Tuesday, January 31, 2006


Much has been written in the past week about the results our election. Pundits have commented on the ‘urban/rural split’ and then those pundits have been taken to task by others saying that the split is in fact ‘metropolitan/rest of Canada’. To some extent, I think this is more over semantics but I thought I would let the dust settle for a week and take in the events before writing about them. As with many things in life, sometimes at least a little bit of distance can gather perspective.

I do not subscribe to the view put forth by some that Canadians ‘en masse’ engaged in some sort of group think to punish the Liberals but only ‘test drive’ the Conservatives. This is the argument that will be use by many to try to curb Stephen Harper. His critics will say, ‘but Canadians really want liberalism without the party’.


If one voted for Stephen Harper it was because one though he was the best man for the job. Same for Jack Layton. Same for the other guy; y’know…the who had all of the ‘passion’.

What these results show is that we are indeed a nation divided. But what fewer people are willing to talk about is what exactly it is that divides us. There will be many people talking to Prime Minister Designate Harper over the next 12 months about what he can do to gain the hearts and minds of the great hinterlands known as Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

They will tell him to give more money to the cities. They will tell him to once and for all say he will never again speak of abortion and get him to put it in writing. One sorry columnist, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, actually recommends that Harper marches in a ‘gay pride’ parade to show his solidarity for the gay community. Then again, if you recall the photos of Harper last summer making the rounds dressed as a cowboy, one might be able to argue that he was just forseeing the 'progressive' impact of Brokeback Mountain months before its release.

However, what these pundits fail to recognize is that what really divides us goes well beyond same-sex marriage. That is a sympton of what divides us, not the ailment itself. What really divides us at this point in history is the role of the traditional family in society; the role of children; and the role of gender.

SSM as an issue does not stand alone. It is part of a whole New Left philosophy that sees the traditional family as a form of ‘evil’ and ‘oppression’ in our society. It is part of the same philosophy that seeks to have a National Daycare System to keep undercutting the role of male/female parents and the impact that they have on their children’s lives. It is about what you can teach children and when should they be taught it.

It is about whether or not your children have a Christmas Pagent at their school or a Solstice Celebration. It is about acknowledging that while they are both equal, there are inherent differences between the male and female of the species and that these differences should be celebrated, not obfuscated.

It is about understanding that the primary force for protecting the weak in our society (children, poor and the elderly) is not government but the traditional family. It is about whether or not a family can be defined as a bunch of bohemian artists living in a loft.

It is about whether or not we legalize more recreational drugs and prostitution and lower the age of consent. It is about euthanasia and polygamy. It is about truth vs. moral relativism. It is also about when we believe human life begins.

In essence, it is the difference between having a Judeo-Christian worldview or a secular worldview rooted in a modern notion of neo-Marxist radical egalitarianism.

This is what the ‘red tories’ do not understand.

And althought there are many people who vote Conservatve in Toronto, this is why Harper will not get the ‘progressive’ downtown vote anytime soon. It is why the ‘educated elite’ will not vote for him. Sadly, in our modern echelons of higher learning where radical feminism, relativism and identity politics have taken on religious forms, everything that Harper stands for is to be feared. And as long as the Christian and Catholic element of the party exists in the form of Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney they will continue to deny him the vote.

Many metro ‘progressives’ would vote for Paul Bernardo if he ran for the Liberal Party of Canada. “Well at least we know he is a social liberal,” they would rationalize. That may sound cruel but there is some blunt truth to be found in this statement. What divides us is how we see our human body, the role of the traditional family and its relation to the world.

What this election finally did was put to death the Liberal lie that all Canadians are the same. We are not. We are perhaps more divided now than at any time of our history. Now this must be dealt with.

I have read Stephen Harper’s past writings and I believe he understands these issues. He will not be able to accomplish all that he wants but he does have a mandate, however slim. I suspect he will stay true to his views not because he is staying true to his base but because he knows it is the right thing to do. Many pundits believe Harper is a closet ‘red tory’ in disguise who really does not care about family issues and is only playing to his base. I disagree. I think he is motivated by what he knows is right. I think if he stays the course he could very well be one of Canada’s best Prime Ministers; a man with a vision and a sense of duty and honour.

I have no fears that we’ll be seeing Prime Minister Harper marching down Yonge St. in leather chaps for the sake of the ‘metro’ vote anytime soon.

Monday, January 23, 2006


Savour this moment. Do not let anyone take the sweet taste of a well earned victory from you. Tommorrow the media will try to spin this as less than satisfactory victory. They know they are wrong. They know what you know. They know your feat was historic.

They know:

1. You formed a government without the help of Toronto or any of the key urban centres.

2. You knocked out the Liberal Party of Canada in a true David vs. Goliath story

3. You halted the 'peddle to the metal' push by the New Left to destroy the tradional family in Canada

4. The New Left, for the time being no longer sets the agenda

5. You broke through in Quebec. Here is your future, not Toronto

6. You have only ever increased your fortunes, never decreased. You are the future, the Liberals are the past

7. Should a Supreme Court Justice retire under your tenure, you can appoint a new one without having to ask 'mother may I'

8. The Liberal Party of Canada has lost control of the mechanations of government that they use to retain power. You can now investigate them.

9. Canada's image at home and abroad will be that of a family man, proud of his faith and heritage; not a radical secular elitist

10. Canada is slowly being redefined in terms of values; not according to race, gender or sexual orientation

Congratulations to Prime Minister Harper, his family and supporters

Sunday, January 22, 2006


I do not know how many more posts I will write before the election but this is a question that has stumped me for years now; the question of pro-life Liberals.

We know who they are...the Dan McTeague's, Tom Wappel's and Alan Tonk's.

All members of the Liberal Party of Canada running for re-election.

How do they feel running for a party which has excessivley for two elections now demonized all that they believe and stand for?

How can they run under a leader who explicitly said all that they stand for as Christians and Catholics is anti-Canadian?

How can they be a member of a party that will never allow them a free vote on these issues unless they are willing to be nothing more than powerless backbenchers while they watch radical secularists such as Scott Brison, Pierre Pettigrew and Belinda Stronach advance to the front lines?

If they are serious about their views (and I no longer assume that they are) how can they ever look at Paul Martin the same way again?

I used to respect those Liberals who defied the party on issues such as SSM and abortion, now I see them as part of the problem. They only confuse voters. Too many pro-life voters vote for them thinking they are doing good by their faith, yet electing them means giving an extra seat to a party who overall will ensure that this agenda never sees the light of day and will demonize all of those who hold it.

I suspect many of these Liberals are too reticent to admit that their party has changed. The Liberal Party of Canada is little more than NDP light. No longer the party of the working class, church going immigrant but the party of the secualr, urban extremist whose sole goal is to eradicate religion from the public sphere.

That these candidates can stand hand in hand with Paul Martin and run under the Liberal banner does not make them courageous.

It makes them dupes.


Thanks to Sharon, who accurately points out in the comments section of the post below that the hysterical reporter was named Lina Dib. She was from the French language television network TVA.

As the story goes, apparently Carmichael was one of the Conservative candidates who attended a speech by American Evangelical Ralph Reed a few weeks ago.

The media, in the last days of the campaign have been trying to get a hold of 'social conservative' candidates so they can 'question' them. But we all know what that means...they want to have an inquisition on them.

Dib should be ashamed of herself. Anyone who saw that footage and thought that she was in the 'right' should be ashmed of themselves.

Again, she acted hysterically and it terrifies me that people are seeing the news through the eyes of extremists like her.

Also, here is some more fear-mongering in the form of 'the good' Dr. Henry Morgentaler. This excerpt is from the Globe & Mail by way of Andrew Coyne,

"It's important . . . that we do whatever we can to prevent the quasi-fascist party to come into power," Dr. Morgentaler told The Globe and Mail after a news conference in his Toronto clinic.

Author June Callwood said this,

"It takes a decade, it takes two decades, to repair the damage done by one right-wing government of this radical kind," Ms. Callwood said. "I think Harper represents everything I hold to be anti-Canadian."

I love it when the 'tolerant' and 'diverse' show that they are not.

I have no idea what effect these sorts of statements will have in the wanning days of the campaign.

May the wind be in our sails.

Saturday, January 21, 2006


I just came in and caught a brief newscast on CHTV Hamilton. It was about an 'incident' involving Conservative candidate John Carmichael of Don Valley West.

The piece was a typical hit by the left-wing media where they tried to fear-monger about how 'hard-right wingers' are being muzzled by the party until after election day. They said that they had footage of what happened when a reporter tried to get too close to him.

They then showed footage of someone whom I believe they said was a reporter from out East. I did not catch her name and I do not if they reported it. Carmichael was seen walking with a huge entourage through some doors.

To where I do not know.

The reporter, an angry looking woman who seemed to be in her mid-forties then tried to aggressively push her way through. A man, whom I assume was one of Carmichael's campaign men or body-guards then, ever so softly touched her shoulder in an effort to let her know she could not go further.

At this point the reporter went hysterical. A mean, irrational type of hysterical; screaming and ranting that he had made her "story that much better". She screamed out loud, "don't you touch me". It was obvious from the video that she was looking for trouble and was determined to make a scene. The campaign man then humbly apologized with his head down as she continued screaming hysterically. She clearly wanted it to be seen as an 'angry, white conservative male' attacking and assaulting her.

The video clearly proved this was not the case.

Sadly, I suspect this woman really believes she was the 'victim' of a violent altercation when in fact she was the instigator and aggressor and the man who barely touched her shoulder was merely doing his job. Her behaviour was an insult to women who really have been assaulted or raped.

I felt myself feel a surge like I was back at Queen's University where incidents like this happened on what seemed like a daily basis. Good people went down and the bad triumphed. I try not to see the world in b&w as most things are shades of grey. Nevertheless, I know these types and they see the world in nothing but b&w. They are illogical and mean to do harm to others.

At any cost.

What was really sad about this incident, was the spin CHTV put on it. The story was meant to bolster the view of conservatives as angry, white males prone to violence. The video clearly proved the opposite, yet the producers at the station, so blinded by partisan ideology could not see what was obvious to the casual viewer. These new-left feminist types (and indeed this reporter did look the stereotype) are hysterical and cannot see clearly. I asked my wife how she interpreted it. She said the reporter came off like she was 'insane'.

CHTV should be ashamed.

I'm telling you again; the New Left are terrified.

Which is why we cannot allow them back into power. People this angry, this hysterical, this irrational, should never have a place of power in society. They see moderates as extreme because they themselves are the extremists, wanting to destroy all that is good in the name of ideology & arrogance.

I pity them. But society as a whole should never forget who the real extremists are. This reporter was an extremist. The producer who thought the video supported her was an extremist.

The 'guard' or'worker' who was doing his job was not. I certainly hope he does not have to pay a price for merely doing his job against the increasingly merciless New Left.

I pray to God that the time where these people make the laws which rule our land is about to come to a crashing end.

This is no understatement: a Conservative victory on Monday is Canada's only hope.

Thursday, January 19, 2006


A few people last week asked me about my opinion on the issue of polygamy and now seemed a good time to discuss.

In short, on a moral level I am opposed to SSM and I will continue to be for reasons that I have discussed in length before. I am also opposed to polygamy on a moral level. I am not a relativist.

As for the legal issues of polygamy, after SSM I do not believe there are any valid arguments one can make against it if one accept the arguments for SSM. SSM proponets argued in courts and in parliament that marriage was nothing but an agreement of property and tax rights between consenting adults. If this is the new legal definition, and for now it is, to be consistant one must allow polygamy. Why only two adults? Why not 4...10?

Anyone who is for SSM, in my mind must also be for polygamy.

If this does come to a court case however I do believe that whether or not it succeeds will depend on who mounts the challenge. If the challenge comes from the sects in Bountiful, BC., it will not pass. As Mark Steyn pointed out, then the media will show great pictures of evil, white males with snaggle teeth looking ominously down into the camera. If the challenge comes from within the Muslim community it will be seen as challenge under 'freedom of religion' and our activists courts will accept it as it will be seen as another way to destroy the Judeo-Christian history of Canada. If the challenge comes form a gay couple who want to include a lesbian friend in the mix; the law will be passed quick and swift with little to no debate.

And this is of course always the goal with the New Left; to destroy any remnants of Judeo-Christian culture in place of a neo-Marxist view of 'equality' and radical egalitarianism.

In the abstract and on a much larger timeline I believe it is very possible that marriage itself will ultimately fall by the wayside and eventually only be held by people with strong religious faith who will be seen as 'outsiders' and 'old-fashioned'. We are already seeing Hollywood celebrities such as Brad Pitt and Scarlett Johansson saying monogamy and marriage are wrong and in universities traditional marriage is seen as a form of 'patriarchal oppression'. If one really believes modern marriage is about nothing but property and tax laws, that presupposes the marriage will fail. It turns the instituition into a defacto prenuptial agreement of sorts. How romantic is that?

This is why it is so important for the left to have universal daycare. If family is no longer the institution through which children are reared and the elderly are protected than what institutions do we use?

The answer of course for the New Left is children to be raised by government and the elderly to be euthanized. Now of course I am not saying that every leftist wants to euthanize every elderly person...but they certainly want to create a culture that would lead to this way of thinking.

Hence, the family unit, once the unit for thousands of years through which society protected its young, and the elderly; the institution through which families bonded together in communites to create a social safety net that does not rely on government then gradually erodes to the point where it is no longer recognizable and therefore has no purpose.

But society must still protect its weak. To the New Left, this is done through government and 'education'. Now I obviously do not think marriage will die off entirely, but I do think it will become more and more 'unhip' to get married. People will see it as nothing more than just an old fashioned way to live. I can also see it getting to the point where it is seen as 'cruel' and 'abusive' to raise your children without government 'social workers' to tell you what to do. Ken Dryden has already said this. Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory recently said (on CFRB's Bill Caroll show) that he thought people should have to undergo mandatory government training to become parents. I have met John Tory and think he is a good man, but I do not know that I can vote for him now.

Would I need to have a license before I made love to my wife if we wanted to conceive?

What if she got pregnant before we were 'licensed' and we failed the government test?

If we fail do they 'terminate' the pregnancy?

How do we determine who passes or fails?

What are the standards?

Who determines what a 'good parent' is?

Will it be the same 'activists' with rainbow flags on their beret's who are teaching children how to put condoms on bananas in elementary schools?

Remember, this is the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party saying this. I have allegiance to people and ideals but not to a party.

I fight for Stephen Harper because I know his world view is rooted in a Christian philosopy of right and wrong. That is where his conservatism comes from. I would find it very difficult to endorse a Conservative Party without him and a 'secular red tory' at the helm.

Much on the future of Canada will be determined on Monday nights federal election. We know this. If Stephen Haper wins (and while he is still in the lead, many of the polls are varying) at least a healthy minority I think Canada has a chance of getting back on track. If the Liberals receive even a weak minority and they team with the NDP, I think many of the threats to freedom of religion and the family are going to happen quick and fast.

National Daycare is a huge linchpin in the New Left's attempt to destroy the traditional family. I fear that much more than polygamy. Polygamy is not the problem...it is a symptom of it. The philosophy is the problem.

Polygamy is but one step in the road. After same-sex marriage, I think only a fool would bet against it.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006


My lovely wife and I got up at 6:00 am this morning to go and see Stephen Harper give a speech at the Granite Brewery on the corner of Eglinton and Mount Pleasant in Toronto.

I have never been to one of these types of events before and had no idea what to expect. In a word, what we got was...


People were up early to hear him speak. Stephen was very charismatic and energetic and the room was packed to the gills. Right in the heart of downtown Toronto. We had heard from another person there (but I cannot confirm) that the location had been booked a while ago and they had no idea this many people would show up. We also spoke to some very enthused Conservatives and it was a pleasure to see so many people there of every ethnicity, age and gender. It was a diverse crowd in the best sense.

It was also interesting to see all of the 'media people' in person that you usually see/read on TV/print all of the time.

Most seemed very down to earth, cordial and not terribly happy to be up this early in the morning. The only ones who seemed to have a visible 'attitude' of superiority were...

wait for it...

...CityTV's Adam Vaughn and some other reporter from the same outlet who looked like she belonged on Much Music introducing Eminem video's instead. The elitism and obvious bias from that crew just ooozesss form every pore.

At one point, Vaughn walked past a nice man who was a Harper supporter who recognized him. Vaughn just walked past him, mumbled something and rolled his eyes in obvious contempt. I guess he didn't like the fact that the 'plebes' might be getting their leader in.

Harper for his part was stellar and the excitement in the room was palpable. We also met Peter Kent, who is wonderfully articulate and our own candidate Peter Coy, who was very humble and sincere.

We wish them all the best on Monday. I encourage any of you to make the effort to go out and show these people your support.


Thanks to Neale News for this article on how Elections Canada has been asked to investigate The Blogging Tories. Should The War Room be read as part of this investigation we would humbly ask that the investigating officer mention The War Room in every reference to any reporter talking about this investigation.

We would welcome the readership. Please mention us in every press release, every news article, every interview given.

We'll even volunteer for interviews. Most days we're actually quite easy to get a hold of. If any investigating officer finds something 'offensive' on this blog, please ask us for a comment.

We'll gladly offer an opinion. It's what we do best.

We'd love the publicity.

We need the publicity.

So remember, that's 'The War Room' by Nicol DuMoulin.

And its Nicol without an e.


Tuesday, January 17, 2006


We've all seen the differing polls over the past 24 hours. My message: do not waver. Stay the course.

I said it before, the media wants to punish Paul Martin, not award Stephen Harper. Now that a majority is possible, they are terrified. Look at the Toronto Star, they are going into hysterics. The Globe and Mail has now published an article 'outing' the religious candidates who are opposed to SSM.

I suspect the EKOS Toronto Star poll at best was a push poll designed to influence voters downward and give the Liberal's hope. Remember the American election when all of the network polls were specifically chosen to 'out-psych' conservatives?

Trust me on this...the New Left is terrified of what they are seeing. This major shift from the NDP to the Liberals was to be expected. I said it before at the beginning of this campaign. This timeout, the NDP is toast, done, burnt to a crisp. I stand by that.

Sometimes I spend time going through the message boards at various websites that swing to a more 'progressive' view of human nature. One such web site is 'rabble'. It is the home for many NDP and Liberal supporters.

So I figured I would run through their boards to get a feel for how they are perceiving the election. How do they feel about the prospect of a Stephen Harper government?

Are they non-plussed? Mildly engaged? Concerned? Elated at the thought of real progress?

No. They are terrified. Real horror show. Here are some of their ramblings for your pleasure.
Most were found on the board about Stephen Harper saying "God bless Canada," at the end of his speeches:

"I'll accept “God bless Canada” as harmless when Con supporters are able to ignore a leader who finishes his/her speeches with “hail Satan” or even worse (in their minds) “Muhammad is the prophet”."

"F*ck, I can't believe Canadians would even consider that troglodyte!!!"

"Four or five years with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. Life will have no meaning."

"Basically, we'll be dragged into the coming (provoked) armageddon, if the God people have their way. We won't be bystanders anymore!"

"*sigh* We are so screwed. *shakes head in disgust* "

"I agree that the "God bless" crap isn't just an empty phrase but rather a code message to the the religious bigots to keep quiet for another week and that their agenda will be taken into account should the Conserblicans win and Harper become PM."

"However, the new Conservatives aren't Tories, but smooth-talking serpents who have slithered out from underneath Prairie rocks to claim their new found dominion."

"The only blessing Canada needs is a Conservatives' defeat."

These people are running scared like headless chickens. The system they use to exploit the majority is potentially at an end. Take my word for it. The Liberal increase is not a decrease in Conservative support; it is a decrease in NDP support. It was to be expected. This is part of the game and we knew this would happen. Anything can still happen, but...

...stay the course.

Saturday, January 14, 2006


As many of you political junkies know, there is something in modern political campaigns known as the 'October Surprise'.

In the fall of 1980, it was alledged after by many Democrats that Ronald Reagan and George Bush conspired to sabotage Jimmy Carter's attempts to get hostages released from Iran until after the election in November.

As lore goes, many believed that had Carter gotten the hostages free just before the election, it would have been an 'October Suprise' and he perhaps could have beaten Ronald Reagan and won a second term.

Now, this is all conspiracy theory stuff that has never been proven and was eventually discredited by numerous bi-partisan and journalistic investigations.

Nevertheless, the theory of the October Surprise still abounds in political campaigns. The Democrats pulled one on George W. Bush the Friday night before the final weekend of the 2000 election campaign regarding an old DUI charge. The Liberals in Canada pulled one on Stephen Harper in the 2004 election by releasing the Randy White tape on the Friday before the polls opened. The goal of course, is to release the 'surprise' late on the Friday afternoon in order to monopolize the last weekend of the campaign's news cycle and derail your opponent. To be fair, I am sure that there are also instances where the right has done it to the left; these are just the most high profile cases I am thinking of right now.

Nevertheless, expect an October Surprise from the Liberals to Stephen Harper next Friday afternoon or sometime thereof.

As I said to some good friends of ours last night, I sure hope nobody out there has doctored photos of Stephen coming out of a strip club in the last couple of years. Or worse yet, real photos of him coming out of church with a Bible in his hand on Sunday morning.

Things have at best been consistant with the current poll numbers but we are not out of the woods yet. This is the week when all guns will be blazing. We have already seen a group of 'concerned Canadians' led by the neo-Marxist Maude Barlow come out against Stephen Harper. Today, I read that environmentalist Elizabeth May, while receiving the Order of Canada broke down on stage and warned that,

"Mr. Harper's policies are not just a threat to Canada, but to the world..."

These reports I usually file under the column of 'You know you are on the right side when..."

Nevertheless this, like the election of George W. Bush a year ago, would represent a massive rejection by the public of the relativist values of the Baby Boomer generation. Even if it is only a strong minority. To the Trudeau generation, this is it, the end game. But we still cannot waver. There are still nine days to go in this campaign and anyone who is relaxing on their laurels at this point needs to be shaken awake.

I still will only allow myself to be cautiously optimistic. We need 'the big one' and now we can see the media (Toronto Star, CBC, Ibbitson) start the fear stories.

Having said that, Stephen Harper has done us all proud.

As for me, I am still waiting for the group of concerned Toronto artists to come forth with lil' Road to Avonlea herself at the helm.

Thursday, January 12, 2006


These are interesting times. After reading many blogs and posts over the past few days since the debates and subsequent smear ads by the Liberals, there seems to be several views taking place. On the one hand, people on the far left tend to be genuinely frightened; in a very real and tangible way. I feel sorry for them. They do not need to be.

On the other hand, there are some on the right who fear a conservative majority also...as though Stephen Harper either wouldn't want it or couldn't deal with the responsibility of it.

I will make my views plain here. I want a Conservative majority. I do not think it is probable, but I do crave it. I do not understand the views of those who question it. The logic seems to be this:

Let Harper get in with a minority and prove himself with 'centrist' policies that the media and left will like. Then go for the 'gusto' in the next election and go for a big majority after which true conservative policies can be broached. This is flawed reasoning for several reasons.

First off, the goal of any government is to implement an agenda. In a minority government, Harper will not be able to do anything conservative. He will maybe pass the Federal Accountabilities Act but the other platform points most likely will fail.

Do you really think the NDP will help him pass his child care plan?

Those people on the left who are helping Harper now, such as some Jean Chretien loyalists and political pundits, do not really want Harper to win. They want to punish Paul Martin for what he did to Jean Chretien, who is, in the opinion of The War Room, a petty bigot who disgraced the office of the Prime Minister of Canada. No need to be subtle.

What these media pundits and Chretien loyalists want is a 8-12 month period where Stephen Harper will be neutered and they can get rid of Paul Martin and rebuild the Liberal Party with a Chretien loyalist instead.

Do you really think that Michael Ignatieff is running so that he can help the elderly get heat when the pipes break in the dead of winter?

After this neutered period, and after a new leader is picked you will notice everyone turn on Harper again just like in 2004. Just like in the spring. Just like in the fall.

Those who seem to be on your side now will call him 'incompetant'. They will say that he couldn't accomplish anything. They will say that he squandered the good will of the NDP. Ideology does not change overnight and neither have these pundits.

Do you really think people like Shelia Copps or Warren Kinsella are on your side?

Do you really think the same academics and lawyers who are now pushing for polygamy want a Stephen Harper government in 12 months?

Do you really think the media will support Stephen Harper if his government were to find that Jean Chretien was more than a casual observer to wrong doing?

Do you really think the media that is going relatively fair on Harper now wants a caucus that will have good relations with America...with George Bush?

Do you really think the pundits will go fair on Stephen Harper in the next election when the Liberals have a new leader and Christians like Stockwell Day are in government?

I am not saying that any of these people are 'bad people' or even dishonest. I am only saying that their motivation for helping you is not what many of you seem to think that it is. Just because two adversaries have the same goal does not mean that they share the same reasons for why.

Strange times make for strange alliances, but do not for one minute think these people will be with you or Stephen Harper if he only gets a minority and another election is called in 8-12 months.

This is it. This is the big one. Conservatives have fought hard for this. Stephen Harper and his team have fought hard for this.

What is happening right now is a drama based on the old question:

"Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?"

History tells us the answer to that question is no.

Conservatives, including Stephen Harper would do best to remember it.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006


Stephen Harper was born in the year 1959...in Canada.

In 1959 the Dalai Lama had to flee Tibet to avoid violent persecution.

Stephen Harper was born in 1959.

The Dalai Lama fled his country in 1959.

If elected, how many people would have to flee to avoid persecution...in Canada?

Where will you flee...to George W. Bush's America?

Choose your Canada.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006


I wanted take some time after the debates to see how things played out over 24 hours before commenting on them. As of now, here are my thoughts:

1. Harper did just fine in the debate. Yes, he has been overcoached regarding the 'smile' but this is not going to hurt him.

2. I am so sick of hearing Jack Layton talk about 'working families' in a self sanctimonious way. I grew up in poverty and have even been on welfare at one point right after university. I know of no working class or poor people who vote NDP.

For thirty years the NDP base has been wealthy union thugs, wealthy gay rights activists, wealthy feminist groups, white middle-class marxist university students, communist leaning academics & laywers and flakey artists. So please, Jack, for the love of all that is good and holy, QUIT SAYING YOU REPRESENT WORKING CLASS FAMILIES! THEY DO NOT VOTE FOR YOU!

3. Paul Martin's stance on the 'Notwithstanding Clause' is at once bizarre and terrifying.

Obviously a way to try to rook Harper on SSM, this has implications that will further neuter Canadian democracy. For his part, Andrew Coyne further demostrated the inconsistency of libertarian philosophy by endorsing it.

I still have some libertarian leanings, especially with regards to free speech, but overall I increasingly see it as a moral short-cut that tries to take the easy way out of having any social responsibility to your fellow man or woman on either a social or economic level. Seeing as I used to refer to myself as a libertarian I will write about it soon in a Dossier to explain my position on this further.

Martin's wanting to take away rights from the people/parliament further illustrates what I have discussed about the neo-Marxist leanings of the New Left. The people cannot be trusted to them and democracy is defined in terms that are actually a contradiction to it. Martin is no longer calling the shots here. His younger underlings are.

Under different circumstances I suspect Layton would have supported this move.

4. The attack ads.

The nasty ones.

We knew they were coming, so we are not shocked. Will they work? Certainly with some. But remember; anyone who will be fooled by these ads most likely wasn't with us in the first place. This is the part where Frodo makes it to Mordor and sees how much further he has to go and it isn't pretty.

It will get a lot worse from here on in. We haven't heard from such 'ever popular' Canadian personalities as Sarah Polley or Steven Page yet.

5. Barring some unforseen final act that we can't predict, a week from now I believe this thing is sealed. Anyone who is with Harper a week from now is there to the bitter end. All undecideds at that point go to Gollum...er...Martin or stay at home to eat popcorn and drink beer.

6. Back to the ads; these are perhaps the most vile I have seen in my 11 years studying politics. They would make Rumsfeld and Rove have second thoughts. Canada is now a lesser nation for them.

7. The Quebec breakthrough is good for all. I do not believe Quebecers will be intimidated like Ontarians.

8. Mike Duffy did a fine job tonight by calling John Duffy out onto the mat. With regards to the media...they will make or break the next two weeks for Harper and they know it.

Perhaps maybe every now and then even the most loyal of dogs lashes out at its master if they are abused.

9. Michael Ignatieff not showing up at an all candidiates TV show on Rogers does not suprise me.

He did not get into this because he cares about making phone calls to help an old lady get her heat back on in the winter time. He is being groomed for the top position and he knows it. Anyone in Etobicoke-Lakeshore that votes for him is merely a footstool used to get another elitist academic to a higher place. A smart man...perhaps. An ethical one...you be the judge.

10. I do believe we are seeing a turning point in Canadian history. Harper or Martin winning will take the country down a totally different path. Harper has a much tougher road. His changes need a majority...either now or next election. And if he wins a minority now, it will be a lot tougher to get his views heard next time.

Sunday, January 08, 2006


Does that headline terrify you?

Are the masses running in fear at the thought of armed tanks going down Yonge St. with Stephen Harper at the head and a steel mace in his hand striking down everyone in his path?

Is Toronto now officially mortified at the thought of North Bound Leather being the first target of a Conservative government with the local multiplex playing BrokeBack Mountain to be invaded by American troops to follow?

Everyone is apoplectic over the headlines in the Toronto Sun and The Toronto Star musing about Harper and a 'majority' today. I must admit, the Sun headline did throw me off.

Nevertheless, we really didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did we?

You knew this was coming down the pike. The rough stuff. The salt on the open wound. The acidic vinegar poured into the wine.

This is where the waters get choppy. Real rough stuff ahead. We knew that though. So did Stephen.

Remember and never forget...the media wants Paul Martin to win. Say it 10 times to yourself.

The average Ontarian does not want an excuse to not vote Liberal. They want an excuse to keep voting Liberal.

If Harper's numbers are down by the end of the week do not despair. That only means they were never that high to begin with, the support was soft and would not have showed up on election day.

If by the end of the week the numbers hold, you'll know there is real change in the air. Anyone who is commited to Harper now will not let the 'majority' headlines deter them.

If they do...they never would have voted for him on election day and the lead was false.


A few thoughts as we go into the final series of debates, which leads us into Act 3 of our little drama.

-A few weeks ago I said Stephen Harper looked good but sooner or later the polls would have to move. They have. I'm not too worried about the whole 'peaked too early thing'. If real change is in the air then those numbers will hold. If the number shifts were just fads and trends and parked votes...it won't matter when they peak, the hold won't stay.

-I'm concerned that for all of his problems people might see Paul Martin as the new underdog going into the debates and cut him more slack than he deserves...which is none. As long as Harper can just sort of 'rise above it all' he should be fine.

-The new Liberal attack ads, y'know the ones with the folksy music playing in the background while the VO says Stephen Harper is a fascist and such...

...they made my wife and I laugh hard. I do not think they will be as effective. As someone who has spent much time in an edit suite cultivating images for effect, the effect here is soft. Like background noise. They do not instill fear as an emotion in the viewer. They are also more misrepresentations and lies. I do not think they will work.

-But I could be wrong.

-That Toronto is still a Liberal stronghold after all of the crime that occurs here still saddens me. They really do not understand. Most of the people that I've talked to about this still think there is no real problem. My wife had the good fortune to accompany a friend of a friend home on the subway the other night after a dinner. The young man was a CBC writer doing a piece on crime in Toronto. He went on about how the crime was caused by 'poor', 'disenfranchised', youth who are 'oppressed' and 'excluded' from the 'blah blah blah'...

He asked my wife for her opinion.

She said that he was wrong. The issue was one of young, vicious, Jamaican gangs. Until you can say those words, she said, you will never solve the problem. She then told him what she thought, and releated many of the views I have shared with you in The War Room.

He said he had never heard these thoughts before about gang culture and would contact her again for more input on the CBC story.

He never did.

-Be very wary of all of those polls that show the Conservatives leading with an NDP vote of more than 15%. By my guess, if it really looks like Harper will win, those extra percentages will shift to the Liberals very quickly. Jack Layton has been doing his best fear mongering lately and still doesn't seem to realize that it hurts him. As for those Ipsos Reid polls that have the Liberals with 80 odd seats and the NDP close to 30. I just don't buy it. Could be...but I just don't buy it.

With the exception of maybe one person I know who is a die hard NDP type, most of the ones I know are voting Liberal. They would sell their own mothers into a bordello and give the profits to Conrad Black if it would keep Stephen Harper out of the PM's chair. I'm just saying, come election day, the NDP are not getting 30 seats.

Be happy for Harper, he's doing great and looks great doing the great he is doing. That Globe and Mail cover yesterday rocked, but believe me when I say...the Liberal vote will come out. The Paul Martin supporters do not believe he is a poor leader. They are totally fooled sheep and think he is their man. They buy his spin hook, line and sinker. They really believe this is the last fight for Trudeau's Canada. They are not going down easy.

-On the flip side, I am seeing more Conservative signs in my area, Eglinton-Lawrence, than I have ever before in Toronto.

Even restaurants and convenience stores to the south of me are not afraid of showing big, Conservative signs in their windows. That is good. They are not ashamed. Perhaps there is a whiff of change in the air. If there is that much change in Toronto, maybe in the rest of Ontario...maybe.

-On a final note, I was in my local LCBO yesterday. A Rastafarian came in, bought some rum and kept talking aloud to anyone who would listen,

"Do not vote Liberal, man. They destroy da country. They destroy da economy. They bad people, man. They gonna give you all popcorn and beer."

He made everyone, even the tellers a bit edgy. He encouraged them all to vote NDP instead.

I said nothing but nodded at him and smiled.

Hey, I agreed with two thirds of what he said.

Sunday, January 01, 2006


...Linda McQuaig of Toronto. In today's Toronto Star, local 'author' McQuaig argues that it was Mike Harris' tax cuts a decade ago that are the reason why there is violence in Toronto now.

My favourite part is when she, a white, latte socialist tries to get into the mindset of an urban Jamaican gang memeber...

"And when some kids behaved badly, it banned them from school with a "zero tolerance" policy. Where did we think they would go?

For an angry teen who feels excluded from the mainstream, a gang offers a sense of belonging, prestige, dignity and status among his peers. The mainstream offers less and less."

I do not argue that there should be no social programs for kids and teens. Far from it. But the Linda McQuaig's of the world, from the comfort of their organic home garden centres in the beaches as they sip an afternoon Sangria while listening to Sarah McLaughlin, only see the world from a neo-Marxist prism.

It is only about poverty for them.

I lived in the poorest riding in all of Ontario for five years, the Davenport riding. There was a rough element there to be sure, but there were no gang problems. Sure, the local heroin dealer made all of his calls in front of the local grocery store, but by and large it wasn't too bad. The demographic of Davenport is largely Italian and Portugese with a growing number of Muslims also entering the area. Further south there is a growing population of white university students who hold communist meetings on a bi-weekly basis to overthrow democracy (they advertised heavily around the Dufferin Mall). OCAP has their base there too. It was and remains a very poor area of Toronto and statistically more poverty bound than the areas where the gangs are based.

But no overwhelming violence problem.

First off there are a few reasons why the left cannot fathom the complexity of this issue; indeed it is only now during the election that they are even admitting the issue exists.

The left wants to keep this issue about social programs because it helps them avoid talking in specifics. It is not 'poor people' who are in the gangs committing the violence in Toronto.

It is largely young Jamaican men who are in the gangs committing the violence in Toronto. Period.

But to admit this then opens up a whole new quandry for leftists. Then they have to ask why it is that young Jamaican men are forming brutal gangs in Toronto and not men who are Chinese, Sikh, white, Muslim, Italian, Portugese etc.

It means they have to open themselves up to accusations of racism from fellow leftists.

This is a much more complex issue. Dealing with it means having to deal with intangibles such as culture.

It means asking questions about how our entertainment industry glorifies young black gangs through entertainment, music and videos. It means talking about how gang culture glamorizes death and violence; shows malice towards women; teaches how to have sex and procreate indiscriminently but not how to deal with the resulting offspring.

It means asking questions about the breakdown of family in society and how modern secular, culture glorifies its breakdown. It means asking questions about moral relativism and right and wrong. It means asking questions about what is taught in our schools and that perhaps once a society kills off its belief in God, the next thing it begins to kill off is itself.

McQuaig says the angry youth (she never deals with the race issue) feel excluded from the mainstream. Does she think this is 1955 with James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause?

In contempory culture, gangs ARE the mainstream. Even more to the point, the overwhelming number of perpetraitors are not poor; they are middle class and from the suburbs

The sad thing is, I do not believe we should stop social programs for disenfranchised youth of any culture. But that is only a start to solving the problem. A problem that is getting bigger everyday and has not even begun to see the boiling point yet.

Now I also do not agree with some of those on the right who will only talk about tougher criminal sentences although that too needs to be addressed.

The real issue is one of culture.

For years I and many others have been talking about the rising tide of gang violence in Toronto. We were called racist. We were told it wasn't happening. We were told there was no safer place on earth but enlightened and evolved, secular Toronto. The problem got worse.

Remember the last mayoral election when David Miller insisted-INSISTED!-there was no violence problem in Toronto. That the biggest problem in Toronto was the island airport?

Now the left realizes it is a problem...and I fear it will only get worse.

Have a safe and Happy New Year.