Tag Archives: Breakup

NDP leader Jack Layton lived in subsidized housing with $120,000 income

NDP leaders Bob Rae and Jack Layton
NDP leaders Bob Rae and Jack Layton

Here’s an article from the Toronto (Red) Star on the NDP Party, Jack Layton and ethics.


Layton, who is married to fellow NDP MP Olivia Chow, elicits strong feelings both for and against. His critics say he is a tax-and-spend socialist while supporters are almost moony-like in their adoration of the man.

“I quite like the guy as a person,” said Harper cabinet minister John Baird, “but his solution to everything is increase taxes and increase spending.”

From time to time he has been criticized for saying one thing and doing another, including being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year.

“Jack once told me many years after that incident that it is the one thing he has never able to purge or expunge from the public’s mind, this apparent contradiction,” said former seatmate Brian Ashton.

The Toronto Star is the most radical, left-wing newspaper in Canada. They are far to the left of the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times.

How did former NDP leader Bob Rae govern in Ontario?

If you want to know what New Democrats do to an economy, you can read about how NDP leader Bob Rae wrecked the Ontario economy in the 1990s.


The Liberal government had forecast a small surplus earlier in the year, but a worsening North American economy led to a $700 million deficit before Rae took office. In October, the NDP projected a $2.5 billion deficit for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1991.[40] Some economists projected soaring deficits for the upcoming years, even if the Rae government implemented austerity measures.[41] Rae himself was critical of the Bank of Canada’s high interest rate policy, arguing that it would lead to increased unemployment throughout the country.[42] He also criticized the 1991 federal budget, arguing the Finance Minister Michael Wilson was shifting the federal debt to the provinces.[43]

The Rae government’s first budget, introduced in 1991, increased social spending to mitigate the economic slowdown and projected a record deficit of $9.1 billion. Finance Minister Floyd Laughren argued that Ontario made a decision to target the effects of the recession rather than the deficit, and said that the budget would create or protect 70,000 jobs. It targeted more money to social assistance, social housing and child benefits, and raised taxes for high-income earners while lowering rates for 700,000 low-income Ontarians.[44]

A few years later, journalist Thomas Walkom described the budget as following a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Unfortunately, it did not achieve its stated purpose. The recession was still severe. Walkom described the budget as “the worst of both worlds”, angering the business community but not doing enough to provide for public relief.

[…]Rae’s government attempted to introduce a variety of socially progressive measures during its time in office, though its success in this field was mixed. In 1994, the government introduced legislation, Bill 167, which would have provided for same-sex partnership benefits in the province. At the time, this legislation was seen as a revolutionary step forward for same-sex recognition.

[…]The Rae government established an employment equity commission in 1991,[49] and two years later introduced affirmative action to improve the numbers of women, non-whites, aboriginals and disabled persons working in the public sector.

[…]In November 1990, the Rae government announced that it would restrict most rent increases to 4.6% for the present year and 5.4% for 1991. The provisions for 1990 were made retroactive. Tenants’ groups supported these changes, while landlord representatives were generally opposed.

Be careful who you vote for, Canada. We voted for Obama, and now we have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt and a 1.65 trillion deficit – TEN TIMES the last Republican budget deficit of 160 billion under George W. Bush in 2007. TEN TIMES WORSE THAN BUSH.

UPDATE: This post linked by Blazing Cat Fur.

Related posts

Latest poll has Stephen Harper’s Conservatives leading by 19 points

Canada Federal Election Poll April 2011
Canada Federal Election Poll April 2011

The latest poll from National Post. Tories up by NINETEEN POINTS.


The nationwide survey by Ipsos Reid, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global TV, reveals a historic shift in public opinion has occurred as the political parties have fought for votes in this campaign.

If an election were held now, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives would receive 43% of the vote among decided voters, up two points from two weeks ago.

[…]Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said Thursday the results of the April 18-20 poll confirm a significant shift is occurring.

He said the sudden rise in national support for the New Democrats is largely thanks to growth in Quebec and in British Columbia.

It’s difficult to predict how much this boost in the popular vote would translate into extra seats for Layton’s party, he said.

While the NDP has political experience in B.C., it has little history of organizational strength in Quebec.

“It does come down to the ground game,” said Bricker.

“You have to be able to get those votes into the ballot box.”

“The real story about the NDP surge isn’t about them winning a lot more seats, but how they affect the Liberal votes and the Bloc votes.”

Bricker said it’s possible that in Quebec, as the Liberals and Bloc lose votes to the NDP, the Tories could stand to benefit in tight races.

Please go vote YES in the following polls, which are being pushed by the left-wing government-run Canadian Broadcast Corporation. The CBC favors taxpayer-funded abortion of unborn children through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason or no reason. The CBC also favors criminals being allowed to commit crimes in the homes of law-abiding citizens without fear of being deterred by an armed homeowner. The CBC is pro-abortion and pro-criminal.

Question: Should the Canadian Conservative Party cut funding for Planned Parenthood to provide free abortions, which encourages people to have more abortions by lowering the cost of an abortion?

Vote here.

Question: Should the Canadian Conservative Party abolish the wasteful $1 billion long-gun registry, when all the available research from economists shows that firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces violent crime?

Vote here.

Related posts on Planned Parenthood

Related posts on gun control

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff admits plan to form coalition with Quebec separatists

2008 Election Canada Provincial Map
2008 Election Canada Provincial Map

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is willing to lead a coalition that would include Bloc Quebecois separatists. The separatists are a significant minority of the people in Quebec (about a third) and they threaten to secede from Canada unless the other provinces give them them money collected from citizens in other provinces.


Michael Ignatieff is saying clearly for the first time that he could defeat a minority Conservative government and make a case to the Governor-General that his party could govern with the support of others – and without another trip to the polls.

Until now, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has only said the party that wins the most seats on May 2 can “try” to win the confidence of the House of Commons. While the comment carried an obvious implication, he spelled it out for the first time Tuesday.

“If [Conservative Leader Stephen] Harper wins the most seats and forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House, and I’m assuming Parliament comes back, then it goes to the Governor-General. That’s what happens. That’s how the rules work.

“And then, if the Governor-General wants to call on other parties – or myself, for example – to try and form a government, then we try and form a government. That’s exactly how the rules work and what I’m trying to say to Canadians is I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I’ll follow them to the letter and I’m not going to form a coalition,” he said.

Mr. Harper began the campaign by stating that another Conservative minority is no longer an option; that only a majority mandate will keep him as prime minister. His original line of attack was that the other parties would form a coalition. Mr. Ignatieff continues to rule out a formal coalition – which would involve inviting members of another party to sit in cabinet – but he is clearly open to convincing the Governor-General that he can provide stable government with the support of other parties in the House.

Harper should get a bump now that we know that Ignatieff is willing to conspire to break up Canada with Quebec separatists, and willing to cut deals with the communist NDP. So on the one hand you have extorting separatists and on the other hand you have massive spending and higher unemployment which result from corporate tax hikes. There is only one option left for Canadians who are serious about federalism, fiscal responsibility and a unified Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper.

Here’s the current electoral map from 2008, showing electoral districts:

2008 Canada Election Electoral Map
2008 Canada Election Electoral Map

Stephen Harper is ahead by 11 points in the latest 2011 election poll.

Related posts

New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance

From the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Vox Day)


It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not, a study has revealed.

The average female spends the time sizing up looks, physique and dress-sense as well as taking in scent, accent and eloquence of a potential suitor.

Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious.

It also emerged most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to gauge whether or not he is Mr Right, or Mr Wrong.

The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction – and believe they are ‘always right’ in their assumptions and judgments.

The report which was commissioned among 3,000 adults to mark the release of Instinct, a new book by Ben Kay.

Kay said: ‘I think a lot of people believe in trusting their instincts when dating. It makes it seem more magical, like it’s coming from somewhere deeper.

I am not sure if this method of choosing mates should be used by Christian women. If the goal of a relationship is to please God and serve him, then our feelings should not be the guide. God is the customer of the relationship, not the woman, and not the man. The goal of a relationship is not primarily to have happy feelings – because that can lead to being selfish and destructive. It makes no sense to say that you are driving drunk in order to please God, or playing Russian roulette in order to please God – pleasing God needs to be done intelligently, with preparation, and respecting strict moral boundaries, if it is going to stand the chance of being effective at achieving his goals. It’s so easy to think that God is just interested in our happiness, but he isn’t. He is interested in us knowing him, serving him, suffering with him and understanding him.

Also, think of the harm that can be caused if women use emotions to choose men for the role of making them happy, instead of the role of making God happy. Men are designed by God to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. According to this study, women are completely disinterested in whether a man can perform these traditional male roles. Because it is clear that nothing at all can be known about a man’s ability to perform these roles by looking at his appearance and style. Even if a man has a confident way of saying what a great provider he is, it doesn’t mean anything – he could be lying. The only way to know for sure is to see his investment portfolio. You can’t see the size of his portfolio by looking at his shoes.

Here are some ideas about what women should be doing to assess men for these roles:

  • protector: does he understand which ideologies and policies oppose marriage, faith and family? is he good at defending his views against secular leftists?
  • provider: what does his balance sheet look like? what does his resume look like? what does his university transcript look like? does he give to charity?
  • moral leader: what has he written or spoken about related to moral issues like abortion, marriage, parental rights, etc.?
  • spiritual leader: what has he written or spoken about related to theology and apologetics? does he have long-term mentoring relationships with other committed Christians?

None of these ways of judging a man can be accomplished in 180 seconds, and probably not even in 180 hours. It takes time.

Related posts on sex and feminism

Related posts on courting