blackbird

I know what the Bible says and know wars have been going on there for ages. You don't accept Israel's right to exist. So you don't have anything to say. You basically take the side of terrorists who are not interested in peace.

It was their land since about 2,100 B.C. or 4,100 years ago when God gave it to Abraham and his descendants, the people of Israel. Many of them were driven out of the land and scattered elsewhere at different times, but it is still their land. Aboriginals in many places claim it is their land even though it was occupied by Europeans long ago. Canada claims the whole area of Canada and it belongs to Canada now. Natives never even occupied the vast areas they claim. As a matter of fact, practically every country and nation of the world was taken by people migrating to it and taking it. So who are you to say it is not Israel's land? If anyone has a God-given title to the land more than anyone else in the world, it is Israel. You're wrong there. Millions of people accept it as God's word, and believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and are heading for an eternity in heaven. No, people don't resist it because I defend it. They resist it because of their fallen, depraved nature. They have been deceived by the evil one or their own corrupt thinking. People often don't know what God offers to them because they refuse to listen or read what God tells them in his word. This is what God's word says about it: "19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {in them: or, to them} 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so…: or, that they may be} 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1: 19-25 KJV So God has given man a certain degree of knowledge about God by his creation, but many choose to ignore it. Why would one choose to go into a lost eternity in hell when it is not that difficult to avoid it and go to heaven? That's what doesn't make sense. Nobody is forced to believe anything. It is purely an individual choice. So in a sense people choose their own destiny for eternity.

When the Jews returned to their land, Palestinians chose not to accept Israel as their government and rebelled against them instead. Hatred of Israel is ingrained in their thinking and it is taught to their children. That was a fatal mistake on their part. The land belongs to Israel whether they like it or not. God gave the people of Israel perpetual ownership. Therefore the idea that the land or even part of it could belong to another group called Palestinians is a fallacy. "1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. " Genesis 12: 1-3 KJV You don't accept what the Bible says. That is a big problem for you.

That's 40% of British Columbians that did this to us, the 40% that voted the NDP in. The BC Liberals were fairly bad as well but the biggest problem has been the BC NDP the last nine years. B.C. has attracted a large number of tree huggers, environmentalists, and NDP losers the last few decades. They come here because of the climate and scenery, but they have caused the loss of a lot of forestry jobs because of their demands to save old growth forests. The governments in Victoria have caved in to this extreme forest preservation ideology, especially the BC NDP. But the BC NDP has really given in to the natives and given away the house literally.

UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, is a dangerous document that seems to give aboriginals unlimited power of the country. Why would any politician in their right mind pass something like that? That is something I have never been able to understand. In B.C. following the adoption by the B.C. NDP government of UNDRIP, the BC NDP passed a law abbreviated DRIPA, a Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples Act. It appears the BC NDP and other MLAs never really investigated with legal experts as to what the result of this would be. Can you believe that? MLAs and government of our province just handed massive powers over to 5% of the population, the aboriginals without even doing a serious study on the consequences of such a law. Now a court has in B.C. has ruled that a large piece of the city of Richmond, occupied by private property owners and businesses, actually belongs to a native band on Vancouver Island called the Cowichan Band because some of their ancestors travelled over to that part of Richmond seasonally to stay there and fish for a while. This may have happened far back in history. But these ancestors didn't stay there and live. They came from Vancouver Island. Then in another court case in northwest B.C. a court ruled that a native band has jurisdiction of an area of land that a mining company is operating on. This has created great uncertainty for land ownership and investment in B.C. The B.C. NDP leader, Premier Eby, seems in no hurry to rectify this problem. Who knows what he has up his sleeve. Negotiations between FNs in BC and the provincial government have been kept largely secret for years. Apparently the NDP believe that the people of B.C. have no right to know what is going on. This whole mentality of the Liberals, NDP and left generally in Canada is leading us down a dangerous path, and we don't know where this is leading. The ideology of these parties seems to be that non-native Canadians are all colonials who have no rights to own land or develop natural resource industries without FN approval. This is a disaster in the making and seems to be coming to pass in a real way.

It's part of the history of the Catholic church going back around 1,500 or 1,700 years. Ireland is strong Catholic. That could have something to do with it. Like in everything, not all Catholics are anti-Semitic. There were groups who opposed Hitler and the Nazis. The book "God's First Love, Christians and Jews over two thousand years" by Friedrich Heer goes into great detail about it. He includes blaming some apostles who wrote parts of the New Testament. I wouldn't blame them. I believe most Catholics in the past 1,700 years never had access to the Bible themselves or studied it themselves. They had to accept their priest's interpretation. The Bible did not become widely available until the last few centuries. Still Catholics are required to accept their church's interpretation of it. I haven't read the book myself yet. Heer has written many great books. But I believe the Catholic church and other Christians' interpretation of the Bible in the past 2,000 years could be the cause of the anti-Semitism. I don't believe Jesus and the Apostles taught to hate the Jews. On the contrary, they taught that Christians are to love thy neighbour. This is a common teaching in the Bible. Europe became a hotbed of anti-Semitism down through the centuries. The Jews suffered a lot of persecution. We must feel sorry for them. Then the Holocaust came along under the Nazis and killed two-thirds of the Jews in Europe. They suffered horribly. We have all seen the pictures of some of the surviving Holocaust Jews which were just skeletons. Some could not even stand or swallow food or water.

Just checked one website about what the Catholic church says about it. That must be where you get your ideas. " The reason being that, in principle, the Church does not oppose tattoos. Ceremonial Law vs. Moral Law Sometimes people point to the passage in Leviticus that says, ”Do not . . . put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord” (19:28). But this verse is not binding upon Christians for the same reason that the verse “nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff” (Lev. 19:19) is not binding upon Christians. Namely, it is a part of the ceremonial law that was binding upon the Jewish people but not binding upon Christians (except for when it coincides with the moral law)." What does the Church Teach about Tattoos? | Catholic Answers Magazine I explained why it is wrong. You prefer the unbiblical church teaching as from this website above. My view is their teaching is simply to appease the hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world many of whom probably have tattoos. It is an appeasement thing and to maintain the support of the masses of people with tattoos. We know the Bible has a low status in the RCC and man's traditions are what matters. So what the Pope and church councils say is the important thing in the RCC.

Simply restating the same three assertions again does not turn them into a biblical prohibition. Why this is still circular Your reasoning is: Tattooing does not glorify God. Because it does not glorify God, it violates 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore tattooing is sinful. But the key premise—“tattooing does not glorify God”—is assumed, not demonstrated from Scripture. That is the circularity. You are not showing: that Scripture defines tattoos as “of the flesh,” that Scripture treats bodily marking as sinful, or that Paul’s “temple” argument includes neutral bodily adornment. You are simply asserting that tattoos fail your definition of glorifying God, and then using that assertion as proof. Why 1 Corinthians 6 does not do what you claim This has already been addressed multiple times, but briefly: The context of 1 Corinthians 6 is sexual immorality, not adornment. Paul is condemning sinful use of the body, not physical alteration. If “temple of the Spirit” meant “no bodily modification,” then: circumcision, medical procedures, grooming, fasting, and bodily discipline would all be condemned—which Scripture does not do. You keep reasserting the verse without engaging its context. Why your three principles still don’t prove a prohibition You listed: “Preserves the body’s natural state” “Honors God’s design” “Reflects stewardship” But Scripture never defines those principles in a way that excludes tattoos. Those principles could just as easily be used to condemn: haircuts, shaving, jewelry, makeup, corrective surgery, orthodontics, or medical tattoos. Because Scripture does not apply those principles that way. That is the decisive point—and it has already been answered repeatedly. The bottom line Repeating the same conclusion— “tattoos are worldly and don’t glorify God”— after it has already been shown not to follow from Scripture does not advance the argument. It only confirms that we are going in circles. You are still offering personal moral judgment, not biblical prohibition. And until Scripture itself applies these principles to tattoos, the conclusion remains what it has always been: The Bible does not prohibit tattoos for Christians; therefore this is a matter of conscience, not sin. Disagreement does not make something unbiblical. And repetition does not make an argument stronger. Your way of posting long, repetitious comments has no credibility. You are blinded by the Romanist way of believing only what the RCC tells you. Because Rome doesn't condemn tattooing, you think it is fine. Why would they say anything against it? Probably around a quarter of the men in the RCC have tattoos from all over Mexico, central and south America and the rest of world. Tattoos are part of making out one is a tough or macho kind of guy, i.e. manly. It is purely worldly and of the flesh.

Yes I did. I quoted to you: 1. Preserves body’s natural state. 2. Honors God’s design. 3. Reflects spiritual stewardship. Does tattooing respect these three principles? No it doesn't. "19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. " 1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV Does tattooing glorify God in your body? No, it doesn't. It is entirely of the world and the flesh.

The question as to whether it is right or wrong for a Christian (or anyone) should get tattoos is actually addressed indirectly by teachings in the Bible. The Bible does not need to specifically name something like tattoo or tattooing to teach that it is wrong. You seem to be hung up on the need to see a specific sentence condemning something. We've seen you do that continually on other topics. Your argument that there must be a specific sentence condemning tattooing is a false argument because if you read the following points, it will demonstrate something can be proven to be wrong without actually naming the specific practice. quote ① Body as God’s Temple ② Old Testament Prohibition ③ Avoiding Worldly Conformity ④ Stewardship of Resources ⑤ Focus on Inner Beauty ⑥ Avoiding Regret ⑦ Honoring God’s Image ⑧ Witness to Others ⑨ Health and Safety Risks ⑩ Seeking God’s Will Aligning Tattoos and Faith 10 Biblical Reasons Not To Get A Tattoo Each of these ten subjects is explained at the link. No use posting it all here. If you want to know you can click on the link and read them. Here is just one important reason: " Our bodies are sacred. Why does this matter? Scripture calls them temples of the Holy Spirit. Tattooing may be seen as altering God’s creation. I believe honoring our bodies means keeping them as God designed. Avoiding tattoos respects this principle. 1. Preserves body’s natural state. 2. Honors God’s design. 3. Reflects spiritual stewardship. Bible Verse: "19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. " 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20 KJV Tattoos and faith call for careful stewardship. unquote When one is born again, he receives a new nature. We are not to live in the flesh but to live in the Spirit. Have you received this new nature and walk in the Spirit? Do you have eternal life? Do you know where you are going when you leave this world?

Marxism , i.e. stealing, is contrary to God's law.

The truth is Canada is a multicultural MESS. Many of these immigrant groups do not assimilate at all into Canadian society but they bring their wars and conflicts to Canada. One example is the Sikhs who are fighting for a separate country in India called Khalistan. This has caused a lot of trouble in Canada. Remember they brought down a passenger plane by Ireland carrying many people to their death. Nobody was really held accountable for it and punished. The court cases were a disaster and if my memory is correct, CSIS destroyed much of the evidence. Now we have had endless protests by immigrants protesting for Palestinians (and Hamas). There is also a lot of anti-Semitism in Canada, especially in the cities like Toronto. Even the Canadian government is somewhat anti-Israel. A group of MPs even had the nerve to fly to Israel to poke their nose into the conflict. This is not beneficial to Canada at all. Plus now we have foreign terrorists in Canada shooting up people's businesses and homes trying to exhort millions of dollars. It is happening every week and maybe more often. I don't believe most of them are being caught either. I believe 15 foreign terror suspects were arrested, but they are claiming refugee status, which is a farce. Only in Canada could they do that.

Yes, the Canadian government has some history of anti-Semitism. From the refusal to accept a ship load of Jewish refugees trying to escape the Holocaust around WW2, to the recognition of a former Nazi in the Canadian Parliament, and recently to be one of the first countries in the world to officially recognize a so-called Palestinian state (which would carve up Israel and basically destroy it, if Israel accepted it, which they will never do).

You're trying to reason with insanity. It doesn't work.

I think you need to investigate that. One clue is the western world which is built on Judeo-Christian thinking and culture is the most civilized in the world. Compare that with the middle east, Africa and other countries in history. The God of the Bible makes it plain in his written word, that it is possible to know God and have a relationship with him. The New Testament describes how one does that. Where one spends eternity is at stake here. This is not something that should be taken lightly. Of course there are many false religions in the world. Those must be avoided at all costs. The Bible gives the truth: "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 KJV Access to God the Father is only through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is our intermediary. Once a person becomes a child of God or a son/daughter of God, everything is changed. Death is not the end; only the beginning. God said in his written revelation, the King James Bible, that without faith it is impossible to please him. That is just the way God chose things to be. He did not create robots. He created man with the free will to either believe his written revelation or reject it. But there are serious consequences for rejecting what God said to man in the Bible. Eternity is at stake here. "1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. {yet…: or, is yet spoken of} 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews Ch11: 1-6 KJV

There are many terrorists or potential terrorist in the Westbank, including Hamas. People living nearby have to defend themselves and their communities. quote More than 100 terrorists have been killed and approximately 320 wanted individuals arrested since the launch of Operation Iron Wall in the West Bank, the IDF announced on Wednesday. Over 700 terrorists have been eliminated in the northern West Bank since the start of the ongoing war. This development comes amid a significant rise in terror alerts in the West Bank, particularly in Hebron, which is considered a Hamas stronghold. unquote IDF kills 100 terrorists in West Bank, terror surges in Hebron | The Jerusalem Post

You need to read some history of the area. quote As a result of the Jewish–Roman wars in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, many Jews were killed, displaced or sold into slavery.[8][9][10][11] Following the advent of Christianity, adopted by the Greco-Roman world under the influence of the Roman Empire, the region's demographics shifted towards newfound Christians, who replaced Jews as the majority by the 4th century. Shortly after Islam was consolidated across the Arabian Peninsula under Muhammad in the 7th century, Byzantine Christian rule over Israel was superseded in the Muslim conquest of the Levant by the Rashidun Caliphate, to later be ruled by the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid caliphates, before being conquered by the Seljuks in the 1070s. Throughout the 12th and 13th centuries, the Land of Israel became the centre for religious wars between European Christian and Muslim armies as part of the Crusades, with the Kingdom of Jerusalem overrun by Saladin's Ayyubids late in the 12th century. The Crusaders expanded from their remaining outposts, then hang on to their decreasing territories for another century. In the 13th century, the Land of Israel became subject to Mongol conquest, though this was stopped by the Mamluk Sultanate, under whose rule it remained until the 16th century. The Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Empire, and the region became an Ottoman province until the early 20th century. The late 19th century saw the rise of a Jewish nationalist movement in Europe known as Zionism, as part of which aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel from the diaspora) increased. During World War I, the Sinai and Palestine campaign of the Allies led to the partition of the Ottoman Empire. Britain was granted control of the region by League of Nations mandate, known as Mandatory Palestine. The British had publicly committed to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Palestinian Arabs opposed this design, asserting their rights over the former Ottoman territories and sought to prevent Jewish immigration. As a result, Arab–Jewish tensions grew in the succeeding decades of British administration. In 1947, the UN voted for the partition of Mandate Palestine and creation of a Jewish and an Arab state on its territory. The Jews accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it. A civil war ensued, won by the Jews. In May 1948, the Israeli Declaration of Independence sparked the 1948 War in which Israel repelled the invading armies of the neighbouring states. It resulted in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and led to waves of Jewish emigration from other parts of the Middle East. Today, about 40% of the global Jewish population resides in Israel. In 1979, the Egypt–Israel peace treaty was signed, based on the Camp David Accords. In 1993, Israel signed the Oslo I Accord with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was followed by the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. In 1994, the Israel–Jordan peace treaty was signed. Despite efforts to finalize a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, the conflict continues. unquote History of Israel - Wikipedia As you can see, the Palestinians are not interested in a peaceful settlement. They want to fight on and eliminate Israel. There can be no peace with that attitude.

One matter you left out of the story. God gave Abraham and his Jewish line of descendants the land of Israel in perpetuity. "1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. " Genesis 12:1-3 KJV God did use the Jews to bring Jesus Christ into the world, which Christians celebrate this month. Jesus is God's Son and he came into the world to save lost man. Jesus is a descendent of King David, and is King of the Jews. God gave the land of Israel to the Jews as part of his great plan to mankind. That is why even though it is a tiny nation, it is central in the history of the world. "11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. " Luke 2:11-14 KJV "In Luke's Gospel, the term "City of David" primarily refers to Bethlehem, which is identified as David's hometown and the birthplace of Jesus. This identification is made in Luke 2:4-11, where it states that Joseph traveled to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David. Additionally, 2 Samuel 5:7 mentions the City of David as the fortress of Zion, which is often associated with Jerusalem. The phrase "City of David" reflects both David's royal lineage and the significance of Bethlehem in the biblical narrative, as it is where Jesus was born, fulfilling Messianic prophecies. Bible Hub+4 unquote It is amazing it was prophesied centuries before that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. "2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 KJV That was several thousand years ago. Since that time they have fought countless wars and the Roman Empire came in and scattered many of them to the rest of the world. Even though they dispersed throughout much of the world, they are the one group that maintained their Jewish ethnicity throughout those thousands of years. But they were hated by much of the rest of world wherever they went. Europe discriminated and persecuted them for the past 1,500 years. Hitler and the Nazis killed two-thirds of the Jews in Europe. Can anyone seriously blame them for wanting to escape the world's persecution and return to their homeland which God gave them? I don't think so. You would do exactly the same thing in their shoes.

You and Exflyer have a liberal cult mentality. Facts do not matter to you.

Looks like Satan has a strong grip on your mind fella. Facts are facts.

" In 2023, the Treasury Board of Canada’s program spending on diversity, equity and inclusion was roughly 100 times what it was in 2016. Public Safety Canada’s was about 40 times higher. The federal Crown prosecution service spent 20 times more. These are some of the figures that were revealed in a House of Commons report tabled in response to a question by Conservative MP Vincent Ho. Back in October, he asked all federal departments to detail their DEI program spending, DEI-related jobs and DEI contracts, along with an explanation of how they evaluate DEI performance. The results came back in the first week of December. And while they don’t paint a complete picture of how much DEI accounts for budgetary waste in the federal government, they do provide a useful outline. On program and salary spending, the report reveals a massive increase over the years of the Liberal government: modest sums in 2015 and 2016 that grow by orders of magnitude to peak around 2023. By the very end of the Trudeau government and the beginning of that of Prime Minister Mark Carney, the feds were no longer throwing record amounts of money at DEI, but they’re still shovelling it out in volumes far beyond 2015 levels. It’s like speeding: you may not be going 200 km/h anymore, but slowing down to 170 is still a problem. Aside from Treasury Board, Public Safety and the prosecution service, which all confirmed to Parliament that they did indeed spend a boatload more on DEI, Veterans Affairs Canada saw a similar hike. It went from spending nothing on such programs until 2019, when it tallied $54,000 in DEI programs. From 2022 to 2021, that figure was over $1 million each year. Transport Canada went from spending about $4,000 on such things in 2016 to $1 million in 2023. Fisheries and Oceans Canada spent only $11,000 on DEI between 2016 and 2021; but in 2024 alone, it spent $1.2 million. In 2022 it had only four full-time equivalent DEI roles — directors, managers and advisers with some nexus to inclusion. By 2024 there were 10 of these, including a new team lead and human resources officer for the department’s new Centre for Anti-Racism and Equity. Yes, the federal department responsible for calculating how many crabs we can pull from the ocean each year has an anti-racism unit. The manager is paid somewhere between $113,000 and $126,000 and their job is to support racial employee clubs and deliver initiatives that “actively confront individual and systemic racism, (respect) the Canadian Human Rights Act, (advance) racial equity, and (foster) inclusive organizational and cultural practices.” Similar positions cropped up elsewhere: at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, where DEI program spending rose from about $58,000 in 2016 to about $427,000 in 2025, a new advisor role on DEI was introduced in 2024 with a salary of about $100,000. And at Finance Canada, directors and analysts in DEI began taking roles in 2022 with salaries ranging from $113,000 to just over $200,000. And at the Department of National Defence, $100,000 was paid to each member of an anti-racism advisory panel. Often underlooked are the various regional development agencies of the federal government. Here, we can see that they, too, have enjoyed the extra DEI money from on high. The Pacific region agency paid for sessions on “Indigenous Storytelling,” “Indigenous Medicine” and “Allyship and Psychological Safety.” The Southern Ontario agency has handed out $100 million in subsidies since 2016 for entrepreneurs who are either Black, female or official language minorities. Western Canada’s agency, meanwhile, paid for anti-racism workshops from an Islamophobia-focused DEI consultant who believes that Canada’s default slate of Christian holidays perpetuates racial trauma against people of colour, and that asking someone if they condemn Hamas is an act of putting them through a psychological checkpoint which should be resisted. But what’s most telling from this report back to Parliament are its gaps. Many departments simply refused to answer Ho’s inquiry. Women and Gender Equality Canada, for example, reported that it couldn’t determine its DEI spending and job count because it was so deeply integrated into the department’s functions (in a way, that’s true; the whole thing is a DEI department and we can safely file its entire $132 million budget under that category). Other uncooperative departments? Canadian Heritage couldn’t say what its DEI program spending amounted to, even though it’s one of the strongest vanguards of the cause, nor could Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Health Canada, the Department of Justice and the federal diversity bean-counting entity, Employment and Social Development Canada. Those absences foreshadow the big job ahead of rooting DEI out of government. If civil servants can’t cobble together a list of DEI-related contracts, program spending totals and departmental jobs in a month for a simple House of Commons request, it’s going to be very difficult for the Conservative ministers who one day take office to clean it all up. The first step to making any cut is knowing what’s there to cut off. The longer civil servants can slow walk that information up to their ministers, the better for them. So, when Conservative minister X takes office in Canadian Heritage someday, he can expect to be told that DEI is simply too integrated in the department to provide him a timely inventory report. His job will be to fire whatever deputy minister the Liberals left behind, and install a replacement who doesn’t take “no” for an answer. And when that person’s Liberal-leftover underlings give those same excuses, they, too, should be replaced. The same dance should play out in every other department that has fondly embraced discrimination under the guise of DEI. There’s a lot of work ahead, but it’s doable — especially if the planning starts now. National Post Jamie Sarkonak: DEI funding exploded under Trudeau so much it can't even be counted And we wonder why Canada is so far in debt and the price of housing, food, and everything is going out of sight. Obviously the Conservatives are the only party that would start the huge task of rooting the DEI spending out of the various departments of government. The Liberals and NDP and other parties have no wish to do anything significant about fixing the problem. It would be a huge challenge, but it would be a necessary part of getting the spending under control for Canadians. After all this is taxpayer money and it effects the standard of living of all Canadians by taking more of their money for DEI government spending. I don't recall seeing news about this massive spending on the CBC or mainstream media in the past ten years.

Carney signed an MOU with Premier Smith in Alberta to in principle to work toward an oil pipeline to the coast. The Conservatives presented a motion to support the MOU, but the Liberals voted against it. So what's happening? It is clear Carney had agreed to the MOU but his whole caucus opposed it when it came down to showing where Parliament stood on it. What kind of governing is that? Sounds like a disaster. Carney doesn't control his caucus and they all opposed the MOU.

You simply don't want to admit the economy under the Liberals in the past ten years is a disaster. Young people cannot afford a home and the price of everything is rising out of sight. "Simpson noted that the generational divide continues to deepen. Younger Canadians are dealing with realities that their parents and grandparents never faced: record prices for everything from groceries to homes, stagnant wage growth relative to inflation, and the perception that they are working harder for less." BILD: Canadians want action on housing and they want it now Most Canadians are not obsessed with non-issues like vax or anti-vax, climate action BS, and other nonsense. They are concerned about the cost of living. That is what the Conservatives are mainly concerned with. Liberals created the mess in the economy and they are not going to be able to fix it.

Why should PP be gracious to a traitor? Have you ever seen Liberals be "gracious" to the Conservatives anywhere? That's just politics. Mr. Ma ran as a conservative but obviously he is no conservative. He fooled his constituents and they are probably not happy with his decision. He is purely an opportunist who saw a chance to get something from the Liberal party and jumped at it. He is not to be trusted. He is in it for himself, not the people who elected him.

Ireland appears to be a leader in opposing Israel. I was just curious why that is. Ireland is far from Israel and is on it's own island except for Northland Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom. So what is their reason for being so anti-Israel? " Ireland has been attacking Israel disproportionally since the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre. Recently, after Israel was readmitted, Ireland announced it would not participate in the 2026 annual Eurovision Song Contest as a protest against Israel’s participation. Its announcement came in concert with similar declarations from Spain, Slovenia, Iceland, and of course, the Netherlands. To all of them, I say good riddance. If you have a problem with Israel, but not so much with Hamas killers and rapists, Eurovision is not the right forum for you. If you prefer standing with a free and democratic state that is defending itself against terrorists who follow the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood, and singing alongside free nations like Israel that celebrate co-existence and venerate women’s and gay rights, then Eurovision is for you. The Irish should be aligned with the Jewish people, given their mutual connection to their homeland. Instead, Ireland has been chasing down Israel relentlessly. Preceding Ireland’s Eurovision boycott, Dublin city council attempted to vote on renaming Herzog Park, named after former Israeli president Chaim Herzog — a slap in the face to his son, Isaac Herzog, Israel’s current president. The attempted erasure of Jewish life in Ireland sparked an international outcry prompting the withdrawal of the proposal. Ireland’s Prime Minister Michael Martin opposed the idea, calling it “divisive and wrong.” Given the Herzog family’s legacy in Ireland, the country’s Chief Rabbi, Yoni Wieder, said that removing Herzog’s name would be “a shameful erasure of a central part of Irish Jewish history.” unquote Avi Benlolo: Ireland's Eurovision boycott just the latest attack on Israel