Thursday, December 03, 2015

Radio Silence



 There are some areas where people should be able to transcend ideology. Some of those include music, art, nature, technology, the county fair, and sports. Yes, we can have lively debates over art, and music, and the like - but not divisive ones.

You all know, by now, that I'm a rabid hockey fan - more to the point, a rabid fan of the Montreal Canadiens. They've been my team all my life, and I've written about my fan experiences and development extensively here, here, and here - just a handful of my hockey fan meanderings.

I became a Habs writer a little over a year ago, and have been blessed with the opportunity to write about the team, the games, the issues, and the sport in general. Marrying my writing skills with the team I adore has been a perfect alignment of stars for me.

In keeping with my ever-present quest for knowledge, enlightenment, and expertise from those who have been doing this longer than I have, I began listening - when I became a savvy fan - to local sports talk radio.

The station began as just an independent sports talk station (under the umbrella of one media corporation) but then became a TSN outlet (TSN is Canada's ESPN) when the conglomerate was bought out by a bigger one. TSN690 has always been extremely interesting to me. I've been able to listen to the analyses of All Things Canadiens and learn from that, in order to actually be able to watch games with a better eye.

It's been interesting, entertaining, informative and validating to be a listener of TSN690 - until today.

Today, that relationship I've had with the station, as a loyal and engaged listener, comes to an end. And for the worst possible reason: partisanship. Correction: abrasive and disparaging partisanship.

As you may also know, I am a proud Conservative - and have made no secret of that fact. I have done so out loud but I've also done so with respect for the views of others - both strangers, and those with whom I have relationships. Ideology should never result in personal attacks, nor should a difference in ideological values come between people who have so many other things in common.

I've had friends actually tell me they may not agree with me politically but that my friendship means more to them than just our ideological views, and they'd never let that get in the way of what's good and agreeable between us.

I've been unfollowed on social media, by those who disagree with my views, without even giving me a chance to explain them. And I don't miss the people who have picked up and left in a huff. Real friends don't do that. Even decent acquaintances do not vilify people for ideological disagreements.

I have never allowed my politics and my Habs involvement intersect. Those are two areas in my life which remain isolated from each other. I will find solace in my love for the Habs, and I find stimulation in my political discourse (though there is the adrenaline-based rush watching the Habs too!) . But never have they intersected - nor will they ever.

Back to radio:

TSN690 is part of a conglomerate that is, in its other stations' broadcasts, quite Liberal in their views. I have been a fan - and sometimes-guest - on CJAD-800 talk radio, but lately, the liberalism I've heard has been too much to take and I find myself turning it off more often than not. It's sad - but I'm tired of my views, my party, and my leaders being attacked with the same old rhetoric that is not only inaccurate, but should be met with the kind of balance this city deserves.

In fact, the only host on CJAD who even gives conservatives a like-minded perspective, is Tommy Schnurmacher, and his informed voice of reason in a biased world is refreshing. I do listen to his show.

But every other host - as nice as they are, personally - tends to take the liberal side of things, without really acknowledging that conservatives have another side. And often, to the point of vilifying the conservative leadership, values, people.

It's really too bad; in a city with one - ONE - English talk radio station, with an audience comprised of - doubtlessly - more than just Liberals, that one station should not be biased out loud as often as it is. Or if it is, it should offer counterpoints to its views, instead of being lapdog media we see in the television arena.

Don't forget - viewers and listeners learn, more often than not, from what they hear on radio. Whether that's opinion or facts, they don't care - and often don't differentiate; if they heard it on radio, it's what they internalize as facts. And that is extremely dangerous when there is no balance whatsoever.

I'm not the only Conservative listener of either CJAD800 or TSN690. I'm 100% sure of that. So why would any radio station want to alienate half of its audience?

I digress. Back to sports.

Today, I was listening to TSN690 as they addressed a story that made the news today. In the Canadian Parliament, we have a Senate, but it isn't run like the American model. Senators are chosen, not elected, and have nowhere near the kind of power American Senators do. They're more along the lines of goodwill ambassadors.

One Conservative senator was Jacques Demers. Mr. Demers was a coach of the Canadiens, among other teams, and won his only Cup, in his coaching career, with Montreal the last time the Habs won the Stanley Cup.

He was with the Conservatives as a Senator until today, when he announced he would be changing his affiliation to "Independent".

TSN covered the story. It is, after all, a sports-related story, and it isn't untoward that they would do that.

But the banter became alarmingly partisan. They alluded to their distaste of Stephen Harper, which already had my back up - but it wasn't as bad as what was to end their segment.

One of the hosts - I don't know who, I don't really care - made an offhand comment about registered members of the Conservative Party as "douchebags". The laughter that ensued led into commercial, and - more importantly - led to my turning to a music station.

Here's the thing, folks: I get that the Conservative Party - both here, and in the USA - isn't the "popular party". It isn't cool. It isn't sexy. It isn't representative of the values that are cool and sexy and popular - at least, not in the leftist perspective.

But it is a valid, and populous affiliation. My values are as bona fide - and should be as respected - as yours. Moreover, my right to ascribe to those values should be as respected as your right to yours. Without having to take abuse over it.

Adlai Stevenson (two-time Democratic presidential nominee) offered this:
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
Sadly, I don't believe we live in that society. Because of my political affiliation, I am unpopular but am also the target for insults, accusations, typecasting, and ridicule. As are my fellow Conservatives.

I've suffered fools gladly. I've been called many names by people who directly disagree with what I have to say, and who have decided the attack route is the more viable option for them instead of sticking up for their ideals.

I can be a sensitive person but I am not - as often accused - hypersensitive. I know when to take offense because I've learned to discern when it is intended.

I won't, however, suffer radio hosts insulting me the way they did today. I understand they are biased, but that doesn't give them - or any media personality - the right to launch immature, low-road, ad hominem attacks on those who hold the political viewpoint opposed to theirs.

I also find it extremely irresponsible of those hosts: alienating what may be half of their audience - or even a portion - is not what their station manager, or their advertisers would likely find conducive to promotion or continued employment. It certainly doesn't elevate public opinion of the station.

I'd venture a guess that even some liberals, if they were to admit it to themselves, would agree that taking shots in that way is uncalled for, by professionals whose voices are heard by many, many thousands of listeners.

I know my liberal friends, those who support my right to be Conservative without giving me a hard time for it - or calling me disparaging names, would likely take offense on my behalf. Because yes, this is personal.

I've seen it on social media; music artists, authors, actors, public figures who make political statements and then endure the backlash of so many who confront them for essentially insulting half of their audience.

It isn't smart, it isn't responsible, it isn't kind, and it just isn't nice.

There are myriad outlets, in this world of technology and telecommunications, from which I can get my news, and my sports analyses. I need not patronize the station - or its advertisers - that chooses to insult me, and people like me, because they don't agree with my values.

And I plan on pursuing this further.

As for now? This "douchebag" is no longer a listener of TSN690. I hope others - fellow Conservative douchebags - will follow suit.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Love Or Nothing: The Refugee Fallacy



I've "debated" the refugee situation, these past few days on Facebook. Despite my very clearly expressed views, I'm accused of many things.

Here's what I've learned:

Because I don't agree with the government's plan to cram tens of thousands of refugees, unvetted, unidentifiable and unknown, into planes to be on Canadian soil by the end of the year (Happy New Year, Canada!), I must be some sort of animal.

I mean, really. How can I be so unloving? How can I have no compassion or basic human decency? How can I have no humanity at all?

I'm told, in people's attitudes, "if you're not with us, you're against us." It has to be all or nothing. I have to be filled with love and compassion OR I have to oppose the whole thing. There's no middle ground.

And besides, this isn't a political discussion, it's one of HUMANITY. LOVE. COMPASSION.

Well, no, you're wrong: this is very much a political discussion. Why?

  • Because political revolves around policy. And it's this fledgling government's policy to rush these people to our shores.
  • Because it's the politicians who have declared their plan, doubled down, tripled down, locked it in.
  • Because it is something that affects every single last one of us, which is - essentially - what "politics" comprises.

Here's the definition:

Is this issue one that is:
  • associated with the governance of a country or other area?
  • the activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries?
  • the subject of academic study of government and the state?

Yes, yes, and yes.

So if you're not ready to discuss the politics of this issue, you're not really prepared for a discussion. You'd prefer to drop rainbows and cookies on everyone and walk away without acknowledging the reality or the facts.
 
 And if you're stating your view ("it's about love" or "it's about humanity"), without taking into account the reasons everyone disagreeing with you ARE disagreeing? Again, you're not ready to discuss it.

Here's the thing: love, compassion, humanity - none of those is our government's job to instill or foster, and none of those is a reason to vote for any particular person or policy. They're emotions, people. Not the thinking behind any major decision. And they must be put aside in any issue this important. This is where facts are crucial, critical thinking imperative, and the uninformed, or low-informed, need not apply.

 I've defended myself on Facebook (I do that a lot - it's the price of being a Truth Warrior), and if people wanted to be honest, they'd know their accusations (that I have no heart, or compassion, or humanity because I don't want refugees here) are fabricated from their own inferences.

I've never said it. I never will. Refugees are a problem every country has, and will be faced with, and I'm not personally adverse to Canada welcoming those downtrodden.
 
But that's not why I'm opposed, and again, people who aren't honest with themselves can talk themselves into making me out to be a bad guy all they want. It's their way of making themselves feel better for not facing the truth - either about me, or the issue at hand.

I look at the USA's plan to bring in 10,000 within a couple of years; even that, the FBI is saying, is a security risk.

I actually quoted 0bama (yeah, don't hold it against me) when I saw this in an article:
Defending his administration's screening program, Obama said it takes 18 to 24 months to clear a refugee for entry, following vetting by the U.S. intelligence community and other agencies...
18-24 months...and our government wants to do this whole thing - from soup to nuts - in 45 days??

Look, ISIS has threatened to hide its fighters among refugees. It's been said, and they've carried it out in Europe already.

At what point do we actually believe what they're telling us? Especially after they prove that they mean what they say?

So, are my concerns that outlandish? Are they that unfounded? Are they ridiculous and baseless?

Oh, and they're not just my concerns. Even those who voted Liberal are expressing their concerns - and disappointment with a PM who would rather take selfies and stick by a campaign promise despite its inherent recklessness than be smart and keep Canada safe. Then again, he also stated outright that he believes terrorists deserve Canadian citizenship.

Here's what I've found:

Leftists who question me don't acknowledge my point of view. A typical exchange will begin with my response to someone asking the ubiquitous question: "what about love? Where's the love?"

And my response will usually be an encapsulation of what I've written here. That it isn't about the human suffering at all, it's about preventing more by ensuring there are no wolves among the lambs. That I don't oppose refugees, I just oppose the timeline, the number, and the plan (or lack thereof - today it was reported that the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has no idea what Ottawa's plan is; they've been kept in the dark. Transparency much, Mr. Trudeau?).

My response will reiterate that I'm not blind to the desperate innocents fleeing terror but I'm also not tone deaf to current events and how we could easily see a repeat of Paris 13/11/2015 here in Canada if unvetted hordes are dropped in overnight.

And then I'll get the usual, "I'm not into politics, just into humanity." Or something like that (from those, ironically, who seemed to be very much into politics when advocating for "anyone but Harper" during the fall election campaign but have returned to their regular apolitical social media activity - oh, except for this).

You who want to link arms and sing "kumbayah" while hugging the newly arrived masses among us don't realize that you, too, would be in the crosshairs of any terrorist's weapon; you, too, would be blown to pink mist in any suicide bombing; you, too, would be held hostage in any such situation. You could wave your peace sign all you want - but you would end up as dead as the rest of us who oppose terrorists on our shores.

You, too, are an infidel.

We all are. And my fear is not of some innocents needing refuge; it's of the murderous monsters injecting themselves among those innocents with the express plan to come here and cause as much harm, pain, and murder as they can.

So here's my proposal: don't accuse me of hatred, bigotry, racism (which is silly, as Syrians are not a race), or inhumanity. Don't question my compassion, my desire for peace, or my deep-seated quest for truth.

If you question me about my concern, be prepared to discuss the politics. Painting some utopian dream of rainbows, unicorns, and lollipops where we all live in peace and harmony and no one hates anyone is not going to win points. It's going to win bemused head-shaking acknowledgment of head-in-the-sand syndrome that is rampant these days.

I have no problem talking about my concerns but being accused of that which has no merit is what the liberal left does well; thing is, the conservative right does Truth better than wild accusations, and Truth wins every time.

It isn't "Love or Nothing". It's calm, careful, judicious awareness of a potentially deadly situation that won't go away once it's here. It won't be easily caught, and we can't deal with it once they're settled; if they're here, they're our problem, and if you don't own that, you are expecting that which no one can deliver.

I'm happy to accept responsibility for good old-fashioned Canadian values of open doors and respect. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of reckless open doors and blind, one-way respect; because the people who could well be waiting for their Canadian welcome won't respect you.

Even if you call for their "right" to be here.


Thursday, November 12, 2015

I Fought The Law And *I* Won

 

I recently got a ticket. It was March 17, 2015 (I remember the date well, it was a dear friend's birthday), and I was on the way to pick up my kid from school.

What Happened:

I was approaching a school zone, so I knew the speed limit was lower (30km), and had slowed down. I stopped at the corner where the stop sign was, but because there was a massive snow bank on the lawn just beyond the stop sign, I then inched forward to ensure that I was safe to cross.

There were no other cars, so I proceeded to drive on. As I was halfway through the intersection, I looked to my right. There was a police car parked halfway down the block, and he began to drive when he saw me. (I think he believed my looking directly at him was a sign of guilt - but some people do check all directions as they are crossing an intersection)

I saw his lights behind me, pulled over, and could not believe he was citing me.

When he came to my window, he informed me that I had not made my complete stop. I was adamant in my own defense.

I told him, "Look, you're going to do whatever you will do, but I know I made my stop, because I always stop at the stop signs."

He said, "Maybe you usually do, but you didn't this time."

(I didn't cry - once, some years back and very stressed at the time, I did, and the officer let me off with a verbal warning. )

He wrote out the ticket - $162 and 3 demerit points - and when he handed it to me, he told me I had 30 days to pay or contest it.

That gave me an idea. I had never contested a ticket before because the few I've received (5, maybe 6 in all my years of driving) have been for speeding, and I owned up to it.

I've never been stopped for a stop sign violation, and in fact, people who don't stop are one of my two biggest pet peeves (the other is how few people signal).

So I decided to contest the ticket. Sent in my "not guilty" plea and waited.

I got the notice in August, to appear November 10th, at 4 p.m. And though I knew I was in the right, it was the one thing I needed to get through, the one thing that hung over my head for weeks­.

My Day In Court

 

Prior to going to court, I made out a diagram. I showed the two streets - the one I was on, and the side street - as well as the directions (N, S, E, W). I also drew the stop sign, and the snow bank. As well, the police officer's location was noted.

On the diagram, I wrote out my notes - simply what happened - and took it with me, in a folder along with the notice to appear, and my original ticket stub.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I checked in with the security guard, who crossed my name off a list he had. He pointed me to Room 1.

(NB: I saw no other rooms. Room 1 is aptly named but we live in a small suburb, with a municipal court that serves various municipalities on the West Island...one courthouse, one courtroom - but well named).

He advised me to turn off my cell, which I'd done in the car. I told him I'd done so; was I thinking that by showing how compliant I am, I'd somehow gain points? Maybe karma points. But the security guard had nothing to do with my hearing. Silly me.

I entered the courtroom and another security guard took my invitation notice to appear. He handed it to a young woman sitting to the side of the witness stand, who placed it on her desk.

(NB: the witness stand is literally a stand; no seat, just a podium built into the structure of the main "stage" in the room; I'd have taken photos but something tells me A) it wasn't a good idea and B) it wouldn't have spoken well for me when it was my turn to appear)

I watched 3 cases unfold while I waited for my turn. When one woman pleaded her case (talking on her cell phone without hands-free), I listened carefully. The judge advised her that she is under no obligation to prove her innocence; the prosecution is obliged to show evidence as to the defendant's guilt.

This is not new to me, but it was slightly startling to hear what I've previously heard/read in criminal cases spoken in traffic court.

The woman was found not guilty, and when she left, I gave her a smile, which she returned.

Before the next case was called, my name was called out - I went to the front where I was handed the police officer's report. No longer do the officers have to appear in order for the defendant to argue their case. The report acts as their testimony.

While that kind of differs from the "if the cop doesn't show up, you win by default" adage, it also speaks to the advantage of the defendant, as the officer is not present to answer questions to challenge the defendant's testimony.

I took my report - which is given as it is a defendant's right to know the evidence being used in the case - and sat back down to read it.

When I read my report, the officer had claimed he had a clear view, unobstructed. Yeahrightsure. I knew differently.

But it got me nervous all over again, despite the confidence that had been instilled in me by a Pep Talk before I left.

Nevertheless, I breathed through the nervousness (and drank a lot of water - good thing I had brought a full bottle) and when it was my turn, I walked confidently up to the podium.

My Turn On The Stand





I was sworn in (no Bible, just raised hand) and instead of Cell Phone Woman's "I absolutely do!" vehemence, I simply and quietly answered, "I do." - and the judge read the report handed to him by the prosecutor.

He then looked at me and said, "Ms. Albert, what happened?"

I calmly (I think) went through my side of things. I added that I always make my stops, that I set an example for my kids and that my son is a new driver for whom I was being extra demonstrative in law-abiding behavior. I even mentioned that I have no stop-sign violations on my record, which has very few traffic violations in my 30+ years of driving. I had listened to the others testify in their own defense, and anecdotal/character points such as these were common.

But I did not ramble on. I made my points, told my side, and stopped when the facts were said.

When I was done - and I had indicated my diagram - the prosecutor asked me the following questions:

"Can you describe how you stopped?"
This was easy. The Montreal Gazette had published an article before the summer began, outlining the ways in which drivers had to be careful, and described what a legal stop is. From memory (I'm blessed/cursed/blessed with a sharp memory for details), I used the exact words: "I applied my brake, and felt the car rock back onto its back wheels. I even counted to 2 or 3, before proceeding through."

"How fast were you going when you came to the stop sign?"
(I think they were fishing - this wasn't even an issue on the ticket)
I told her I was fully aware of the school zone, that my nephews had attended that school and I drive past it very often, so I was either going my 30km or slightly under, in anticipation of the stop.

"When did you first see the police officer?"
Also easy. He was parked halfway down the block (and he had indicated as much in his report; the only difference was his account stated he could see all points of the intersection clearly, and I knew otherwise). I saw him only after I had inched up, had seen that there were no other cars and was already going through the intersection. I said, "I saw him parked there, and as I looked toward his car, he began to drive toward the corner, at which point he put on his lights."

Clearly, if I only saw him as I was driving off, there's no way he saw me at the corner.

She verified that I was already driving, and I said yes, my foot was on the accelerator as I was resuming my driving.

She said to the judge, "I have no further questions." And she sat down.

The judge asked if I wanted to submit my diagram into evidence. He said "I can't use it in your case if you don't."

I said, "Oh, for sure, please!" And handed it to the prosecutor - perhaps a little more enthusiastically than I had planned. She stamped and initialed it, and handed it to the judge.

The Verdict:

 

The judge glanced at my diagram, referred to his report, and said, "Ms. Albert, this is a straightforward accounting of your side of the story, which I find credible. I find you not guilty."

(I so wish I had a video of this - now that it's over and done with, it's pretty cool, and that Moment was the best!)

(I think) I kept the huge grin from my face. I did smile, say, "Thank you, Sir," and rush to gather my purse, water bottle, folder, and book, and then out the door.

I did not keep the grin back then, though. I know I flashed it wide as I emerged into the lobby. The two security guards returned it as I thanked them and left the building.

It was an exhilarating drive home. When I got there, I recounted the entire story for my son, and then went to share the news with others on phone and text.

What Did I Learn?

  •  If you think you're in the right, stand up for yourself. The worst that can happen is that you pay the fine anyway. The best? Well, I experienced it.
  •  If you think the police are overstepping, again, stand up for yourself. There have to be checks and balances in our system, but there are none. So it's up to citizens to stand up and say, "I did not do what you said I did, and just because you have the pretty lights on top of your car does not give you the right to accuse me falsely."
  •  I respect the law enforcement in our society. From police officers on the beat, in traffic, on patrol, first responders, and the military - I actually revere those who put their lives on the line, daily, for our safety. But I do not believe all traffic violations are warranted, and I decided to do something about this one.
  •  When I am in the wrong - and I have been - I take the ticket, pay it, and do better next time. But when I am in the right - this is the result.
  •  Because there are no checks and balances other than citizens who decide to fight their tickets, there is no consequence for an officer who writes an unwarranted ticket. I wonder how much is spent in time and resources to hold traffic court for so many people who are fighting their tickets.
  •  What if the officers whose tickets were thrown out were somehow consequenced? Perhaps they should pay a percentage of the ticket fine into a charity. I know there are police officers who write tickets to meet monthly quotas; in fact, just 4 days before I was ticketed, there was a news story here in Montreal stating that some officers were doing just that. 
  • If that's the case, and police officers had thrown-out cases added to their records so that they were identified as "over-ticketing", or "ticket-happy", perhaps there would be fewer traffic tickets handed out and we could all save a little time, money, and stress.
  • I can't imagine the prosecutor - or judge - finds the work very stimulating. But I commend them for their respectful and thorough handling of my case, and those I saw before me.

I must say, all month, I was dreading the 10th of November, 4 p.m.; I was nervous, and even though my worst-case scenario (mentioned above) was nothing frightening, it's still nerve-wracking to go before a judge, not knowing what the proceedings are like or what to expect, and thinking that the officer who wrote the ticket might be there to face in person.

After the verdict, I was not only exhilarated, I was really quite proud: I did something that did take some courage, and I followed through to its (happy) ending.

Now, it's smooth sailing through November; the Day Of Court is over, it was successful, and I am not only sitting with all my demerit points intact, but with almost $200 that did NOT have to be spent in this pre-holiday month.

Time to go price the iPad I want...


Wednesday, October 14, 2015

My Facebook Acquaintances Frighten Me





There are some of you who will read this who actually frighten me.

Not many things frighten me. Bugs do. Spiders. Bees terrify me. Thunderstorms are a fear I've never conquered.

But you frighten me most of all.

Because your anti-Stephen Harper hatred has the ability to throw this country I love into chaos and turmoil.

For you, voting is about exercising your right to hate, not your right to change things.

How do I know that? You've basically said it.

"Vote anyone but Harper this election" - how ignorant a comment that is! There are many, many candidates in this election. You may not live in Quebec, but if you did, would voting Bloc Qu├ębecois suit your needs as long as it brought down the Conservatives? Would breaking up the country be fine as long as Stephen Harper were voted out?

See why that's frightening?

What about the Communist Party? Is that okay to vote, because it's "anyone but Harper"? Would living under State-mandated law be fine because it's not Conservative?

Would you be happy with families relegated to only one child because the rule of their dictator states that?

Or being thrown in prison for just wearing the wrong color? Or being interrogated for no reason whatsoever?

(I know, some of you will throw Law C-51 at me, with the accusations that the law allows that kind of thing - my suggestion to you is GET INFORMED)

There are many movements this election calling for the cutesy "ABC" - Anyone But Conservative.

But very few of them know why. Or what the "A" will mean.

Change for its own sake, with absolutely no concrete knowledge of what the change may be or how it may affect this country, is all people keep pushing. With no understanding of the underlying, massive consequences of change.

And that danger, that ignorance, that HATRED without a concrete reason...

That's why you frighten me.

There are many of you who spew the rhetoric. And I've challenged many on Facebook to come out and debate it with me. You want to talk about "how Harper has screwed up Canada"? Then bring a gun to a gun fight, not a rubber spatula.

Spewing talking points, vague nonsense and pure hatred is exactly what negative people do.

But I find VERY few of you who stand FOR something.

And that's not only frightening, that is a tragic state of affairs.

You aren't standing up for the leader you believe in - you're standing against a Leader you don't like personally.

Shallow much?

I'm reminded of a great Statesman, Alexander Hamilton:

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

And those of you to whom I'm referring are not standing for anything; you are falling for everything.


Justin Trudeau is not ready. And while that's been said, his gaffes have proven that over and over. Add to that the fact that he supports the disastrous Iran deal struck by the USA, as a Jew I am flabbergasted and repulsed. As world citizens, we should ALL be outraged by the implications.

His latest "promise" is to "tell Putin off to his face" - not only is that utterly laughable, he ridiculed Stephen Harper for doing the same thing. Only when Harper did it (telling Putin he would shake hands but that the latter has to get out of Ukraine), he did it the way gentlemen with principles do.

Running the country at a deficit for 3 years - promising to do so - as well as scoffing at the tax cuts Stephen Harper put in place for families - shows that Trudeau (living his silver-spooned lavish life) doesn't have Canada's best interests at heart.

NDP's Tom Mulcair is as socialist as they come; the NDP has always been a socialist party, but Mulcair has ratcheted that up with promises to rescind the tax cuts, raise taxes exorbitantly high, and spend, spend, spend. In order to spend, he has to have the money and the only way to do that is to tax Canadians till it hurts.

He also refuses to name Islamic extremism - especially in the face of last year's attacks on Canada by two radicalized terrorists.

Another blind, ill-equipped big spender of our money.

 

But no one has come up with good reasons to support these candidates. I, on the other hand, have spent the past year offering proof of Stephen Harper's track record when it comes to the interests of Canadians.  And will gladly offer it again.

I find many of his detractors don't have families - so the family income splitting, child tax benefits, family leave benefits don't resonate with them.

Some of his haters don't work at regular jobs, so they not only don't care about the paycheck taxes Trudeau is promising, they WANT the social programs to keep them afloat. Free stuff!

I just find it discouraging that those who are denouncing Harper are promoting no one but this vague "change" and "Anyone Else" they seem to feel is the answer. I find it discouraging that people whose priorities year round are food pictures, animal photos, celebrities and travelogues suddenly find a political voice - and it is used to say nothing positive, only negative. Nothing pro. Just anti.

Those of you who stand for nothing are falling for anything.

And it makes me sad to see how gullible Canadians are. We've seen the destruction of America across the border due to the promises of Empty Suit Obama. I pray we don't end up with the same kind of turmoil here due to low-informed haters voting in the wrong party come next Monday.