Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

On the Eve of the US Elections

Tomorrow the US will elect a new President. Well, tomorrow is when they’ll vote; in all likelihood we won’t know the official result until December after all the legal challenges are concluded in every state where the margin of victory was a percentage point or two of the popular vote. That is, unless Trump badly underperforms the current polling and loses by a solid margin in Florida, which is the key tipping point state – Trump cannot win the election if he doesn’t win Florida. But right now it looks like he’s even odds to win that state but it won’t be by much, maybe one or two points; in which case expect the recount saga of 2000 repeated all over again if those state’s 29 electoral votes are the difference between either President Trump or President Clinton.

That said, find something else to watch on TV Tuesday night, Clinton will win the election.  She has a better overall organization and Republicans have underperformed the polls the past couple of elections because they don’t have the ground game to get the vote to the polls.   All the Hollywood elites, media, academics and public sector unions, the unelected left-wing cabal that steers the discourse in the West can breathe easier.

The question will then become – how violent is this going to get? What am I talking about?

See this clip from last Friday’s Bill Maher show… he more or less apologizes on behalf of the Left for their demonization of John McCain and Mitt Romney, the latter being a perfectly decent man, a moderate Republican but who was still compared to Hitler. We have our own example here in Canada where a very milquetoast and overly-cautious Stephen Harper was called a “fascist” on a regular basis, and when he was defeated last year the left-wing cabal were almost orgasmic in their celebrations. But Maher and the others in the clip are essentially saying, “All those other times we told you the Republicans were fascists… well we were exaggerating, but this time – this time – it’s true! It really, really is!”

We all know who Lena Dunham is… a talentless Hollywood darling and devoutly evil person who lied about being raped to make a good story for her book. Well, here she is in this clip obnoxiously pushing for her girl Hillary, or how about this clip where she (and her father, a man who made his living painting pictures of women’s breasts) says that white males should be made extinct. Do they say this stuff just to make their peers laugh and score brownie points with their fellow brain-dead leftists, or do they really believe white male babies should be aborted? Do they believe in eugenics? Because that’s evil, or do they not realize that? Oh wait, what are we talking about – they believe in an evil ideology that has produced more suffering than any other ideology in history, of course they realize they’re being evil.

Here is the thing… there is a cycle in our local, provincial/state, national politics… we elect leftists because that’s where our natural, romantic tendencies trend as a people – we all dream of a more inclusive and tolerant world, one that protects the vulnerable and promotes social and natural harmony. But the left think this type of world can be created by fiat and they, after a time, just go too far, their agendas get hijacked by special interests groups and the bills for their plans need to get paid… and then people push the reset button and elect conservatives to clean up the inevitable mess and do what conservatives do – provide balance, stability and rational government.  David Miller was a horrible mayor of Toronto; cue Rob Ford.  Bob Rae, horrible premier of Ontario, bring in Mike Harris.  Paul Martin weak and ineffective Liberal, bring in Stephen Harper.  Jimmy Carter a weak President brings in Ronald Reagan.  It’s going to happen here in Ontario, finally, Wynne out, Brown in.  Give it a few years and Trudeau will be trounced circa 2024 when it becomes abundantly clear that he’s bankrupted Canada.  The pendulum swings back and forth; the left has good intentions but makes a mess of it, conservatives come in and clean up said mess, the left comes back and says we’ve learned our lessons and will be more reasonable this time, left get back into power but forget the lessons soon enough, and on it goes.  Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

But this time we face a bigger more modern problem in that we are dealing with the crap that the aforementioned unelected cultural leftists are dumping on us; in their recent emboldened moral vanity they now call conservatives stupid and bigoted, they insist on gutting the economy in a futile effort to stop global warming, they want to force you to call people “zie” and suggest white males are a cancer in the world to be cut out, they want a segregated society with different rules for every identity group and apologize for being the West.

Trump is a result of all this. But what people will realize after this election is that what they want is to hit the reset button on the culture, and not necessarily the politics. As the expression goes “politics is downstream of culture”. After Trump is defeated, after Brexit is delayed or quashed by courts in England, after we get a Bill C-16 here in Canada making it illegal to call someone “he” or “her” without their consent or a carbon tax that will slow the economy down during a recession, a large segment of the population in the West is going to start casting their eyes higher, at the culture that produces the unelected leftist cabal.

A positive outlook would be to say, hey – the “long arc of history” as Obama likes to describe it shows that there is a cycle and things will self-correct.  Bu the more cynical outlook would say there are only three things that affect cultural change; demographics, violent conflict and technology. And two out of the three are largely beyond doing anything about. It’s going to be a rocky road the next few years.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Suzuki’s Minority Report

There he goes again, suggesting (not for the first time) that we arrest Stephen Harper for his “criminal” inaction on climate change.

We’re not the best ones to make arguments against the whole climate change hysteria, there are plenty of excellent persons and blogs that are dedicated to that cause, and we defer to them.

But it boils down to four questions about the Climate Change debate.

  1.  Is Climate Change real?

Maybe.  Sure.  The earth has gone through a great number of climate change cycles during it’s existence, including several ice ages and several hot-house periods.  They’ve found alligator bones near the Arctic Circle… did those alligators drive there in their SUV’s?  But for the sake of argument here, let’s concede that the earth is in fact warming…. again.

2. Is Climate Change man-made?

This is where the IPCC term “anthropogenic global warming”  or AGW comes in, i.e. that man made “pollutants” (if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant) is the main cause of Climate Change.  This is more contentious.  You may get us to concede that AGW is a contributor, but to what extent?  What percentage of our current global warming can be directly attributed to our carbon dioxide emissions?  There is no answer that quantifies it.   But again, let’s concede for the sake of argument that we are contributing some appreciable amount to the current global warming.

3.  Are the effects of Climate Change catastrophic?

Here’s where we go rogue; no.  Virtually every IPCC prediction for the doomsday effects of AGW on the earth, from the early part of the century to recently have been false.  Global sea levels – more or less the same… no flooding of Miami or islands in the South Pacific.  Himalaya glaciers melted by 2013?  Just the opposite in fact,  ice caps have increased, not only in the Himalayas but in parts of the Arctic and Antarctic.  Global temperatures have more or less held steady for the past 18 years, despite claims to the contrary about the “hottest year on record” et al.  Climate models have failed to accurately predict future conditions thus far, so why are we trusting that they will get it right eventually?  The effects of Climate Change will not be catastrophic or something that we cannot adapt to.

4.  Do you trust the government to stop Climate Change?

Hell, no.  And last time we checked, there was no WORLD GOVERNMENT that could force China, India, Russia and Brazil to hold their carbon output.  Canada is a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and of that 0.7% was attributed to the oil sands, which is slowing down given global gas prices.

So, David Suzuki is an unfortunate example of that poor soul who shouts into an echo chamber and thinks his own thoughts said out loud are validation of his dumb ideas.  He cannot predict the effects of climate change, so what are we arresting Harper for?  And Harper was supposed to do what to stop global warming?

Go away old man.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence-Based Partisanship

The narrative that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was a micro-managing, repressive, partisan, anti-democratic force for ill extends back to Day One of his time in power, because, of course, the number one sin of any conservative politician in the eyes of the left is electoral victory itself.  An election victory is usually explained away by the left as a “stolen” election (Bush), a duped electorate (Ford) or bought and paid for by Big Oil/Big Pharma/Big Banks/Big whatever (every conservative).  Because interpreting conservative victory at the polls as a repudiation of leftist policies cannot ever be considered as a possibility.

Take the case of federal public civil servants.  Under the incrementalist Harper, his government actually increased the size of the federal government, giving civil servants pay raises and never experiencing a federal labour strike or work stoppage of any sort.  He did almost nothing to redress the continuing imbalance between public and private sector wages/benefits/employment levels, and yet he was openly despised by said civil servants, to the point where they openly called for his defeat.

If that’s not bad enough, civil servants were recently seen cheering Trudeau cabinet ministers and booing a reporter for asking legitimate questions at a press conference.

Of course, you could argue it’s not all about the pay and benefits, but how they were treated under Harper.  They were “muzzled” under his “reign of terror” (an expression the author of the article uses 3 times, including terms such as “rule”, “regime” etc., all connoting a dictatorial leadership, not a democratically elected one, but we digress).  But is it any wonder?

Sure a conservative government might be able to find enough qualified conservatives to staff the first few levels of any bureaucracy, but it is almost impossible to fill the ranks top to bottom with conservatives – there just aren’t enough of them, and most are working in the private sector (happily) anyway.  So when your rank and file are opposed to their very own government, can you afford to have people, most of whom have no respect for the idea of trying to maintain an outward appearance of neutrality, running around questioning and bad-mouthing your policies?  No, it’s insubordination in the simplest definition of the word.

Guaranteed if a conservative-minded civil servant is brave enough to speak out against the Trudeau government that person will be censured.  But will the “muzzling” narrative be used then?  Unlikely.

And the whole “evidence-based policy” idea is something that will be explored in future posts.  But make no mistake, it’s propaganda because Liberal governments have a knack for ignoring evidence to the contrary on all sorts of issues, whether it’s proof that raising the minimum wage results in higher unemployment, to proof that raising taxes actually reduces government revenues and on and on.  Rather what this “evidence-based policy” making that these un-muzzled scientists are championing is simply code for climate change policy.  Nothing more, and yet nothing less since this union of scientists, the 97% that believe in climate change, is itself a mythology… without evidence.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Whiff of Nihilism

anti-establishmentOver the next couple of years we can expect a lot of discussion in the media with respect to what the federal Conservative party needs to do in order to get back into power.  Much like the Republican party in the US, conservative parties in Canada are losing the war of identity politics; women 18-49, new immigrants, aboriginals, Atlantic Canadians, urban professionals all have an almost instinctual aversion to voting conservative.  Most of this irrational but it’s a reality that has to be addressed.

So, it can go two ways (or a combination thereof) – the conservative parties moderate their stances and soften their edges and/or they more effectively and compassionately communicate a conservative vision and try to convince a broader swath of the public to identify as conservative.  The media will push for moderation.  That’s the easy way.  Selling conservatism in a liberal culture is much harder.

The National Post got the ball rolling on Saturday asking a group of conservatives their thoughts on how to “fix” the Conservative party’s fortunes.  One of the persons asked was Doug Ford.  Rob and Doug Ford really conflict us; their political instincts are good, but they never really convince that there’s a heck of a lot of depth of thought behind what they’re standing for.  Yet they do have popularity and it crosses demographic boundaries.

We’re real. We tell it like it is. We’re not the typical politicians. We don’t BS people. When someone’s in trouble and the sharks are circling around the leader, blood in the water, some guys run away, like Jason Kenney seemed to do at the end, and other guys, like the Ford brothers, jump in there, even though we knew it was going to be a tough election.

Now, sounding like you’re Rex and Spot Moondog  and the Ford Brothers tag team jumping into anything, well that isn’t exactly the type of communication skills we’re suggesting the conservative party needs.  But Doug goes on;

Donald Trump is borrowing from us. Rob blazed a new trail for politicians like that. People are tired in North America of the BS-ing politician. You tell it the way it is, you hold back nothing and the vast majority of the conservative-minded people are sharing the same ideas. Politicians are just too scared to say what we say.

We disagree – Donald Trump isn’t borrowing anything from Rob and Doug Ford.  But what is happening is they are singing from the same quasi-nihilist hymn sheet; the establishment is corrupt, past ways of doing things are not working, let’s go in, burn the place down, reduce it to rubble and build it up again – the right way.

Wouldn’t it be a great thing to clear out all the career politicians? You want people who are there to serve the people as opposed to serving their own pocketbooks.

This type of anti-establishment fatwa has spell-binding appeal as evidenced by the popularity of the Ford brothers still and Trump’s long spell on top.  Patrick Brown was elected leader of the Ontario PC’s largely on the same anti-establishment sentiment, conservatives lashing out at their own party leaders for their failure to win the last election.

But it’s short lived and it alienates – it’s built on anger, granted anger at the (liberal) establishment, and anger burns itself out.  You can carry a whiff of nihilism, you can hint that you want to shake the foundations a little, but you can’t make that your whole raison d’etre.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Hyperbolic Overdrive

It’s been quite a week for leftist columnists in Canada’s papers.  Lots of hyperbole, the best examples being here and here.

Below we’ve provided a sampling of just a few quotes from articles in this week’s Toronto Star.  See if you can guess which ones are real, and which ones we’ve made up:

“We must remember how close we came to lasting damage, and how important it is to resist the temptation of poisonous politics”

“It was Harper’s first cluster bomb in the War on Women.”

“While it never came to death squads in the street, how close did we come under this regime?”

“The child-care movement became enemies of the state during the Harper era.”

“The war on women was not simply figurative.  It was a literal war on women, with many causalities and collateral damage.”

“Feminists across the country are emerging from their bomb shelters.”

“The registry saved the lives of 600 people every year.”

“How many Muslims will die thanks to Harper’s stance on the niqab?”

“It’s been a terrible decade. Thank God it’s over.”

“What did we ever do to this strange punitive man to make him put us in a cell?”

“What I remember was how violent and frightening the reaction was for many years, especially when the Conservative Party targeted me personally.”

“I remember the day he won a majority all those years ago.  I hugged my partner and we wept.”

“Like survivors of a long and bitter occupation, old friends greeted each other with silent wide smiles, and then fell into quiet reminiscence under the sun of a beautiful autumn day, sharing inflated war stories on their part in driving the barbarians from the gate.”

“Recognition of the courageous fallen, especially among New Democrats — of those MPs, officials and staffers who did not survive the long campaign — were muttered in respectful sadness.”

“This apparatus of hate has been destroyed.  We must remain forever vigilante.”

“…returning to the capital by train from working hard for the ouster of the Hun”

“But today, like the war-weary senior, slowly sweeping his front step of the mess left behind by the retreating armies, Canadians will reflect on how it happened.”

“Many Bothans died to bring us this information.”

“Canadians will soon move to long glasses of wine in front of winter fires, sharing the “where-were-you” chapter of story-telling about the dark years already fading.”

The unfortunate part of all this is, even if Trudeau turns out to be a failure, these people won’t (can’t) ever acknowledge any failings.  Rather, for the next 10 years plus everything that goes wrong will be blamed on Stephen Harper.  Just look at Ontario; we’re over a decade removed from the Mike Harris governments and still to this day the Wynne Liberals hide behind his ghost every time they’re caught screwing things up.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Losing the War

David Brooks wrote a very interesting piece in the NY Times recently, that has some context when examining the vote last night in parliament, not to re-open the debate on when a human life begins.

Subsequent to that vote where almost half the Conservative party caucus (and a few very brave Liberal members) voted against the grain and against Stephen Harper’s wishes, if you trolled the comments boards on any of the major newspaper websites, the National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, by and large it was either victorious crowing from the pro-choice crowd, or open weeping from big “C” Conservatives who are paranoid of the party being hijacked by social conservatives at the cost of losing the electorate next go-around.  It’s become dogma that in order to achieve electoral success conservatives need to abandon the war with the left on the cultural front, and stick to the economic issues.

But, we’ve argued before, social conservatism and economic liberty, which is basically what the current brand of conservatism is trying to champion, are two sides of the same coin.  Economic liberty (which is the only true path to prosperity for the maximum number of people) is only truly achieved if you a) get government out of the way and, b) have a population with the right mix of entreprenuerial spirit, work ethic and resolve. 

But if you remove government (or reduce it) you expose the lower tiers of society to some of the harsher realities of life, if you haven’t replaced the protections of government with the protections offered in the past by traditional institutions such as churches, charitable groups and extended families.

And if you concede the moral front to the left, the culture of victimization, entitlement and accomodation will take over, and all the economic liberty in the world will not rescue a society where the population is content to sit around and beggar others.

The irony is that by abandoning the social issues, conservatives open themselves up to criticism such as Linda McCuaig’s (incorrect as it is) argument that  a system of reduced taxes, smaller government, more economic freedoms will only make the strong stronger, the rich richer, since conservatives offer no concrete solutions for rescuing the weak in our society other than making grandiose arguments about a rising tide lifting all boats. 

It’s true, prosperity does filter down, there is no way anyone can argue that living standards for even our poorest members of society are not better than they were 20 or 30 years ago, but when the economic data come out showing the increasing disparity between the “rich” and the working man, when jobs that allowed a simple man or woman to go to work, earn a decent hour of pay and raise a family are going to China and Brazil, it is hard to argue that unfettered capitalism, maximized economic liberty, is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone.  But you need a moral foundation to build on.  So if we abandon that front, we’ve conceded the war.  

So, last night our so called “conservatives” abandoned an opportunity to start marshalling resources and taking back territory on that flank, and instead caved in to the popular dogma that these are battles not worth fighting.  They are very worth fighting.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Ah Heather – You So Crazy!

Seriously.

We don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

This is what passes for commentary in Canada’s largest daily newspaper.  We wonder about her mental health.  Really.  Find a doctor Heather, stat.  It’s disjointed nonsense, it draws outrageous parallels from Harper to Assad, and you know what?  We also would like to see Matt Damon debate Joe Oliver.

Seriously.

 

Tagged , , ,
%d bloggers like this: