Speaking of CNN...

In my previous post, I said that no-one paid attention to Michael Moore's 2018 warning that Donald Trump would win the 2020 election because it was on the Clinton News Network. My point is that no-one takes seriously the bullshit that appears on CNN (or ABC, NBC, CBS... or, in Canada, the CBC) because everyone knows they put a politically correct liberal spin on everything.

That's the point of "14 Mostly Accurate CNN Headlines From The Last 6,000 Years Of Human History", posted yesterday on the Babylon Bee, your trusted source for Christian satire. I can't resist sharing this one, which was illustrated.

Click on the link to see the other 13. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Trump's gonna win... sez Michael Moore!

It may be remembered (although liberals, pollsters and the meeja would like to forget) that frumpy filmmaker Michael Moore predicted in October of 2016 that Donald J. Trump would win that year's election and become President of the United States. That was in his one-and-one-half-man stage show called Trumpland.

We posted an an audio clip at the time, but since it has mysteriously (?) disappeared from YouTube, we'll just repost this quote: "Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump."

But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's Moore! [Geddit? Ed.] Mr Moore went on to say "Trump's election is going to be the biggest 'fuck you!' ever recorded in human history, and it will feel good!" And so it did.

That was almost four years ago. Fast forward to September of 2018, when Michael Moore, while on the promotional tour for his film Fahrenheit 11/9, told CNN that President Trump is an "evil genius" who will be re-elected in 2020. Don't believe me? Click here to check out the story, which CNN cleverly buried in its Enteretainment section.

What? You'd never follow a link to the Clinton News Network. Don't blame you. Here's the best part. "Too many people in the summer of 2016 were so sure Hillary [Clinton] was going to win, saying no one is going to vote for this idiot. He could win again. I operate as if he is a two-term Trump. I have to. If you think any other way you are guaranteeing that whoever is going to run against him will lose.... I think the man is an evil genius and he was able to outsmart the smartest person ever to run for president...."

Of course no-one paid any attention to that warning because (a) it came from Michael Moore, and (b) it was on CNN. Now, with just over nine weeks to go before the 2020 election, Mr Moore has sounded the alarum again, only this time on his Facebook page. Here `tis.

Mr Moore cited a recent CNN polls showing Slow Joe Biden and Still-President Trump in a virtual tie in battleground states including Minnesota (where seven city mayors endorsed Mr Trump yesterday) and Michigan. A national CNN poll this month showed that Mr Biden's lead has narrowed, now standing at 50% to 46%. And this week a survey from the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group found the two statistically tied at 47% in Minnesota, with Mr Trump narrowly leading Mr Biden in Michigan.

Of course the polls were famously wrong in 2016. But Michael Moore was right. Who ya gonna believe? Time to get your bets down while you can still get decent odds. Lifetime pct .982.

Barack Obama talks about absentee black fathers

Certain things are inevitable. One is that the "Reverend" Al Sharpton (erstwhile champion of Tawana Brawley) will be a featured speaker at any BLM protest. Another is that when I write an inconvenient truth about a prominent person of colour, a reader will call me a racist, bigot, yada yada yada.

This happened yesterday. Even as the Rev prated in front of the Lincoln Memorial about how whites just love putting their knees on black throats, a reader e-mailed me to complain about my statement, yesterday, of the fact that both ex-President Obama and Veep-wannabe Kamala Harris were raised by their mothers with little or no help from their absent fathers.

She (are you surprised?) accused me of perpetuating the negative stereotype of -- my words now -- irresponsible black dudes who impregnate baby mamas (of all races) and then bail out, leaving the mothers to do the best they can, on their own. Just as Barack Obama's mother did. Just as Kamala Harris's other did.

Dear reader. The "missing black father" is not a mythological creature. He is real, and watching from afar as his kids riot, loot, and shoot or get shot. How many reports have you seen on your local newscast in which the mother of a young black(ish) man who is either the perp or the victim weeps and tells the meeja that "he was a good boy, trying to turn his life around" etc etc, with the father nowhere in sight.

Before resting my case, I wish to put in evidence the chart at left, compiled by the National Center for Fathering. Click here to read "The Extent of Fatherlessness", which explains the issue in detail.

Let me leave you with the words of Barack Hussein Obama himself. On 15 June 2008 (a Father's Day), he addressed a black church in Chicago. According to Dr Randall Kennedy (in The Persistence of the Color Line, recommended yesterday), Senator Obama (as he then was)
"stated that 'in the African American community...more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,' and that 'too many fathers [are] missing from too many lives and too many homes.' Continuing, Obama declared that 'these absent black fathers have abandoned their responsibilities, acting more like boys instead of men.'"

Dr Kennedy (who is black) does not say that Mr Obama was wrong in what he said, nor wrong to say it, although he does suggest that there may have been an ulterior motive. Like what? Like preaching family values to black people to prove to white people that he was not the sort of trashy black who would leave his wife and children... or the country... in the lurch.

The facts about incomplete families in the black community are what they are. So are the facts of the lives of ex-President Obama and Senator Harris. I make no apology for pointing out the facts... just the facts.

Parsing the blackness of Kamala Harris

Make no mistake. The 2020 election, more than any election since the Glorious War of the Secession, is going to be about race. Nothing else. The notion that the US of A somehow became "postracial" with the election of Barack Hussein Obama is an illusion, or should I say delusion of the guilt-ridden liberals who are wilfully oblivious to the onset of a racialized civil war.

I have been thinking about the imminence of an us-vs-them war while reading Dr Randall Kennedy's The Persistence of the Color Line (Vintage Books 2011), a critical examination of racial politics and the Obama presidency. Dr Kennedy was Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the American Philosophical Association. He is no "Uncle Tom", nor is he an African-American incapable of seeing any fault in any Black politician. His book, which I recommend, "offers an incisive view of Obama's triumphs and travails, his strengths and weaknesses, as they pertain to the troubled historyof race in America."

Dr Kennedy begins with an examination of Mr Obama's self-identification as "black" and "African-American" -- a claim from which (the author says) he rarely wavered in spite of the "birther" controversy and a life story far removed from the typical black "lived experience" (to use the current buzzphrase). The more I read about the ex-President's life history, the more parallels I saw with the back story of Kamala Harris, who is now being touted as the first "woman of colour" to run for the nomination of a major American party.*

Two weeks ago, in "What kind of 'American' is Kamala Harris", I questioned the Dem nominee's self-identification as "African-American". Even then, the (((controlled media))) and others fearful of Ms Harris being thought too black were pointing out that she could also be called an "Asian American", or, better, just a "woman of colour". Not really black, y'understand, just, errr, non-white. So let's do a comparison between the Veep wannabe and the Prez.

Like Kamala Harris, Barack Hussein Obama had a black father. Neither father was American. Obama père was African, from Kenya. Ms Harris's father was Jamaican. Both black fathers bailed out on their non-black partners when their progeny were just kids, leaving the baby mamas to raise the kids alone.

Thanks to the efforts of their mothers, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris spent some of their formative years outside of the USA, going to elite private schools where the majority of their classmates and friends were non-black. Unlike the majority of African-Americans, both went on to university and earned degrees in law. Arguably, neither of them had what talk-show host Tavis Smiley, quoted by Dr Kennedy, called "the quintessential black experience in America." Their "lived experiences" were unlike those of the majority of minorities who voted for them.

And yet, both Mr Obama and Ms Harris claim, with pride, to be "African-American". But here, according to Dr Kennedy, is the acid test, or rather the litmus test, which the Prez passes and Ms Harris... does not. Barack Hussein Obama married Michelle Robinson, a black woman. Ms Harris married Douglas Emhoff, an attorney who happens to be, errr, white.

Why is this important? The author of The Persistence of the Color Line (who, let us remember, is black) writes:
Given the dismal state of the marriage market for black women, the shrinking number of black married couples, and the perception that successful black men often marry outside their race, Barack Obama's marriage has won for him large amounts of goodwill among blacks. 

Lawrence Otis Graham, another African-American Harvard Law School alumnus, memorably highlights the importance he attaches to the marital choices of fellow blacks. Nothing that he and his friends regularly engage in "race checking", Graham confides:
We flip through glowing profiles in People, Ebony, or Business Week quietly praising the latest black trailblazer or role model. Then we look for what we consider the final determinant of this person's black identity -- that thing that will allow us to bestow our unqualified appreciation. We look for the litmus test of lyalty to the race: the photo of the person's spouse or significant other"

For some blacks, nothing was more important as a clue to Obamas's racial loyalty than his demonstrated commitment to "a sister". For them, few political images packed more of an emotional wallop than seeingr Obama onstage in the affectionate emgrace of his beautiful black wife and their two adorable children.

In a footnote (p. 81), Dr Kennedy asks us to "Consider the following observation: 'Why do black people love Obama? In large part it's because of the dark-skinned woman on his arm.... Had Barack married a white woman, hiw candidacy would've never gotten off the ground with black people." ... "He may only be half black but he is married to a black woman and his children are black. That says a lot to me because he could have married a white woman...."

Ed. had to search a bit to get information about Ms Harris's spouse. The Dumbocrats aren't exactly putting him out front and centre. It will be interesting to see how often he appears with their V-P nominee, and how his non-blackness... and her black(ish)ness... play out on the campaign trail.

* This is not true. Dr Kennedy points out (pp. 57-58) that Shirley Anita Chisholm, the first really black woman elected to Congress, presented herself as a presidential candidate in 1972. She never posed a real threat to the Democratic Party front-runners and figured only marginally at the convention that nominated George McGovern, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon.

The once and future President of the United States of America

Lifetime pct .983.

VIDEO: Poetic justice for an eco-warrior

It has been some time since we presented our coveted Wally award, given to the few TV commercials which really tickled the old humerus. Fact is, there haven't been many truly funny commercials made since the Dempanic set in. All the advertisers are busy virtue-signalling. I think if I hear one more spokesthingy for one more Fortune 500 corporation tell us that they feel our pain and are standing by us in this difficult time, I'm going to scream.

I'm tired of being reminded that Covid-19 isn't funny. Life isn't funny. Nothing is funny, any more. So let's look back a couple of years, to the good old days when ad agencies could get away with making something like this commercial for the Kia Niro, "the new game-changing hybrid SUV designed for versatility and fuel efficiency." [Send cheque by courier, please. I don't want it to get lost with all the vote-by-mail ballots. Ed.]

The real Erin O'Toole

Earlier today Walt told you how, after a truly painful exercise in voting by mail, Erin O'Toole came to be the leader of Canada's so-called Conservative Party. It may be remembered that in 2017 Mr O'Toole finished third in the leadership contested won by Andrew Scheer. The runner-up, by just 60 votes, was Maxime Bernier, who left in a huff [or a minute-and-a-huff? Ed.] to found the People's Party in Canada.

"Mad Max" said at the time that the Tories could not win under Mr Scheep's leadership, because they were offering policies which were no different than those of the Gliberals headed by Mr Socks. The choice, he sasid, was "Liberal or Liberal-Lite". He was right, and many Conservatives (except for some dairy farmers) wished in 2019 that M Bernier had been their leader, instead of languishing in right field.

Now the Tories have a new leader who, as Walt told you, could almost be a clone of Mr Scheer -- just another middle-aged white man of European descent, with a big white wife and two perfect children, like "the Happy Hydro family" from 1950s advertising. The only noticeable difference between Mr Scheer and Mr O'Toole is that the latter will need lots more French lessons to be able to hold his own with Mr Socks on the debate platform.

Will Mr O'Toole, who made a not-so-subtle pitch to the social conservatives in his campaign but is really a creature of the "radical centre", push the Conservative Party into anything like a conservative position on the issues of the day, both financial and social? M Bernier thinks not. He has sent us this statement of his views on Mr O'Toole and the state of conservatism in Canada today.

Two years ago, I resigned from the Conservative Party of Canada and decided to launch a new, principled, and genuinely conservative party, the People's Party of Canada. I am more convinced than ever that I made the right decision.

I said at the time that under Andrew Scheer's leadership, the Conservative Party had become too morally and intellectually corrupt to be reformed. Instead of articulating a coherent conservative vision, all he did was play identity politics, pander to ethnic and interest groups, and try to steal votes from the Liberals by proposing centre-left policies.

Andrew Scheer's leadership has proven itself to be an utter failure.

The party now has a new leader who will follow the same strategy. Erin O'Toole said early in this leadership campaign that Peter Mackay would turn the Conservative Party into the "Liberal-lite Party" if he wins. He was right. What O'Toole did not say is that he, as leader, will do the same thing.

O'Toole and Mackay are like two peas in a pod. They are both establishment, centrist, globalist Red Tories. The party's establishment wanted a Red Tory leader. They got one.

O'Toole ran as a typical Red Tory three years ago. Nobody remembers anything from his bland campaign. No bold proposal, nothing to distinguish him from the rest of the pack. That's the real Erin O'Toole.

This time he put on a "true blue" mask only for strategic reasons: to be the second choice of the less well-known candidates, Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan. But I have a message for the supporters of these candidates: Don't be fooled. He got what he wanted. The mask will fall now that he’s the leader. He will take your support for granted.

From now on, his main objective will be to steal centre-left votes from the Liberals. Not to advocate for real conservative principles and policies. He will revert to being the Red Tory he always was. Under O'Toole, the Conservative Party will continue advocating for policies barely distinguishable from those of the Trudeau Liberals on issues that are crucial for Canada’s future.

The vast majority of Conservatives want an end to the mass immigration policy of the Liberals. It won't happen under Erin O'Toole. He and the party’s establishment support mass immigration and official multiculturalism.

The People’s Party is the only party that will protect Canada's culture and identity. The only party that proposes a moratorium on immigration until the crisis is over and unemployment is down to normal levels. And then a return to much lower levels of immigration, with a focus on economic immigrants rather than family reunification. We are the only party that emphasizes the integration of immigrants into Canadian society rather than the cult of diversity.

The vast majority of Conservatives don't believe in climate alarmism and want an end to costly and inefficient green policies. Policies that have proven disastrous for Canada's energy sector. O'Toole will ignore them and instead court centre-left Liberal voters. He still wants to reach the unattainable Paris Accord targets. He says climate change "requires global solutions."

In his platform, he promises to focus "on making industry pay rather than taxing ordinary Canadians, by forging a national industrial regulatory and pricing regime across the country." Watch out. He will simply replace Trudeau’s carbon tax with other taxes, more green regulations and more subsidies.

Under the weak leadership of Andrew Scheer, the Conservatives said it would take at least five years to eliminate the $20-billion Liberal deficit of two years ago. Imagine that. Five years to cut $20 billion! How long will it take under Erin O'Toole, now that the deficit is $350 billion? 25 years? 50 years?

The vast majority of Conservatives want Canada first policies. They want a foreign policy that restores Canada's national sovereignty. They want to stop sending our money to other countries, while millions of Canadians lost their jobs and suffer. They want to kick the United Nations out of Canada, along with its Paris Accord, its Global Compact on Migrations, and its socialist Sustainable Development Goals.

Erin O'Toole is a globalist, like the rest of Ottawa's globalist establishment. As Conservative critic for foreign affairs, he said last year he wanted to restore ties with Saudi Arabia "by focusing on improving commercial ties and by offering more aid, development and refugee support in the Gulf region." Can you spot the difference between him and Justin Trudeau? That's the kind of foreign policy you expect from Liberals. You can be sure nothing will change under his leadership.

Erin O'Toole won't touch the equalization program.
Erin O'Toole won't use article 92(10) of the Constitution to ensure we build pipelines.
Erin O’Toole won't repeal bill C-16 that imposes a radical trans agenda on Canadians. He won’t do anything to restore and protect our freedom of speech.

On every major issue, the Conservative Party under Erin O'Toole will be just like the Liberals. What else can be expected from the leader of the Liberal-lite Party? On each of these issues, the People's Party is the only national party offering a clear, consistent, conservative vision.

I know that real conservatives are disappointed today. Especially those whose first choice was Derek Sloan or Leslyn Lewis. Or those who supported Jim Karahalios, who was shamelessly kicked out of the leadership race by the party’s establishment. I want to tell them today: There is a place where you can fight openly for your values. Where they won't be disparaged or shut down, but will be proudly championed.

You have a home. It’s the People’s Party of Canada.
We're the fastest growing party in Canadian history. We accomplished more in our first year than the Green Party did in 20 years and 6 elections.

Nothing will change unless those who want change stop wasting their time, and their votes, on parties that will never bring any real change.
The door is open. Join the People’s Party. Thank you.