Skip to content

My Bitchute channel

After deciding to post some of my experiential videos online to see where it goes, I tried YouTube and Vimeo, getting no views after days and days; I tried Bitchute, and the views started almost immediately.

Trevor Dailey's Bitchute Channel

P.S. I recommend these Bitchute channels:

Matt Christiansen

Official BitChute of Matt Christiansen, independent YouTube creator and podcaster.

Just Right Media

Just Right Media’s anchor is the radio program Just Right; a weekly hour-long presentation of events and issues from the perspective of individualism and capitalism.

Just Right began broadcasting on April 19, 2007 from CHRW 94.9 in London, Ontario. After being banned from CHRW for its political views Just Right began broadcasting on WBCQ in Monticello Maine on 7490 KHz shortwave from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM Eastern Time and from Channel 292 Germany on 6070 KHz from 1900 UTC to 2000 UTC.

Just Right is hosted by Bob Metz and Robert Vaughan who have produced over 500 hours of original programing and have interviewed over 90 guests including such notable and controversial figures as Yaron Brook, Ann Coulter, Christopher Monckton, Lars Hedegaard, Lars Vilks, Gad Saad, Marc Emery, Bosch Fawstin, Salim Mansur, and Tarek Fatah.

Just Right's video collection includes exclusive coverage of people like Jordan Peterson, Christopher Monckton, Gad Saad, and Lindsay Shepherd.

(c) Trevor Dailey

Just Right Media: Bill Cosby's corrupt judicial conviction

The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The right to a fair and public criminal trial or a fair and public hearing in civil proceedings is one of the guarantees in relation to legal proceedings. Fair trial and fair hearing rights include:

  • that all persons are equal before courts and tribunals
  • the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law.

The other guarantees are the presumption of innocence, and minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel and not to be compelled to self-incriminate.

November, 27, 2014, #378 – Bill Cosby – Separating the artist from the art / Objectivism’s Catch-22


00:07 Bill Cosby – art vs artist: boycotting Bill Cosby, confusing the art with the artist, personal lives of actors, boycott injustice

14:30 Just beCos: allegations against Bill Cosby, Spanish fly, taking allegations seriously, victim responsibility, court of public opinion, the court of due process

34:30 CULT-ivating a rational philosophy: cult vs philosophy, Objectivism as a cult, Ayn Rand, followers

40:03 Objection to Objectivism?: Simon O’Riordan commentary, Federal Aviation Authority, Ayn Rand Institute, philosophy of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff, cultish view, Catch-22s, truth and bromide, Randroids, cults that aren’t, Who is John Galt?

58:16 END

January, 08, 2015, #382 – Bill Cosby – The two courts / Childhood’s End – Arthur C. Clarke revisited


00:07 The two courts: Bill Cosby in London, allegations against Bill Cosby, court of public opinion, court of law, presumption of innocence, political opportunism, Jane Piper

19:20 Court of no defence: Megan Walker, Anne Bokma, Bill Cosby, Andy Oudman, court of law vs court of public opinion, courting no defence, lack of evidence, feminism and feminists, public lynching, reputation

29:30 Childhood’s End – Arthur C. Clarke revisited: 2001-A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke, science and science fiction, retrospective view of earlier science fiction, Clarke’s view of humanity

41:20 Heinlein vs Asimov vs Card: individualism vs collective, Robert A Heinlein’s view of the heroic man, Heinlein’s political views, Time Enough For Love, Isaac Asimov, Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game, audio books vs written word

54:50 END

January, 22, 2015, #384 – Bill Cosby vs the tabloid press / Do animals have rights?


00:07 UFOs vs Bill Cosby: continuing allegations against Bill Cosby, critical mass, playing the numbers against Cosby, UFO sighting comparison, unidentified feminist objectives behind the Cosby controversy

10:45 Consider the source – tabloid trash: Cosby allegations are not new, checking the facts, feminism, Megan Walker, London Abused Women’s Centre is a feminist centre, Cosby performance in Denver, Chloe Goins’ toe-sucking allegation, guilty until proven innocent, Goins’ allegation demonstrated false, Beth Ferrier allegation bought by National Enquirer for exclusive story

29:50 Animals – rights, status, or property:  animal welfare, animal rights, torture of animals, giving animals status in law, Ayn Rand’s theory of rights, Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard, God – government – nature, inalienable rights, observation-based morality, process of life

41:55 Don’t ask Alice: Why Alice the chicken doesn’t have rights, volition vs instinct, reason and rights, social context, the nature of the object, animate vs inanimate objects, status for animals, status for humans, sentient, custody of animals, gradation of ownership principles, humane treatment of animals

57:54 END

February, 05, 2015, #386 – Affirmative offence / Affirmative conspiracy / Who is Ayn Rand?


00:07 Affirmatively offensive: feminist boycott of Fifty Shades, affirmative consent, Kathleen Wynne’s sexual education curriculum for Ontario, media updates on affirmative consent, negative consequences to affirmative consent

14:42 Affirmative conspiracy: Ontario Human Rights tribunal, allegations proved false when conspiracy uncovered, Katherine McKee’s allegation against Bill Cosby, redefining rape, obliterating the concept of consent

29:35 Who is Ayn Rand?: Ayn Rand under attack, personal vs principle, philosophy is an unknown field, ridiculing Rand, hating the good for being good, rejecting the discipline of being objective, many philosophers to ridicule – only one ridiculed

46:45 The Ayn Rand haters: videos featuring Ayn Rand, lack of reputable criticisms against Rand, critics ignorant of philosophy, rational self-interest as the moral standard, the Rand haters, capitalism vs force, a philosophy for living life on this earth

57:30 END

February, 26, 2015, #389 – Bill Cosby’s shady accusers / Consent vs ‘affirmative consent’


00:07 Shady Characters – Cosby’s accusers: Bill Cosby lawsuit, a review of Cosby’s accusers, Lachele Covington, Shawn Brown, Carla Ferrigno, Joyce Emmons, Chloe Goins, Beth Ferrier, Cidra Ladd, Kathrine McKee, attorney Gloria Allred, women now empowered

17:15 Thirty-three shades of one allegation: more Cosby accusers, Linda Brown, Lise-Lotte Lublin, Tamara Green, Linda Joy Traitz, Therese Serignese, patterns of allegation, patterns of complainants

30:20 Fifty shades of grey – bound to consent: Fifty Shades of Grey, feminist protests, bondage, consent, legal definition of consent

39:40 Two shades of black and white – consent vs affirmative consent: Freedom Party red alert on redefinition of consent in Ontario Curriculum, ‘yes’ does not always mean consent, children knowing vs understanding, affirmative consent, political monopolies, state education

53:20 END

July 16, 2015, #409 – Still be’Cos / The immoral of the story / Breaking the law…of causality


00:07 Still be’Cos: Bill Cosby new revelation, re-cap of Cosby circumstances, a red herring – the statute of limitations, guilt before innocence, defamation accusations

22:05 The immoral of the story: double standards on drug and alcohol use, Cosby under attack because of his conservative politics, Cosby’s pound cake speech, court punishing Cosby for being a public moralist, public interest used as grounds for opening sealed court documents

36:05 Breaking the law – of causality: time travel and its implications, preventative history, killing Hitler fantasies, fascist Germany a product of philosophy, time travel paradox

48:30 No time for space, no space for time: space-time or time and space, difficulties with describing the nature of the universe, speed of light, theory of relativity, the fabric of space, the limit of the universe, size of the universe

1:02:04 END

July 30, 2015, #411 – Feminism’s cause is feminism’s ‘Cos / Bill Cosby allegation invalidations


00:07 Feminism’s cause is feminism’s ‘Cos: Bill Cosby, New York Magazine on Cosby, same old stories and allegations, feminism’s unmentionable agenda against Cosby, smearing Cosby’s defenders

28:10 Allegation invalidation: New York Times release of Cosby’s deposition, Cosby’s reactions to Andrea Constand’s allegations, once seduction now rape, not justice but validation

35:20 Feminism’s double standard: Camille Paglia on Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, feminism’s support of the left and attacks on the right, demonizing masculinity

49:20 Bill Cosby – summary convictions: feminism’s exploitation of the Cosby allegations, keeping the allegations in the court of public opinion, making unproven rape allegations socially acceptable, somebody’s lying or the issue is consent

1:02:11 END

August 20, 2015, #414 – Black Sails / From anarchy to self-government


00:07 Power in the telling: too much scripted TV, scripted TV programs, fixed audience, finding good television shows, TV listings, 300-400 scripted TV shows currently in production, no fixed markets, the power of scripted television, editorializing by script, TV recommendation – Black Sails

18:40 Sailing from anarchy to self-government: Black Sails – the TV series, masterful storytelling, review samplings, adult content, story-driven plot and theme

36:20 Some things are black and black: Black Sails – a story of power, piracy, voting, turning plunder into trade and profit, law, order, establishment of legal authority, monarchy, libertarian ideal, no governance vs good governance

50:25 Courting the public court: latest Bill Cosby allegations, Gloria Allred’s call for a public debate, three more women make allegations against Cosby, Cosby’s philosophy on sex

59:16 END

September 10, 2015, #417 – Affirmative consent / Campus courts & jesters / Politically cracked / The farce estate


00:07 Consent clearly defiled: conflicting definitions of consent, affirmative consent, legal definition of consent, verbal – not affirmative, myth of the rape culture

17:20 Politically cracked ideology: sex as a biological imperative, men view sex as an end in itself, women view sex as a means to an end, the ‘Consent Conscious Kit’, affirmative consent is impossible consent

30:30 Campus courts and jesters: campus sex courts, American Department of Education rules on affirmative consent, sexual violence and alcohol, restoring presumption of innocence to college campuses

41:55 The farce estate: ABC news Network Forces Whoopi Goldberg to reverse her support of Bill Cosby, Goldberg has nothing to apologize for, censoring the discussion about affirmative consent and presumption of innocence

58:35 END

January 14, 2016, #435 – George Jonas – A farewell / The right vocabulary / Bill Cosby and the corruption of justice


00:03 Bye George! in praise of George Jonas, National Post, journalism, Jonas on immigration as invasion, competing identities of the new immigrants, Justin Trudeau’s hypocrisy, Jonas the poet, aboriginal science, ideological fanatics in universities, Jonas on international courts

15:55 The right vocabulary: terms of experience, losing our understanding of culture and politics, Donald Trump vs Ted Cruz, a vocabulary of freedom, freedom misunderstood, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, Freedom Party of Ontario, freedom in a political context, freedom is not freedom from government, right and rights are moral concepts, individual rights – not group rights, no such thing as animal rights, Constitutional rights vs natural rights

28:47 Corruption of justice: Bill Cosby charges, still innocent until proven guilty, feminist Megan Walker, feminist Gloria Allred, allegations vs the known facts, fourteen things you should know about the Cosby controversy, affirmative consent is an anti-concept, principle of justice under attack

49:35 Many women do lie: a brief review of a few Cosby allegers, Gloria Allred’s legal strategy and political objectives, Cosby’s defence, Cosby’s counter-suits, the judgment vacuum

59:42 END

February 11, 2016, #439 – Feminism – The uncivilizing force / The court of gender bias


00:03 Parallels – Cosby and Ghomeshi: stunning testimonies at the Jian Ghomeshi trial, a brief account of the collapsing case against Ghomeshi, complainants all lied, parallel profiles of Cosby and Ghomeshi

14:50 Court of gender bias: denying the evidence to promote a cause, innocent until proven guilty, siding with the wrong victim, determining guilt by numbers, feminist Megan Walker, lawyer Gordon Cudmore, complainant Lucy DeCoutere, the unconscionable court of public opinion

29:35 Uncivilizing force – Feminism: male feminists, feminism’s objectives, civilizing sexes, differences in sexual attitudes are cultural – not gender based, lying as the new normal

42:40 Gender morality? Angus Reid gender poll, differences in gender attitudes, differing moral views on pornography, Gawronski Study – University of Texas, moral dilemmas – differing gender responses, women identify with victims, moral condemnation of male sexual motivation, subjective moralities vs objective morality, legitimacy of feelings, consent as a condition

59:42 END

August, 03, 2017, #516 – Intentional omissions of truth

What do Bill Cosby and Donald Trump have in common? More than you might think.

One thing they have in common is the way in which the “establishment media” has been delivering the narrative on each of these two individuals’ on-going public stories.

The other thing they have in common is that both Trump and Cosby are under attack by the political Left – which is the primary source of their problems.

Regrettably, many members of the Left can be found in Republican circles, as Trump learned when Republican Senator John McCain voted against Trump’s plan to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Similarly, in the wake of this past June’s Bill Cosby hung jury trial, we felt it only fitting that some of the little known facts, contexts, and circumstances about this very political story should be brought again to the attention of everyone.

Following the trial, Mrs Camille Cosby hit the nail right on the head when she issued a statement summarizing much of what we have already illustrated and documented on past broadcasts of Just Right (all directly available via the Bonus Links associated with today’s show):

“How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitatively ambitious.

“How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant and collaborating with the district attorney.

“How do I describe the counsels for the accusers? Totally unethical.

“How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truth, for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life.

“Historically, people have challenged injustices.

“I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence, which is the rightful way to make a sound decision. Ultimately, that is a manifestation of justice based on facts, not lies.

“As a very special friend once stated, truth can be subdued, but not destroyed.”

From all the facts we ourselves investigated, and that you can hear for yourself, Camille Cosby was Just Right.

April 12, 2018, #551 – Still negative on ‘affirmative consent’

What do ‘affirmative consent,’ ‘indigenous knowledge,’ and the trial of Bill Cosby have in common? In addition to being our discussion topics of the day, each controversy revolves around an epistemological war of words.

It’s a battle of definitions, as efforts to change or affect the social and political environment stretch beyond the political sphere. From the world of TV fantasy, monsters, and superheroes, to the real world that sometimes seems more unreal than the fantasies, the promotion of anti-concepts like ‘affirmative consent’ has already produced a host of real world injustices, not the least of which have been those directed at Bill Cosby.

Just as ‘social justice’ is not justice, so too, ‘affirmative consent’ is not consent.

And so too ‘indigenous knowledge’ is not ‘knowledge,’ particularly in the context of being used as an argument that ‘scientific knowledge is offensive.’ Nor are ‘indigenous’ rights true rights accorded to the individual. Yet these are the very things being asserted by Quebec’s indigenous leaders, at least two Quebec cabinet ministers, and several university law professors.

When efforts are being made, not to define or offer clear alternatives and choices, but rather to obliterate opposing and real concepts, then you can be certain that choice simply isn’t on the agenda of those creating the fake definitions.

The Left has long known that definitions are the mind’s operating software, the programming that determines how one thinks and acts. Control how an individual thinks, and that individual has already become a member of the collective, however defined by he-who-controls-the-definitions.

Racism and sexism are but two of the natural consequences that arise when governments legislate status according to one’s group identity, instead of protecting everyone’s rights as individuals. Racism and sexism are also quite natural results of thinking with false definitions.

In our age of scientific advancement and progress and given the dismal history and condition of collectivist societies everywhere, one would have expected that tribal thinking and its destructive consequences should have faded away ages ago. But that hasn’t happened, and collectivism continues to move us all further in the wrong direction.

For those wanting to move in the Right direction (towards freedom and not away from it), the rule as always is: “Define, or be defined.” Because without knowledge of the alternative correctly defined – individual freedom – there is simply no way for those trapped in their tribal web of despair to ever discover what is Just Right.

May, 24, 2018, #557 – The gender gap in logic

In the world of identity politics, common sense, logic, justice and reason do not rule.

Feminism is one form of identity politics – politics specifically motivated by sex and gender issues. Whether it’s the #metoo ‘movement’ or the ‘gender gap,’ feminism’s goals are all directed against the assumed superior status of men (referring to individuals who are male and possess a penis, for those confused by various ‘gender identities’).

On the social front, feminism’s success in ‘convicting’ selected males in various arbitrary courts of public opinion continues to undermine justice, both in the social sense and in the criminal sense.

On the economic front, feminism’s calls for closing the ‘gender gap’ is in fact a ‘gap’ in logic and morality. There is no such thing as a ‘gender gap.’ It’s a fiction.

A given ‘difference’ in economic status – whether in income, wealth, property, or productivity – is just that, a difference. It’s not a ‘gap.’ This principle applies not just to gender, but also to race, culture, language, intelligence, physical traits, or any other ‘group identity’ that one might imagine.

As soon as somebody calls a simple difference a ‘gap,’ you’re dealing with sinister intentions, and not with economics, nor with any injustice implied in attempting to correct the ‘gap.’ So before someone senses a contradiction, rest assured that even when it comes to logic, there are no ‘gaps.’ All that exists is a difference between the logical and the illogical.

It’s the very WORD ‘gap’ that needs to be eliminated, not the differences between people that these ‘gaps’ represent.

In order to prevent these self-evident truths from surfacing, apparently levelling arbitrary accusations of sexism, racism, and of having various cultural ‘phobias’ is now an acceptable way of debating one’s ideological opponents. These tactics are the weapons that the Left uses to ‘close’ its imaginary ‘gaps.’ It has had chilling effects on the freedom to speak out and challenge these so-called ‘gaps’ (and other fictions) in a rational way.

“Identity politics” is, frankly, simply another way of saying “racist and sexist politics” – politics based on the Leftist notion of group identities rather than on recognizing the sovereignty of the individual.

Consumed by many hatreds based on group identities (which can only lead to more irrational hatreds), the Left blames these collective hatreds on the Right in the hopes of, once again, levelling yet another imaginary ‘gap’ – a morality gap. But even here, the ‘gap’ is not a ‘gap,’ only a difference – a moral difference (i.e., between moral and immoral).

Unfortunately, Leftists’ hurling of ‘hate speech’ accusations has been most effective in silencing those against whom the accusations were made, irrespective of the facts. After all, who wants to be associated with ‘hating’ and isn’t ‘hate’ always something to be fought and eliminated?

Well, actually, no.

The belief that ‘all hate’ should be eliminated is both wrong and hypocritical. Even ‘hating hate’ is still ‘hate.’ What those intent on ‘eliminating hate’ really mean is eliminating free speech.

When it come to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, and capitalism, to name but a few hatreds of the Left. Worse, the Left doesn’t tolerate anyone on the Right talking about those hated things.

Once it’s understood what the Left hates, then it should also be understood why hating what’s Left is Just Right.

[Bill Cosby topic begins at 37:20 into the broadcast]

Source: Just Right Media

Every Just Right broadcast

Just Right Media's weekly show can also be heard on short-wave radio:

WBCQ, Monticello, Maine, United States of America, 7490 kHz, Thursdays at 0000 UTC

Channel 292, Ingolstadt, Bavaria, Germany, 6070 kHz, Thursdays at 1900 UTC

One hour earlier during Daylight Saving Time.

© Trevor Dailey

This article is revised from time to time.

The Ontario “buck-a-beer” deception

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford has announced a “buck-a-beer” will be coming to Ontario soon. I could not care any less than I already do about the price of beer, I drink so occasionally one could argue I do not drink at all, but I get annoyed when I hear Premier Ford say “a buck-a-beer” because it is dishonest. First, let us turn the clock back for a brief history lesson to explain how we arrived at this “buck-a-beer” in the first place.

In 1915, there were 49 beer manufactures in Ontario. Under the Conservative government of Premier William Howard Hearst, Ontario enacted prohibitions of alcohol by means of The Ontario Temperance Act in 1916 when there were 65 breweries in Ontario. By 1917, the number of Ontario breweries was 23. When the Conservative government of Premier Howard Ferguson ended Prohibition in Ontario in 1927, there were only 15 beer manufactures left in the province. In 11 years, the Conservative government had almost completely destroyed the beer manufacturing industry in Ontario with Prohibition.

Since 1927, the Ontario government has strictly controlled the production, distribution, sale, purchase, and consumption of all alcohol in the province of Ontario with the Liquor Licence Act. In place of prohibition, the Conservative government created the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) in 1927. The LCBO was incorporated into a Crown Corporation by the Ontario Progressive Conservative government of Premier Bill Davis in 1975. Premier Ferguson forced the remaining beer manufactures into a LCBO overseen cooperative in 1927, and over the years, as a result of sales, buyouts, and mergers, only three beer manufactures remain in the cooperative that are today all foreign owned. Labatt (49% ownership) is owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev (Belgium), Molson-Coors (49% ownership) is owned by Coors (USA), and Sleeman (2% ownership) is owned by Sapporo (Japan). This government created privately owned beer oligopoly, Brewers Retail Inc., controls about 80% of the retail beer sales in Ontario through its chain of Beer Store brand retail stores. During Ontario's Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris, the LCBO made a nonpublic agreement with Brewers Retail Inc. in 2000 giving the Beer Store exclusive right to sell the most popular brands of beer to bars and restaurants and the exclusive right to retail 12 and 24 packs of beer. In the interest of temperance and moderation, that has been at the core of the LCBO since 1927, the LCBO sets the minimum price of alcohol for sale in Ontario. The current minimum price for non-draft retail beer sold in Ontario is approximately $3.00 per litre, and that works out to be around $1.25 a bottle or can. This is where we come to the “buck-a-beer” promise.


Premier Ford wants to reduce the minimum price of any non-draft beer with an alcohol volume below 5.6 per cent in Ontario to $1.00. The last time beer was at that minimum price was 2007.

Lakeport Brewery in Hamilton sold its beer for “24 for 24” from 2002 to 2006, and heavily advertised this, helping to increase its market share. Teresa Cascioli, who became CEO of Lakeport in 1999, brought the company far away from its 1998 bankruptcy in just eight years. Lakeport was bought by Labatt in 2007 for $201 million, the brewery was permanently closed by Labatt in 2010, 143 employees lost their jobs, and production transferred to the Labatt plant in London. Just because beer manufactures may sell a beer for one dollar does not mean they are going to do it, especially if it undercuts their premium beer brands. That is exactly what Lakeport was doing to Labatt by selling its beer for $1.00 before Labatt bought Lakeport; the brewery that had become a source of continual annoyance and trouble for the big three beer manufactures of Brewers Retail Inc.

The former Lakeport brewery, located at a historical Hamilton brewery built in 1947, was stripped of all brewing equipment and brewing infrastructure and the plant gutted and sabotaged by Labatt. The brewing equipment was sold for scrap. Concrete was poured into some of the building's drains to prevent any large scale brewery operation there ever again. Labatt refused to sell the Lakeport concern or lease the building to any beer manufacture.

The minimum retail price for non-draft beer was raised from $1.00 to $1.06 by the LCBO in 2008.

In 2018, it is improbable any beer manufacture could make a profit regularly selling its beer for only $1.00 because of the low beer quality, federal and provincial taxes, and production costs. As Teresa Cascioli said during Lakeport's "24 for 24" years:

Obviously, the business fundamentals have to be there, whether it's toothpaste or beer, supply and demand have to go hand in hand, and there has to be profitability for the manufacturer.

There may be one or two brewers willing to sell their beer at the minimum price of $1.00, but Labatt is not going to sell Budweiser, that has been one of Ontario’s top selling premium beers for decades, for a price of only $1.00 anymore than it is going to sell it for the current minimum price of $1.25. Few brewers sell their beer at discount prices at the current beer price minimum of $1.25. The motivation for this reduction in the minimum price of beer appears to be the claim by Premier Ford that lowering the minimum price of beer will create competition among beer manufactures and stop “lining the pockets” of the beer oligopoly. This is complete nonsense. The beer oligopoly is just that, an oligopoly.


If Doug Ford was honest, he would eliminate the minimum retail price for beer, lower the provincial taxes on beer, he would get rid of the LCBO, and he would break up the beer oligopoly. This will not happen because it was the Conservative government that enacted prohibition in 1916, created the LCBO and the beer oligopoly in 1927, incorporated the LCBO into a Crown corporation in 1975, granted Brewers Retail Inc. exclusive rights in 2000, and supports temperance at the same time it collects massive alcohol tax revenues reaching a record of $5.89 billion in 2016-17.

© Trevor Dailey

This article is edited and revised from time to time.

Silenzium: Kiss song cover music video

I am not a big Kiss music fan, I do not understand the spoken language in the video, but this is the most creative and entertaining cover of a Kiss song I have heard and seen.

The song,  I Was Made For Lovin' You, was first released in May of 1979, and is from the Kiss album, Dynasty. The song went Gold, selling more than 1 million copies, in the USA and Canada. Kiss recorded the song long before these accomplished young women were even born.

They did not simulate Gene Simmon's in concert stage blood and fire breathing, but I think they did simulate Ace Frehley's in concert guitar smoke in the video.

It goes without saying how much influence the band Kiss has had on the world of music, and not just rock music.

© Trevor Dailey


Canada's morally wrong supply management system

This is a chapter from an unpublished book by Conservative MP Maxime Bernier that was made available online by both Bernier and his publisher regarding Canada’s supply management system.

Government imposed supply management controls the domestic production, prices, and imports of all poultry and dairy products ensuring there is no free market in these goods in Canada resulting in Canadian consumers paying unnecessarily higher prices for these products to give wealthy Canadian farmers a guaranteed income.

The first one is the control of production, so that the amount of milk, eggs and poultry on the market is restricted to what Canadians are expected to consume. A national marketing agency determines that amount and sets production quotas for each province. Provincial boards are responsible for selling quotas among farmers, who are strictly forbidden to produce any more than they’re told to.

The second pillar is the fixing, by bureaucratic agencies, of the prices that processors have to pay farmers for each category of product.

The third pillar is import control. Like any closed and rigid system controlled by government—or by semi-autonomous bureaucratic agencies that get their power from government—this one also has to prevent outside influence. The Soviet Union forbade its citizens from traveling abroad, or reading or listening to news from other countries. Preventing information from free countries from infecting the minds of Soviet citizens was a necessary “pillar” of the power of the Communist Party. In the case of supply management, beyond the very small amounts that are allowed into Canada tariff free, foreign products are hit by import tariffs that range from about 150% for turkey and eggs, to about 250% for chicken, yogurt and cheese, and 300% for butter. Obviously, no one would buy any imported good that costs three or four times more than the local one.

It should be clear that this is a transfer of wealth from the poorest to some of the richest in our society. Farming families working under supply management are indeed far richer than most Canadian families. Average after-tax income of all households in Canada is $69,100. By comparison, the average dairy farming household income is $147,800, and the number is $180,400 for poultry-farming households.

Moreover, many of these families are paper millionaires, thanks to the value of their quotas. The average net worth of a dairy farmer is $3.8 million while that of poultry and egg farmers is $5.9 million.

Supply management is a morally wrong communist based system created by the Liberal government of socialist Pierre Trudeau decades ago, and is today fully supported and defended by the Conservative Party.

It’s no surprise that the government that adopted supply management was the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau was a typical left-wing intellectual. Born to a wealthy family, he didn’t have to work to earn his living and had spent part of his adult life as a bohemian writer and traveller. He was an admirer of communist China and Cuba, and a big fan of Fidel Castro. Before running as a Liberal in the late 1960s, he had been a supporter of the CCF/NDP. He had zero understanding of economics.

From the very beginning to the very end, one policy issue was at the centre of my campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada: supply management in agriculture. This is the system established by Pierre Trudeau’s government in the early 1970s that keeps the prices of dairy, poultry, and eggs artificially high. As I said repeatedly during the campaign, it’s a cartel. It’s the total opposite of a free market, and a conservative party should not be supporting it.

© Trevor Dailey


One dollar beer in Ontario is not that simple

Progressive Conservative Premier elect Doug Ford has mentioned he will bring the price of a single beer in Ontario down to one dollar each. Put simply, Doug Ford says a ‘buck a beer’ for Ontario.

Ways beer in the province of Ontario is controlled is: where and how beer is sold in Ontario, and the price of beer in Ontario. Beer in Ontario may only be sold through The Beer Store, that is the name of a chain of retail beer outlets that controls about 80% of the market, from retail stores attached to a brewery approved by the government of Ontario, from provincial government licenced establishments (restaurants, bars, hotels, special events, etc.), and in limited quantities at the provincial government monopoly LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) stores. The Beer Store is an oligopoly that was created by the Conservative government in 1927 at the end of Prohibition in Ontario.

There were 64 breweries in Ontario in 1916, when the Conservative government of Ontario enacted Prohibition, and only 15 left after the Conservative government of Ontario ended Prohibition in 1927. Those remaining 15 breweries were forced into a LCBO regulated cooperative by provincial legislation. Beer was to be sold from warehouses inspected and overseen by the LCBO. Minimum beer prices are set by the LCBO. Brewer's Warehousing Co., became Brewers Retail Inc., which became The Beer Store. Over the years, breweries were bought out by the other breweries until there were only three large breweries in control of the cooperative. Those three have since been sold to foreign corporations. Labatt is owned by AB InBev (Belgium), Molson is owned by Coors (USA), and Sleeman is owned by Sapporo (Japan).

The beer oligopoly’s producers and sellers want to keep their beer prices profitable. The LCBO wants to keep beer prices high claiming they are safe guarding the public by not allowing cheap alcohol to be sold through a "social responsibility" mandate of 1993 that adds to its existing temperance mandate from 1927. The provincial government wants the large amount of revenue the provincial government gets from taxing beer.

Either Doug Ford does not know what he is talking about when he says ‘a buck a beer’, or Doug Ford is lying.

© Trevor Dailey

Ontario government to bring back ‘buck-a-beer’ by Labour Day, source says


Morally corrupt socialist Ontario I want my money back

Now that the 2018 Ontario general election is over, it is time for the taxpayers of Ontario to once again pay a bill they pay after every election, and this time the bill is again expensive. Ontario MPPs (Members of Provincial Parliament), and their parliamentary assistants, get large payouts in severance pay if a MPP is defeated in an election. This payout also applies if an MPP quits during his or her term in office. With 38 MPPs fired by the electorate this election, that bill comes to an estimate of $61 million dollars in departing money for those 38 Ontario MPPs. That includes approximately $67,000 for a parliamentary assistant with four years of time put in, and approximately $249,000 for a cabinet minister with eight years or more of time put in.

Depending on the circumstance of the employment ending, the average worker in Ontario is entitled to receive in severance pay a minimum 1 week pay, from 3 months to less than 1 year employment, to a maximum of 8 weeks pay, for 8 years or more of employment. The payouts to MPPs in severance pay is more than many people in Ontario earn each year working productive jobs. It gets even worse.

On April 11, 2016, [Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne] called Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown and NDP leader Andrea Horwath into her office to tell them about the legislative changes. Brown and Horwath were not happy that the initial draft of the changes had been drawn-up without their input, but all three party leaders were happy with the news that Wynne’s government would introduce a taxpayer-funded per-vote allowance for their parties (but not for almost all other registered political parties).

The new legislation banned contributions by corporations and unions. It dramatically reduced the annual contribution limit for individuals: from $9,975 to $1,200.00. It gave the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, NDP, and Greens (but not other parties) a per-vote subsidy: every ballot would now cost the taxpayer approximately $10 (even though the price of the ballot was already paid with the blood of Canadian soldiers), and all of that money would go only to the Liberals, NDP, PC, and Greens. Freedom Party and other parties were effectively excluded from the per-vote party subsidy.  The subsidy was described as a way to replace lost corporate, union, and individual voluntary contributions, but the subsidy was made so large that it pays those parties several times more than the maximum millions of dollars each party is permitted to spend in an election. It sets those parties up for several elections into the future, making it difficult for newly emerging parties to compete with them.

Freedom Party of Ontario's 2018 election platform

Ontario general election results and payouts for 2018.

PC Party of Ontario
Total votes: 2, 322, 422
Payment: $23, 224, 220

Ontario NDP
Total votes: 1, 925, 574
Payment: $19, 255, 740

Ontario Liberal Party
Total votes: 1, 123, 283
Payment: $11, 232, 830

Green Party of Ontario
Total votes: 263, 987
Payment: $2, 639, 870

Total: $56, 352, 660

Will the newly elected PC government in Ontario put a stop to this these unscrupulous payouts? Will the NDP, the Official Opposition in the Ontario Legislature, demand an end to it? Will any of the four parties in the Ontario Legislature (PC, NDP, Liberal, Green) even mention it? Why would they? They are all morally corrupt socialist parties.

Update: The Ontario government has ended the vote subsidy.

© Trevor Dailey

Toronto Sun: Voting out the Ontario Liberals didn't come cheap

Freedom Party of Ontario

Ontario: Termination of employment 

Elections Ontario

Who lost the 2018 Ontario general election?

If one listens to the common voice, one may conclude the Liberals were the ones who lost in the 2018 Ontario general election. The Liberals were the ones who were trounced, falling from a majority government to a party without official party status in the Ontario Legislature, the greatest defeat in the Liberal Party’s history. The Liberals lost the election, but the Liberals did not lose.

The Progressive Conservative Party called itself a ’big tent party” during the election campaign, meaning all were welcome within the PC party; socialist Liberals, communist NDP, it did not matter, everyone was encouraged to join, and many did. Liberals joined the PC Party, and some even became PC candidates appointed by PC Party Leader Doug Ford himself. When the PC Party won the election, so did a portion of the Liberal Party. This was not done through infiltration, this was done by invitation. The PC Party is a socialist party, and socialist Liberal, and communist NDP, fit right in. All three major Ontario parties, PC, Liberal, and NDP are just branches of the same socialist party. One only needs to look at the Ontario Legislature to see more evidence of this.

During the 15 years the socialist Liberals were in power, the socialist PCs were the Official Opposition in the Ontario Legislature. That would be in name only because the PCs were of little genuine opposition to the Liberals. It was difficult for the PCs to oppose the socialist policies of the Liberal government when the PCs in opposition agreeed with almost all of them. What have the results of this latest election brought? The political Left NDP now sits as the official opposition in the Ontario Legislature. The political Right PC party sits as Ontario’s government.

By thunder! Katy, bar the door! The Left in Official Opposition and the Right in government in the Ontario Legislature! Tempers will flare! Shouting! Cursing! Furious arguments! Objects may be thrown! This could be the most rowdy Ontario Legislature ever! Wrong.

The PCs are not on the Right. The PCs are on the Left, along with the NDP, the Liberals, and the Greens. They all agree on every major policy. The PCs are socialists. The NDP are socialists. The Liberals are socialists. The Greens are socialists. The socialists won the election. Freedom and capitalism lost the election.

© Trevor Dailey

Political fools

The 2018 Ontario general election is almost officially in the books. Of the four parties that now hold seats in the Ontario Legislature (PC Party of Ontario - 76, Ontario NDP - 40, Ontario Liberal Party - 7, Green Party of Ontario - 1) all are socialist parties. That means 98% of the total votes cast were for these socialist parties. All these parties have either similar or identical policies. There is no significant difference between any of them regarding main policies. Not one ever speaks of freedom or capitalism because they are all socialists.

The voters of Ontario wrongly think they voted for change by giving the former majority Liberal government a devastating loss, and voting in a majority PC government. Different captain, same ship, same course, same destination, same destruction. The truth is the Liberals did nothing they were not voted in to do. The problem is most people vote without knowing what they are voting for because they do not take the time and effort required to learn what they are voting for.

The PCs are just as bad as the Liberals. The professed alternative to the Liberals, the PCs will continue on with the anti-freedom and anti-capitalistic policies of the former Liberal government. The NDP is the worst of the four, a self-proclaimed communist party, and is now the Official Opposition in the Ontario Legislature. The Green Party is a socialist party supported by the socialist PC Party to take votes away from the socialist Liberal and communist NDP parties.

My party, Freedom Party, received a very disappointing 0.04% of the total vote. I will be voting Freedom Party again in the next election. The continued destruction of the province of Ontario will not be my fault.

Anyone can be fooled. The people who are the most easily fooled are usually the people who think they can not be fooled; and they often fool themselves.

© Trevor Dailey