No one is coming to your rescue save but ONE!

 

Today’s observations are about why being sufficiently deluded into thinking that someone will be coming to our salvation is really dumb. This is of course a rejection of reason and personal responsibility. It is really; how shall I say it? Totally deluded! Our political reality today is akin to living on a bad trip of Lysergic Diethylamide since we have popped the Brown Acid instead of dropping the Purple Microdot:

I have dedicated my channel to Christ in what appears to me to be the eternal struggle against the forced march into ideological possession, I must remind my reader and listener that the warmth of collectivism is as cold as the steel it invariably uses to hold humanity in chains. The great problem with conservatism today is that it has become unwilling to call a spade a spade and to take on the illiberal horde that has captured and holds public discourse in a vicelike grip of conformity and ideological possession!

It saddens me to say as an erstwhile musician that the vast majority of musicians invariably support the most radical leftist government with socioeconomic agendas that will result in destroying the very culture that their music depends upon. Many of my former musical chums will support the most illiberal and authoritarian pack of hoodlums they can find if they offer them something for free which of course is never free!

So, one must ask why this is the case? Stupidity is most often evidenced by an utter lack of curiosity. A stupid person invariably accepts simplistic answers to multivariate complex issues. They then believe that by putting their faith in the charlatans who offer simplistic solutions that those who do so must be the experts to be trusted but only as long as the so-called experts represent the view of the majority. This is why the left knew it had to take control of the 4^th Estate while using our taxes to fund their propaganda. The accepted narrative therefore has become so widely accepted that few will dare to challenge it. This despite the fact that the person who refuses to question the commonly accepted narrative is both a fool and an idiot since the accepted narrative has proven itself to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Just look at the lies told to force people to march in unthinking lockstep around the dark days of COVID that practically killed the live music industry. This even though many musicians continue to this day to support what we now know were lies. Moreover, by all evidence fools and idiots who believe the official narrative represent the vast majority till this very day and corrupt political actors both know it and depend on it!

But this alone is not today’s topic for there are many on the so-called right who have developed similar thinking based upon blindly accepting what the majority of their ideological brethren think. For those of you who assume you are conservative yet have little to no idea what that means philosophically, you might have noticed that I have totally run out of patience for all unthinking and unreasoned discourse! Therefore, this video and blog, as most of mine are, are only for those who truly wish to peel and dice an onion despite your watering eyes. Many of you will not like what I have to share with you despite me providing conclusive evidence to support what I am about to state.

My first point: Stephen Harper is not the conservative hero you assume that he is. Yes, you read that correctly. So let us examine Harper’s role in bailing out the malfeasant banks after the 2008 Financial Crisis when he literally paid for crime using our taxes.

The crisis was the result of using the banking system corruptly. This means exploiting financial institutions, regulations, and services for illegal gain, hiding the origin of illicit funds, or breaching legal and ethical standards. This often involves a collaboration between individuals and, in some cases, corrupt employees, resulting in the "washing" of dirty money, the facilitation of bribery, or the defrauding of the bank itself.

Here is a breakdown of what it means when someone uses a banking system corruptly, based on common fraudulent practices and how Harper supported this corruption by funding the corrupt banking system:

How has the banking system been used to fund criminal activity?

1. Money Laundering ("Dirty Money" Integration):

Corrupt actors use banks to make illegally obtained money (from corruption, drug trafficking, or organized crime) appear legitimate.

Placement: Breaking large amounts of cash into smaller, less conspicuous deposits ("smurfing") to avoid detection thresholds.

Moving funds Layering: through a complex series of transactions—often across international borders or through multiple accounts—to disguise the audit trail.

Integration: Using the laundered money to purchase high-value assets, such as real estate or businesses, making the funds appear legal.

2. Bribery and Insider Corruption:

This occurs when bank employees are involved, either voluntarily or via coercion, to bypass safety protocols.

Facilitating Illegal Accounts: Employees may accept bribes to open accounts for criminals, sometimes bypassing standard "Know Your Customer" (KYC) regulations.

Rogue Trading: Traders at financial institutions engaging in unauthorized trading and manipulating internal controls to hide losses.

Demand Draft Fraud: Insiders remove demand draft books, know the coding/punching, and create fraudulent drafts without debiting an account.

3. Fraudulent Loan and Credit Schemes:

Perpetrators, sometimes acting in collusion with bankers, use the banking system to extract money with no intention of repayment.

Fraudulent Loan Applications: Using false information, fake documents, or forged signatures to secure loans for non-existent entities or individuals.

Straw Borrowers: Using someone else's identity to front for the true borrower who would not qualify for a loan.

Cash-for-Dirt: A corrupt bank makes a loan on raw land where no development has occurred, sometimes based on inflated appraisals.

4. Bypassing Regulatory Controls:

Corrupt actors actively work to evade detection by regulatory authorities.

Structuring Deposits: Breaking up transactions to stay below reporting limits.

Shell Companies: Utilizing entities that exist only on paper to hide the true, beneficial owners of the money.

Misleading Information: Providing false, vague, or contradictory information to bank employees during account opening or transactions.

5. Digital and Technology-Based Corruption:

With the rise of digital banking, criminals use sophisticated methods to exploit systems.

Account Takeovers (ATO): Gaining unauthorized access to online accounts to siphon funds.

Phishing/Vishing: Deceiving individuals or employees into providing login credentials.

Invoice Fraud: Changing payment details to redirect funds to an account controlled by the criminal.

Impact on Society:

Using banking corruptly can lead to the collapse of financial institutions, undermine the rule of law, and facilitate further criminal activities! So, what role did Stephen Harper play in helping to finance this species of corruption using my tax dollars and yours?

Stephen Harper Government's 2008 Financial Crisis Response:

During the 2008 global financial crisis, the Stephen Harper government provided liquidity support to Canadian banks primarily through the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP), which involved the government purchasing billions in insured mortgages to ensure financial institutions could continue lending. [$25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper] (cite://https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/25b-credit-backstop-for-banks-not-a-bailout-harper-1.726162) Harper explicitly stated this was "not a bailout" in the American sense, as the government was buying high-quality, insured assets that were expected to be repaid with interest, rather than giving away money to failing firms. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/) However, independent reports later estimated that the total peak support, including liquidity from the Bank of Canada, reached approximately $114 billion. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

Key Findings:

- Liquidity vs. Bailout: The government framed the intervention as a "credit backstop" to prevent a freeze in the Canadian lending market. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/)

- The IMPP Mechanism: The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was used to buy up to $75 billion (initially $25 billion) in insured mortgage pools from banks. [$25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper] (cite://https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/25b-credit-backstop-for-banks-not-a-bailout-harper-1.726162)

- Risk Transfer: While the mortgages were already government-insured, the program moved the risk of these assets directly onto the government's books in exchange for cash for the banks. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

- Economic Necessity: The move was part of a broader shift in late 2008 where the Harper government moved from denying a recession to implementing a significant stimulus package. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

- Financial Performance: Proponents argue that Canada’s banking system remained among the world’s safest because these measures prevented the kind of collapse seen in the United States. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Details Background: The "Credit Crunch":

In late 2008, global credit markets froze as banks became unwilling to lend to each other due to fears regarding toxic assets. Even though Canadian banks were more conservative than their U.S. counterparts, they were affected by this international lack of liquidity. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada) The Harper government intervened to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers could still access loans for houses, cars, and operations.

Was it a "Secret Bailout"?

The term "bailout" is a point of contention. The Harper government maintained that because the assets (mortgages) were already insured by the taxpayer via CMHC, the government was simply providing a market for those assets when no one else would. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/) However, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) argued that the scale of the support—which included emergency lending from the Bank of Canada—was much larger than the government publicly acknowledged at the time. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

Comparison: Canada vs. United States:

- U.S. Approach: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) often involved the government taking equity (ownership) in banks to prevent them from failing.

- Canadian Approach: Focused on providing liquidity (cash) in exchange for assets (mortgages) to keep the system moving, without the government taking ownership of the banks. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Practical Takeaway:

- Market Stability: The primary goal of the support was to prevent a collapse of the Canadian housing market and the broader economy. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

- Taxpayer Cost: Harper argued the program would cost taxpayers "nothing" because the government would earn interest on the mortgages it purchased; however, it did increase the national debt in the short term. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/)

- Regulatory Legacy:  Following the crisis, the Harper government tightened mortgage lending standards (such as reducing maximum amortization periods) to prevent a similar bubble from forming in Canada. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

 Financial Fallout of the 2008 Insured Mortgage Purchase Program:

The financial fallout of the Canadian government's response to the 2008 crisis was characterized by a significant increase in federal debt but also resulted in a net profit for the government from the mortgage assets it purchased. By the time the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP) concluded, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) had earned approximately $2.5 billion in net interest income for the taxpayer. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program) However, the broader economic fallout included the end of a decade of federal surpluses, as Canada moved into a $55.6 billion deficit by 2009-2010 to fund stimulus and liquidity measures. [Source] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

Key Findings:

- Government Profit: The federal government earned a profit on the IMPP because the interest paid by banks on the mortgage pools exceeded the government's own borrowing costs. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

- Debt Accumulation: To fund the liquidity injections and the Economic Action Plan, Canada's federal debt increased by over $150 billion between 2008 and 2015. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

- Bank Resilience: None of Canada's major banks failed or required a "TARP-style" equity bailout, allowing them to remain profitable and resume dividend increases sooner than international peers. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

- Housing Market Inflation: Some economists argue that the massive liquidity injection prevented a necessary correction, contributing to a long-term rise in Canadian household debt and housing prices. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

- Credit Rating: Despite the increased debt, Canada maintained its AAA credit rating throughout the fallout, a rarity among G7 nations at the time. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

Direct Fiscal Impact (Profit and Loss):

The IMPP was designed as a "swap" where the government used its superior credit rating to borrow money at low rates and used that cash to buy mortgages from banks that carried higher interest rates.

- The Gain: The government effectively acted as a middleman, pocketing the "spread" between the low interest it paid to bondholders and the higher interest it received from the mortgage pools. [Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Bank Performance and ...] (cite://https://www.oar-rao.bank-banque-canada.ca/record/1164/files/dp2013-04.pdf)

- The Cost: While the program itself was profitable, the administrative and borrowing requirements contributed to the government's need to issue massive amounts of new debt, which carried long-term servicing costs. [Source] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

Long-Term Structural Fallout:

The "fallout" wasn't just about immediate dollars and cents; it fundamentally changed the Canadian financial landscape:

1. CMHC Exposure: The government's exposure to the housing market increased dramatically, as the CMHC's total insurance-in-force peaked near **$600 billion** following the crisis. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

2. Moral Hazard: Critics argue the program created "moral hazard" by signaling to big banks that the government would always provide liquidity during a crisis, potentially encouraging riskier lending behavior in the future. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

3. Regulatory Tightening: In direct response to the fallout, the Harper government began a series of "macroprudential" tightenings, such as reducing the maximum mortgage amortization from 40 years down to 25 years by 2012. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Comparison: Public vs. Private Outcome:

Federal Government | Moved from a $9.6B surplus (2007) to a $55.6B deficit (2009). [Source](cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada) |

Big Five Banks| Maintained profitability; received roughly $114B in total liquidity support at the peak of the crisis. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/) |

Canadian Homeowners | Avoided the mass foreclosures seen in the US, but average household debt-to-income rose significantly. [The 2008 Financial Crisis] (cite://https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/wuer/article/download/14996/11811) |

Practical Takeaway:

- Taxpayer Protection: The IMPP is widely considered a successful "intervention" in terms of direct cost, as it returned more money to the treasury than it cost to implement. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)](cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

- Debt Legacy: The primary negative fallout was the structural deficit it created, which took the government until 2014-2015 to balance again. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

- Market Stability: The program successfully prevented a "bank run" or a total collapse of credit, which likely saved the broader economy from a much deeper and longer depression. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

My conclusions: No true conservative ought to bail out banks due to their own criminal conduct. Particularly so when no charges were ever forthcoming to punish those who had caused the Financial Crisis of 2008!

2014 Parliament Hill Shooting and Stephen Harper's Immigration Policy:

The 2014 attack in Ottawa was carried out by the murderous Islamist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian-born citizen whose mother was a high-ranking official at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack) While Stephen Harper's government maintained consistent immigration levels of approximately 250,000 per year for “economic growth” (cultural decline), the shooter's actions were investigated by the RCMP and attributed to radicalization rather than immigration policy. Ya, right, my British ancestors often murdered people in the name of Allah! [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/) Extensive reviews were conducted regarding security failures and the shooter’s motives, though they did not link the event to a broader "immigration crisis." Harper, you betrayed your own culture, and you knew you were doing it! [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

Key Findings:

-The Attack: On October 22, 2014, vile Islamic terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial before storming Parliament Hill, where he was killed in a shootout. Sadly, not soon enough! [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack)

- Shooter’s Background: Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Canada (Montreal); his mother, Susan Bibeau, was a deputy chairperson at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

- Harper’s Immigration Stance: The Harper government viewed immigration as an economic tool, maintaining high levels of intake to address labour shortages and demographic shifts. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

- Investigation: Following the attack, the RCMP conducted a massive criminal investigation, and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) performed an independent review of the security response. [Ottawa shootings: Soldier killed and city on lockdown] (cite://https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29724907)

- Motive: Authorities identified the shooter's motive as being driven by ideological and political grievances related to Canada's foreign policy, specifically its military involvement in the Middle East. Precisely, what a mistake to allow a single sand ape into my country! [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive, a motive he had helped to create, the fool! @ - The Globe and ...] (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/v2/ZU4OUC2VNZH4LOEVBUCQWTBT44?auth=78f9ac1bf7c7444d7f9ffd8e29acd1afa0c47d3c1d59c6cd4a6a3fe1a9dacee9&width=900&quality=80)

Details:

The Shooter and the "Bureaucrat" Connection

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s mother, Susan Bibeau, was indeed a high-level official within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). However, the IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that operates separately from the government department that sets immigration levels (now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada). [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa) My research states that because the shooter was born in Canada, his presence in the country was not a direct result of the immigration levels set during the Harper administration. Ah huh, oh yes it was! Moreover, his mother, a senior Islamic bureaucrat ought never to have been working in our bureaucracy! Don’t you think that she knew of her son’s views and his potential threat to peace, order and good government?

Stephen Harper’s Immigration Policy

The Harper government (2006–2015) is often noted for maintaining historically high immigration levels for a conservative government. The primary reasons cited were:

- Economic Growth: Offsetting Canada’s aging population and shrinking workforce. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

- Political Strategy: Actively courting immigrant communities as a new voter base for the Conservative Party!

- System Reform: Shifting the system toward "Express Entry" to prioritize immigrants with specific job skills. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

Investigations into the Incident:

Contrary to the claim that no investigation was done, several high-profile inquiries took place:

1. RCMP Criminal Investigation: Analyzed Zehaf-Bibeau’s laptop, cell phone, and a video he recorded before the attack to determine his motives and potential accomplices. [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

2. OPP Security Review: An independent report by the Ontario Provincial Police criticized the lack of coordination between different security forces on Parliament Hill.

3. Legislative Response: The incident led directly to the introduction of Bill C-51 (the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015), which expanded the powers of Canada's intelligence agencies. [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack)

Practical Takeaway:

- Distinguish Citizenship: The shooter was a Canadian citizen by birth, meaning immigration intake levels at the time did not dictate his legal status in the country. [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

- Understand the IRB: The mother’s role at the IRB involved adjudicating refugee claims, not setting the national "mass immigration" quotas.

- Review Official Reports: For detailed findings on the shooting, the RCMP and OPP reports provide the most comprehensive data on the "root causes" identified by investigators, which focused on mental health and radicalization. [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

How can Pierre Poilievre reverse this legacy of Harper’s policy failures? Well first of all he would need to admit where his former boss went catastrophically wrong!

The first thing Pierre Poilievre needs to do after receiving such an overwhelming endorsement at the CPC Convention is to rid his party of fake conservatives since there are far too many leftists wearing blue. It ought to be as simple as doing blind tests to uncover what his MP's actually believe in terms of their political philosophy and the most effective possible conservative policies to address the radical leftism that has captured this government.

We need to look at what the leading conservative minds of the modern era actually believed:

Edmund Burke (1729–1797): Often cited as the father of modern conservatism, his Reflections on the Revolution in France argued for gradual change and skepticism of radical, rationalist social engineering.

Michael Oakeshott (1901–1990): British philosopher who advocated for "the politics of skepticism," favouring tradition and practical knowledge over ideological, abstract planning.

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992): A central figure in classical liberalism/libertarian-conservatism, who defended free markets and warned against central planning in The Road to Serfdom.

Russell Kirk (1918–1994): Crucial to 20th-century American conservatism, his work The Conservative Mind defined traditionalist values, emphasizing the "permanent things".

Roger Scruton (1944–2020): A modern British philosopher who defended conservatism through the lens of aesthetics, culture, and the importance of place and community.

David Hume (1711–1776): Provided a skeptical, empirical foundation for conservatism, emphasizing that custom and habit are more reliable than abstract reason.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859): Analyzed the risks of democracy and equality, particularly the danger of soft despotism, while defending civic association.

Robert Nozick (1938–2002): American philosopher known for the libertarian-conservative defense of the minimal state in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821): A strong voice for counter-revolutionary traditionalism, emphasizing throne and altar.

Richard Weaver (1910–1963): Known for Ideas Have Consequences, arguing that the loss of belief in absolute truths has led to modern decline.

In conclusion:

Therefore, Harper’s financial and immigration policies were a complete rejection of conservatism! Harper proved himself to be an interventionist and turned the government into a lender used to help ease the outcome of patently immoral and illegal banking practices rather than holding them legally accountable. He made our financial situation worse while simultaneously refusing to even touch our immigration crisis despite the connection between the shooter and a senior member of our bureaucracy, namely the terrorist’s own mother! Moreover, the political philosophers I have mentioned generally share a focus on the limits of human reason, the value of established institutions (like family and church), and the need for a deep suspicion of utopias. Pierre Poilievre ought to conduct a surprise test of his MPs to determine how well they actually understand what it means to be conservative since I am certain many of them haven’t got a clue. And if it is found that they do not share conservative values, then find folks who do! But we refuse to even examine any of this because we can find so few who can even read the words I have just written or actually hear the words I have just spoken. Despite the fact that everything I have stated here can easily be known as fact. Anyone who hopes to create a society based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and Conservatism must know this if they seek to preserve our legacy of 1500 years of Christianity. This legacy came to the Dominion of Canada from mother country. Which makes me ask, why would anyone hate their own mother who taught them the foundational importance of their heritage and faith? My simple answer, ONLY A FOOL! However, obviously there are more than enough of them! I hope this episode has either lost me fake conservatives and wishy-washy Christians as followers, or even better, has caused some of you to think twice before endorsing people whose values do not align with that of yours!

NO ONE IS COMING TO OUR SALVATION BUT CHRIST!