Sunday, September 21, 2008
Mr. Layton wants to help them to improve their self esteem so that they can then convert others to their way of thinking. He will do this by increasing corporate and middle class taxes (“middle class is us for now hon,” I stated, not in jest). I imparted to my child, who seemed very eager to learn more about the political process that many of the NDP acolytes are “academics”, who never had a non-taxpayer supported job in their life and don’t really know how wealth is generated for governments to tax. They think as long as the government can print their own money then the sky is the limit. “Dad,” she intoned, “can they really print real money, not just monopoly money.” “Yes”, I said, “but the problem is if we print money all the time but don’t have anything to back it up, like lots of jobs in businesses that make stuff we can buy then eventually it will be worthless, kind of like wanting to buy “Park Place” but you have no money left because of misjudging.” “Did you see the news about Lehman Brothers and the AIG insurance company recently.” “ That’s what could happen to a government run by the socialists.”
She said, “Dad was that on the Family Channel.” “No Hon”, I think I had CNN on at the time. “OH Okay”, she said as her eyes rolled at the complexities of economics 101. “Sweetie,” I dared carrying on, “Mr. Layton, TM’s boss wants to do some apparently contradictory stuff. He wants to cut off oil production, which will raise the price of gasoline, and reduce employment and he wants to introduce new "manufacturing-friendly" trade policies to keep jobs in Canada - but he wants to cancel corporate tax cuts introduced by Conservatives.” My head hurts just trying to think about that. “On the one hand he wants to make it less inviting for companies to operate in Canada but wants to create a piece of paper that says we are “open for business.”
As a former business person I am not impressed.” “He wants to spend $200,000,000.00 a year to increase the number of doctors but it was one of his socialist comrades in our province who closed the doors to new Doctors years ago when they governed in Ontario. In Sault Ste. Marie there may be as many as 6,000 people, me included, who don’t have a family doctor because of socialist mis-management. He wants to increase the number of bureaucrats (aka as snivelling servants) to use up more tax payer $ to investigate everything including why businesses go out of business. All these new people will use the money we make that we give to the government in taxes to study and regulate things that will have no useful purpose because the business will already be out of business.” “It is indeed a vicious circle,” I lamented. By this time my 10 year old’s head was swimming with enough gobbledegook to warrant a brain freeze brought on by a delicious Dairy Queen ice cream cone. And it was so that we sauntered on to enjoy a respite from the thrust and parry of politics.
So, I knew who I wouldn’t vote for but I was still scratching my head because although I don’t have a party affiliation I was wondering if I have turned into the very thing, in the earnestness of my youth I thought I’d never be. (A small c CONSERVATIVE!) OMG I wondered, could this be happening to me – Oh dear - my brain rushed forward in multiple scenes of things like hardening of the arteries, triple bypass surgery and weak knees all at the same time, “I must really be old,” I pondered! And then I wondered further, to myself this time, as my child was far too happy having her chocolate dipped cone. If I vote liberal I would be asking another academic to raise taxes on my gasoline so he can carbonize my soda pop even more in something called a green shift. My mom always used to warn me about "shifty" people.
Was this the same thing? I saw where he was going to do carbon trades just like the NDP socialist guy and the only thing I know about carbon is 1:) it happens to my truck every now and then and I have to blow off the carbon 2:) I just love diet Pepsi and the carbon that causes all that bubbling when I open it and sometimes gives me gas hmm…there’s that word gas again. Then there is the fellow named Bob Rae who was a socialist who created “Rae Days”, in Ontario, and ran out of tax payers money before he was run out of office as the most inept economic manager and Premier in Ontario history. Now he is a liberal. Oh dear...Liberal/NDP – what is the difference now a days because they seem to be able to be so portable. And in our community not one of the so called leading liberals want to run. Why? The liberal air force brought a fellow who lives in Peterborough and parachuted him in as though we have an emergency. Peterborough – our mortal enemies at Greyhound games – and my hometown – but I digress. The fellow Provenzano, a lawyer - who ran and lost the last time, was getting tutored by another academic by the name of Michael Ignatief, down in Ottawa, who is apparently a very bright fellow who thought George Bush did the right thing in his invasion of Iraq. Sheese – did you say he was a liberal? Academics + Lawyers = politician.
I was never really much of a genius at math but I like to construct formulas. Now if they had a guy like Ron Irwin, a former Liberal MP, and get this - Cabinet Minister - and a man who speaks his mind and who I grew to respect when I had a really good job and met with him on occasion. He was part of the government and he did get things done and for perhaps the first time in history his Liberal government were fiscally conservative. The mind just boggles at this apparent contradiction. . Did you say that Ron actually got the Sault Locks reopened? The new Federal Building on Bay Street that created construction jobs and other good stuff. The former socialist MP before Ron didn’t despite trying very hard. What was his name now…oh yes councilman Steve Butland, another nice guy who tried his best but was fruitless at getting anything done for the Soo. I admire and respect Steve. He is one of the hardest working public servants I have met and a man of integrity and I often thought it was too bad when he would brief us on how he was doing with the file for opening the Sault Locks that he was not with the government party of the day. But I knew from internal briefings from senior mandarins he had no chance other than getting lip service during meetings.
You can be assured that is all Tony Martin gets as well. Any money flowing into Sault Ste. Marie will be from Federal Government estimates and budgets, produced by public servants and approved by Treasury Board,which consists of senior federal cabinet ministers. If it is a non-budgetary item such as a grant not already allocated you can bet that it has been vetted by a cabinet minister before it is allocated. If Mr. Martin claims otherwise he is treating you in a manner that suggests you may not be overly intelligent. Instead, Mr. Irwin would take no truck or trade from those same senior people. They knew he had the ear of the PM (Chretien) and was his friend. He cut through all the red tape and crap, which was part of his style, and got it done. He was a a breath of fresh air for a politician because he told you straight up the way he worked not the usual "pat" answers you get most of the time that tell you nothing.
That is what is needed here, a government member who can get stuff done through the maze of obfuscating mandarins and there are many of them ready to run interference before it gets to the minister in cabinet responsible for the specific issue or "file" as they like to say. Now, instead we’ve got a person for the Liberals who doesn’t even live here. OH no what are we going to do – no what am I going to do. Hmmm…I thought, “maybe I’ll vote strategically.” Rather than waste my vote on a tree hugger or academic (leaders) I think I’ll vote for a conservative, especially after reading the following little ditty found on the internet. Instead of thinking what the difference between a republican and democrat is think the difference between the current iteration of the Liberals/NDP and the Conservatives. I honestly can't tell the difference between them anymore and I have voted Liberal many times. Can you?
When I say republican I don’t mean the neo-republican Bush style who is not a fiscal conservative but has all the appearances of a social conservative.. God help us if we had more of him and his ilk. Think of it as metaphor for a party, perhaps and ideal that currently doesn't exist, who will, and has, reduced your taxes, expect you do be independent and responsible for you and your family needs, unless you do have an emergency, has good fiscal management as a top priority who wants to pay down an enormous national debt (think of your mortgage interest), will let you mind your own business, and won’t try to buy votes by granting thousands of vested interest groups millions of dollars every year.
I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, "I want to be president!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there.
So then I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?" She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people." "Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house."
Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" And I said, "Welcome to the Republican (Conservative) Party." Her folks still aren't talking to me.
As some of you already know I am a father’s rights activist and notwithstanding my attempt at humour above, the NDP/Liberal alliance that could result from a minority government could ruin the economy of our country.
The NDP have a radical feminist agenda and will not entertain the notion of equality of men when it comes to child custody at divorce. If you are a man you do not matter to the NDP when it comes to custody equality other than you have a pay cheque to hand over to your ex or to the government in the form of taxes. If you are a happily married man or not and your ex is getting tired of you, decides to leave you, goes to a shelter, and falsely complains you are abusive and she is in fear, she can get an ex parte restraining order in secret, take over your house while you are at work, and leave you homeless. You cannot see your children or get into your house. If you show up you will be arrested. She will have a battalion of support, all thanks to your governments tax dollars who will line up behind her. It doesn't matter if she is a liar. They are conditioned and socialized to believe her without question. It is their job to do so and they have a vested interest in keeping it that way. After all they earn their living on the avails of family tragedies. That includes lawyers. A 6 billion dollar a year industry in this country. The people at the Family Responsibility Office (FRO,) who will collect your money on her behalf, get it both ways. They are the best example of poverty pimps going. They collect money from the man/father who is now poor and give it to the mother who - so she says - is also poor. The latter is not always true either. She could have a boyfriend (or girlfriend) tucked away and eventually move in with him/her and you will still have to pay. Your income will drop below the poverty line - if you are able to keep your job - and your life will be ruined.
Your extended family will not be able to see the children of your marriage either. You will all be marginalized. Granted that is an extreme case but it happens more frequently than you think. From Barbara Kay of the National Post...The liberals have done nothing for 10 years even though "in 1997, when the current Divorce Act came into effect, a special joint committee was convened to make recommendations on child custody and access. After 55 hearings and more than a year of study, the 48 recommendations of the 1998 report, For the Sake of the Children, converged on one theme: The sole-custody adversarial system, as it pertains to the majority of custody and access disputes, denies children and non-custodial parents basic human rights, and puts children's psychological and emotional health at risk. The report recommended the "non-rebuttable presumption" of equal parenting (in the absence of abuse) as both fair to parents and best for children. But it was ignored by the then-Liberal government and fell into a political black hole. We know what Canadians think on this issue: Polls show that 80% of Canadians support equal parenting." Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP Maurice Vellacott's Motion M-483 will return to parliament after the election in support of equal parenting.
Tony Martin, your earnest socialist candidate, has given me the political brush off with respect to whether he will support the motion. It clearly does not sit well with his parties current stance on men and fathers relating to custody of children. They believe, if you are a man, you are not the appropriate care giver - even on a 50-50 basis. And here I thought they had a social conscience and stood up for the dignity and rights of all people. I guess not. Fathers 4 Justice will likely be present to ask Mr. Layton questions, when he comes to visit Tony, which are near and dear to our heart. If he continues his disingenuous obfuscation perhaps we will want to liven up his party in some manner. :) Mike Murphy Fathers Rights Activist and sometimes political pundit. PS Our organization has renamed the NDP the "No Dads Party"
...The following week the Post ran an opposing editorial (2) by Joan S. Meier, faculty member at George Washington University Law School. The op-ed contains numerous one-sided statements and fabrications about child abuse. She repeatedly uses the phrase "dangerous fathers" and "violent and abusive fathers," without ever mentioning the problem of "violent and abusive mothers."
According to the US Administration for Children and Families:
- Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to kill their children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm
- Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to abuse their children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure3_5.htm
Without providing any research evidence, Meier goes on to make the improbable claims that most custody disputes "arise in the context of mothers seeking to end abuse or protect their children" and "mothers have few means of protecting their children from dangerous fathers". Meier's statements represent a serious misrepresentation of a well-known government statistics, and are highly defamatory of fathers.
Meier's falsehoods violate George Washington University's research misconduct policy (3) which states:
"Research misconduct includes, without limitation, fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. All employees or individuals associated with The George Washington University should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research to the Associate Vice President for Health Research, Compliance and Technology Transfer."
George Washington University is in a unique position to influence Congress, including the upcoming VAWA renewal. We ask you to take a few moments of your time to contact the two following individuals at George Washington University with a polite note urging GW Law School to take action about the numerous fabrications and misrepresentations by Professor Joan Meier in her April 13 editorial in the Washington Post, as well as her formal articles and law papers:
- Frederick Lawrence, Dean of the GW Law School: Email: flawrence-at-law.gwu.edu
- Anne Hirschfeld, Associate Vice President Office of Health and Technology Transfer: Email: resanh-at-gwumc.edu
1 David Levy's original editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402922.html
2 Joan Meier's response: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103152.html
3 GW University Research Misconduct Policy: http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/ResearchMisconductPolicy.pdf...more to come