CBC Sold to American Wrestling Promoter!

SUNTV secret Executive VP

(in charge of hidden agendas and troublemaking)

Stephen Harper



Delusional Canadian Mud-Wrestler, Ezra 'Mad Dog' LeRant
Challenges CBC's Ernie Coombs 
better known to millions of Canadians as "Mr. Dressup"
to a "Fight to the Finish"
at a fund raiser for a 'think tank' in Calgary, last week.
 Mr. Coombs died in 2001

Mr. LeRant called him some names,
threw a chair which hit nothing,
taped himself to the wall of the main lobby,
and at the time of this publication was still
 loudly demanding to be paid for his time.

And he says he is an advocate of free speech?

p.s. My money is still on "Mr. dressup".

CBC Under Seige ~ SUNTV and the Attack of the Neo-Clones!

CBC would lose $532-million annually if forced to give up advertising, loss would have devastating impact on Canadian television production industry, says groundbreaking report

The Hill Times just let me in on a bit of tyranny. Are they complicit in it? No, but they did not provide any time for a rebuttal there, either. They have no comment section. Like most of the puppet Media they are a monologue. It reminds me of the style of communication most favoured by 'dear leader'.


Mr. Harper,
have you got a minute?
No! Not really!

So, do they really want our state broadcaster to give up advertising? Not really. Just having some fun at CBC's expense? Not really. But how is this really dumb bit of tangential thinking relevent? It is Not. Not really. Is there a TV network in the world that would be able to survive without advertising? NO, not really. Not without a government that was accountable enough to allow that. Are they offering to make up the shortfall?  Hell NO!

Bob Dylan once said: "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" And you do not need a study to know this. Would any man on Earth not die if he stopped breathing? I don't know, let's commission a study. All we need is every man on Earth ........ and a very strong mandate.

So, if this is not a "groundbreaking study" as the possible dullard above suggested, what on Earth could it mean? Is it a threat?  Not really. Is it a chance to broach the subject and get us used to the idea that the CBC is our enemy, and not just the enemy of ever tightening Government control? That may be closer to the truth. I mean seriously, who is even suggesting this? And for what purpose?

Or, like my grandmother would have said: WTF?

C.A.P.P
The Canadian
Ass. of
Parliamentary Prorogers

 

The bright side! If that means that the government foots the bill as it is intended to do, and releases CBC from the necessity of advertising, that might just be OK. At least it would mean that we could watch our state TV and would see no more CAPP ads, no more 'Drugs are the road to hell' ads, No more Character assinating attack ads, No more self promoting Stimulus ads, no more 'Give us your young' Military ads, no more Federal government propaganda in bright Canadian Blue. If that were the case I am willing to consider it! That is not what is going on here.


There are already real rumblings that the Harper government is thinking about severely cutting the CBC's funding and now this nonesense? This contrived and stupid mocked up scenario about how they would die if suddenly the government were to stop allowing them to compete for advertising revenues? Is anyone really saying this? And they call themselves a 'government with a mandate' and claim to be protectors of democracy?

These men are idiots. But lately it seems that they are everywhere. Is there nowhere in this Country where a man can get some rest? Sorry, but as I was typing that, history was being re-written in HarperLand. They just now voted down the Canadian Wheat Board! Canada as breadbasket to the world is no more.  I can almost hear Pat Martin uttering the Eff Word!

From the article:
" The study was released Monday after nearly two months of Conservative pressure against the CBC in Parliament, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) Parliamentary Secretary, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.). The CBC has also been under assault from Quebecor Inc., the private-sector media giant in Quebec.

The study warned that without ad revenues, CBC would likely eventually reach a “tipping point” where it would be unable to meet its mandate under the Broadcasting Act. "
Hey? George Stroumboulopoulos? Is there a more modern Chapter being written for "Love Hate and Propaganda"?  It seems that it is also being written as we speak.

This article is pure propaganda in it's worst form. The writer acts as if this is all just business as usual, and that if he writes 'matter of factly' enough, we will mistake it as reality. Some, I suspect will do exactly that. But the fact remains that attacking a state broadcaster, is a very necessary tactic in any fascist state.

( Yes there is a real study )

See how Harper stacks up!

There is still time before he
prorogues for Christmas
to wish Humpty Harper
a Great Fall 

Attempting to limit the scope of, or any attempts to limit the content of the CBC is an overt attempt to control the fifth estate and it must be seen as a precursor to total control. It would also represent the Corporate rape of a government subsidized institution that does seriously good work, especially in the remote rural districts (although the loss of analogue signal has left countless rural dwellers with no access to TV of any kind) by the very government that is supposed to be protecting it.

The Conservatives (and the Republicans in the USA) have long been mis-representing the bias in the media, and although the media is mostly scared to death of them they claim that the press can not be trusted. At least a handful of Canadian journalists occasionally stand up and give us the goods on that conservative spin. It should happen more often.

At the 2:22 mark Harper Clearly says: "I don't think the public cares" and he repeats it!

And like I have mentioned before, Stephen Harper claims to be a human and real studies prove that humans are unsustainable when they have their air supply cut off. And since he breathes propaganda and needs to control all things, he will not overlook the state broadcaster. It would be untrue to even pretend that that is not the case. No folks, he breathes control. And now he has the added bonus of a warm glow from the ever shining SUNTV.

A Plea to Save the CBC

In the real world, Homer would have done Bart in long ago. And that is not a threat, it is another example of the kind of propaganda that we have above. They are subliminally trying to get us all used to the idea that it will all be OK and that the Government would be justified in choking the life out of the State Broadcaster.

And again, history says that Stalin would approve. And according to some, Russian state media has never recovered from his control. The Russian media is still protecting him. But he went well beyond threats. Will Harper?

And one more time, to the Hill Times, who's article has no comment board: This is not a real study. If it were it would not contain the word 'IF' 5 times in only seven paragraphs. It is a study in propaganda. (Notice how I keep repeating that word?) I 'get' Propaganda!

p.s. Dean Del Mastro.... shudddder!

It seems

you just keep

helping me write my blog!
Thanks!   

Ignatieff ~ To Harper's Character Assasination Attempt!

A Measured Response

From the Canadian

on Whom

Stephen Harper

 Wasted Million$ of Dollars

in a CONtemptable Attempt to Ruin!

I like This!

My Mom will like this!

My Daughter will like this.
My Nieces will like this.
My Nephews will like this.
My Friends will like this!

Dimitri Soudas will ^NOT like this!
Jenni Byrne will hate this.
John Baird will loath this.
Pierre Poilievre will smirk at this.
Jaime Watt will sneer at this.
Evan Solomon will giggle over this.
Vic Toews will feel like a victim!

This will make Harper Shudder!

And All of this!
Absolutely All of it!
Will help make Me like this Even More!

The Time Has Come Canada, The Time Has Come!


Please Comment if You like This!

Bill S-10 Creates Main Stream Media Silence

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

M.S.M. ~ " Media Sans Mot "

Even as the so-called pundits of the Main Stream Media (MSM), you know, "the big guys", remind us Social Media types that we are not "real journalists", that we are not "being heard", that we are "inconsequential", that we are "always behind the curve", that we are merely "bit players", they themselves have gone AWOL on perhaps the most important event in the recent history of the Harper Government's war on Reason.

Oddly the Social Media is all over it. What exactly is it that the 'Media Sans Mot' is afraid of? Their Bosses? Possibly. Their Editors? Maybe. Their Shareholders? Probably. Being seen as sympathetic to this "Reefer Madness?" God I hope not or this country is beyond saving!

The black block is metaphoric, but only symbolic ~ the MSM have not spoken.

Four days after Bill S-10 was pushed through the Senate and on it's way back to the House of Commons for it's final leg of the journey from a very bad and ideologically driven idea to becoming 'The Law of the Land", the Main stream Media, including Television (CBC, CTV, Global, CBCNN, CTVNC etc. etc.) and all the Country's Newspapers, (SUN, National Post, Toronto Star, Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, Chronicle Herald, etc.etc.etc.) have gone Stoned Cold Dead on the subject.

An overview of Bill S-10  

View Bill S-10 as PDF

Since the MSM has gone Mime, what are the social media players saying? Luckily they are saying plenty!

"Cannabis Culture" is saying: " If passed, S-10 will bring mandatory minimum jail sentences for marijuana offences to Canada for the first time - including six months for growing as few as five marijuana plants and 18 months for extracting hash or making pot edibles and sharing them. This means medical marijuana users who make pot cookies would be at risk of arrest, as there is no protection of this activity by current medical marijuana laws.

Some of the mandatory sentences increase to two years for growing or dealing near a school or park, and even more time with other 'aggravating factors' ".

"The bill even includes life sentences for some non-violent marijuana Crimes."

Neither the Opposition Parties nor the Government have yet responded, although it is fair to say that at this point only we social media types have asked any questions whatsoever and we are being ignored because, as they are so fond of saying in the MSM, we are "not really journalists".

Jan 04, 2010: I did just find this news of Michael Ignatieff's reaffermation of intent to decriminalize though. But once again, it comes not from the MSM, but from "Cannibus Culture".

The oddest part is that although you hear hints of this sentiment on "Power and Politics", on "At Issue", and "Power Play" and other casual comments here and there throughout the MSM, no one from the MSM seems to be saying it on line.

Maybe they are just worried that if they do actually say it on Social Media, someone might actually be able to find it and quote it!

*******************************************
This story is not over! I am hoping that the silence is not permanent and I will be attempting to get at least a few comments from the Opposition Parties, not that I do not see their reluctance to tip their hands. They let it slip two years ago that they were about to vote non-confidence and form a loose coalition. I'll bet that they now wish they had kept that under their hats until after the vote. I know I wish that they had.
*******************************************
THIS JUST IN:
Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca

to: donaskim@gmail.com

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Bill S-10 / Project de loi S-10
mailed-byparl.gc.ca

Dear Sir:
          On behalf of Michael Ignatieff, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your recent email regarding Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.


Significant evidence relating to this legislation has emerged since this bill was introduced, as a result, members of the Liberal Caucus intend to conduct extensive study in the House of Commons. We believe that strong drug laws are part of what is needed to fight gang violence, but equally important are crime prevention initiatives and the proper funding of law enforcement agencies which is where the Harper Conservatives are failing Canadians.

As with his entire agenda, Stephen Harper’s focus is only on sentencing – he does nothing to promote community safety, to address drug addiction in a meaningful way, or to actually reduce crime. While we support taking measures to reduce gang-related violence, we worry that this is an example of the Conservatives emulating the failed drug policies that were unsuccessful in the United States.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Leader of the Opposition.

Sincerely,
The Office of Michael Ignatieff
Leader of the Opposition
*******************************************
This just in: An email I got a while back from Marlene Jennings setting out the Liberal intentions about this Bill.

JenniM8@parl.gc.ca to me

Mar 11 (5 days ago)

Dear Kim Leaman:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding your concerns of Bill S-10 An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Please excuse my delay in responding.

While the Liberal Party believes that strong drug laws are necessary to fight crime, we agree with you that minimum sentencing for drug offences are not the best way to solve violence. Instead, more effort needs to be directed towards sufficient funding to deal with many types of crimes that affect Canadian families; this is where the current government is failing Canadians. The root cause of many drug-related crimes is addiction, and instead of providing a band-aid solution for drug offences, like locking more people in jail, we need to focus more on crime prevention programs that break the cycle of drug dependence. In the last full year of a Liberal Government, the National Crime Prevention Centre supported 509 projects in 261 communities for a total of $56.9 million, however, the conservatives have slashed funding and programs by more than half.

Bill S-10 is worrisome due to the fact that it emulates the sentencing policies in the United States, which as you know have clearly been a failure. This is why we do not support the idea of mega prisons and instead, focus more on effective prevention and rehabilitation measures. While locking people up with minimum sentences is a quick fix and an attempt to look tough on crime, as many as 70% of current prison inmates are identified as having substance abuse problems and will return to their old ways after they have served their prison sentences. Frankly, minimum sentences do not offer a long-term solution to drug related problems without rehabilitation.

The provisions contained within Bill S-10 are ineffective. The bill targets minor offenders instead of dealing with larger criminal organizations, which are the real problem. In addition, the costs of the implementation of this bill are exorbitant. Liberals are concerned that the that the government has refused to provide accurate information on the costs of this bill’s implementation, the burden of which will fall on the provinces, which has been estimated cost is over $200 million for British Columbia alone!

Moreover, this bill does not only remove judicial discretion, but it has the potential of unevenly criminalizing young and low-income Canadians. For instance, a student who produced six plants would be awarded the same penalty as someone in an organized crime ring who produced 201 plants! An 18 year-old who offers a single Tylenol 3 pill to his 17 year-old cousin would be awarded a two year sentence! Liberal Senators had proposed substantial amendments to this bill to correct such deficiencies, however, these amendments were twice rejected by the Conservative government. It is clear that the government is unwilling to cooperate on the issue, which is why we have decided not to support this legislation.

Many stakeholders have also expressed their dissent to this bill. Their concerns are very similar to yours and they project our opinion of this bill very accurately. Stakeholders have told us that there is no evidence to support the benefits of minimum sentencing and that this bill is taking its focus off criminal organizations and putting it on minor offenders. I wholeheartedly agree with these positions.

As long as the current government fails to cooperate with us we will certainly not support this bill. This bill does nothing to address crime prevention and puts Canada on a path similar to the system in place in the United States, which has clearly failed.

Thank you again for bringing your views to my attention.       

Sincerely,

The Honourable Marlene Jennings, P.C., M.P.

Liberal Critic for Justice and the Attorney General of Canada


*******************************************


Yet More Feedback!

Fry.H@parl.gc.ca to me


March, 16th, 2011 ~ 9:41 PM

Dear Kim,

Thank you for your email on Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, which introduces Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.

As a physician, and a former member of the House of Commons Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs (SNUD), I see drug use and addiction as a medical problem that requires medical solutions. It concerns me that Bill S-10 treats addiction as a criminal issue. However, those who exploit addicts, such as pushers and organized crime who sell drugs, must be dealt with harshly under the Criminal Code.

Under this Conservative government, the International Transfer of Offenders Act has been made irrelevant. The Act, which Canada was instrumental in organizing in 1978 under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, allows for the repatriation of Canadian prisoners to the Canadian penal system where they can serve a sentence and be effectively re-integrated into Canadian society.

I am very concerned about the recent escalation of drug-related gang violence in Vancouver, and other major Canadian cities. For this reason I voted in favour of Bill C-14, which made murders connected with organized crime activity automatically first-degree offences. However, I do not believe that Bill S-10 is an appropriate tool to address organized crime; instead, I believe it is likely to lead to the incarceration of low-level producers and dealers. Given the failure of mandatory minimum sentences to reduce drug use in the United States, I fail to see why a punitive approach to drugs would produce more positive results in Canada.Thank you again for your correspondence. Please feel free to contact my office at any time if I can be of further assistance on this issue or any other.Sincerely,

Hon. Hedy Fry, P.C., M.P.

Vancouver Centre
***************************
I will let others get opinions from the Government side of the House. I have heard quite enough from them on this subject as it is!