Connect with us

Calgary

Why The News Is Fake, And Liberals Rely On Racism

Published

8 minute read

Love him or hate him, President Trump has woken the masses to the truth that the news is often inaccurate, and occasionally blatantly false.  When called out, reporters wail in their feeble response, “It was an honest mistake, and we retracted it!”  The truth is, the news media have little interest in being accurate or unbiased, instead their goal is to procure ratings for the purpose of receiving advertising revenue. Profit is their master. 

By analyzing data from Google and Youtube, we now know scientifically what we have always assumed anecdotally, “If it bleeds, it leads”.  Violence and catastrophe has always been the driving factor in editorial decision making. As a result, mildly unfortunate events are made to  appear as if they are massive catastrophe’s and in the absence of a convenient cataclysm, shocking events are occasionally staged.  The news is not “reporting the facts”, it’s info-tainment.  The news NEEDS you to be either outraged or terrified in order for you to tune in and consume the media.  If you don’t consume…then they don’t have a business model.  Keeping you angry and afraid is how they make money, which is why they will assassinate the character of anyone who dares to contradict their story line. They have to attack in order to survive. 

State sponsored news such as RT, or the CBC are not any better. In addition to catering to their advertisers, they also have to appease the governments who fund them.  If either Putin or Trudeau need help from their state run broadcasters, …they get it. Media CEO’s know who butters their bread, and they know how to keep their high paid cushy jobs.  If you’re looking to the news for the truth, you’re looking in the wrong place. 

Mainstream media is dying.  The information monopoly which provides the media with breath is being choked to death by the free flow of information on the internet. No longer do people rely on being force fed their information by those with questionable motives. Instead, we all have alternative sources available in abundance. 

Podcasts, and independent news commentators have supplanted the paternalistic talking heads we are accustomed to seeing, anchoring the evening news.  VIA the internet, sagely voices from the wilderness have found their way to the mountain tops to expound their wisdom to eager ears, which has the media backed into a corner and fighting for it’s life. 

And now for the rest of the headline…

Those with aligned goals tend to be friends.  If I help you, and you help me…then our symbiotic relationship is something that we will both endeavor to protect at all costs. The media and leftest politicians coexist with such a relationship. 

Leftist identity politics is a one-trick pony which relies on outrage for it’s very existence.  Their brand identity is steeped in the fight against racism and inequality. Though it has a noble face, this strategy wasn’t born out of altruism.  Liberal politicians recognized long ago that if they could be seen as avengers of civil rights, that they could win a lot of votes…and until recently, the strategy has worked quite well.

Racism in North America has been on a dramatic decline since the late 1980’s.  Racist jokes which were once acceptable to share around the campfire, or in the locker room are now received with shock and disdain…and rightly so.  Could you imagine if the Brocket 99 Cassette tape was made today?  The backlash would be immense, the creators would be publicly flogged, and the news would be covered globally. Racist parody is no longer tolerated, and minstrel shows are extinct.  As society has progressed, leftist politicians have lost leverage.  Now that racism has been largely eradicated…what possible strategy could the leftist parties possibly use to retain their power?  Far left politicians NEED racism to be a problem so that they can be the hero’s, so where there is a vacuum, they will find a way to fill it. 

Bigotry, misogyny and homophobia are all unacceptable anymore, as they should be. This however has created a big problem for politicians whose entire political platforms have been branded as being the saviors of the oppressed, so as these issues became less prevalent, climate change has helped to fill the void.  Once again, a valid issue is being used not because of a sense of environmental responsibility, but instead because there needs to be a boogeyman under the bed.  But still, the cries of racism ring out across the land at the slightest provocation.  

Of course racism is still an issue of sorts, but it’s nothing like it was fifty years ago, and to pretend otherwise is a slap in the face to all those who have suffered through the horrors of it. 

Racism is an issue today, because liberal politicians and the media need it to be a problem.  Both fuel the flames of hatred and division, then blame conservatives as the propagators as is seen in example after example.  Fortunately people are waking up to the fact that most news is nothing more than lefitst propaganda.  #Blexit, and #walkaway are gaining steam, and the liberal grip on our society is starting to slip, which they find terrifying. 

To fight back, riots have been encouraged, and even indirectly funded by the Democratic party, all in an attempt to destabilize society, and claw back their power and influence.  There are no lengths they will not stoop to in order to regain control, and the media is largely in lock-step. 

Before you decide to attend a protest, or throw a brick in a riot, ask yourself who it is that you are actually fighting for.  Chances are, your fighting for the wrong people without knowing it.

Mark Meincke
403-463-4313

This article was originally published on June 26, 2020.

Buy the Home Seller’s Bible by clicking HERE

Buy “Why not Me?” HERE

Meincke Show Podcast

Operation Tango Romeo

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Father, Professional Development Trainer, Author

Follow Author

More from this author

Alberta

Gondek’s exit as mayor marks a turning point for Calgary

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy

The mayor’s controversial term is over, but a divided conservative base may struggle to take the city in a new direction

Calgary’s mayoral election went to a recount. Independent candidate Jeromy Farkas won with 91,112 votes (26.1 per cent). Communities First candidate Sonya Sharp was a very close second with 90,496 votes (26 per cent) and controversial incumbent mayor Jyoti Gondek finished third with 71,502 votes (20.5 per cent).

Gondek’s embarrassing tenure as mayor is finally over.

Gondek’s list of political and economic failures in just a single four-year term could easily fill a few book chapters—and most likely will at some point. She declared a climate emergency on her first day as Calgary’s mayor that virtually no one in the city asked for. She supported a four per cent tax increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many individuals and families were struggling to make ends meet. She snubbed the Dec. 2023 menorah lighting during Hanukkah because speakers were going to voice support for Israel a mere two months after the country was attacked by the bloodthirsty terrorist organization Hamas. The
Calgary Party even accused her last month of spending over $112,000 in taxpayers’ money for an “image makeover and brand redevelopment” that could have benefited her re-election campaign.

How did Gondek get elected mayor of Calgary with 176,344 votes in 2021, which is over 45 per cent of the electorate?

“Calgary may be a historically right-of-centre city,” I wrote in a recent National Post column, “but it’s experienced some unusual voting behaviour when it comes to mayoral elections. Its last three mayors, Dave Bronconnier, Naheed Nenshi and Gondek, have all been Liberal or left-leaning. There have also been an assortment of other Liberal mayors in recent decades like Al Duerr and, before he had a political epiphany, Ralph Klein.”

In fairness, many Canadians used to support the concept of balancing their votes in federal, provincial and municipal politics. I knew of some colleagues, friends and family members, including my father, who used to vote for the federal Liberals and Ontario PCs. There were a couple who supported the federal PCs and Ontario Liberals in several instances. In the case of one of my late
grandfathers, he gave a stray vote for Brian Mulroney’s federal PCs, the NDP and even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.

That’s not the case any longer. The more typical voting pattern in modern Canada is one of ideological consistency. Conservatives vote for Conservative candidates, Liberals vote for Liberal candidates, and so forth. There are some rare exceptions in municipal politics, such as the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s populistconservative agenda winning over a very Liberal city in 2010. It doesn’t happen very often these days, however.

I’ve always been a proponent of ideological consistency. It’s a more logical way of voting instead of throwing away one vote (so to speak) for some perceived model of political balance. There will always be people who straddle the political fence and vote for different parties and candidates during an election. That’s their right in a democratic society, but it often creates a type of ideological inconsistency that doesn’t benefit voters, parties or the political process in general.

Calgary goes against the grain in municipal politics. The city’s political dynamics are very different today due to migration, immigration and the like. Support for fiscal and social conservatism may still exist in Alberta, but the urban-rural split has become more profound and meaningful than the historic left-right divide. This makes the task of winning Calgary in elections more difficult for today’s provincial and federal Conservatives, as well as right-leaning mayoral candidates.

That’s what we witnessed during the Oct. 20 municipal election. Some Calgary Conservatives believed that Farkas was a more progressive-oriented conservative or centrist with a less fiscally conservative plan and outlook for the city. They viewed Sharp, the leader of a right-leaning municipal party founded last December, as a small “c” conservative and much closer to their ideology. Conversely, some Calgary Conservatives felt that Farkas, and not Sharp, would be a better Conservative option for mayor because he seemed less ideological in his outlook.

When you put it all together, Conservatives in what used to be one of the most right-leaning cities in a historically right-leaning province couldn’t decide who was the best political option available to replace the left-wing incumbent mayor. Time will tell if they chose wisely.

Fortunately, the razor-thin vote split didn’t save Gondek’s political hide. Maybe ideological consistency will finally win the day in Calgary municipal politics once the recount has ended and the city’s next mayor has been certified.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Alberta

Calgary’s High Property Taxes Run Counter to the ‘Alberta Advantage’

Published on

By David Hunt and Jeff Park

Of major cities, none compare to Calgary’s nearly 50 percent property tax burden increase between censuses.

Alberta once again leads the country in taking in more new residents than it loses to other provinces and territories. But if Canadians move to Calgary seeking greater affordability, are they in for a nasty surprise?

In light of declining home values and falling household incomes amidst rising property taxes, Calgary’s overall property tax burden has skyrocketed 47 percent between the last two national censuses, according to a new study by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.

Between 2016 and 2021 (the latest year of available data), Calgary’s property tax burden increased about twice as fast as second-place Saskatoon and three-and-a-half times faster than Vancouver.

The average Calgary homeowner paid $3,496 in property taxes at the last census, compared to $2,736 five years prior (using constant 2020 dollars; i.e., adjusting for inflation). By contrast, the average Edmonton homeowner paid $2,600 in 2021 compared to $2,384 in 2016 (in constant dollars). In other words, Calgary’s annual property tax bill rose three-and-a-half times more than Edmonton’s.

This is because Edmonton’s effective property tax rate remained relatively flat, while Calgary’s rose steeply. The effective rate is property tax as a share of the market value of a home. For Edmontonians, it rose from 0.56 percent to 0.62 percent—after rounding, a steady 0.6 percent across the two most recent censuses. For Calgarians? Falling home prices collided with rising taxes so that property taxes as a share of (market) home value rose from below 0.5 percent to nearly 0.7 percent.

Plug into the equation sliding household incomes, and we see that Calgary’s property tax burden ballooned nearly 50 percent between censuses.

This matters for at least three reasons. First, property tax is an essential source of revenue for municipalities across Canada. City councils set their property tax rate and the payments made by homeowners are the backbone of municipal finances.

Property taxes are also an essential source of revenue for schools. The province has historically required municipalities to directly transfer 33 percent of the total education budget via property taxes, but in the period under consideration that proportion fell (ultimately, to 28 percent).

Second, a home purchase is the largest expense most Canadians will ever make. Local taxes play a major role in how affordable life is from one city to another. When municipalities unexpectedly raise property taxes, it can push homeownership out of reach for many families. Thus, homeoowners (or prospective homeowners) naturally consider property tax rates and other local costs when choosing where to live and what home to buy.

And third, municipalities can fall into a vicious spiral if they’re not careful. When incomes decline and residential property values fall, as Calgary experienced during the period we studied, municipalities must either trim their budgets or increase property taxes. For many governments, it’s easier to raise taxes than cut spending.

But rising property tax burdens could lead to the city becoming a less desirable place to live. This could mean weaker residential property values, weaker population growth, and weaker growth in the number of residential properties. The municipality then again faces the choice of trimming budgets or raising taxes. And on and on it goes.

Cities fall into these downward spirals because they fall victim to a central planner’s bias. While $853 million for a new arena for the Calgary Flames or $11 million for Calgary Economic Development—how City Hall prefers to attract new business to Calgary—invite ribbon-cuttings, it’s the decisions about Calgary’s half a million private dwellings that really drive the city’s finances.

Yet, a virtuous spiral remains in reach. Municipalities tend to see the advantage of “affordable housing” when it’s centrally planned and taxpayer-funded but miss the easiest way to generate more affordable housing: simply charge city residents less—in taxes—for their housing.

When you reduce property taxes, you make housing more affordable to more people and make the city a more desirable place to live. This could mean stronger residential property values, stronger population growth, and stronger growth in the number of residential properties. Then, the municipality again faces a choice of making the city even more attractive by increasing services or further cutting taxes. And on and on it goes.

The economy is not a series of levers in the mayor’s office; it’s all of the million individual decisions that all of us, collectively, make. Calgary city council should reduce property taxes and leave more money for people to make the big decisions in life.

Jeff Park is a visiting fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and father of four who left Calgary for better affordability. David Hunt is the research director at the Calgary-based Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. They are co-authors of the new study, Taxing our way to unaffordable housing: A brief comparison of municipal property taxes.

Continue Reading

Trending

X