What does Liberal-friendly propaganda look like?

above: What does Liberal-friendly propaganda look like?

Becky Day's report in the July 7, 2010 Niagara This Week fits the bill nicely.

Liberal energy minister Brad Duguid's platitudes and sketchy claims are parroted without question; Jim Bradley also predictably pops up in a photo-op, yet, curiously (!!) Bradley is not even mentioned in Day's article.

Where is the critical analysis of Duguid's do-gooder greenshevism? Why: THERE'S NONE!!!!

 

Nothing whatsoever in this pseudo-news article about the McGuinty Liberals' Green Energy disaster, and the ongoing lies and deceptions perpetrated by Duguid's and Bradley's Liberal government.
 

What specific "tough decisions" is Duguid referring to?! Neither reporter/stenographer Day nor Duguid, tell us.

What specifically is this "new economy" which Brad Duguid refers to? Is Duguid's ideal (fantasy) "new economy" the same one which Anatole Kaletsky wishes upon us, ie. the kind of statist-nightmare Peter Foster wrote about in his July 8, 2010 National Post column, "Statism 4.0"?
 

After years of lies from Dalton McGuinty, now Duguid claims all coal will be "phased out completely" by 2014. yeah, sure... [Check out more about Liberal Brad Duguid's expensive gas-plant lies]

Did you think that the St.Catharines Standard was the sole member of the Liberal Jim Bradley Fan Club?!!

C'mon: Williscraft and his gang at Niagara This Week let puff-pieces such as this slide by without blinking! What's to question here, right?! It certainly wasn't a "tough decision" to run this "story", eh?!

Yippeee: 'Niagara's the Green Energy Capital of Canada' - whatever the hell that means - because some Liberal greensheviks and some hangers-on say so? Because Phil Ritchie says that 53 trillion dollars are to be spent on climate change and bla bla bla? Oh, Phil, really... c'mon... stop drinking Bradley's kool-aid.

Here's what Walter Sendzik (a Liberal-appointed LCBO board member... nice, eh??), Jim Bradley, Brad Duguid, Chuck Holt, and Phil Ritchie weren't talking about:

 - they weren't talking about the issues which Parker Gallant wrote about in "Is this 'smart'?" (National Post, July 7, 2010) [same day as Day's NTW Liberal-slanted piece]

- and they weren't talking about Tim Shufelt's report "Ontario solar program in disarray" (National Post, July 8, 2010)

No, they were all smiley in their Liberal-friendly echo chamber, patting each other on the back, glowing in their GreenFear groupthink, pretending that Smitherman's Liberal energy fiasco is some kind of grand success.

Disgusting.

*

Brantford demolition continues

above: as seen July 6, 2010, the demolition continues along the south side of Colborne St. in Brantford Ont. The excavator is seen working on what had been the old Esquire theatre, which opened for business on June 3, 1937.
The wall now seen exposed in the distance is the west-side wall of the building at 71 Colborne St., which was built in 1870, as part of the James Bellhouse block. This building had five small dormered gables facing onto Colborne St., as seen at the upper left. In the 1950's and 60's Mayfair Ladies Wear had occupied the westerly-storefront of the Bellhouse Block.
Further next to the Mayfair (in the center of the same 1870-built Bellhouse Block) was the storefront that lastly housed Zorba's Restaurant, at 73-75 Colborne St., with three dormers above; and the last storefront, at the easterly-end of the Bellhouse Block was at #77 Colborne St. with the last dormer.
above: July 6, 2010 - looking at the demolition site of the former Esquire Theatre from the rear, from Water St.; a nearly-demolished part of the theatre's rear lower wall is still seen at the left. (the wall seen above had actually been an older wall within the theatre; there had been an addition further to the rear (to the left) which brought the theatre's rear wall right to Water St. (see here); this addition has just recently been demolished, exposing the earlier interior brick wall farther in.) The rear of the former Mayfair Ladies Wear is seen next to the right, with its single small dormer facing to the rear; further to the right is the building which had housed Zorba's Restaurant, with its three small gabled dormers seen. The fifth rear dormer of the Bellhouse Block is just out of frame at the top right.
Photos by R. Bobak
*

Jim Bradley had nothing to do with the HST (well, as far as the St.Catharines Standard would like you to believe...)

John Currey wrote in "Put the HST blame where it belongs", (St.Catharines Standard, Jul.6, 2010):
"Let's see, the great public backlash to HST is to bash the minimum-wage person at the gas pump, and is that person's name Jim Bradley?

Hmm. The general public is complaining about higher prices to the checkout clerk, and is that person's name Jim Bradley?

The Standard prints an entire article about the negative reaction to the HST, and is the name Jim Bradley mentioned even once?

Let's give credit where credit is due St. Catharines.

It was St. Catharines Liberal MPP Jim Bradley who voted for, supported and made the HST come crashing down on us.

Did I mention that Jim Bradley, our longest-living and longest-serving MPP for the taxpayers of St. Catharines and the province, was responsible for the HST?

In case I did not, remember the name Jim Bradley, father of HST, the next time he runs for office!"
*
   Jim Bradley WASN'T MENTIONED in the St.Catharines Standard regarding his and McGuinty's Horse Shit Tax?
   But, why would the St.Catharines Standard (also known as The Liberal Jim Bradley Fan Club) bother to portray their favourite son - Niagara's Royal Hindness, the Savant of Secord Drive, the King'O'Niagara, the Godfather of GreenFear - in any remotely negative light?
   Good Ole Jimmy's their boy!!
   Jimmy can do no wrong, as far as the St.Catharines Standard (aka The Liberal Jim Bradley Fan Club, in case you forgot) is concerned.
   No reporter or editorialist with the St.Catharines Standard dares to challenge or criticize Bradley's Liberal government policies; especially when it comes to actually interviewing Jimmy on any number of issues. Most of what little we do get from Jimmy's Standard Fan Club are sappy brown-noser fluff-pieces that are more like PR pieces for Jimmy than substantial media analysis or criticism.
   The "reporters" act as Liberal stenographers, as marionettes, simply amplifying and regurgitating Liberal talking points, without question - it's like Bradley has a handy full time interim campaign office of friendly fifth columnists, in-between elections.
   You can't buy [...or, maybe you can?] the kind of free and easy media ride that Liberal MPP Jim Bradley has enjoyed for years right here in Niagara.
   The Jim Bradley Fan Club will do whatever they can to help protect and cover Jim Bradley's ass; whether it means curiously omitting Bradley's name from some contentious provincial issue, or, spinning the emphasis elsewhere, diverting attention away from their Golden Grit Jimmy.
[Was Jimmy contacted by the St.Catharines Standard regarding such-and-such issue? What did Bradley say? Did Bradley even bother to respond? We never know, cause Jimmy, conveniently, often just can't be found - just isn't mentioned - in the Standard!]
  What's Jim Bradley got to do with the HST, anyway - right? Ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I wonder if the cost of a subscription to the St.Catharines Standard qualifies as a political tax-deduction to the Liberal Party?
*

Liberal Jim Bradley: who's gonna stick it to this deceptive liar?

Randall Denley wrote in "Double dose of HST for landlords; Passing on increased costs to tenants not allowed", (Ottawa Citizen, July 4, 2010):

"The harmonized sales tax is here, but few will feel it as acutely as landlords. They are facing an eight-per-cent increase in the cost of heating and a wide range of services, but the province won't let them recoup the money from tenants.

Premier Dalton McGuinty says that his HST is "strong medicine," but he's ordering a double dose for people in the rental housing industry. It's a purely political move designed to prevent a tenant revolt against the HST. It will shelter tenants from the real costs of housing in the short term, certainly until after the next provincial election. For a politician, that's a job well done, but it's not fair and it will drive up rents ultimately.

Landlords are facing the HST on utilities, repairs, legal services, accounting, landscaping, snow removal, property management and garbage disposal.

The biggest burden will be on the heating bill. About 85 per cent of tenants have heat included in their rent, but the eight-percentage-point increase in sales tax will be the landlords' problem, along with any underlying increase in the price of the heating fuel itself.

According to the provincial landlords' organization, the HST will add about five per cent to overall costs of operating a rental building, even after some HST-related savings are taken into account. That's on top of anticipated inflation of about two per cent.

Faced with those cost increases, landlords will only be allowed to increase rents by 0.7 per cent, the lowest limit in the 35-year history of rent regulation in Ontario. And it gets worse. The 0.7-per-cent figure is based on the increase in the consumer price index between May 2009 and May 2010, so the government is allowing landlords to recoup inflation that has already taken place, but not until next year. The guideline announced in June applies to rents starting in January 2011. Rents can only go up once every 12 months, so the tiny increase could take place as late as December 2011. Landlords had hoped to get at least partial recovery of the HST through a longstanding mechanism that allows them to get increases above rent guidelines if there are extraordinary costs. They were shooting for a total increase of 2.5 to 3 per cent. Once it became apparent that the HST would affect renters, the McGuinty government quickly acted to cancel the provision, calling it a "loophole." The political calculation was simple. There are a lot of renters, particularly in vote-rich Toronto. There are shielded from many of the HST's effects, but a rent increase would have been apparent and unpopular. It would also have created pressure on the government to shell out more money for shelter allowances for people on social assistance. The easy solution was to stick it to landlords. There are obviously far fewer of them and landlords are not a well-loved group anyway. The problem for landlords is that they are businesspeople. They can't just run a deficit the way the McGuinty government does. The rents a landlord obtains have to at least cover his costs or the investment doesn't make any sense. And yet, they are in a business where government tells them how much they can increase their revenues, while choosing to turn a blind eye to demonstrable cost increases the government itself has caused. One of the few areas where landlords can cut costs is property maintenance and that's just what they will do, says John Dickie, chair of the Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization. That's bad for tenants because it will reduce the quality of the rental stock, Dickie says. The government is just fooling tenants when it maintains that they will be sheltered from the HST, Dickie says. As new tenants move in, they will face higher rents as a result of HST-driven higher costs. Rent-increase limits apply to tenants, not units. There might be an impression that landlords are all giant corporations, but most of them are small investors. There an estimated 10,000 landlords in Ottawa and all but a few hundred are little guys struggling to make their revenues exceed their expenses. Like so much about this HST, the rent issue has been handled deceptively. Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Jim Bradley says the government's approach offers "real protection for tenants" while "ensuring that landlords can recover increases in their costs." Neither part of that statement is true. Tenants will face higher costs when they move. Landlords will recoup their increased costs only to the extent that they cause future consumer price inflation, and then only years after the fact. Homeowners are bearing the full brunt of the HST from Day 1. There is no reason why tenants should get special treatment, especially not at the expense of landlords."
*
Liberal MPP Jim Bradley, the FLICKING liar from St.Catharines, gets caught with his pants down again, exposing his trademarked greasy scumbag Liberal duplicity.
Neither part of Jim Bradley's deluded deception is true, as Denley rightly notes.
Yet, McGuinty's congenital Liberal liars and deceivers are so far out of touch with reality that they actually believe that the Grit sputum which they smugly spit out at us, is not [cannot!] be sputum - they think it is sound policy.
Liberal scumbags such as Jim Bradley simply cannot see any longer through their mounting piles of horse shit.
Let's see how the St.Catharines Standard (aka The Liberal Jim Bradley Fan Club) ignores this story about their Gritty Golden Boy, as they have so many others.
Where's that in-depth Standard analysis on this issue? Where's that insightful interview with McGuinty's Municipal Affairs minister Jim Bradley?
Oh, yeah - there wasn't one, and ain't gonna be one.
What's Jim got to do with any of this, anyhow?
We love Jimmy.
Jimmy can do no wrong.
Jimmy's our special friend.
Jimmy's the King'O'Niagara.
We are Jimmy's Fan Club.
Time for a good ole global-warming story, perhaps...

Liberal Allan Rock: free-speech poser

The National Post's July 3, 2010 editorial, "The real censor at U of Ottawa" plainly revealed the smarmy smug scumbag (typical Liberal, eh?) which Allan Rock has shown himself to be:

"Last March, when controversial American conservative pundit Ann Coulter first proposed to speak on the University of Ottawa campus, the school's vice-president academic and provost, Francois Houle, sent an infamouslysmug, patronizing letter to Ms. Coulter, warning her to "educate" herself about what kinds of speech are and are not acceptable in Canada "before your planned visit here."

He added a thinly veiled threat that "promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges." To avoid arrest or a lawsuit, he cautioned ominously, "weigh your words with respect and civility in mind."

Now, thanks to an access to information request by The Canadian Press (CP), we have learned that U of O president Allan Rock, the former federal Liberal Justice minister -- not Mr. Houle -- was the force behind the intimidating email to Ms. Coulter.

The CP reports that the day before Mr. Houle's message was sent to Ms. Coulter, Mr. Rock sent his own message to Mr. Houle instructing him to warn her of the potential for legal action should she go ahead with her planned address. In a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Rock wrote that "Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foulmouthed poltroon ... 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind.' She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

A firestorm followed the release of Mr. Houle's sneering email. He received hundreds of angry, often vicious emails. Dozens of newspapers, this one included, wondered about his fitness for the job a leading a university, which is supposed to be a sanctuary for free inquiry, not a shrine for the worship of political correctness.

Not once during the maelstrom heaped upon Mr. Houle did Mr. Rock step up and admit he was actually the person behind his vice-president's correspondence. Indeed, the emails obtained by CP indicate that after criticism of the provost's letter heated up, Mr. Rock -- who as Justice minister for Jean Chretien was responsible for such controversial legislation as the gun registry and divorce laws that force men to pay tax on the child support they send their ex-wives -- considered making a public offer to Ms. Coulter to return to the university and speak. Such a move would have been self-serving, making Mr. Rock look like the defender of free speech, even though it was him all along who wanted to "chill" Ms. Coulter's remarks.

Mr. Rock was not the only one hoping to intimidate the controversial writer into moving her speech off campus. Mr. Rock seems to have been acting on the request of Seamus Wolfe, Ottawa's student federation president, who had posters for the Coulter event removed from student union property and who wrote to Mr. Rock urging that "you notify Ms. Coulter that she is not welcome on our campus, and that her event will not occur on uOttawa property."

Of course, Messrs. Rock, Houle and Wolfe all would see themselves as champions of free expression, which highlights the danger posed by of hate-speech laws: They give intellectual cover to censorship by permitting politically correct persons simply to define any speech with which they happen to disagree as "hate speech."

In this regards, perhaps most troubling was Mr. Rock's instruction to Mr. Houle that the latter urge Ms. Coulter "to respect that Canadian tradition" of free speech "as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

Free speech is a right, not a privilege. The right to speak one's mind did not descend from government or a university official. The world "privilege" implies a freedom that can be taken away at the pleasure of those in power or on the bench. By their nature, privileges cannot be bulwarks against the abuse of power.

For a former head of the Law Society of Upper Canada to have such a false concept of fundamental political rights is appalling. Indeed, it casts doubt on his ability to lead a university."

(...see also the National Post's Mar.24, 2010 report here, after Coulter was successfully censored by the politically-correct leftists at the University of Ottawa, and where NO MENTION was made - because it was not yet known - of Allan Rock's secretive Liberal influence in this whole sordid mess.)

What a FLICKING Liberal wimp - now we see that Alan Rock had to use a proxy, provost Francoise Houle, to act as his Smug Censor Agent, while Rock hid in the background.

In fact, it could very well be said that:
Liberal cretin Allan Rock, a Chretienite leftist hack, a disastrous former Justice Minister and useless Health Minister, is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-intentioned, duplicitous ponce; a loud-mouth that bespeaks his vacant mind - by using other agents as his surreptitious pawns, of course. Rock is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for the disgusting and profoundly shallow partisan Liberal view of the world. Rock and his political Liberal scumbag associates and colleagues are a malignancy on Canada's - and the West's - body politic. Rock is a free-speech hypocrite, a disgrace to Canada's Parliament, and a disgrace as the president, no less, of the university in Canada's capital. Rock exemplifies the deceptive and manipulative characteristics that define the smug elitism known as Liberalism. It is these kind of Allan Rocks who still manipulate and pull strings from their well-cushioned Liberal-friendly snake-pits in academia, who are loathed by Canadians, and who have helped cause the dramatic decline in the respect for the institution of Parliament.

The Jim Bradley Liberal Fan Club

David M. Haskell wrote in "Sun TV News a move in the right direction" (Toronto Sun, Jun.29, 2010, here):

  "Since Quebecor's Pierre Karl Peladeau announced his company would be launching Sun TV News an English-language all-news channel that privileges small "c" conservative perspectives pundits have been debating the need for such an entity.
  They've been bolstering their position by referencing the state of Canadian media today.
  The pro group claims, in the main, a left-wing bias exists; particularly, when it comes to television news. Sun TV News is a needed corrective.
  The latter insist fairness, balance and objectivity are, in large part, the order of the day.
  As someone who studies media bias in Canada, what surprised me the most about the debate has been the absence of empirical data. Some commentators have even suggested valid research on the topic doesn't exist.
  Self-described "liberal" John Moore argued in the National Post left-wing media bias is "one of those gut things conservatives feel but can never prove." The conservatives' collective "guts" are onto something.
  Ryerson University professors Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala explored the demographic and political leanings of Canada's television news directors. The results of their survey were published in 2005 in the Canadian Journal of Communication. The researchers found the news directors, the people "with the most direct responsibility for programming the news on any given day," were more politically and socially liberal than the rest of the Canadian population.
  Broken down by network, those working for the CBC were the most left-leaning.
  Barber and Rauhala's findings echo researchers David Pritchard and Florian Sauvageau's survey results from years earlier. Regarding Canadian TV journalists, they found most felt the news organizations they worked for were "slightly left of centre" when it came to political outlook while they themselves were ideologically more left-leaning than their employers.
  Other peer-reviewed studies have shown the personal values Canadian journalists hold and the ideologies they subscribe to influence the coverage they produce.
  In their 2003 Donner Prize-nominated book, 'Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News,' Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper show strong evidence of this link. They found when it comes to reporting on issues connected to social values, Canada's national journalists regularly "slant" their coverage in order to privilege liberal views over socially-conservative perspectives. When the researchers turned their attention to TV news alone they found coverage by the CBC was most harsh against conservative positions.
  For the last few years I've been examining the national news media's relationship with evangelical Christians a group well-known for its highly conservative social values.
  In one study, published in the Journal of Communication and Religion, I analyzed 11 years of national TV news reports featuring those on the religious-right.   Like Miljan and Cooper, I found evidence of negatively slanted coverage.
  Journalists, particularly those working for CBC TV, used omission, exaggeration or misrepresentation of information to present conservative Protestants and the positions they held in the worst possible light.
  There are more examples from my own research and the research of others that leads me to personally support the launch of Sun TV news.
  Canada needs journalists and news outlets as diverse in their values as Canadians themselves. When it comes to TV news in Canada, a move in the "right" direction is also a move in the correct direction.
  (Haskell is Associate Professor of Journalism at Wilfrid Laurier University's Brantford campus and author of 'Through a Lens Darkly: How the News Media Perceive and Portray Evangelicals')"
*
How about a look at Sun Media's own St.Catharines Standard, and its inbred inherently-Liberal friendly attitude? Isn't there a slanted, biased editorial and reporting stance at this media outlet?
The St.Catharines Standard - also known as The Jim Bradley Liberal Fan Club - can always be counted on to sympathetically portray Good Ole Jimmy, no matter what the circumstances; stories of provincial relevance and local impact, which might not cast Jim Bradley's Liberal Party in a favourable light, mysteriously (and predictably) happen not to mention MPP Bradley, as if somehow, Jim's politics are not involved!!
Gosh: often, Jim Bradley just can't be found in the St.Catharines Standard! When it comes to media scrutiny and accountability, Liberal Jim Bradley gets off easy over at the St.Catharines Standard.
(...contrasted to when Jim was in opposition - and everything in the entire planet - as Jim would eagerly have Standard reporters and readers believe - somehow was ultimately Mike Harris' and Ralph Klein's fault.)
We just had G20 riots on Toronto's streets fomented by pretend laws being passed by secretive Liberals - and not one story in the St.Catharines Standard interviewing our secretive local MPP, Jim Bradley, asking our provincial member of parliament to explain in detail his Liberal government's actions - THERE WAS NOTHING from, or about, Jim Bradley AT ALL!
Where was Jimmy during the riots?
What was Jimmy's reaction to the riots as they unfolded?
As a McGuinty cabinet minister, when did Jim Bradley first know that the G20 fence law was being incorrectly interpreted - and applied - by Toronto Police Chief Blair?
Why didn't Jim Bradley, or his colleague Bartolucci, or Ontario's Premier Liberal Liar, Dalton McGuinty, publicly clarify this disastrous so-called 'mis-understanding' of their 'secret law'?
Why - as far as the sheeple of St.Catharines are concerned, Jim Bradley - as pure as the [global-warming-melted] snow - had nothin' at all to do with any of this!!
*

McGuinty's secretive Liberals, once again, hide from scrutiny in G20 'secret law' fiasco

Finally, on July 2, 2010, Ontario's Premier Liberal Liar, Dalton McGuinty, spoke up about his G20 'secret' law - see Globe and Mail; see CBC.

Not surprisingly, Dalton McGuinty feels Ontarians deserve no apology from his government, and (again, no surprise from these secretive Liberals) McGuinty doesn't feel that any inquiry is necessary, either.

Civil rights violations - under McGuinty's Liberal government?
What?!?
Feh - why should we bother to look into that?!!!!!!

Police chiefs inventing new laws, and pretending that new powers are in place?
What?!?
Feh - why should we bother looking into that?!!!!

Provincial and Municipal officials - knowing that there were NO 'NEW' LAWS applicable outside the security perimeter - nevertheless coyly keeping that fact secret from the public?
What?!?
Feh - why should we bother to look into that?!!!!

Proud lefties McGuinty and David Miller have ignored and downplayed the many reports of unconstitutional police searches which occurred far from the supposed 5 metre inner (!!) side of the security zone fence.

McGuinty and Blair have also said that ads (about the law which McGuinty's Libs passed on Jun.2, 2010) were placed in "the newspapers" - so, does anyone know which newspapers?
Were any of these ads placed in, say, the Toronto Star, or, the Toronto Sun?

Because by reading these two papers, it seems that NO ONE - including the reporters who work there - even knew about this law!!!

Then, think about this:
Let's say that all these 'millions' of flyers (about the law change) were sent throughout Toronto, as Blair said;
and let's say that all these ads were placed in the newspapers, as McGuinty said;
then: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT TORONTO'S POLICE CHIEF HIMSELF COULDN'T CLARIFY THESE LAWS - SEEING THAT THEY APPLIED ONLY WITHIN THE SECURITY ZONE? Didn't the Chief, or his boss Miller, or any of their advisers, read any of these "public" ads??!

If the temporary G20 security law was clearly meant to apply ONLY WITHIN the security zone - and if it indeed WAS made public (as both McGuinty and Blair claim) - then how is it possible that Blair somehow still believed that the powers extended on both sides of the security fence??!!

How is it that Miller allowed this mis-perception by his own police chief to remain unchecked?!

How is it that McGuinty and Bartolucci allowed this mis-perception to fester without public clarification? Were McGuinty's spin doctors already on vacation for the weekend?

And yet McGuinty doesn't feel that Ontarians are owed any explanation or apology!!

This is disgusting - McGuinty, Miller, and Blair misled Ontarians.

For whatever individual reasons (reasons which should now be publicly examined) each of them deftly danced around the truth and conveniently withheld information which would have corrected Blair's Jun.25 mis-reading of this supposedly-publicly-posted law. More importantly, setting the record straight immediately would have helped to prevent inflaming the excessive outrage which this 'secret' law fomented in the minds of many protesters.
See also here; here.