Tag Archives: ANDREW SCHEER

Behind the Smiling Mask of Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party

Posted on by

Behind the Smiling Mask of Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party

             Scheer and muzzies

 

You might recall seeing a photo months ago (above) of Andrew Scheer standing with— reportedly—some of the most dangerous Islamic leaders in the country. Of course, many of Scheer’s apologists would dismiss the embarrassing photo op by saying that he was simply unaware of the sordid connections of the people posing next to him.  But this video indicates that Mr. Scheer was not only aware of who these people are, but he has maintained close personal contact with them:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfyR-nmmEE

 

http://www.riseoftheislamist.com/

 

After seeing this photo and viewing the video, one is moved to ask some serious questions. Questions like:

 

Is this what a leader of a so called “Conservative” Party looks like?

 

Is this what a “Conservative” Party stands for?

 

In my estimation, a “conservative” should want to conserve our Western, European and Christian heritage—not the culture of Islam, a totalitarian blend of religion and politics, an ideology whose holy text prescribes “hijra”, conquest by immigration.  https://www.cspii.org/blog/immigration-islamic-doctrine-and-history

 

Islamophobia? A phobia is an irrational fear. Let’s not fool ourselves. A fear of this ideology is entirely rational, as 1400 years of history attests.  It should be pointed out, however, that there is a difference between attacking an ideology and maligning all of its adherents. Most adherents are ordinary law-abiding folk who, like all citizens, deserve full protection from harm or discrimination under the law. But while individuals deserve protection, ideas and ideologies don’t.  Belief systems are fair game. It took a long time for Western democracies to dispatch laws against blasphemy, but it seems that politicians and the lobbies they pander to are intent on resurrecting them. Ironically they are quick to warn us of the spectre of violent “white nationalist” extremism while simultaneously courting the votes of the apostles of violent extremism in mosques.

 

As an indefatigable  researcher noted several months ago, the “Conservative” Party has approved three current federal candidates with ties to Islamic extremism (and a sitting Conservative Senator as well). “The party has been well advised of the background of these individuals and yet, to date, have not taken action to remove them. The recent report of Andrew Scheer’s alignment with radical Imams is of growing concern.”

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kGOTvZxaKiYVAOpLhWXxC07x0HBA0AJ4

 

She further notes that “A Conservative Candidate, Ghada Melek, is a Coptic Christian currently being unfairly targeted by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) who are calling on Melek to drop out of the race “following reports about her past social media posts,” which the NCCM deems to be “Islamophobic.”   

https://www.nccm.ca/nccm-calls-for-conservative-candidate-ghada-meleks-resignation/

 

The story by Christine Williams can be found here:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/canada-under-siege-islamic-supremacist-onslaught-against-christian-federal-conservative-candidate

 

After reading this account one is moved to ask “What position will Andrew Scheer take?”  Now that is the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

 

The federal election is fast approaching and many longstanding Conservative members have been fearful of splitting the vote since Maxime Bernier decided to step away from the party a year ago, a decision that most pundits described as foolhardy and suicidal.  But as we bear witness to the shameless pandering, opportunism and corruption unfolding among the top echelons of the Conservative,  Mr. Bernier’s decision to form a party is looking more and more like a courageous demonstration of integrity and principle.  

 

Bernier’s conspicuous disregard for political correctness and clear articulation of what many ordinary Canadians believe has attracted supporters from across the political spectrum, but many traditional Conservative voters hesitate to make the leap because they hear the voice of the Conservative Party establishment whispering in their ears : “A vote for Bernier is  a vote for Trudeau”, or in the case of my own constituency, “A vote for the Peoples’ Party of Canada is a vote for the despicable NDP incumbent, Rachel Blainey.”

 

 The time-worn rationalization for strategic voting simply put is that we must not “split the vote” because dethroning (fill in the blank) is paramount. We must pinch our noses and choose the lesser of the evils.

 

 The problem with this conventional  view is two-fold. One is that when all is said and done, there is little to choose between the major parties. Upon closer examination, the Conservative Party looks like a Liberal Party that happens to believe in balanced budgets.  But life is not just about numbers.  It is, among other things, about the maintenance of our sovereignty, ethno-cultural heritage, family structure and most importantly, the freedom to speak our minds, including the right to criticize any religion.  In an authentic democracy, there can be no right “not to be offended.”

 

 

 Secondly, we must consider the broader moral question.  If we always choose the lesser of evils we will be guaranteeing the perpetual reign of evil. At some point, we must be prepared to say “None of the above”.  But it seems that whenever we consider voting for our principles, we are told that “this is not the time… our most urgent mission is to rid the country of Trudeau, and once that mission is accomplished, then we can do the fine tuning.”  But history suggests that the time for fine tuning never comes, because there is always a new devil on the scene that we must unite against.

 

We must bite the bullet. We must risk the re-election of Boy Wonder in order to establish a beach head for a party of principle that can keep building its base so that it can be in a position to form a government four years from now.  We must be patient. Growing a fledgling party takes time, and in less than a year, Maxime Bernier has made enormous strides—as have the passionately patriotic people who have made his cause their cause. Bernier leads, but he also listens. Bernier launched the People’s Party of Canada, but the  PPC is not a “top down” party, but a “bottom up” organization where members feel like participants rather simple foot soldiers.  It’s populism in action.

 

Meanwhile, we will continue to work tirelessly in our endeavour to do the homework and keep Canadians informed.  In return, our only request is that once apprised of the facts, each of us must find the courage to share them with all the people in our respective social networks. Our workmates, our neighbours, our friends and especially the members of our own families.   Surely that is the least we can do.

 

Knowledge is Power. You have it. Now share it!

 

Tim Murray

 

Additional information about Maxime Bernier

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVwo0yp01y

https://twitter.com/maximebernier/status/1124003082780782594

https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/canadian_identity_ending_official_multiculturalism_and_preserving_canadian_values_and_culture

The Conservative Leadership Race

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

The Conservative Leadership Race

As one whose lifelong Toryism is a matter of principle and conviction rather than partisan allegiance the present contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada has been of only tertiary interest, if that, to me. The party has compromised, sold-out, and otherwise betrayed the principles and ideals to which its name alludes time and time again.

Unfortunately, while the Conservatives cannot be trusted to live up to their own principles you can always count on the Grits to live down to our worst expectations of them as they do everything in their power to impose the latest version of their ever-changing insane ideology upon our country while feathering their nests, enhancing their power, and displaying the utmost arrogance and contempt for ordinary Canadians. The Liberal Party of Canada began its sordid existence as the party advocating selling out the heritage of honour and loyalty upon which our country was built for filthy American lucre and has spent a century and a half trying to undo Confederation, strip us of our traditions and legacy, rob us of our rights and freedoms and turn Canada into a pathetic, third-world, police state that hides the sheer nastiness of its politically correct oppressiveness behind a thin outward veneer of toxic niceness. Now, under the leadership of an intolerably arrogant, empty-headed and black-hearted coxcomb, the Grits have placed an onerous debt burden upon the backs of future generations of Canadians for centuries to come with their present extravagance, taken a gigantic first step towards the subjection of Christians, Jews, and all other non-Muslim Canadians to dhimmitude by passing, against widespread objection, a motion condemning Islamophobia, while seeking to shove the most recent gender insanity down all of our throats and, in complete disregard for the safety, well-being, and wishes of Canadians, thrown out the welcome mat to all those who pose enough of a security risk to be rejected as immigrants and asylum-seekers by our southern neighbour.

Therefore, while it is too much to hope that the Conservatives, returned to power, would actually put Tory principles into practice in their governance, such a return is to be wished if for no other reason than to rid the country of the disastrous misrule of the vile and loathsome gang of miscreants presently holding office. For a number of reasons – several decades worth of neglect in the teaching of Canadian civics in our schools and our having been swamped by Yankee pop culture in the same period being the chief two – the Canadian electorate treats our general elections as if they were the equivalent of American presidential contests and votes according to who the party leader is. Who the leader is, therefore, matters and so this race demands our attention.

Sadly, the quantity of the candidates seeking the leadership is far more impressive than the quality. Indeed, it is much easier to decide which candidates ought not to be allowed anywhere near the leadership than to pick one who stands out as deserving to win. Foremost among these is Kevin O’Leary. The Dragon’s Den star has been compared to American President Donald Trump but the comparison is cosmetic and superficial and has nothing to do with policy matters. O’Leary is a free trader and an immigration enthusiast, as well as being the most socially liberal candidate to ever seek the Tory leadership. He is most like Donald Trump in his personality – in his policies he is much closer to Justin Trudeau. It is hard to imagine a worse combination in a prospective Conservative leader.

The other Irishman, Erin O’Toole is also disqualified in my books. A Kisaragi Colour, the founder of the blog The Maple Monarchists, has surveyed the leadership candidates on their views of Canada’s constitutional monarchy. All who replied, either personally or through their staff, indicated their support of the institution to some degree or another, except O’Toole and Lisa Raitt, both of whom declined to indicate their position. This is a disqualifier. Royalism is a sine qua non of Canadian conservatism and someone who refuses to commit publicly to support of the monarchy has no business even running as a Conservative candidate much less for the leadership.

If the leadership were to be decided on that sole issue alone, Andrew Scheer would clearly be the best candidate as he indicated the most enthusiastic support for the royal institution by far of all the candidates in his response.

There are other issues to be considered, however, and here things become complicated because different candidates stand out as being the strongest on different sets of issues.

Take “social conservatism” for example. This commonly denotes the sort of moral and social positions that evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox, and other religious conservatives would support. This would include being pro-life, i.e., opposed to abortion and euthanasia, a supporter of traditional one man/one woman marriage, and an opponent of the alphabet soup gang agenda, of feminism, and often of the legalization of recreational drugs such as marijuana. For a couple of decades the conventional wisdom has been that no party running on a socially conservative platform stood a chance of winning because Canadians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. In fact the opposite is the case. Opposition to moral and social breakdown will always be more popular than tightening the purse strings and anybody with an ounce of sense knows that. The conventional wisdom exists to browbeat the major parties into not putting it to the test by running a socially conservative campaign. On social conservatism, the strongest of the candidates would be Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon-University. Trost is an evangelical Christian, who has been outspoken on socially conservative issues throughout his political career, and who has opposed the shift towards social liberalism taken by the party under the interim leadership of Rona Ambrose.

On culture and immigration there is no good candidate. A good candidate would be one who takes the position that immigration, legal and illegal, should not be allowed to change the character of the country, that our government and not the immigrants themselves will select who is allowed in and that it will place the needs of our country first in doing so rather than those of the prospective immigrants, that we will not admit large numbers of either immigrants or refugees in periods of high unemployment and economic recession, that illegal immigration will not be tolerated and will result in the permanent disqualification of the queue-jumper for even legal immigration, and that our refugee admission policies need to be reformed to recognize the reality that the vast majority of asylum seekers are frauds. A good candidate would denounce the toxic cultural atmosphere of ethnomasochism and oikophobia that liberalism spent much of the last fifty years creating. No candidate dares to take this position, of course. The closest thing to it is Kellie Leitch, who is not close at all but who merely wants prospective immigrants to be screened for values that conflict with Canadian values, by which she means the values of the multicultural, feminist, progressive, liberal, left that has been denouncing her as a bigot for wanting newcomers to hold to their values. On this, as with social conservatism, a platform much further to the right that provided Canadians with a real alternative to liberalism for a change would garner much more support than the conventional wisdom would acknowledge.

On fiscal and economic policy if any of the candidates stands out it is probably Maxime Bernier.

Ideally, the next Conservative leader would be strong on all of these issues, but such a person does not appear to be present among the current candidates. Practically, the next leader will also have to be someone around whom the party can unite and who can generate enough popular support to oust the Liberals. Although this quality is harder to gauge, here too there is no name jumping off of the candidates list as the obvious choice.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that whoever the Conservatives choose as their leader will win by default simply because everyone will finally be sick to death of Justin Trudeau.