How To Advance Your Family: Live Your Life Opposite To Left Wing Policy

Please Consider: 

Recycled federal budget won’t help struggling families 

“A majority of Canadians want the Harper government to cancel its plan for more corporate tax cuts and instead invest the money in the quality public services families need,” said Clancy. “The Harper government is paying too much attention to the budget deficit and not enough to the massive jobs deficit,” said Clancy. “No new spending at a time like this will only harm Canada's fragile economy. In fact, the budget will make the unemployment problem worse because the austerity measures will mean thousands of job losses in the federal public sector.”

Blown away yet?

Here's their mandate:

NUPGEThe National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good.

My Analysis:

The redistribution of wealth is on the FRONT of the minds of so many Canadians.  Despite being known as a polite people, we sure have no problem telling Canadians to pony up their money for others.

Why do Conservatives do such a poor job 'calling out' the logic of these socialists?  All bloggers should agree on a 'vernacular strategy' for our redistributionist friends.  If Jack Layton can call massive taxes and creating programs "investing", then we should be able to come up with some 'common language' on our own. 

Let's look to 'expose' core principles of the socialists in our country (difficult given how afraid the NDP are to release their constitution) and 're-brand' their soft and 'loving' mantra. Everyone, this is a mental exercise  with 4 parts.

1. pick your favorite 'surface statements' by the NDP (or any socialist group in Canada)

2. articulate what core principal the mantra is based on

3. tell us the problem with the core principle

4. replace their 'pansy lingo' with what it really is

Let's stop giving the left a free pass each time they cry out ungrounded things like "leaving no Canadian behind" and let's start talking about what that really means...especially in the absence of their (NDP) constitution.

I'll start:

1. Common socialist mantra: "Working hard for families"  (NDP party)

2. Principle based on: wealth is shared by the people and therefore controlled by government.  People are within families, therefore, by increasing spending and taxes we are honoring our core principle of redistributing wealth from private ownership, to common ownership

3. Problem with core principle:  this view is greedy and selfish.  It denies people the fruit of their hard work and attacks basic human rights of private property and advancement.  It devalues poor people by making them succumb to government programs versus the beauty of building though relationships in the private sector.

4. New Socialist Language: "Destroying families, by destroying wealth" Actual NDP mantra.

Please, comment below.  And if you support the NDP party, I BEG you to tell us

1. Your favorite left-leaning mantra

2. articulate what core principle this is based on

3. how you feel this serves Canadians

4. Thank You.

Intelligent Design is anti-intellectual? Let's try again.

Please consider: Michele Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student

"Which brings me back to Michele Bachmann. Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject."

Hmm...gases blow up and over billions of years create what we know of as earth.  I got it.  Somehow, someway matter is eternal...in that for all time it existed.  I'm with ya so far Mr. Evolutionist.  And this eternal matter caused a whole bunch of things to happen such that not only the world formed life as we know it...but these gases that blew up and created planets somehow also created morals.  Morals came from gases that blew up, eh?  And it is 'anti-intellectual' to derive from this that gases blowing up can't create morals?  How?  Please "demolisher", do tell.

In addition to this, there is no 'intent' behind evolution.  The gases did not have a 'debate' with each other and say, 'it is a good thing to come together and create life'.  From this, it follows that there was no 'intention' behind the 'design' as we know it.  As we know as obvious, the designer of anything typically offers their comments on how something ought to function within the design.  For example, the designer of the soap says, 'I designed this to function by cleaning the body: when it's cleaning the body, it's functioning properlly'.  The designer creates something to function a certain way.  That's usually how it goes.  So the 'grand design' of evolution not only can't explain morals, but it also cannot explain how something ought to function (rather, it explains how something happens to function).  The heart does not beat a certain way because it ought to...(i.e no designer said so)...it functions that way because it 'happens to'.   I ought not to have a passionate love for my family because a designer designed me this way...I happen to love my family because it ended up that way.

I happen to think it takes incredible leaps of the intellect to surmise gasses blowing up somehow crates viable morals and determines how something ought to function (all without a designer 'saying so').  It is not 'anti-intellectual' to say, "gasses blowing up and creating morals is a little silly".  It is not anti-intellectual to say, "Disagreeing with evolution is a logical position." Evolutionists saying things function because they happen to, not because a designer said they ought seems a little silly especially when it seems obvious that things do function a certain way because the designer said so.  I can believe a bar of soap 'ought to function' a certain way because the designer said so, without being an intellectual misfit.  Likewise, I can say "my heart beats properly when it is beating at a resting heart rate of 65 bpm".  I am no intellectual misfit when I cite the proper function of a heartbeat to a designer (God) who says so. If a bar of soap, a fridge or me loving my family, it is logical to say things function properly when they function according to the design plan.  This is simple, basic and logical. 

Evolutionists arguing from a 'survival standpoint' is cool...especially in politics.  Creationists arguing from a 'truth' standpoint is also cool, especially in politics. 
 There has yet to be a 'defeating argument' for intelligent design.

Very good author in developing sensible views on creation vs. evolution: here