Sometimes I spend way too much time answering emails from readers. Then I don’t have time to write my biting blog entries or acidic NewsQuips. Liberals are in favor of that.
Sometimes they so enjoy that, that they write me to do just that—keep me from staying on course through sheer tedium and badgering.
That is certainly not the case here in the example below. This is an intelligent, well-spoken American person, open to the notion of conservative thought, who has a sister who is a resident Canadian liberal, and another one who simply lives near Canada and is also liberal. She tells me in an email that her sister brushes off the reality of Fox News Channel being banned until recently (unbanned, thanks to the enormous efforts of me and PTBC and many other freedom-lovers and intelligence seekers). So I wrote her back explaining a few things that I’m sure would blow the mind of most Americans—at least those with open minds. It will most likely be summarily dismissed by her liberal sister, and will cause indignant outrage and the setting of her hair on fire. I should have warned her that this is the the usual liberal response—or maybe she already knows that.
So taking the time to answer emails can be a pleasure, and when I can post them here, it makes good use of my time and has the added benefit of driving liberals batty, while also possibly warming their homes with open fire. Liberals are against that.
——- Original Message——-
From: [_____]
To: ProudToBeCanadian.ca
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: Canadian DialogueDear Joel,
I have another liberal sister (besides the Canadian in Halifax), who lives in upper New York State. She gets two Canadian TV channels included with her cable service. I mentioned to her what you had said about Fox News Channel being banned until just recently. She just this waved this information aside and relegated it to the ‘nonsense that her conservative sister (me) spews out’…
[…]
Best Regards,
Sisterofaliberal
And my answer to her was this:
From: ProudToBeCanadian.ca
To: Sisterofaliberal
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Canadian DialogueI’ve written tens of thousands of words at my web site regarding Fox News Channel being banned in Canada until recently (and even Bill O’Reilly talked about it a lot), both in my effort to get it unbanned, and in the hilarious opposition to the ban being lifted. Our broadcast regulator, the CRTC, actually considered Fox News Channel’s application in the same context as the Al-Jazeera application—the terrorist -supporting news channel—which it actually approved before approving Fox News Channel. The CRTC actually considered the idea of slapping a censor/monitor order on Fox News Channel if they approved it, just as they did Al-Jazeera—to monitor what was said before it got out on air. All that evil pro-American conservative talk might be comparable to the barbaric Islamofascist terrorist talk, ya see! I can’t very well go over all this material again now, but here’s an actual snippet from the CRTC’s decision:
16. Twenty-six individuals suggested that the Commission should approve the addition of Fox News to the digital lists, but only if the Commission applied the same terms as it applied to the carriage of the non-Canadian Arabic-language news and public affairs programming service, Al Jazeera. In support of this position, some individuals cited an instance in which Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly allegedly berated a member of the family of a 9/11 victim for signing a petition opposing the Iraq war.
And after mulling it over, their ever-so gracious decision on this idea:
38. Some interveners suggested that BDUs wishing to distribute Fox News should be subject to the same condition of license applicable to those that wish to distribute Al Jazeera. The Commission considers that there is nothing on the record of this proceeding that would lead it to conclude that such treatment is necessary in the case of Fox News. Specifically, none of the reasons cited by interveners for such an approach give the Commission sufficient cause for concern that there would be abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation in the programming broadcast by Fox News that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability. Accordingly, the Commission will not impose any requirement on BDUs for the distribution of Fox News other than those that generally apply with respect to the carriage of non-Canadian services that are included on the digital lists.
Other related comments from concerned Canadians:
17. The Commission received 35 comments from individuals who opposed the addition of Fox News, most of whom objected to the content of the service. Several individuals referred to Fox News as a service that presents a biased, conservative viewpoint supportive of Republican interests. Others opposed to the addition of the service suggested that the Commission should not authorize its carriage because of what they alleged to be Fox’s conservative ideological slant.
They actually wanted the ban kept in place because they feared a pre-conceived “conservative bias” leaking into the Canadian consciousness, possibly counterbalancing the overtly leftist liberal media that existed then and still exists now, which they wanted and still want to preserve, even if it means keeping out alternative viewpoints through censorship and banning. Hilarious. And we conservatives are the delusional ones!
[…]
Joel
As I often do, let me remind Canadians that Fox News Channel is now available, legally, in this country, despite the protestations of liberals. And it’s the best channel on TV by far. It’s actually enjoyable and interesting to watch. Even when they’re talking about Hillary.
It’s the number one cable news channel in the U.S., far surpassing CNN in ratings—often doubling the CNN ratings and CNBC combined. Bill O’Reilly’s O’Reilly Factor usually doubles (or more) Larry King—but they’re not even comparable programs really. For example Bill O’Reilly isn’t a doorknob.
Fox News Channel allows conservative thoughts to be exposed to the world. And they’re actually on America’s side, unlike any other channel. Unlike the liberals’ Canadian media (“liberalivision” is what I’ve properly dubbed it), they don’t just present a left-wing viewpoint on news topics countered by a further left, left-wing viewpoint. They actually allow conservatives to say things too—without sneering or mocking them. This is what liberals called “biased”. You see, when conservatives are allowed to say things in public, liberals deem that as unfair competition. So they seek to ban it or censor it or shout it down in some way.
At Fox News Channel, they say things like “Merry Christmas” and don’t gratuitously mock Christians. They don’t rely on far-left or Marxist university professors for wisdom on every cotton-pickin’ subject. They often say “homicide bombers” instead of “suicide bombers”, for accuracy. They want America to win the war. In contradistinction to Canada’s liberalvision, they’re not excruciatingly boring—they’re lively, funny, wise, intelligent, bright, and honest.
It’s really quite astonishing for most Canadians.
Contact your cable or satellite provider for Fox News Channel. Drive a liberal nuts and invite him or her over to watch it on your big plasma screen, perhaps using their blazing hair to light a fire in the fireplace to stay warm during the global warming.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Wow what a shock: a Big Government project’s cost estimate has DOUBLED — in only a few months - Tuesday April 30, 2024 at 4:50 pm
- UPDATED: State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
