of error, it still leaves Liberal support static, not shifting upwards.

C/P Jack’s Newswatch. Welcome newswatchcanada.ca readers.

Reminder that Ottawa’s Senate suspensions are NOT expulsions!

For all those in the Canadian media and opposition who are wailing about how unfair and mean-spirited the Senate suspension motion pertaining to Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau is, keep in mind that said suspension is only for a two-year period.

Also keep in mind that if the Senate suspension motion passes, the three will be able to keep calling themselves Senators. Why? Because are NOT being expelled.

Let’s briefly review:

  1. Each of the three Senators involved expensed incorrectly — by huge amounts.
  2. Two of the three Senators have paid back their overpayments.
  3. One Senator has not paid back what he allegedly owes and is having his remuneration clawed back instead.
  4. One Senator paid her expenses out of her own resources.
  5. And, yes, one Senator paid his over-expensed debt back with a donation from someone working in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

So, what is this whole “scandal” about? Is it about when the Prime Minister learned about the $90,000 “personal” cheque? In my opinion, no, it isn’t.

Rather, it’s about an attitude of entitlement that seems to infect everyone, or almost everyone, who is ever appointed to the Senate or any government agency.

It is also about a mainstream media that over-reacts about almost everything connected to Prime Minister Harper or his Conservative government.

I mean, compare the media coverage of this so-called Senate scandal (when most of the public money allegedly misspent was repaid) with the Ontario Liberal government wasting one billion dollars of taxpayer’s money on e-Health, one billion dollars on Ornge and, more recently, one billion dollars on the cancellation of two gas plants — which was for an openly partisan political purpose.

Right, the reaction was a yawn. Time to move on folks!

Anyway, regarding the federal matter, the crux of the matter is that the three Senators affected by the motion to suspend them for two years need to accept responsibility for their role in this debacle, as well as some consequences.

Update 6pm 18/10/13:

As I just wrote on my post at Jack’s Newswatch, now we see what the media are really all about. Even when there is negative news about former Liberal MP and Mayor Fontana in London, the parliamentary media (particularly CBC) would rather be all atizzy over Senator Mike Duffy’s comments. The $13,500 cheque for legal fees paid by the CPC may tick off party members but there is nothing illegal about it. It is not a smoking gun to anything. Moreover, the CPC lawyer who made the payment can’t comment because it is private and client privileged information. Duffy had to know that. As far as the RBC allegations, they are more serious. However, I’d take the PM’s word over Duffy any day. As one Twitter writer wrote, paraphrased, Duffy tells us all now to disregard what he said before because now everything he is saying is true. Sure.

As far as I am concerned, they should, at the very least, suspend Duffy.

Biggest loser in election 2011 media coverage will be “truth”

There is a very well-known phrase — truth is the first casualty of war. Well, given what I have seen and heard during this Canadian federal election campaign, I would have to say that truth was the first casualty of mainstream media election coverage, particularly that provided by the state sponsored CBC, as well as the private CTV and, to a lesser extent, Global and CPAC.

Specifically, has there been equal coverage of all the political leaders? No, not even close. Have all the leaders been asked the same questions? No. In fact, I can recall few substantive questions being asked of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff or NDP Leader Jack Layton, such as the total cost of their promises, such as Cap and Trade and how that would affect the economy, as well as how they would change Canada’s role in Afghanistan or Libya.

The single exception would have been Peter Mansbridge’s interview with Michael Ignatieff, which was tougher than expected, likely because SunNewsNetwork had recently come on the scene.  

But, perhaps the worst example of media omission and untruth relates to a Conservative rally last week (H/T NewsWatchCanada.ca). The CBCs Terry Milewski asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper a three-part, very long four-minute question, that sounded more like a diatribe.

Did, in fact, the partisan crowd drown out either Milewski’s question or the PM’s answer — as was reported widely? No, it did not. I saw the event live and noted that the PM answered the entire question BEFORE the cheering started.

Why the cheering? Likely because the public, no matter what their political preferences, are fed up with the media’s lies, omissions, innuendo and daily faux scandals.

For instance, today’s news is a perfect example. On the one hand, we have a photo image of a volunteer working for Liberal MP Joe Volpe, actually removing Green Party campaign literature from a mail box within feet of Volpe, which, apart from blogosphere coverage, gets no media attention at all. Yet, sending an incorrect e-mail for a Conservative candidate is top of the news at SunNewsNetwork.  Why is this relevant? Because removing campaign literature is allegedly illegal according to Elections Canada rules, while sending a data base containing personal information to the wrong person via e-mail, while wrong and sloppy, is not illegal.  

Now, the questions are: (1) Why does the media have such blatant double standards? And, (2) Why is truth going to be the casuality of this election?

Well, here is an essay worth reading that might answer that question. It is by a well-respected investigative reporter by the name of John Pilger. It is not about the Canadian media per se but about how the Western media lies about war by omission and how that deliberate avoidance of the truth leads to a type of media corruption.

Thankfully, however, as the long list of Canadian journalists who are fair on my sidebar proves, there are many journalists who try to rise above the unprofessionalism — including most of those reporting for the new SunNewsNetwork.

The crux of the matter is then, is the media bias and censorship a type of self-censorship and individual bias or is it censorship by management, or a bit of both? Either way, once the dust settles after May 2nd, 2011, the biggest loser in this election will not be political candidates but “truth” in the Canadian media.

Why are Canadian media so afraid of a Conservative majority?

Given the severity of the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper, pro-Ignatieff spin right now on all the TV networks — particularly CBC, CTV, CPAC and even Global — how are the reporters and commentators going to deal with a Conservative majority government on the morning of May 3rd, 2011?

Funny that Wendy Mesley is reported to have said on last night’s National that the CBC studio is a “spin free zone.” Is she kidding? That is “THE” spin zone. And, CTV news readers have given up all pretense that they are balanced. Similarly, most e-mail and phone-in shows to CPAC are loaded with Liberal supporters and sympathizers, including pundits and those who call themselves professional journalists. 

Without a doubt, the Canadian media are destroying the profession of journalism with their non-stop day-after-day Harper bashing. How many times have I heard various versions of the comment: “We made Stephen Harper. He didn’t appreciate it. Now, we will destroy him.”

Well, they won’t destroy him because democracy itself is at stake. Do the media think they are smarter or more insightful than average Canadians? Well, they are not. As with the election of Rob Ford in Toronto last fall, on May 2nd, 2011, Canada is about to show the media what democracy really means.

Choice. Our choice, not theirs.