The Liberal campaign has finally degenerated into a campaign of utterly false, defamatory accusations and muddy innuendo against Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.
We have this final tumultuous (for the hapless Liberal disaster-of-a-campaign) week seen Mr. Martin's political allies on the ultra-extreme left, such as, for example, the CAW's Buzz Hargrove who, along with his socialistic auto union organization, have not merely endorsed Martin's Liberals but also have backed the separatist Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. Even American anti-America moonbat extremist Michael Moore has taken it upon himself to interfere in our sovereign national affairs, refusing to keep his foul leftist mouth shut, perhaps placing himself legally into future jeopardy. With all the bizarre company Martin keeps, is it any wonder he simply cannot get it up?
Here, Martin plays the part of the angry dung-flinging simian with inexplicable, unsupported accusations such as these:
"Any parliament with Stephen Harper as prime minister is a parliament which will put a woman's right to choose in jeopardy,"
Huh? What's with his phony obsession with women's equal right to "choose"? Of course, we know he's referring to the ever-popular, critically-important-to-everyone controversial, divisive wedge issue of abortion. Sigh... Mr. Harper has already been completely clear that he will not and his government will not touch this issue, period. Yet Martin continues nevertheless to screech the phrase "women's right to choose".
Ok, Paulie, let's talk about rights when it comes to choice. You personally believe in abortion on demand? But you have in the past declared that you don't, so who are you to talk about this? You're not the person to be screaming like this about this issue at Mr. Harper, who hasn't ever flip-flopped about his own personal views like you apparently have on yours.
It seems to me that Paul Martin is obsessed with one and one issue only, abortion. He apparently believes that Canada should be a nation based on the value of ending the lives of unborn children via the tearing-out of them from the womb? Is there really such great demand for this? More often we hear of women deciding to have the baby rather than to terminate it. I don't see any evidence that abortion is a "fundamental value". What are Paul Martin's plans with respect to abortion? Does he plan to introduce and impose legislation to make abortion on demand, even in the ninth month of pregnancy, a "right"? Will he make it a law that all doctors must perform an abortion when demanded and bill Medicare for the procedure, regardless of their religious faith? Will the doctors be fired and even imprisoned in some secretly planned gulag if they refuse? Is this an example for Paul Martin's plans for Canada? I don't think people really want to go in that direction. Personally, I'm interested in prosperity, integrity, accountability and security issues, not radically extreme left-wing social reengineering and/or deconstruction of institutions.
And is that the only choice you, Paul Martin, believe a woman should have? What about women's right to choose whether to stay at home to raise her children? You are on record as planning to use their tax dollars to create state-controlled institutional daycare and refusing to offer the option of opting out with tax credit compensation. And what of the fact that under your regime it's still a crime for a woman to remove her shirt, baring her chest, exactly as men do, whenever men do and wherever men do? Where's the legislation making it an offence punishable by imprisonment to harass in any way, shape or form, a woman who happens to have her top off under the same circumstances as one cannot harass a man for the same thing? Why have the police not been ordered to protect women from this kind of harassment? Don't you see for yourself that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality regardless of sex? So much for your claimed commitment to a "woman's right to choose", Mr. Martin. You still have them arrested and prosecuted in Canada outside of Ontario. Why don't you just shut up before people catch on to your very obvious intolerance, Mr. Martin, towards women, notwithstanding (pun certainly intended) what the Charter actually, explicitly says?
Before Martin had said the above nonsense, Harper had made this statement about that sort of personal demonization:
"I don't think it's what people want to hear. I think people want to know that a government is going to lead them in a positive direction, and I also think that people know he's doing this because he can't get past the scandals and corruption,"
Harper's correct: Canadians have apparently been, by and large, shutting out the Liberal rhetorical smearage as they've heard the same old, same old bullshit coming from bizarrely ludicrous leftists such as Martin, which, after all these years, has been thoroughly debunked. The Conservatives have risen in electoral polling past the Liberals nearly everywhere in the country, including particularly in Quebec and the Maritimes, which previously had guaranteed the Liberals plenty of seats to guarantee victory. The Liberal tactics are so anachronistic yet so ingrained into their being that they cannot come up with anything else. Of course, if they had run a clean government and didn't have over thirty five ongoing criminal investigations into their conduct, they could run on such a record... but fugeddaboudit!
Martin also utters the following rhetoric:
"What's going to happen after the election? Are these social conservatives going to stay in hiding, or are they going to come out for the spring thaw? If they come out, are they going to start pressing their views, advancing their causes?"
Look who's talking. As we know, Martin and the Liberals indicated in the 2004 election, following a previous Parliamentary vote by their own caucus against the issue, that they wouldn't force same-sex matrimonial legislation on the country, that it wasn't a priority, but nevertheless, they pulled out every dirty trick in the book to impose the legislation on Canada. The vote for the Cabinet was not free. So it's the Liberals who have the hidden agenda. They artificially made SSM the number one most critical issue facing Canada. In the face of the need to beef up national security and defense following 9/11. In the face of the almost-daily handgun murders in major cities across Canada. In the face of a crumbling health-care system. In the face of declining per-capita income, with greater and greater proportions of Canadians either unemployed or underemployed and barely able to make their ever-increasingly modest ends meet, especially with the astonishingly high rates of deduction by the Liberals from their paychecks and at the cash register, etc. How, Mr. Martin, is it then most critically important to dismantle one of civilization's most sacred, fundamentally-beneficial-to-children-and-society institutions, which wasn't broken?
So we have already seen the Liberals' bizarre priorities in actual action recently. And can decide for ourselves if the Liberals' version of Canada is for us, or something better that we know will work? What's important must be made the priority, rather than the demands of various small lobby and special interest groups who enjoy a comfortable symbiotic relationship with the Liberal state apparatus wherein there's much mutual back-scratching and shady transfer of our hard-earned tax dollars going on under the table all the time.
And, what are the Liberals' plans when it comes to dealing with terrorists? With dangerous religious fanatics with explicitly declared nuclear warfare ambitions such as the leadership of Iran and also the secretive, frighteningly malevolent nuclear-armed dictatorship North Korea? Would the Liberals side with China and not get involved in military intervention to protect Taiwan from invasion and occupation by the brutally repressive communist dictatorship and rapidly militarizing "Peoples' Republic"? Would the Liberals give in to Islamic fundamentalists and allow Sharia Law to take away Canadian Muslim women's rights and expose them to grave danger from zealots who take all religious teachings literally? Would the Liberals accept Osama Bin Laden's deceptive offer of a "truce"? How do we know they wouldn't? Can we really take the dangerous chance and trust them? Their ultra-extreme left wing supporters and allies are likely to push for the popular leftist solution: give in to it all.
Of course, not all of the "left" supports the Liberals. There are still a few rational, moderate leftists who refuse to support the Liberals. Ed Broadbent is one. He's highly critical and dismissive of the Liberals as a party deserving our vote.
Plus, the Conservatives have evidence that the Liberal campaign has engaged in illegal, defamatory behavior, according to this.
In conclusion, only a complete moron or a fool can, after being enlightened as to the whole truth, now vote for the Liberals.
Update: Conservative candidate Rona Ambrose responds to Paul Martin's cowardly, infantile campaign to frighten women.
