Job application for Canada’s CBC: any race (except caucasian) may apply

May 03, 2013

Writer

Video of the interview will be posted shortly

Glenn read quite an interesting ad played by the Canadian government during their children’s broadcast on CBC asking for anyone of any race (except caucasian) apply. Would that be legal in the United States? Apparently it’s totally cool in Canada. Glenn interviewed Sun News's Brian Lilley on radio this morning about the story.

Transcript of Interview is below:

GLENN: Brian Lilley from Sun News, kind of our sister in spirit, Sun News, to TheBlaze up in Canada, been taking on the monstrosity that is the CBC for quite some time and a good, decent, good, decent man. Brian, how are you, sir?

CALLER: I'm doing well, Glenn. Doing well.

GLENN: Good. I'm glad we can talk to you over the vast space between Texas and Canada, especially from the NRA convention which is surprising to probably most Canadians, actually was founded based on the Canadian shooting organization back in the 1800s because Canada had one of the best shooting organizations in the world at the time and the American Civil War generals came up to Canada and said, "Hey, can you help us? Because we suck at shooting down here."

LILLEY: You know, it's funny that you're speaking at the NRA because I'm on my way to speak to the National Firearms Association kind of a sister in spirit group here in Canada, although a lot smaller, and that's one of the things that I'm going to be telling them along with the fact that we've got to keep fighting back against the crazy gun control that we have. And, you know, I'm one of the few voices up here that will say that, unlike the CBC, which is all about more gun control, more gun control, more gun control. We used to be as free as you, and we're far away from it now, but I'm worried you're heading down our path.

GLENN: No, I think we are. I think the cart may get in front of the horse here and we may be rolling down that hill and catching up and passing you very soon. We wanted to talk to you a little bit about Kids CBC. And we don't even know if this is legal in the United States. We wanted to know how everybody in Canada feels about this. There was an ad for the Kids CBC that says, "Hello, if you're here to find instructions regarding a self tape audition submission for the Male Kids CBC host, you're in the right place. Below you'll find a PDF with the audition material and all of the instructions. Please only submit if you match the following criteria: Male between the ages of 23 to 35 years and any race except Caucasian."

LILLEY: But you forgot the most important criteria, the one that comes after that: Nonunion. I mean, that's really the one that's causing consternation on the left. Nonunion. How dare they.

GLENN: Nonunion? Let me ask you this: Are people actually in Canada, has everybody in Canada - because this is where we're kind of headed, so many Americans are just kind of going dead inside and you're like, oh, the president allowed another ambassador to be shot and killed and this time they carved up his body and carved him into steaks and roasted him there at the embassy and ate him on live television. Huh. And we move on. You guys, is this causing any kind of stir up there?

LILLEY: Well, you know, it's causing a stir with my audience. I talked about this on Sun News the other day, I wrote about it on the website. It's causing a stir on talk radio. So all the same usual suspects that would create a stir with in the U.S., it's creating a stir here. But CBC is this billion dollar PBS on steroids. It is the state broadcaster, although the current state, the current Canadian government is headed by conservatives. So they hate their pay masters because they are an extreme leftwing organization. So all the other media, the big newspapers that also lean left, they are kind of mentioning this but they don't want to push it too much and, you know, oh, well, kind of got caught. The officials at CBC said, well, it was a mistake; it shouldn't have happened that way. We just wanted diversity.

PAT: Jeez.

LILLEY: And, of course, that's code word for don't hire whitey.

PAT: Yeah, anybody but a Caucasian like they specified now in the ad. Now

GLENN: We just wanted diversity. Think of that: We just wanted diversity. But what you did was you were honest and you said no Caucasian. So there's no diversity

LILLEY: Just hiring one guy. So how are you going to get diversity?

STU: (Laughing.)

PAT: Wry an, we were saying that

GLENN: You could hire our president.

STU: There you go.

GLENN: And we'd be willing to let you have him.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Cheap. We're willing to let him go cheap.

STU: We'll pay you.

PAT: While it is, it is illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on race, we were figuring that nobody would make a big deal out of it here in America. So nothing would probably be done. Is it illegal in Canada to do that?

LILLEY: Well, like you guys, you know, we don't have the Bill of Rights. We've got the Charter of Rights. And it says you shall not discriminate based on race, creed, color, blah, blah blah, all the usual things that we're supposed to all hate.

PAT: Yeah.

LILLEY: But hey, progressives don't play by the same rules. And when progressives do it, it's different.

PAT: Yes, it is.

LILLEY: So, you know

PAT: Yes, it is.

LILLEY: affirmative action programs should be unconstitutional in your country but I'm pretty sure state law, or University of Michigan law, you know, they've got a very extensive affirmative action program that made a lot of headlines a little while ago. This is the same sort of thing. Our federal government still has programs where they will say certain jobs are only for women or only Aboriginals or Indians can apply. We've got a, you know, only visible minorities can apply for this one.

Just yesterday our largest province, Ontario tabled its budget. Here's another example of progressives don't play by the same rules. Our uber left premiere brought out a budget. This is a government that has attacked the big tobacco. Big tobacco's evil and we've got to stomp out smoking and get farmers to stop growing tobacco and you're not allowed to even see cigarettes when you walk in the store anymore. They all have to be hidden behind a curtain or a door.

GLENN: Sounds like Michael Bloomberg.

LILLEY: Well, if Indian smokes, they're going to help you sow it better because Indian smokes are health food, I think.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: All right. Brian, God bless you, man. Thanks so much. And please say hello to everybody at Sun News because you guys are doing a tremendous job. How is your expansion going?

LILLEY: Well, we went before our regulator. Here in Canada everything's regulated. And it was a little rough this week but we hope to hear in about two months time whether we get to go forward or whether we get to, I don't know, look for (inaudible).

GLENN: So what does it mean, how does it work up there? What do you mean you look towards you had to meet with your regulator? What do they do? How does this work?

LILLEY: We're trying to get an improved license. We've got to we've got such a concentrated industry that's in bed with government in ways we could not do what you've done at TheBlaze up here. You could not start an online network and then go to the cable companies and say, "Hey, carry us." You'd have to get a license first to broadcast.

PAT: Wow.

LILLEY: And then you'd have to meet all these crazy conditions including promoting multiculturalism and yada, yada.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Just when I think that maybe someday you'll have to

PAT: Just when you think it's gotten as bad as it can, you realize.

GLENN: You look up to Canada and say holy cow.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, Brian, thank you very much. And as always, anything we can do to help you and help the expansion. We have, you know, we have been friends and our networks are friends, but more importantly our countries are friends and anything we can do to help Canada, you just let us know. Thanks, Brian.

LILLEY: All right. Thanks, Glenn, all the best.

GLENN: Bye bye. I'm thinking about I'm thinking about applying at the CBC.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Job application for Canada’s CBC: any race (except caucasian) may apply

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?