As per Canada’s liberal-left media’s style guide and its prescription for reporting on American politics, this week, Maclean’s reflexively and dutifully came up with another one of their flaming (and flamingly stupid) anti-Republican covers (see below).

See how with “YES HE CAN” they ever so smartly admit the fact that despite the liberal media’s collective efforts, their nemesis Mitt Romney, moreover a Republican, might actually win the election against their man Barack Hussein Obama? Awesome ironic wit and pro-Obama political marketing skills displayed here. I probably don’t need to point out that the headline is actually designed to lead you to their neat sub-head in which they coach you on how to think: “How this gaffe-prone, flip-flopping, mega-rich elitist could still beat Obama.” Nobody actually buys the magazine and reads its articles, so… job done!

How deliciously ironic and passive-aggressive and smug. How Canadian liberal media.

And what an excellent political pander to Canada’s many unthinking, unknowing, misinformed, anti-conservative left, Maclean’s! What a great news and information magazine. (Forget for a moment that thanks to liberals and socialists and sundry progressives in government through the years, Canadian taxpayers subsidize Maclean’s magazine every year  —  this year to the tune of a million-and-a-half taxpayer dollars. Hey just like CBC except only a thousand times less! What a bargoon! But anyway just forget that. There you go. Now you’re thinkin’ like Obama!)

Hey let’s have a look at the Maclean’s January 2008 cover!

After all, we’ve been informed by Maclean’s that Canada has a “love affair” with Barack Obama. It’s official!

 

Hey let’s look at some other recent Maclean’s covers!

 

oh and this one:


 

But back to this week’s Maclean’s objectivity gaffe-fest, and their “How this gaffe-prone, flip-flopping, mega-rich elitist could still beat Obama” information package: As is the habit of useful idiots including the news media across the West, a “gaffe” is anything a Republican or conservative says that the liberals don’t like, which is everything they say, but especially the truth, and which they want the public to take as yet another example of pure idiocy that their crack squad of non-investigative non-journalists have conjured-up and dubbed as a “gaffe,” whether it is or not. (That’s some good reporting, huh?!) Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s and Nancy Pelosi’s and myriad other liberals’ speeches (especially when rarely off-teleprompter) are replete with hysterically stupid gaffes and pure factual nonsense and outright lies, but don’t you dare call them gaffes! Like I had to tell you.

The term “flip-flopper” is only ascribed to a Republican or conservative. When a liberal/socialist/progressive flip-flopper flip-flops, it’s called “an evolving position.” Once again, that’s “evolving.” Say it with me. So Obama flip-flopping on, say, gay marriage is actually just some  —  all together now!  —  “evolving.”  How Darwinian.

“Mega-rich” is socialist for anyone who earns more than $250,000 per year (which the media also dutifully describe, as per Obama talking points), as “millionaires and billionaires.” (No no, stop laughing. It’s true.) Luckily I can translate from socialist. What it really means is “hate them.”

“Mega-rich” is a term which one usually doesn’t necessarily reflexively conflate with (except in the case of Republicans or conservatives) the term “elitists.” Especially when it’s used, as it is here, in such a banal, inarticulate, intellectually vacuous manner. But who cares if it sells magazines and denigrates Republicans or conservatives, and advances the left-wing, liberal/progressive cause  — am I right, progressives? More on that in a second. Here’s a paragraph from a late 2011 article in a Socialist web site:

Despite attempts by Democratic Party supporters to present the Democrats as defenders of working people, there are more millionaire Democratic senators (37) than Republicans (30). The median net worth of Senate Democrats was likewise higher: $2.69 million compared to $2.43 million.

I would add that many of them, like John Kerry, the Kennedys, and others, inherited or married into the wealth, rather than actually earning it like Mitt Romney did.

An “elitist” is any conservative who, darn the luck, is obviously not an elitist, like, say, Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber, or like most conservatives I’ve ever known. But, and this is key, an “elitist” also isn’t a Democrat or progressive. Any of ’em. So for example, John Kerry, a multimillionaire hundreds of times over, was and still is neither “mega-rich, nor an “elitist. Ted Kennedy (or any Kennedy including Jr.): nope, not mega-rich, and not an “elitist.” Jay Rockefeller, no, not him either. Millionaire Nancy Pelosi: not rich, not an elitist. Barbara Boxer: nuh-uh. Barack Obama, the ultimate rich snotty highfalutin academic who has never worked in the private-sector: an elitist? Certainly not, you mega-rich racist idiot! Just Republicans or conservatives can be “elitists” (and racists. And idiots!). The joke here is that the media are among the biggest elitists (and idiots).

If you really want to be informed, the best thing you could do is to not buy Maclean’s or most any other Canadian liberal hack media publications. Or support politicians who support them with your tax dollars.

 

 

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel

Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)