Conservatives find hatred for debt easier to swallow when it’s The Left who is creating the debt. Because it fits into their spiel that “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.

But when conservative governments create most of the debt, conservative voters just ignore it.

Conservative voters ignore the fact that conservative governments have no idea how to balance a budget.

Conservative voters ignore the fact that it’s impossible for conservative governments to balance a budget when they promise to lower taxes.

Conservative voters ignore the fact that when they want conservative governments to run the country like a business, it just means taking out massive loans and hope you can turn a profit before the bank demands it paid in full.

Conservative governments manage the budget like the homeowner who racks up their credit cards, and when they’re all used up, takes their most expensive possessions to the pawn shop to hawk them, then says they’ve balanced their household budget because they got a wad of cash.

If they were interested in balanced budgets, they’d be fine with increasing revenue (through taxation, resource royalties, crown corporation profits, etc). But they’re not. They want lower taxes, lower royalty rates, and fewer publicly-owned corporations.

They want to reduce revenue as a solution to balancing budgets, which makes no sense. They claim that “finding efficiencies” and “cutting fat” is the key to balancing budgets, but that doesn’t work.

Let’s look at a household budget as an example. Let’s say a household spends more than it earns. They could eliminate eating out, entertainment, the second car, family trips, and so on. And maybe they’d balance the budget.

But that works only in the short term. Where does one cut when the price of groceries starts to rise? Or if the price of fuel goes up? Or a child needs braces and they have no health insurance? Or if home insurance goes up? Or the landlord raises your rent?

Finding efficiencies in a household budget is not a long-term solution because inflation leads to price increases. Eventually, you either run out of fat to cut, or you have to start cutting necessities. The child can’t get the braces. The family buys less food. The family sells their remaining vehicle. The family moves into a lower quality house.

But if this same household can increase revenue (through salary increases that match inflation, through a side business, through two incomes, etc), then no one has to make drastic cuts that affect quality of life for those in the household.

Same goes for running a government. Eventually you run out of efficiencies to find, and you have to start cutting essential services and quality of life for the citizens of your jurisdiction suffers.

Finding efficiencies is a good practice, but it can’t be the only solution. It must be paired with revenue increases.

If someone calls you a nazi sympathizer, they’re not saying you’re a nazi. They’re literally saying you sympathize with nazis, that you have sympathy for them.

Nazi sympathy can manifest in various ways.

If you think nazis should have an uncontested freedom to speak in the public sphere, you’re offering them sympathy.

If you think that their violence is just as bad as violence from the left, you’re offering them sympathy.

If you are quick to call out the left for their apparent hate and violence but have yet to call out the violence and hate of nazis, you’re offering them sympathy.

Any time you try to in any way minimize the seriousness of the radical messages of racism, nationalism, bigotry, and xenophobia of the nazis, you’re offering them sympathy.

If someone calls you a nazi sympathizer, listen. Understand what it is you’re saying that tells people you’re not fully condemning nazis.

Ottawa has seen serious speculation that it wants to expand its agreement with Washington, which would enable it to turn away asylum seekers in the thousands. This could potentially be enforceable along all points of the shared border.

What is the STCA?

Naturally, the news that seeking asylum could become even harder for refugees has raised concerns among rights groups in Canada, which have had longstanding issues with the government’s Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).

Amnesty International Secretary General Alex Neve opposes the agreement because it says people can claim refuge in only the country of their initial arrival. Therefore, those arriving in the U.S. cannot bypass it to then move to Canada.

However, the loophole that has so far lent itself to asylum-seekers is that anyone already on Canadian soil can file for it. As such, the country has witnessed an increase in irregular movement of thousands of migrants across the border through snowy fields, ditches, and other unofficial points of entry. In fact, in 2017, over 20,000 asylum-seekers were met by police, the vast majority entering via Quebec.

Neve believes the STCA should be lifted because of the U.S.’s attitude toward refugee protection, commenting that the Trump administration has been especially detrimental to the conditions for asylum-seekers.

Enforcing the widening of the agreement is a massive infringement on the rights of migrants, putting them in an even more unstable and fearful situation as they seek to look to the more understanding Canadian laws, as opposed to the harsher ones in the America. Refugees apparently suffer intimidation, detention, and deportation in the U.S., hence travel further afield to Canada.

How imminent is the expansion of the agreement?

It seems there are some mixed messages that the expansion is even being considered. Canada has denied it, asserting that turning the entire border into an official point of entry would create more difficulty and even be dangerous, motivating increased irregular border crossings.

Nevertheless, contradicting this, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says it is reviewing a request from Canada to indeed review the STAC. Canadian Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale has perhaps side-stepped the issue by claiming “no formal proposal” has been put to the U.S.

It would not be a surprise to many, as Canada has tried to get some sort of deal in place for severalyears. If STCA were amended, it would likely be more restrictive.

According to Professor Sean Rehaag at York University, the U.S. is not incentivized to expand the agreement and decrease the number of asylum seekers moving onto Canada, particularly given Trump’s harsh approach to immigration in general. The STAC was only agreed upon initially, in 2004, because the U.S. was keen to encourage further sharing of information cross-border post 9/11.

What should happen next?

Rehaag goes further to insist that expanding the STAC will not limit how many refugees arrive in Canada, but will instead force them to cross via more treacherous routes. As it was prior to 2004, many believe the STAC should be lifted to accommodate safe entry for refugees into Canada, where it can be documented and appropriate provisions can be made.

The number of asylum seekers seems to be entirely manageable, and the right way to deal with them should be by properly funding shelters for refugees and increasing staffing at points of official entry.

This guest post is written by Kate Harveston, a writer and political activist from Pennsylvania. She blogs about culture and politics, and the various ways that those elements act upon each other. For more of her work, you can follow her on Twitteror subscribe to her blog, Only Slightly Biased.

Goldman Sachs gives Canada’s housing market a one in three chance of crashing soon. At the same time, more Canadians than ever are migrating to urban areas, driving up the need for affordable housing.

It’s a trend that isn’t sustainable. The average price of a home in Canada is increasing at nearly twice the rate of the United States, but wages for Canadians are not increasing. More people and lower income in a market with rising prices is a recipe for disaster, and if Canada can’t find a solution to the problem, that’s exactly what this crisis will become.

A chain reaction

Canada is often considered to be one of the more affordable places to live when compared to other western nations that offer a comparably high standard of living. Curiously, while we usually think of a housing crisis being driven by high rental prices, Canada's is a product of drastically increasing mortgage prices.

Part of the issue is that Canadian homes aren’t being purchased with Canadian money. In urban centres like Vancouver, up to 5% of all housing purchases are being made by foreign investors. With surplus cash to spend on housing, Chinese and other foreign nationals are buying up housing at prices higher than Canadians can afford.

This influx of new buyers leads to higher average housing costs, as new developments aren’t aimed at lower-class renters, but instead at upper-class buyers. Middle-class people who might have been buyers before are being pushed out and forced into the rental market — where they in-turn displace working-class families.

The Canadian short

Adding fuel to the fire, Canadian lenders are creating a microcosm of the United State’s housing crisis by doling out sub-prime loans. In early 2017, Home Capital Group, one of Canada’s largest publicly-traded lenders, saw its stock plummet so drastically, the company was forced to take out a $2 billion line of credit.

Many middle-class families who can’t afford to take out a prime loan rely on options like Home Capital Group. When investors withdraw the backing these companies count on, it negatively impacts the prospects of middle-class Canadians to purchase a home. Once again, you have people entering the rental market and displacing would-be affordable housing renters.

Canada’s national housing strategy

The government may have lounged on this issue for some time, but Justin Trudeau and Canada’s liberal party are making an effort to right the ship. Their plan? A national housing plan that they hope will reduce homelessness in the country by 50%.

The plan centres on the development of new affordable housing units and providing financial assistance for families in danger of losing access to living quarters for economic reasons. Additionally, the plan proposes to invest in Canada’s existing affordable housing so that it can continue to provide benefits for those it was built to serve.

Under the national housing plan, 300,000 existing affordable housing units would be renovated using government funds.

Best of all, the majority of the funding needed to support this effort is already in place for Canada’s 2018 budget. About half of the $4 billion allocated to the plan between now and 2028 would come from Canada’s provinces, with the other half coming from federal government funds.

Trudeau faces pushback

In politics, there are always two sides, and the new housing plan has received criticism from many of Canada’s politicians.

Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NPD, has directed criticism at the plan for the way that it puts off spending until after the next election. He insists that this is a crisis now, and Canada should deal with it now, not wait until someone who may not share Trudeau’s conviction for providing housing to the poor arrives.

More brazen leaders are plainly critical of the plan because it discourages foreign investors who bring large amounts of money into Canada from buying.

Heated conversation is a necessary part of the political process, but nothing will improve for those who need a roof to sleep under until action is taken. Trudeau’s government has made a decision. It’s a step in the right direction, and it could be life-changing for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Alt-right groups are growing in the US and Canada, and social media outlets help to act as a platform for promoting ideologies. These people claim their movement is based on liberty and the right to free speech. However, in today’s apparently civilized society, what they’re promoting should be called what it rightfully is: racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism. The KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, and others are experiencing a revival or resurgence in sympathizers, and it would be shortsighted to exclude the Rise of Trump as partly responsible for this.

Far-right groups and individuals are associated with hate speech as they preach something that encourages divide, exclusion, and blame based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The alt-right is gaining power in both America and Canada, and media presences are giving more credence to these harmful beliefs.

Recently, I read about a far-right political activist from Canada named Lauren Southern. She’s a blonde 22-year-old who made news in my country when the Southern Poverty Law Center condemned her for hate speech and blatant white nationalism.

In the aftermath, I’ve seen people calling her the “Canadian Tomi Lahren.” Lahren is a 25-year-old conservative political commentator and TV host who is quickly becoming one of the most recognized faces in American right-wing media. While humorous to note that they resemble each other in looks, age, and political leanings, to me, it seems dangerous to muddle the two.

Who are they?

Lahren’s ascension to media fame — or infamy — is born from her willingness to make “a rightwing criticism of pop culture”, as explained by political scientist Dan Cassino. She has identified a niche market gap in the political media landscape and has remained a consistent conservative voice.

Southern, on the other hand, is recognized more for her actions — specifically, her antagonistic rally stunts. While neither women are unbiased, Southern is keener to be the creator of events in politics, as opposed to Lahren, who commentates on them.

They are both self-confessed anti-feminists. However, Lahren has been far more supportive and vocal about her belief in women empowerment and is perhaps more transparently using this argument as a convoy for garnering support within her party. She is well-known for her pro-choice abortion position as well.

In contrast, Southern’s vitriolic provocation of LGBTQ initiatives and feminist-based movements such as International Women’s Day is rapidly approaching plain misogyny.

Southern has actively campaigned against LGBTQ movements, insisting that “there are only two genders,” and in 2016 in Vancouver was attacked by a protestor at one of these rallies. Southern has made a name for herself through attending protests with counter-messages, such as in June 2015 where she brandished a sign at the Vancouver SlutWalk saying “There Is No Rape Culture in the West.”

Decidedly anti-feminist given her actions in the public realm, she also initiated “The Triggering”, which fell the day after International Women’s Day and involved Twitter users posting controversial and unthinkable remarks and content to promote free speech.

More recently, Southern incorrectly accused Syrian refugees of the Quebec City mosque shooting in January 2017. She is unapologetically anti-immigration, even going so far as organizing an identitarian group, Generation Identitaire to try and obstruct the passageway of the Aquarius, an NGO ship searching for ship-wrecked migrants. What sums her views up quite nicely is her book, Barbarians: How Baby Boomers, Immigrants and Islam Screwed My Generation.

So . . . the point?

So why does any of this matter? Here’s the thing: on a political spectrum that is growing increasingly hyper partisan and hostile, we need to be able to correctly identify who the real enemy is. I don’t like Lahren and never have. Her rhetoric spreads a rightest message that I generally disagree with. However, she is arguably not the same as someone as extremist as Southern.

To me, people like Lahren present more of an opportunity for us to try to reach some kind of center approach together. Her pro-choice stance and her noted interest in women empowerment is something that those on the left can try to work with when dealing with people who are merely conservative.

Conservative politics is not the real enemy. The alt-right movement is. It is hostile and angry, and goes far beyond discussion about fiscal policy and the way our government operates. People like Southern do not hold reasonable views. They need to be met with a wall of opposition, and it will be easier to oppose them if those of us who still have a sane and rational understanding of how a democracy works can band together — both left and right.

According to a report by KUTV, The Church has issued a statement responding to a bill on Utah’s Capitol Hill that would toughen penalties for hate crimes against “ancestry, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation”. The church doesn’t want it to pass because it thinks it shifts the balance too far away from religious liberties in favour of gays:

“The Utah Legislature achieved something extraordinary last year in arriving at legislation that protected both religious liberty rights and LGBT rights,” said church spokesman Dale Jones in a statement Wednesday afternoon which was released in response to media inquiries. “Interests from both ends of the political spectrum are attempting to alter that balance. We believe that the careful balance achieved through being fair to all should be maintained.”

I’m trying not to have a knee-jerk reaction here, but the article points out that according to the Utah Department of Public Safety, the rates of reported hate crimes are staggeringly more likely to be based on religious intolerance rather than homophobic bigotry. I’d say this is a clear case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. I just don’t get it.

On top of that, the election campaign for the 2016 American election is also underway, as candidates for party nominations debate and campaign across the United States.

And because I have so many Facebook friends in Canada and the United States, I have been seeing so much political content shared on social media. And it’s quite polarized.

The fact that a good portion of the posts are shared by friends who are Mormon means that a good portion of the posts shared laud right-wing conservatism.

Because my journey toward communism has overlapped these campaign periods has allowed me to see this attachment to conservatism in a light different from how I have seen it in the past.

I’ve come to the conclusion that despite what the conventional traditions and culture of Mormonism indicate, the scriptural doctrine of Mormonism includes far more principles of socialism and other left-leaning political ideals than it does of conservatism and other right-leaning political ideals.

Here are a few examples to illustrate my conclusion.

Personal responsibility

One thing that conservatism espouses is that each of us has a personal responsibility for our own success. If we’re not successful yet, we need to work a little harder to overcome our circumstances.

The problem with that is it completely contradicts the many scriptures that advocate helping the poor. I don’t have time to go through them all, but consider at least Matthew 19:21, when Jesus counsels the young, rich man:

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Related to this is an idea I see many of my conservative Mormon friends express: we should be careful giving to the poor because they may just use the money for drugs and alcohol. King Benjamin addressed this in Mosiah 4:17–18,22:

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—but I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. . . and if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God

Free, open markets

I have heard conservatives use the argument that the law of the harvest (see 2 Cor. 9:6 and Gal. 6:7) to justify their support of free and open markets. In fact, I had someone just this morning try to argue this point with me.

The problem with this argument is that it’s just not true. In a capitalist society, no one reaps all of what they sow unless they’re self employed. Either you reap only a portion of what you sow or you reap a portion of what others sow.

I don’t think that the law of the harvest was meant to be applied to economic theory, but if it was, clearly it would be more closely related to something far more egalitarian than capitalism.

Environmentalism

Conservatives are more likely to disagree with the commonly held belief that climate change is heavily influence by human behaviour. They are also more likely to favour economic generation over environmental conservation (it’s okay, for example to rip up tens of thousands of square kilometres of boreal forest and peat bogs to extract valuable petroleum).

While it’s true that the scriptures teach that all things were made for our use, Mormon scripture specifically teaches that that use has limits:

“Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.” (D&C 59:18–20)

Racism

One particular event has overlapped the two election campaigns, bring further light to the racist leaning of conservative policies: Syrian refugees. This crisis has brought out the worst in people, and I have been astounded at the racist and anti-Muslim rhetoric being used by people who consider themselves Christian. Their hate-filled diatribes and meme-sharing go against the foundations of pure Christianity to love all.

Even in his inaugural Sermon on the Mount, Christ was clear in his instructions for us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44). Paul echoed this sentiment throughout his epistles.

“Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.” (Rom. 12:14)

“Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.” (Rom. 12:20)

“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Rom. 14:13)

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” (Rom. 15:1)

Religion in schools

This has been particularly prominent in southern Alberta this year as some schools are debating whether to allow such things as the Lord’s Prayer in school. While support for this often falls under the freedom of religion camp, it almost always is Christian-centric. In fact, when the issue arises of other religious practices occurring in schools, the same people clamouring for respect for religious freedom fear for the eroding of Canadian (or American) values.

Joseph Smith was clear that government should not favour one religion over others:

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9)

Marriage equality

While there are Mormons who support marriage equality, you will be far more able to find one who opposes it. One need only read up on Prop 8 in California to see the level of involvement of Mormons and—to some degree—the LDS Church.

However, even Joseph Smith stated that our religious beliefs should not infringe on the rights of others:

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others” (D&C 134:4)

And if a supreme court should rule that all people have the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, we should not infringe upon those rights.

As I said, these are only a few examples. There are far more examples. Christianity, at its core, is about helping each other, not taking advantage of them (whether economically, socially, or any other way). Early Christians lived in societies where they had no poor, all things were common, and everyone was equal (see Acts 2:44–45; 4 :32–35; and 4 Nephi), things that don’t occur in today’s capitalist societies.

What do you think? Is Mormonism compatible with conservatism?

I’m hoping to run for Lethbridge city council this fall, but I have placed a limit on myself (for various reasons): I can’t run until my Facebook page gets 3000 likes.

I don’t want to get into the reason why I chose to do it this way or why I picked 3000. Just know that a lot of research and thought went into this.

Nomination day for Lethbridge city council candidates is 23 September 2013, so to be safe, I’d like my Facebook page to get 3,000 likes by 22 September.

Earlier today, my page passed a milestone: it had more total likes than any current candidate Facebook page. Things can only go forward from here.

I am only at 330 likes, so I pretty much still have 90% of my likes to go. Please like my page. Once you’ve liked it, please share it on your Facebook wall.

Thanks in advance for all your work.

When I heard rumours of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints financial involvement to pass Proposition 8, last November’s ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California, I assumed they were lies spread because of malice toward the institution. Though I felt repulsed by the Church’s aggressive position, I thought it acted within its rights to encourage members in voting to strip away the rights of same-sex couples.

I also thought that the church was wise enough to respect the separation of church and state and refrain from actively funding the campaign. It turns out, I was wrong.

In a campaign filing, amid an investigation by Fair Political Practices Commission—a California state campaign watchdog agency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has revealed it spent nearly $190,000 since September to help pass Proposition 8.

While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign—some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million—the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity.

But in the filing made Friday [January 30, 2009], the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time”—hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.

For all the crying about how the church has been unjustifiably targeted it’s incredible that it would have opened itself up to such a huge legal blunder and a public relations nightmare. I don’t know what the implications for class action suits by the 18,000 people who had their marriages annulled by the passing of Proposition 8 might be, but I hope it is a wake up call to those that think the church is legitimate in the way it went about robbing the rights of same-sex couples.

Correction: It turns out I was just a little confused about the implications of this report. As pointed out by JKS the filing was posted on time and the church did not break any laws with its involvement in Prop 8.

To be clear, all same-sex marriage rights were stripped using legal means.

Update: According to a few sources, it looks like, the Church has been convicted of 13 counts of late campaign reporting.