Beware America, your media & Democrats undertaking quiet Coup D’etat

In my opinion, it is not over-reacting to say the liberal media in the United States, in conjunction with the Democratic Party, are not just poor losers, they are subversives. They are, in fact, instigating a quiet coup d’ etat.

I mean, from November 9th, 2016, the day after the U.S. election, until now, the American liberal media (e.g., the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN) have been continuously anti-Trump — apart from a day or so after the President’s speech in Congress and the bombing in Syria.

Russia, Russia, Russia, 24/7. We read and hear constantly that it was the Russians’ fault that Trump won the election. How? Since voting machines were never hacked and, in fact, never hooked up to the Internet, how did the Russians ensure Trump won?

In fact, as Molly Hemingway writes, the Democrats and their liberal media reaction is actually delusional. However, delusional or not, there is danger to U.S. democracy. Tell a lie long enough and people begin to accept it as the truth. In fact, if you read Twitter, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who now seem to believe that erroneous, twisted narrative.

Then, on top of the “Russians did it” narrative, the U.S. liberal media have been spinning that the Trump campaign was in collusion with the Russians during the election. Of course, no one has ever defined what collusion would look like and or how interactions might have been unlawful, just that collusion would prove treason — which would give the Democrats the reason to try to impeach the President.

Now, however, since impeachment in the Congress would require some Republican votes, the U.S. liberal media and their Democrat supporters, are resorting to having a Constitutional crisis using the 25th Amendment to push their “get rid of Trump” agenda — which allows for the removal of a President or Vice President should they become disabled in some way and unfit to govern. That strategy, one assumes, is in case the Robert Meuller investigation doesn’t result in anything.

For any American who reads this post, let me tell you — pay attention. This is not nonsense. For ten years, the Harper Conservative Government in Canada did an excellent job of governing the country. Yet, the Canadian media went after a Conservative Senator (Mike Duffy) in order to bring Harper down with as much venom, persistence, innuendo and distortion as the U.S. media is doing going after Trump.

Unfortunately, in the end, the Canadian media won. During the 2015 federal election, they trashed Mr. Harper (via what was happening in the Mike Duffy trial) at every opportunity, mostly with lies and exaggerations. In fact, they pushed that negative narrative to such an extent, while praising the Justin Trudeau Liberals, that the Liberals won a majority government.

Were the Canadian media right? Are the Trudeau Liberals preferable? No, they are not. In fact, they are less accountable and less transparent than the Conservatives were! But, are the Canadian media holding Trudeau and his caucus to account? For the most part, no they are not. Rather, the Canadian liberal media are spending most of their time obsessing over Mr. Trump.

In my opinion, then, the crux of the matter is that Americans need to do whatever they can — through paid ads and press conferences — to counteract the false narratives being pushed by the U.S. liberal media and the Democrats because make no mistake about it, as John Steele Gordon and others have said, there is no doubt that there is a quiet coup d’etat underway in the United States of America.

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.

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.

The problem of the “Lucy” welfare-for-life entitled mindset

December 6, 2013: Welfare is political. If you are a liberal or a progressive, compassion means giving people enough money and benefits to live without having to work. As a result, the welfare can take away all incentive and motivation to work. With such incentive gone, far too many welfare recipients become welfare-for-life victims, a type of welfare abuse.

If you are a conservative, on the other hand, compassion means providing only enough welfare to cover basic needs temporarily until the person can find another full-time job, work part-time, go back to school or get retrained. As former Premier Mike Harris used to say, the best social assistance is a job. Yet, his government was criticized for getting 100,000 people off welfare between 1995 and 1999.

Well, to hear what a welfare-for-life mindset sounds like, check out the video at Zero Hedge.com post at the end of November. A woman, in her early 30s, named Lucy, calls into KLBJ Radio, an Austin, Texas radio program, about welfare abuse. (H/T NewswatchCanada.ca) Right off the bat she says:

“…To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare… can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day,
visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month…”

In other words, the suckers in society are all those people who are working so she doesn’t have to. What do you say to a person like that? Lucy’s defence? She keeps saying that we would all do the same if someone called us up and offered us a free million dollars. The problem is, no one is ever going to do that.  I mean, even if you win a lottery, you had to have purchased a ticket.

In any event, I found listening to Lucy very sad. She thinks she is free because she can do her hobbies and meet with her friends any time she wants. Yet, what happens when she has a family emergency and/or needs extra money so her children can attend a birthday party or go on a school trip?

The crux of the matter is, and where conservative politics comes in, to eliminate or reduce the welfare-for-life mindset, social assistance should not be so good that it takes away all incentive to work and the initiative to want to improve one’s life.

[…]

Endnote: On the type of conservative policies that would be empowering, check out this White Paper “Welfare to Work” by the Ontario PC Party.

Obama on accountability & excellence in education

Given we are now in the 2012 U.S. presidential election in earnest, I thought it might be interesting to look back to March 24th, 2009. At that time, I wrote:

Apart from Moira MacDonald of the Toronto Sun, little is being heard from the Canadian media on what the U.S. President Barack Obama is recommending happen in American schools and school boards. For example, here are some quotes from Ms. MacDonald’s column yesterday:

  • “This is not a review of George W. Bush’s education policies. These are a few ideas from a recent speech by President Barack Obama. It was the first major speech Obama has made on education since coming to office.”
  • “It was delivered nearly two weeks ago to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce — business leaders from a community whose children are often amongst the most struggling academically…”
  • “But he did not shy away from hard truths — truths that would be like sticking a finger in the eye of many of those in our public education universe here.”
  • “‘In a 21st-century world,’ Obama said. ‘Where jobs can be shipped wherever there’s an Internet connection, where a child born in Dallas is now competing with a child in New Delhi, where your best job qualification is not what you do, but what you know — education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success, it’s a prerequisite for success….'”
  • “Although short on detail, Obama said good teachers ‘will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement.…'” [My italics.]

Wow! Increased expectations! Improved standards! That classroom teachers should be rewarded on the basis of student achievement!

Frankly, in Canada, even knowing how well individual students are achieving, let alone in comparison to their peers, is wishful thinking. In fact, the very notion that how well a student does should reflect on how well a teacher teachers, causes the teachers’ unions nightmares. Accountability? What’s that?

And, yes, I’m a former teacher AND teacher educator. Yet, I would have had no problem with anyone assessing how well I teach, no matter where my school was located or what the language, social or special needs of my students.

In fact, when I was in private practice, that is what I did. I helped children who were doing badly in school — by providing them with the learning strategies they needed to succeed, such as something as simple as using post-it notes to keep track of the main ideas in a story. Or, common sense approaches like using a tape-recorder to tape-record and listen to what you just read — thereby using all the senses.

Which makes me wonder what ever happened to all the “listening” centres that used to be a part of every primary and junior classroom? In fact, when “whole language” was first introduced, we were told they were essential, as were the phonics practise centres. And, so they were. 

But, the tape-recorders and earphones were expensive and required some careful teacher planning to shuffle the various reading groups through those centres. So, another policy was implemented well but modified over the years to the point where there is no longer anything “whole” about whole language.   

In any event, I will definitely be following these developments. They may be just what choice and other educational advocates have been hoping for — because reform of our educational systems is long overdue.

July 5, 2012: So, did the President achieve what he hoped to? Well, actually, yes. Did he achieve everything he wanted to? Obviously not, no one could in such a short period of time. But, make progress? Definitely. For full details of U.S. federal improvements and reforms to education, check out this White House link and scroll down to “Progress.”

Quebec students & Obama partisans prove some teachers indoctrinate rather than educate

Click image for frontpagemag.com

There is now plenty of proof that far too many teachers in both the United States and Canada are not “educating” their students about alternative political viewpoints.

Rather, they are indoctrinating them with a “my way or the highway” one-sided progressive ideology that, over the long term, could actually threaten our right to free speech and political affiliation.   

For example, check out this column by Mark Tapson from FrontPageMag.com and its link to a nine minute video of an unidentified female teacher and her students in a North Carolina high school classroom. (H/T bluecanada.ca)

As a former teacher and teacher educator, I find the video very difficult to listen to, not only because it is hard to follow given the noise in the background but because it is embarrassing. Clearly, the teacher is an Obama supporter which is her personal right. But, it is not her right to be an Obama apologist in her classroom.

Specifically, besides demonstrating an almost complete lack of classroom control, the video demonstrates the difference between indoctrinating and educating, especially when the teacher yells “stop” several times when a student argues they should be able to talk about Obama as they do Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, because “Obama is not God.”

Personally, I have no opinions or concerns about Obama one way or the other, although I have written about him several times on this blog in the past, most of it complementary (e.g,. here is my archive). Rather, my concern is with the type of political indoctrination we were witnessing.

Unfortunately, however, that type of “teaching” is not new. In fact, as I have written before, I was witness to such a phenomenon myself in Ontario between 1995 and 1999 when I was employed by a Mike Harris “Progressive Conservative” Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP). The teachers’ unions hate for Premier Harris and his government was over the top and eventually infected everyone in the profession.  

In fact, to this day, the effect of the indoctrination of students attending high school during the Harris years is still felt.  Now in their late 20s and early 30s, many are parents themselves and I read their “Harris ruined Ontario” comments on any blog or mainstream media column about the Harris years. When, in fact, the Harris government kept all their promises and completely turned the Ontario economy around.

Whatever! As the latest Quebec student protests demonstrate, the demonization of politicians we don’t agree with continues. Specifically, Chris Selley writes in today’s National Post, the student protestors in Quebec are now referring to “Liberal” Premier Jean Charest as a fascist. 

A fascist? Talk about magical thinking and hyperbole! Is the Quebec government using death squads to round up protestors, never to be seen again? Of course not. All Charest is doing is raising post-secondary tuition fees to be closer to what they are in the rest of Canada.  There is also the issue that progressive politicians ignore what doesn’t fit their agenda.

Anyway, whatever the examples of indoctrination by teachers or bias by progressive politicians, whether during the late 1990s in Ontario or in North Carolina and Quebec today, the results speak for themselves — free speech is at risk!

As such, I would remind all those with a one-sided political viewpoint, that as far back as Athenian democracy itself, Socrates taught his students the importance of the dialetic — a method of “dialogue between two or more people holding “different” points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue and with reasoned arguments.”

A truth we should all remember!

Ohio mother jailed for sending her kids to a better school

Just when you think Western society cannot get any stranger, you read that an Ohio mother was jailed for ten days and given three years probation because she chose to send her children to a better school than the one in her downtoan Akron neighbourhood — an area that was plagued by drugs and crime.

Obviously,  the local Akron authorities don’t understand the notion of freedom of movement and a parent’s right to try and provide her kids with a way out of the poverty trap.  And, trap it obviously is. What is especially shocking is that this didn’t happen in some Middle East or African dictatorship. It happened in the “land of the free” — in the United States of America where Barack Obama is President.  

Read the whole article. It makes us appreciate the notion of open boundaries and parent choice all that much more. Imagine! The downtown Akron Ohio school district actually hired a private eye to videotape Kelley Williams-Bolar “driving into the predominantly white district to deliver the children to school.”

So, who, I wonder, complained to the authorities and why are they trying to make an example out of this woman? For any Americans reading this post, I would recommend they send a complaint to their Congressman and Senator — no matter where they live. This is 2011 and that type of rigidity and lack of freedom should not be allowed anywhere in what is supposed to be the land of the free — particularly if  you are poor and black and can’t afford to move.

Anti-Americanism & anti-conservative bias on CBC news

As Michael Coren recently said on his show (H/T Richco and General Brock), the knee jerk reaction by the Canadian media, particularly the CBC, to blame Sarah Palin and the U.S. Tea Party Movement for the Arizona tragedy, has been absolutely appalling.  I mean, as Barbara Yaffe writes today in the Vancouver Sun, we have our own history of political violence. And, Yaffe doesn’t even include the FLQ crisis of 1970 when Quebec provincial Cabinet Minister Pierre LaPorte was shot and killed — when there were Liberal governments in Ottawa and Quebec City.

Yet, there was Neil MacDonald on CBC’s The National two nights ago, reporting from Washington in the most hostile and critical tone I have ever heard. To access the video, simply click on the link in the right side bar, dated January 10th, 2011 and titled “Political rhetoric fuelling violence.” Then wait for the advertising to finish.  In MacDonald’s piece, he readily admits the alleged killer was mentally unstable and probably not a conservative or a Republican.

 Unfortunately, however, he doesn’t end his reportage there. Instead,  he shows a heavy-handed one-sided video presentation that consisted of a series of cut and paste video clips and a one-sided interview on the benefits of progressive thinking.  Unprofessional? Definitely. Unethical? Possibly. One thing is for sure, the splicing together of random clips reminded me of the time Stephen Taylor outed CBC reporter Christina Lawand for using a similar technique to misrepresent what PM Harper had said.

Specifically,  there are two clips where conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh speaks. In the second one, you can hear MacDonald’s voice over saying “This from a man who said the following” and then we hear Limbaugh saying:  “There is going to be a gang rape by a Democratic Party.” 

Now, the way I interpret that is not that Limbaugh was saying that those in the Democratic party should be raped but, rather the exact opposite, that the Democratic Party was going to rape someone else. And, given the vitriol thrown at Palin during the 2008 U.S. election, that was close to what happened.

For three examples, check out this New York Daily News opinion piece dated September 20th, 2008. Celebrity comedian Sandra Bernhard is quoted as saying Palin would “be gang raped by my black brothers,” black activist Charlie Rangel refers to Palin as disabled and comedian, Margaret Cho, says that Palin was “the worst thing to happen since 9/11.” Now, think about that last comment. More than 3000 people were killed by Islamic extremists on 9/11 but Palin is worse? If that is not violent rhetoric, I don’t know what is.

And, spare me the business about Palin showing Gabrielle Gifford’s congressional district as a target.  As Coren says so eloquently, that was a metaphor for taking back the district, not killing anyone. All politicians refer to targeting a riding or constituency. It is no more sinister than that.

The crux of the matter is that the CBC’s anti-Americanism and hatred towards all things conservative (including when Newsworld program hosts allow Liberal and NDP pundits and politicians to continually interrupt and talk over Conservative guests),  is destroying what little credibility they have left.

Updates:

(1) Jack at Jack’s Newswatch has a number of links regarding the Arizona tragedy.

(2) BC Blue has a post up about how an Edmonton journalist has linked Ezra Levant to the Arizona assassination. Truly, what is really scary, progressives in this country, like in the U.S. are attempting to shut down free speech in any way they can. Speaking of hate speech?

(3) Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post — Massacre followed by libel (H/T Celestial Junk).

(4) Kerry Forrest on how Michael Harris bashed conservative American radio hosts and found it hard to find any callers who agreed with his point of view. Interesting.

(5) Sarah Palin responds at Canadiansense.

(6) A common sense column by a progressive, Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star. Blame gun laws, not Palin.

(7) Mark Bonokoski in the Ottawa Sun says massacre in Arizona was NOT politically motivated.