Friday, 1 April 2011


Why do politicians always talk about "justice", "fairness" and "equality" for the people under the programs they create, but never any mention about "justice", "fairness" and "equality" for those who foot the bill?
When is it time to start having a real discussion?

We need to do a better job...

There have been two related developments that should lead us to strongly consider the value of living/articulating to others how the principles we hold are not 'scary' or 'heartless'.

Recently, NDP candidate Ryan Dolby dropped out of the race to support the running liberal candidate: to prevent a conservative victory.  A sincere individual abandoning their post to curb the odds of a conservative victory ought to command the attention of the conservatives: we should ask why...

"I think it's the best decision on behalf of my family, my community, and my country to do whatever I can to make sure there isn't a cconservative victory, especially in this riding," Dolby said.

Along side this article we see the initial indicators of a 'shift' in support: not away from conservatives, but from the NDP to the liberals.  The wide spared concern that Dolby highlighted is a conservative majority.

Please consider the recent poll trends:

I have seen this trend over too many elections for me not to share what I think is obvious. Possibly the political conservatives lacks the 'know' or ability to communicate: either way...somebody should and I guess I will. 

The missing component is the broader population communicating by their actions and words how conservative principles do not lack they are 'fair' and not scary or heartless.  The bottom line is life throws people a lot of curve balls and there are terrible situations where people are in genuine need.  The NDP'ers and Liberals often see two things: 1. genuine needs of their fellow Canadians and 2. 'conservatives' presenting political policies that seem to 'leave people in need behind'...I believe that the conservative response ought to be public, not I publicly say:

Just because there is a genuine serious need does NOT mean the government ought to meet that need.  Conservatives should not be embarrassed or ashamed to say this.  We should be proud to say, "oh my goodness, this genuine need is truly great...let us not declare this the governments job to solve...but can I help??".  This position counters the Liberal/NDP race to arms (create program to meet need; pay for with taxes).

In my place of work, I BOLDLY declare small 'c' conservative principles about: family values, personal responsibility, free market and work ethic.  People are NOT opposed to conservative principles when you 'partner with them' and walk them out.  If we the people, out of genuine compassion, help others and ourselves, we place less of a strain on 'needs' that cry out to government officials. Today, lets determine to be proud that we can rise up and solve problems through our ideas and actions...we don't have to cry out to the government to solve every problem.  Fear and concern with NDP people ought to lead them to see our responses of compassion to people's needs...not a poll showing a massive exodus of their support bleeding to the Liberals.

What can you do today that demonstrates that we can solve the problem through helping others versus 'leaving them behind' only for the government figure out?  Is it worth your effort?

When I see a need not being met that is NOT the governments to meet, I do not reach out to the government and say, "this need is not being met because the people who are responsible are failing...can you create a program and help?"...Rather I look at myself and say, "what can I do to take up my responsibility to help and serve?"

What is your position on this subject?

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Watch out for 'code words'...

check out this link:

I encourage you to be very aware of 'code words'...and what they really mean.  During this election, I hope to 'de code' the language of all parties and talk straight with what they are all really saying.  Any left leaning friends, send me some articles and I will be happy to offer a 'straight talk perspective'.

Regarding the liberal proposal to offer major payouts to students going to post-secondary:

“The message we will give every one of our kids is if you get the grades, you get to go,”

CODE FOR: It's the governments responsibility to ensure you get post-secondary education...therefore we will use tax dollars to fund this program for your benefit.

“Canadian families want to invest in learning,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “But the cost of college and university is slipping out of reach for too many middle-class families.”

Is CODE FOR: The liberal party wants to plan and control more of the economy, therefore we will tax families/corporations of higher income and spend it on their behalf for 'middle/low income' families.

“Investing in learning is essential for preparing Canadians for the jobs of the future,” said Mr. Ignatieff.  “The Learning Passport will be a powerful tool for reducing barriers to attending college and university, increasing the flow of highly skilled workers into the Canadian economy.”

IS CODE FOR: since investing in learning is key for jobs, we liberals think its required that powerful tools be of the governments hand: therefore, we the government will remove the 'barriers'.

Um: why do we want government to 'remove barriers'? Just what are these barriers?
Possible meanings of 'barriers':
1. student getting part time work/full time job to save up, go to school
2. getting a loan and paying it off
3. parents putting money away and saving up for their child's education

Why do we want to remove these "barriers"?  I have found that overcoming challenges (NOT barriers Mr. Liberal) creates opportunities to learn and grow.  Mr. Liberal, please give us adults the opportunity to sweat and work for something so satisfying as a good education.
The warm and fuzzy words of "barrier" "investment" and "family" make it difficult to argue with such a loving position. When we translate the code words, we see the reality of a very different position: government sees an area they can 'increase their role' and 'poof' taxed money goes to another project.

Reminder: ask yourself, "is it the governments responsibility to tax and spend on my post-secondary education?"  Another 'need' seems to be more liberal investments that only further plans our economy: at the expense of the taxpayer.

Please, tell me what you think.
Post and let's get others talking real. If the politicians en mass won't, then this blog shall.  Have a great day!


Today's Thought:


Dear small 'c' conservative friends; during this election, let us NOT argue with others, rather let us decide today that we will model our conservative principles in our daily life.
Less government via us acting in compassion to help others IS a powerful argument when modeled, but a pathetic argument when talked, but not walked. We have the real deal here: help others, take personal responsibility and through this, place less demand on government services. The government ought not to invade every area of our life with their inefficient, money spending expansionist ways. The only answer to less government is people rising up and loving and serving others; we are more efficient/cheaper than them, so let's get on it!

by Ryan Jantzi

Oh Boy, More Spending...

Re: the liberal plan to spend billions on a massive program creation for child care.

Why is it so uncommon and so hard to ask simple questions when it comes to the liberal's relentless efforts to spend billions of dollars on programs? I'm specifically referring to the recent liberal strategy of a multi billion dollar childcare program.
Simple answer, because children are incredibly valuable and 'spin' can brand any legitimate question as 'not caring' or not, in the interest of brevity, I have reduced my list to just 1 question:

Who says it's the governments jurisdiction and responsibility to create this massive multi-billion dollar program? 

Jurisdiction refers to scope of authority and responsibility, boundaries….for example, Jack Layton does not have jurisdiction to force himself into my home and demand I make him a beet salad.  So by me refusing to allow him entrance into my home, am I lacking compassion? Am I lacking compassion by not making him a beet salad? No.  Now, if a parent refused entrance of their 6 year old daughter into their home and refused to make them food, would that be lacking compassion? (among other horrible things) Yes!...because there is responsibility within one's jurisdiction.  The parent OUGHT to feed and provide shelter for their child.  The same parent has NO "OUGHT" to allow Mr. Layton into their home and provide a beet salad.  The "OUGHT" comes from one's jurisdiction and responsibilities therein.

Therefore, when we ask the question, "is it the governments" jurisdiction and responsibility to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on childcare…my answer is, no. It is not their job to 'care for the child'…it is the …(can you think of the answer…)….
Yes, you got it….the parents job.  Wow. How did we ever figure this out?   Therefore, if it is indeed the parents responsibility and jurisdiction, then there is NO lack of compassion by an individual not supporting the massive program.

The government should not be telling parents, "we will further plan the economy by spending more tax dollars to do the parents job and have your kids looked after…all because you have a 'need' ". 
The government taking on parents responsibilities is like a teacher filling out answers on the test for a Grad 9 student who did not bother to study.  It's not really the teachers job to 'make the student' successful by 'helping the student' get an A via filling in answers.  The teacher calling it 'compassion' is really bogus…you are only hurting the student by saying you are 'helping the student in need' different than the government 'helping the parent' by solving the 'immediate need' is equally lacking in true compassion…
the need that parent/parents require being met ought not to come from the loving hand and deep (debt ridden) pockets of the government.

The need ought to be met by the parents: or loved ones if the parents are MIA. If the parents and loved ones are unfit/unwilling to care for the children…then the jurisdiction passes to the government.  this is a worst case scenario for the terrible tragedies of life…not a multi-billion dollar program for any parent with a 'need'. Parents, we have work to do!  Don't look to the government to solve your problems…look to your responsibilities as a loving parent: after all, we decided to create life and care for that life.

I encourage all of us parents to continually ask, "what is my responsibility as a parent, and how can I grow in this?"  This is a fantastic question that should be welcomed and discussed with your friends and family.  Look to invest in others who may be struggling in this area.  The teacher would be better off asking the Grade 9 student, "why did you fail this paper and not study?"  versus overseeing the student and writing down the correct answers on the test.

Mr. Liberal, it's equally better to ask, "why are you looking to the government to look after something that is your responsibility?"

If the need is truly great, and all other options are off the table…then Mr. Liberal, and only then, do you have jurisdiction to claim 'compassion in helping others'…in that case, I would be with you.

For an understanding of what happens when a government encroaches on parents God given responsibility, please consider the following: (Study by think tank on Quebec government run childcare):

Bottom line (no surprises really):
1. it had negative impact on children and parents
2. aggressive behavior in children
3. substantial increase in hyperactivity and anxiety
4. increased illness in children…versus rest of Canada
5. more mother reported depression (shocker)
6. children fought more

Jack Layton

So here's the bottom line:
Canadians have lots of debt and it's the socialists job bring 'fairness' to the market and cap the lenders at prime plus 5%. It's the governments job to limit interest rates at 5%, really? No mention in the speech about individuals carrying debt due to their choices or lack of budgeting, or living beyond their means. Once again we see government look to increase its role in planning the economy. Mr. Layton, the solution to massive personal debt is NOT more laws going after the free market…it's encouraging all of us to to live within our means and not be foolish by racking up our credit cards. Once again, Mr. Layton has a chance to show compassion by helping people help themselves…but instead, sadly, focused on further 'planning the economy' and calling it "fairness".

So, if this law passes, then credit card companies will stop then what?  We still have the  'root issue' of a debt mentality...hence false compassion, because it does deal with the root issue. A small 'c' conservative principle I strive to walk out: by learning and growing through books and other people, I have changed many of my perspectives and learned to budget and live within my means.  My credit card debt is paid each month: on-time.  I encourage you today, if your credit cards are paid, live out a conservative principle and find someone to help with budgeting who may not be in such a great shape!  If you are ridden with debt and paying interest through the nose...DO NOT look to the NDP to solve your problems and create "fairness".  Look within and decide you want to be debt free!  Get help! Talk to loved ones and friends!  Socialism is NOT our answer! Compassion within a free market or, small 'c' conservative principles are.  Have a great day.

Please post your comments
Please share this link on your Facebook profile

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain