Jack Layton insults Canadians with his motif: "leaving no Canadian behind"

Mr. Layton, you degrade and devalue many lower income Canadians by advocating that increased government spending is the means by which you will see them come out of poverty.  A rally cry of 'fighting for Canadians' presumes the basis on which you fight is noble.  When someone operates outside their jurisdiction, chaos typically ensues.  For example, if a judge of the crown comes over for dinner and analyzes and judges every aspect of my wife's meal, he may be 'correct' with the topic of his analysis, however, relationally he will be a drain and quite possibly offensive.  The jurisdiction of the judges 'judgments' does not go from the courtroom to the dining room as a guest.  The violation is clear: taking legitimate authority within the jurisdiction of a courtroom and applying it to a guest's meal. 

Likewise, the violation of the NDP is equally stark in my mind:  People, families and charities have legitimate jurisdiction to care for those who lack. This is good Mr. Layton!  The violation occurs when the natural authority of people, families and charities is superseded by an NDP agenda to transfer authority of caring for the poor FROM private to public.  Like the judge who is 'out of line' for judging and criticizing endlessly my wife's best effort, so to is it equally out of line for Mr. Layton to

1. decrease finances in private sector to care for poor by necessarily increasing social spending

2. not support on what basis this transfer of authority (from private to public) is acceptable (if the government walked into your home and 'snatched your children'…you would A) go ballistic and b) demand return then c) demand to know on what basis they even thought they can do this.  When authority is transferred without consent, we freak out.  When authority is transferred without consent and without explanation, we freak out then go ballistic. Mr. Layton is looking to transfer natural authority from the private sector to public and even worse, not explain on what foundational core principles this is happening (hello…Constitution…where are you?).

3. Codify the event with surface language: 'fairness', 'leaving no Canadian behind' and 'fighting for Canadians'.

Mr. Layton, continually looking to transfer natural authority from private to public does no better for 'the poor' then a judge who thinks he is doing the chef a favor lambasting her with 'honest judgments'. Both are well intended, but both are an abuse of jurisdiction: and therefore create chaos.  The issues is jurisdiction and therefore this analogy works. (All other non-essential elements are NOT to be considered for my point)

If you believe that it is the governments jurisdiction AND NOT the private sectors to care for the poor, then have some courage and:

1. release your constitution so we know on what basis you argue for policy

2. make a general case for government spending versus private spending

3. recognize conservatives are reasonable and there will be no 'slash and burn' that devalues Canadians.

Until then, I think it is clear Mr. Layton, that you are abusing your power by not disclosing core principles for which you look to change authority of spending from private to public.  Hiding this abuse in the form of warlike cries may fool a few million this round, but with any luck and the voice of a strong and logical conservative base, this will stop.  Conservatives, join me in calling for the Constitution and exposing the hidden agenda of the socialists.