Last Night’s Last Debate

At my closing statement I reiterated what I said the Monday before at the second to last debate:

Thankfully, last night (October 9, 2008) was the last debate amongst the candidates. I write thankfully because I can’t take another debate listening to my opponents speak about so many issues they no so little about, and speak NOTHING about Canada.

As usual, their scripts and speaking notes were on the table in front of them, and carried to the podium when it was their turn to speak.

As usual, I spoke only from my heart and mind. I have always believed that if a person cannot speak without reading a speech, then what that person has to say is not to be trusted.

The people who organized this debate were farmers who wanted questions answered about many issues, but primarily about their farming future.

These are the type of folks Barack Obama typified as being “bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.” I don’t have any guns and religion is not a factor in my life.

But these are truly my type of people. These are people who want the opportunity to live their lives and prosper with the least amount of government possible.

They don’t hang around with their hands outstretched demanding whatever they can from Canada. These are the type of people who work hard, play by the rules and see real service to country as a privilege opposed to being a burden or gravy-train.

These are the people whose sons and daughters wear the uniforms of Canada’s military, who for love and duty to country go into harm’s way.

The format was simple: We each had a three-minute opening statement where my opponents read from the exact same scripts they read in the first, second, third and fourth debates.

We drew numbers from a cup to ascertain the speaking order. I drew Number One. This meant I was the first to start and the last to finish. It doesn’t get better than that.

After the opening statements, the microphone was opened to a standing room crowd, which was invited to ask whatever question they wanted.

Two of the questions that were asked early in the debate were of particular interest. Both of which I have summarized.

Question: To all candidates – a simple yes or no. Do you think what is being preached and taught in Mosques and Islamic schools should be open to scrutiny?

The answers were alarming. Each candidate, with the exception of the incumbent Guy Lauzon answered the same exact way.

“No. I know what is being taught in the schools and Mosques.”

How in the world would anyone of them know what is being taught in the Islamic schools and Mosques since not one of them has ever spent any time in any Islamic school or Mosque seeing, hearing and reading what is being preached and taught? And whom amongst them speaks Arabic?

Lauzon said “No.” I’ve toured the Islamic facilities and I’m satisfied with what they teach.

In the previous debate, I asked Lauzon if he had actually read what is being taught in the Islamic schools. He didn’t. For Lauzon to come away with the conclusion that he was satisfied with what is being taught, simply because he toured a facility looking at bricks and mortar is the height of gullibility.

There is no secret that the entire Western world is under siege from Islam. There is even less of a secret that Islam is breeding its “Koranic soldiers” within the ranks of its adopted countries. But, it seems that this no secret to most of the world with the exception of my opponents who want to represent the people of Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry.

Please remember this: I didn’t introduce my concerns with Islam, the media and my opponents did.

Question: Do you think it’s fair that the use of English in Quebec is against the law, while English speakers in Ontario are denied opportunities in the rest of Canada because they can’t speak French?

The first part of the question was totally ignored by all the candidates as if Quebec is a foreign country where the plight of non French Canadians is of no concern to them.

For the second part, they unanimously praised the virtues of official bilingualism, even though not one of them could ever hope in a million years to pass a French proficiency test to win a job in Canada’s civil service.

They spoke about national Bilingualism as if it is the greatest thing for Canada ever. And that bilingualism throughout Canada is an enviable inevitability.

Here’s the truth: There are fewer bilingual Quebecers on the French side today than there was before Bill 101. And there are fewer bilingual English speakers in the rest of Canada today than there was a decade ago.

According to the very latest Demographic figures in Statistics Canada’s 2006 report; bilingualism is not on the rise, but is very much on the decline. Yet, our political leaders and political wannabes want everyone to believe the lie.

At my closing statement I reiterated what I said the Monday before (October 6, 2008) at the second to last debate:

“I swear to everyone in this room, if I am elected, Canada will never have a greater Champion, and you will never have a stronger voice.” I meant it on Monday. I meant it yesterday. And I will mean it tomorrow.

Remarkably, we’re now down to about $1,500 in our debt position. We must all give thanks to the people who were able to contribute financially, and did so.

I’m certain there are probably a few more people who can help us raise the last $1,500 to make this campaign our campaign.

Our election night headquarters will be at Big Luke’s restaurant in Lancaster, just North of the 401 after the train tracks on the East side of the road. Big Luke’s serves the most incredible ribs on the continent.

There is very little seating available at Big Luke’s, not much more than seating for 75 people, so, if you want to be there election night, it would be very wise for you to reserve in advance.

I will give you the phone number and the coordinates in my next editorial.

This campaign is not over yet. So keep on spreading the word.


Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

Recommended Non-Restrictive
Free Speech Social Media:
Share This Editorial

One Comment

  1. I have heard one possible reason for Holders resignation being that Obama was hopeful that one of the Supreme Court judges would resign before he left office and he would select Holder to that position. Hopefully the republicans win both houses so that he would NEVER be approved.

Comments are closed.