Thursday, 2 June 2011

Globe And Mail Blew The Call

Consider: Trade Minister launches blistering attack on NDP

And the 'blistering attack'...
International Trade Minister Ed Fast launched a fresh partisan attack on the new Official Opposition, accusing New Democrats of being set on policies that would “stall growth, kill jobs and set Canadian families back.”

oh, and:
Mr. Fast called Jack Layton's party “reflexively and ideologically anti-trade,” accusing it of acting contrary to the interests of “hard-working Canadians.”

So where is the attack? 

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

A Conservative, Compassionate Response To Poverty

I love my family, friends and people in my life.  I have a heart for serving and giving.  My decision to believe in 'limited government' does not preclude me from expressing my heart of compassion.  I have argued limited government actually realizes and mobilizes people to be compassionate.  I have further argued that socialism hurts the poor.
Here are 4 myths the 'left' uses to play on Canadians limited understanding of poverty;

Myth #1
If you care about the poor, a strong government response of large spending is required
This statement is presupposed by the conviction that the government is responsible for 'the plight of the poor'.
If we agree that in certain times, and certain situations the government does have (limited) jurisdiction and therefore responsibility it does not follow that at all times the government has lots of expansive jurisdiction and therefore almost unlimited authority.  The left needs to make a better argument then surface points ('fighting for families', 'fairness', 'leaving no Canadian behind').  Their approach is incredibly overly simplistic due to them not supporting their 'surface comments' with anything substantial (bring out your constitution!).  Men and women of compassion ought to argue the opposite of this myth.  People are called to be compassionate.  Compassion is an act of the free will.  When the free will responds in love to meet another's need, that is compassion.  By the government taking 'moral authority' to fight for families in the context of 'helping the poor' they are calling themselves the responsible party for a solution and therefore minimizing the responsibility on the citizen to help people in need.  This removes 'compassion' from the equation Mr. Layton.  "Free choice" is eliminated from the individuals approach.  It becomes a 'mandate' of the Country, not a directive of the heart.  Let's argue the opposite of myth #1 by citing the logic of: "seeing a need we have the capacity to meet + responding in love from our free will = real compassion and powerful giving".  Call out left leaning logic "Government sees need + taxes and creates programs = manufactured solutions" as not compassionate.

Myth #2
If matters were left to the private sector, people would be hurt and left behind: and this is plain wrong.
The question is not: who is guaranteed to do the best job?  The question is: who is responsible for helping the poor? It is a logical fallacy to argue something is right because we presume (without evidence) a potential negative future.  If we say, "the government does better then private sector, therefore the government is responsible", then we open the door to the same 'logic' extending itself in area's we would abhor entry into.  An obvious example, "the government does a better job than parents, therefore government is responsible for running my family".  The government does a better job than business, therefore the government is responsible for business".  This 'logic' is a continual 'assault' on our families and businesses all across the country.  The abdication of personal responsibility via government passing laws to expand is the basis on which the 'left' desires to expand government.  We need to call this logic out as wrong and contrary to our values.  We need to replace it with, "I don't care who's better, I care who's responsible: as those responsible ought to do better". 

Therefore, if we establish the poor is not government responsibility (except in limited, last resort circumstances) then we can argue for solutions from the private sector (personal giving, business, charity etc) without being branded as heartless, uncaring etc.  This is not an argument about 'caring for the poor', rather it is an argument about 'who is responsible?'. 

We can argue 'the private citizen, family, friends, charity' are to be mobilized to serve without any 'moral wrongdoing'.  The left does not have the corner on 'loving the poor via massive tax collection and redistribution'.

Myth #3
Conservatives are heartless and think the poor are lazy
This is a brutal accusation that lacks truth.  I think there is merit in that some conservatives are heartless and selfish.  However, the 'part does not represent the whole' by any means.
Conservatives need to stop being passive and afraid to talk about real issues.  I love 'blogging Tories' because I read about courageous bloggers who share their thoughts openly.  Lets really 'hone in' on demonstrating our values by how we act and serve. Let's not only 'argue' it's our responsibility to give and serve those less fortunate…let's be the answer.  I have not found poor people to be lazy.  I happen to believe that the best way to help 'business owners like me' also represents the best way to help anybody…rich, poor etc. 
Here is how we love on people and help people in the free market (rich or poor):
1. Connect with people who we can learn from.  Be invested in from others.
2. Develop and grow as an individual
3. Build relationships with people 'less fortunate': be their solution by investing in them.
4. Building relationships with others and communicating that they are valuable , loved and have potential is more powerful then the left will ever acknowledge and possibly conceive.
5. Recognize that if we are not helping others, the population will just vote in a government that does.  Don't hand your opportunity to love and serve away to a government.

Myth #4
Government making massive investments in the poor is the solution.
Often, I believe this is the problem.  I had a 'job placement' agency tell me that if I hired this particular young man, the government would pay  8 weeks of his salary.  They told me he was on welfare and really need a chance.  I remember telling this particular job placement agent, "Thank you for the offer.  I do not want this individual to have the government pay 8 weeks for free.  Tell him that his abilities will win him this job, not a 'government handout'.  I respectfully decline the free 8 weeks and I graciously will give him a chance.  The 'value' I get from this individual as an employer is not from him being free for 8 weeks, but rather the potential inside of him that we all want unlocked."  The agent was blown away by my comments.  I was preaching 'free market 101'.  She called me back a few days later and said, "when I told the individual (on welfare) about what you said Ryan, he broke down and cried in my office.  The young man said, "I felt so helpless and unloved as a person. When Ryan said he wanted me without government support, I never felt so valued before".  This came from an individual on welfare.  People want to be loved, valued and invested in.  All of us do.  I personally see government handouts often as an enemy to the poor's cause.  Everyone is valuable and has potential.  The key is developing ourselves and others through personal responsibility, meaningful relationships where we are loved, not judged.  This is best done by accountable relationships, not government investments.  The gentlemen on welfare was not 'valued' when I accepted special treatment (8 free weeks paid for by taxpayers dollars).  He was valued when I treated him like everyone else and give him a chance.  I met with him several times (per my suggestions 1-5 above…just like others invested in me) to develop a relationship.

The basis on which the 'left' argues for 'fighting for families' is dangerous.  They call themselves the 'responsible party' for every social challenge, including poverty.  Our deep care for those in need ought to me modeled by action, not argument.  Conservatives, our fight for limited government starts with being the answer not only for ourselves and family, but also for those in need. 

Be the answer today.  The "Jack Layton" NDP alternative is not what we want.

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Ontario's Investment In Chrysler Pays Off For Families

Ontario's Investment In Chrysler Pays Off For Families

 (Ontario Website)
Premier Dalton McGuinty personally congratulated Chrysler Group CEO, Sergio Marchionne, for the car company's payment of its Ontario loan — six years ahead of schedule.
McGuinty thanked the company for its commitment to Ontario on behalf of taxpayers and families who depend on the auto sector. Chrysler paid $567 million, including $6 million in interest, last week. 
Ontario partnered with the Canadian and American governments to support the restructuring of Chrysler that saved thousands of jobs and kept the automaker in Canada. Ontario provided restructuring assistance to Chrysler in 2009.
The company recently announced five new production launches at its Brampton and Windsor facilities, plus an investment at its Etobicoke casting plant.
Strengthening the auto sector, with government, industry and Ontarians all doing their part, will preserve and create jobs for families. The auto sector accounts for over three per cent of Ontario's GDP.


- "Paying off" for Families is based on government interrupting the free market.  It did not matter Chrysler (and GM) were poorly run firms.  It did not matter that 'supply and demand' spoke and Chrysler failed take heed to the call.  It mattered not that several other manufacturing companies failed and went under.  What matters is that Mr. McGuinty believes that it's the governments job to to strengthen industry.

Chrysler receiving bailout money and paying it back does not mean that families win; unless you define families winning by 'partnering with governemnt'.  Mr. McGuinty's logic is simple but discrete: strengthen economy by government intervention = strong families. 

How do we know that the 'short term devestation' of GM and Chrysler going under would not have had a much better effect on families in the long run versus intervention?  The principle of supply and demand within a free market is good.  Fighting against this principle with 'loving intervention' may sound nice at the time, but only lays a foundation for principles we may one day wish we never gave consideration to.

(Federal Conservatives seem to be in a similar boat on this one)

Monday, 30 May 2011

To get results, Conservatives need to think outside the box

Mr. Layton needs to come out of hiding and reveal His Party Constitution: let's get him all wound up with conservative actionable strategy and before we know it:
His party will release their Constitution!  We need to out-think him guys, come on!  Shhh...don't post this or give it to anyone in the NDP party, or they will know our strategy!

Full Proof How To Secret Plan:

First, play this audio clip and while playing, replace the final word with "Constitution" (the other word is demeaning, offensive and unfair)
Then, find ruby red slippers and tap them together 3 times saying, "there's no Constitution like a revealed one".

Before we know it, the NDP will reveal...  Oops, how did that get in there?

Actually, they will finally reveal their...Constitution! Fresh out of the box!

Powerful Video.

Amazing.  Keep morality out of politics? Impossible, on either side of the isle.

"we are in an interesting and death."
"I am hated because I declare life."

Illegal Immigrant Arrested in Death of Texas Police Officer

DWI suspect Johoan Rodriguez
Police say Johoan Rodriguez was drunk when he drove his car into a road block Sunday morning, striking and killing Officer Kevin Will with the Houston Police Department.

Rodriguez has since been charged with intoxication manslaughter of a peace officer, felony evading, and possession of a controlled substance. Police say he had .3 grams of cocaine in his pocket along with an alcohol level of .238, according to the station.
It's tragic situations like these that ought to shame the 'left's' inclusiveness doctrine.  Protecting one's boarders is a responsibility that is shameful to abdicate and defer.

 Again, such a simple principle at the home level.  If an individual 'pitches tent' in our back yard we say, "this is my property, please get off" and they ought to comply. If they refuse to listen, there are laws that the police would enforce to remove the trespasser.  This helps (in part) to protect the peace.

When laws are undermined and not enforced, chaos ensues. This is another example of needless tragedy and chaos.  Please dear friends to the south...better protect your boarders and do officers like Mr. Will justice.

Quite possibly the most logical argument ever from an "NDPer". (Sadly, written by a conservative)

The NDP will not release their constitution, and since I have not seen any logical arguments from the NDP that I can 'unpack and dismantle', I have been led to contrive my own argument for NDP's Constitution…as best possible. I am pretending to be a NDPer…so go easy on me. I do think I am working with lots of contradictions, but I am going to do my best to make it as 'logical as possible'.  I used a 'mock name' to hide the author's identity ; )

Dear Fellow Canadians,

I am "Jantzi Ryan" the official Boss for the NDP party of Canada.

I acknowledge that our constitution is not available for your analysis and understanding.  We believe Canadians ought to know what principles govern our party.  You will soon have our constitution: our best minds are working on it.  I have been given information that the following principles will be in our platform:

We believe in a government planned economy (government controls means of production and distribution) with respect to 'big business'.  We believe in the moderate 'free market' with respect to small business.
There will be no end to poverty, aid for seniors and real education for students unless we recognize that the vast majority of  'limited resources' ought not be horded by big business (banks, oil companies etc).  Once these 'windfall profits' are transferred to government for expansion of programs, we will finally affect people's lives being improved and helped.  Since banks modus operandi is profit, not the well being of the people, we will right this wrong by transferring profit from banks to the government.  We do not believe Canadians are ready for us to own the banks, therefore we will not seek to control means of production and distribution via ownership, but rather higher taxes and capping their ability to make a profit (prime + 5% on credit cards for starters).  We are giving out 'rebates' to small business owners who hire because it represents an important criteria of our mandate; provide opportunity for all Canadians.  Since small business generates opportunity for the worker, and there are not typically 'windfall profits', this strategy best 'levels the playing field' given our current Country's state.  In summary, limit 'massive corporations' from devaluing Canadians by limiting their profits via taxation and laws.  Transfer (redistribute sounds to "Carl Marx-ish") profit into social spending; hereafter called 'investing in Canadians'. 

We believe in equality, fairness and opportunity for all Canadians.
Poverty, discrimination and intolerance all have one thing in common, they attack and truncate basic rights of all Canadians.  Canada's resources and wealth is vast.  Massive corporate profits undermine these basic values, therefore we believe we are furthering the 'social justice' cause in Canada when we recognize this and move to make it right. Therefore, we will be setting forth proposals where you will see two components: 1. look at 'open enterprise' and 'free market' with caution (least reckless profits be made and horded away from social justice causes) and 2. draw money away from private sector and move it towards government programs. This rights the wrong when government takes authority via laws to limit profit and maximize social justice.  The 'right wingers' unfairly brands us as 'big spenders', but we will accomplish these goals without raising the debt of our Country.  We do not trust the fee market to protect the rights of Canadians.  They will not offer equality, fairness and opportunity for all.  The free market hires mostly men in high paying jobs, would have minimum wage at $4.00 if it could and exclude anyone they 'see fit'.  By the government highlighting these basic human rights then pointing out how the free market fails these people, we position ourselves to morally create laws that support this end.  This is how we use such words as 'compassion and fairness', because we are taking on the worker's struggles by assisting them from the reckless free market.

We believe it is the governments working responsibility to be people of action, recognizing there are many social needs.
We do believe in 'performance and results'.  We simply believe that the government ought to make the investment in people to ensure that everyone can attain high levels of performance and results together: this way, we know it's fair.  The free market attacks the less fortunate by 'leaving them behind'.  It is their right to not be left behind and by the NDP making these investments, we will be ensured of success for all Canadians, not just a privileged few. 

Core principle:
You have likely seen the 'thread' running throughout this letter: the problem is the free market.  The free market is just that: free.  The cows will wander unless they are fenced in.  The children may crawl into danger if they are not given the safe restrictions of the crib.  People within the free market will exploit, degrade and devalue if it is not reigned in though significant limitations.  The reason we are 'progressive' is because we recognize this cannot be done over night.  We need to develop our Country into a less free market more and more, little by little.  We need your help.  Currently the 'free market' is quite popular, so we are developing our constitution to reflect how we can focus on our core values without sparking widespread condemnation and massive public outcry.  The right thinks 'regulations' will protect people, but as we have seen from the terrible recession of 08, regulations were too lax and failed the people.  The key is not to regulate the free market…it is to limit its potential and slowly move towards a more fair, democratic and loving society, one where everyone has a chance: not just the profit hoarders and privileged few.
We look forward to truly fighting for Canadians.

Jantzi Ryan
Boss of the Federal NDP Party of Canada

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Who's our Chris Christie?

Chris Christie: worth the watch.

If Canadian conservatives had half the courage of this guy, our country would be a better place.  Canada needs to grow up and allow for direct and honest debate. 

Bell, UFC and a simple video

Core value #3 in my company is Troubleshooting and Adaptability.  This value takes into account that variables exist that often look to take away from results we are trying to achieve.  We are encouraged to think in advance of what unknown or unlikely snags may happen that produces poor results or devalues people.

Good intentions polity spoken by their computer Emily does not mean they 'want to take our call'.  It means that's what they want us to think.  Bell: action speaks louder then words. 

The free market lets Bell offer a terrible service and still make money. The same market allows me to fire them and let others know how their results (once again) were found wanting.

Action Item:
The 'free market' is looking for us to solve problems.  Today, determine you will be someone who anticipates unknown variables and thinks of preemptive ways to overcome these challenges so your company turns a potential embarrassment and loss into strength and profits. If you can develop in this, you will be marked for increase!

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain