Thursday, March 28, 2024

Top 5 This Week

spot_img

Related Posts

“Controversial” and “polarizing” Globe and Mail down to 2,600 subscribers

Plus all the others that they have, which totals many thousands.  But I’ll just mention the 2,600 because it suits my agenda.

A reader (Joesph) sent me this tidbit this morning, as another example of liberal media bias.  The liberal media is so liberal they don’t even realize how liberal they are anymore.  That’s a kind-hearted interpretation of what’s going on here.  In reality, it might just be that the liberal media reporter is hideously agenda-driven and beyond the pale in terms of bias and objectivity.

(Liberals will email me or comment complaining that I’m making an issue out of nothing.  I understand that.  But that’s what liberals say when we catch them or their media being biased, intolerant, agenda-driven, and blinkered in their world view.) 

In this instance (simply a couple of sentences passed-off without much ado, as is often the case), we find where a “polarizing figure” is one who doesn’t toe the liberal-left line, even though they are massively popular among the people because of their “conservative” (what I call “normal”) stand. 

“Polarizing” to this reporter, Brian Laghi, means they are twice as popular as their opponent because of their stand against those obnoxious, salacious, lewd, pornographic gay pride weeks, which are among the most “polarizing” things (on purpose) that occur now across this nation.  Note that despite the people and their thoughts about it, these gay pride weeks are what’s deemed “normal” by the liberals and their media division, while those who voice their opposition to their own government backing them —are deemed “controversial”. 

It’s like Bizarro World.

From the Globe and Mail this morning, concerning some federal by-elections that are upcoming and may be called soon (maybe even today), with the reader’s comments as emailed to me:

Ms. Haskett is a polarizing figure in the community — a popular mayor who nonetheless caused controversy by refusing in 1995 to declare Gay Pride Week. She and the City of London were fined $10,000 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

What the G&M neglected to mention about Haskett was that during that mayoralty race she stopped campaigning for two weeks after that decision and still won a 2:1 landslide victory.

The Globe is implying that her popularity was diminished due to the decision of the liberal appointed Human Rights Commission, however if they had been accurate in the reporting they should have maintained the historical accuracy. The decision was made by the tribunal first and she achieved a landslide in spite of it afterwards.

But that wouldn’t be liberal now would it.

Who or what is “polarizing” or “controversial”? 

Looking further, I find that Haskett defeated Deputy Mayor Grant Hopcroft by 63.6% to 31.0% in one of the highest voter turnouts in a London municipal election in years, last election. Hopcroft and his supporters had attempted to turn the Mayor’s religious beliefs (she’s one o’ them damn Christians!) and her withdrawal from the campaign over the liberal-left/gay religion’s demands —into major issues.  But that wasn’t mentioned in the Globe and Mail story. 

Why didn’t the Globe and Mail see fit to print that?  It’s vitally important information for the voters in that by-election and for the broader public to know.  Neglecting to print it leaves the impression that the candidate caused an unpopular and legal storm over an unpopular position on a popular issue, whereas the opposite is actually true.  The liberal-left gay religion didn’t cause the “controversy”, see, she did!  She was the “polarizing” one. 

Refusing to kowtow to the liberal-left’s gay industry and religion’s dictates, actually made the candidate hugely popular.  Doesn’t fit well with the liberal-left propaganda machine does it?  It’s also a story of the liberal media attempting to marginalize someone (who is actually popular if the truth were known) to the outskirts of acceptability and normalcy and casting them as the ones on the wrong side of the fence.  This is an agenda being driven, plain and simple. 

The story here is also that of liberals once again relying on their courts and their various “human rights tribunals” and “commissions” and sundry such divisions—which over years of liberal-left rule have been stacked from top to bottom with various liberals, to decide important public policy that they either tried but failed, or simply knew wouldn’t fly if they left it up to the voice of the people in the traditional democratic sense—i.e., in a public vote.  The liberal-left rely on their various liberal court divisions to “reinterpret” the people’s “actual” wishes for the people because they, the people, are too stupid, and they vote wrong every time.  (Shades of the Liberals’ mouthpiece Scott Reid and his “beer and popcorn” analogy, hmm?).  The liberals get the desired result this way, because they, rather than the people, were in control.

 

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

Popular Articles