blackbird

Yes, I still am concerned. The white European founding people are a declining people in Canada. Refugees are not the same thing as immigrants. I was talking about immigrants from the third world who are growing at a faster rate and the European founding people are declining in Canada.

There is no change. You asked if am opposed to a boatload of Muslim refugees coming in. I told you I am not opposed if they are legitimate refugees such as Afghans in danger by the Taliban. That is different from mass immigration from the third world. You asked about refugees on an emergency basis and I said I support that depending on the circumstances. That is different than the Liberals plan to bring in half a million immigrants a year from the third world. I oppose that. The problem is not a small number of refugees who are trying to escape death by the Taliban; the problem is mass immigration of hundreds of thousands or half a million people a year from the third world which the Liberals are bringing in. Romanists beliefs in just getting rid of the border and allowing everyone in the world to come in. What do you think? Should we have borders and immigration restrictions or not?

Of course. Canada already allowed thousands of refugees to come to Canada, but it's record of helping them is not perfect. It seems to get tangled up in bureaucracy sometimes.

Then there is the question of why Romanist-controlled Canada refused to allow a ship of German- Jewish refugees to enter Canada and save them from the Holocaust. Just prior to the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, Ireland also refused to let German Jewish refugees and other refugees to settle there.

Here is another important fact of history that many are not aware of. The Republic of Ireland, a Romanist country, was neutral in World War II. While the allies and many Canadians gave their lives in the defence of freedom and to oppose the Nazis, Ireland was able to stand on the sidelines and do nothing. One of the leaders of Ireland said this: quote Largely forgotten outside of the British Isles, De Valera towered over Ireland like a colossus – not only did he found the Fianna Fail party and help to establish the Constitution, but he also served as prime minister and president on multiple occasions. Indeed, De Valera founded the modern Irish state, as much as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk created the modern nation of Turkey around the same time. Perhaps the most controversial episode of De Valera's epic career took place in 1945 when – in light of Ireland's neutrality and independent foreign policy during the just-completed Second World War – he, as prime minister, extended his condolences to the vanquished German people over the death of Nazi dictator and architect of the Holocaust Adolf Hitler. unquote The Irish Nationalist And The Nazi: When Eamon De Valera Paid His Respects To Adolf Hitler (ibtimes.com) Why is it heavily Romanist countries such as Italy, Spain, and Ireland seemed to be sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazis?

Romanism always was a threat to freedom and democracy. This has been the case for the past 500 years and continues to be true. Look how the Liberals cozied up to Communist China for the past 50 years. Notice how they are trying to maneuver themselves out of the spotlight about Chinese interference in Canada's elections. The Trudeaus have always had special affection for Fidel Castro and Communist dictators. Trudeau and Liberals thought they could make China become like Liberals. China laughed Trudeau off eight years ago. They must be still laughing at the naivety of Liberals.

Devout Romanists bow down to the Fascist dictator at his death. General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com)

There are mountains of evidence to show Romanism is not Christianity by any stretch. quote General Franco of Spain said: “Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.” Before World War II, there was an openly fascist political organization in Spain named Falange. The entire Catholic Youth Organization joined the Falange. General Franco’s brother in law, Serrano Suner, was the Catholic Youth secretary, and most of Robles followers also joined. The Falange employed the successful tactics of the Italian fascists and Nazis: physical violence. When the people of Spain resisted the fascist takeover, Pius XI spoke out strongly, calling everyone who was not a fascist a Bolshevik, and blessing “all those who have taken the difficult and dangerous task to defend and reinstate the honor of God and Religion.” Cardinal Pacelli became pope as Pius XII. He congratulated Franco: “With great joy we address you, dearest sons of Catholic Spain, to express our paternal congratulations for the gift of peace and victory, with which God has chosen to crown the Christian heroism of your faith and charity …. unquote General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com) But the main reason it is not Christianity is the Bible doesn't support it and if properly understood shows it is a false system.

You are very clever. You made a statement that you are on the right track about Christianity and I am on the wrong track. I asked you to give some proof and you said nothing. No response. You say you put me on ignore. Very clever. So you can say whatever you feel like without any proof or evidence. You don't have to answer any questions because you are ignoring a user you don't want to give an answer to. Very convenient. Good one Michael.

Romanism and liberalism are very closely associated. Anyone who disagrees should explain where I am wrong. It just happens that 95% of Quebec are Romanists and Quebec largely votes Liberals. So it would be hard to argue Liberalism is not Romanism. Trudeau often speaks against social conservatives claiming social conservatives want to take away a woman's "right to choose", that is, to choose to kill her unborn baby. In Romanism there are no consequences for being an immoral politician and supporting such unbiblical beliefs such as abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage, etc. The dictator of Spain, General Franco, had a lot kind words for Hitler. "“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.” General Franco: “Hitler fought for Christianity in Europe” – Banjara Origin News (ivarfjeld.com) Do you seriously want to continue to be associated with Romanism? In Mexico I think you will find organized criminals will always receive a last rites mass and the RC church will not discriminate. Romanism seems to accept any and every behavior, no questions asked.

You are grossly uninformed. Therefore I will give you this link where you can read why the Reformation took place. Your take on why the UK split and why the Reformation took place is so infantile, but I know many Catholics are told this. Their dishonesty and inability to tell the truth is just further proof of the corruption that comes out of the Romanist system. "The Reformation in Europe was caused by several factors1234. These include demands for reform by scholars like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, the invention of the printing press, the desire of many people to read the Bible in their own language, and the belief that forgiveness comes only from God. The emergence of Protestantism and the establishment of many Protestant churches, groups, and movements were some of the effects of the Reformation1. Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practice5. The Reformation was also a moral revolt against the papal grossness and corruption3." Reformation | Causes & Effects | Britannica You are free to believe whatever you wish.

LOL That is hilarious I have to admit. If you really believe that, you must be a seriously deluded Romanist. Are you a priest or retired one? I've heard that line before but it ignores the reality about the Reformation. While Henry VIII did split with Rome over the disagreement about not being given a divorce, that really had little to do with the Reformation. The split with Rome was happening in various countries in Europe regardless of Henry VIII. The Reformation started in Germany with Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest, when he nailed his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517. Nothing to do with Henry VIII and his divorce. Then there was John Knox in Scotland and John Calvin in Geneva who led the Reformation in those places. Henry VIII also was convinced Rome as a bad influence in Britain. So I believe he confiscated all Romanist monasteries. Is that true? Stop reading and believing all the Romanist propaganda of why the Reformation took place. It also led to 100 years of wars in Europe and many lost their lives. Rome did not give up its power over millions of people without a long, drawn out struggle. It brought freedom which you enjoy today. Without the Reformation, there would be no freedom now in Canada and many western countries. There would probably be no parliaments or democracy. The Jesuits tried to stop the Reformation but failed. They even tried to blow up the British parliament. "Observed in the United Kingdom every year on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day—also called Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night—commemorates a failed assassination attempt from over 400 years ago. On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes and a group of radical English Catholics tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up Parliament's House of Lords. The plot went awry and all of the conspirators were executed. Soon after, Britons began to celebrate Fawkes' demise and the survival of their king by burning effigies, lighting bonfires and setting off fireworks—a tradition which has continued to this day." Guy Fawkes Day: A Brief History | HISTORY

You are being ridiculous as usual. There is no hope for a reasonable discussion with you. Christians do not support or advocate punishing people for blasphemous speaking. You know that as well but you are just being contrary as usual.

Oh yes we can prove who is correct or on the right road. Jesus spoke about two roads if I recall correctly. The prophet Isaiah said " 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 KJV If you think you have the correct version of Christianity, please give some evidence or proof. Let's examine it honestly and see who is correct. You insist I am wrong and you are correct, but give no proof. Give us the proof that you are correct. What is your basis?

It would be so easy for these deluded Catholics to get a real Bible like the King James Bible and study the New Testament and learn why Romanism is not Christianity. But they blindly follow their religion like many people do and just won't be bothered to are too scared to find out the truth. There are also many website that will give the details about it and explain it. Instead of being a cultist and blindly following a false system to the end, maybe think for yourself for once and learn the truth. It is not that difficult to do.

That comes as no surprise. Just more evidence of how liberalism is often tied to Romanists or lapsed Catholics. You see what I mean then. Many strong liberals are Romanists and that's likely where a lot of their ideology comes from. According to their thinking, Jesus was some kind liberal or Socialist or progressive which are all wrong. The Bible does not support that liberal ideology.

I expect Romanists will downvote and disagree with my views on Romanism, but I am simply stating the facts of how I see it. If you can produce any reasoning or evidence on how I am wrong, feel free.

Depends on one's perspective. You would say that because you consider yourself a Catholic. Since it is one of the biggest religions if not the biggest in the western world, it has a massive influence on politics. Therefore it is necessary to speak about it. All these things you mention..compelled speech, censorship, etc. are all related to the Romanist - liberal ideology of authoritarianism based on humanism or man's ideas of what morality is. Romanism does not go by the Bible in general and is somewhat tied to humanist ideology.

Yes, I would ban blasphemous movies. I thought you were referring to speech. I don't believe in speech control in general. There might be some exceptions. So I would not favour laws to ban certain speech, but in certain cases I might be in favour of banning certain speech. But immoral movies should be banned. If they are called blasphemous movies so be it. But I don't believe in the Taliban, Iran, Pakistan style of blasphemy laws where one could be executed for blasphemy against Allah or the Prophet. Ask Michael yourself if you want to know. I don't care. I know he is a liberal much like yourself.

It is impossible to comment on Romanism as a political-religious system without some people feeling it is "going after Catholics". My critique is not aimed a individual Catholics. I know they are the poor deluded victims of a false religious system. So it is necessary to target the system of Romanism to shed light on the subject. When talking about the political aspect of it, it is necessary to mention those political figures who support the false religious system. Some call it the religion of Babylon. There are claims and some credible information that it formed in the 4th century from the Babylonian mystery religions. A kind of amalgamation of early Christian beliefs and the ancient Babylonian religions. I know of no other way of bringing light on the subject. I must reiterate Romanism is NOT Christianity in any shape or form. Many deluded people think it is. It uses Christian words but that does not make it Christian. Read the New Testament KJV and learn why it is not Christianity. It is a kind political religious ideology that much of the world believes, but it is not Christianity.

Where did I say I want blasphemy laws? Lying again? It never ends with you. I know you are a closet Romanist. You prove it all the time. Incidentally it was mainly Romanism that ran the residential schools and people were oppressed and lost their freedom. Anglicanism is close to Romanism and those were the two main churches that along with the Romanist federal government ran the residential schools. Had little to nothing to do with Biblical Christianity and everything to do with the authority of the Romanist political system and churches.

Most Canadians don't think religion has anything to do with politics or our system of government in Canada. They could not be more wrong. It is the religion of Romanism which is behind much of politics in Canada. This is where the U.S. differs from Canada to some degree as it was at least in the first few hundreds years more Protestant than Romanist. The U.S. was built on liberty and freedom by people who escaped the authoritarianism of Europe. Now with mass immigration from Latin America it may be leaning more toward Romanism. America never had a Romanist President until John F. Kennedy and now Joe Biden. Romanism (Popery) is one of the biggest threats to freedom of Canadians. It is a totalitarian system that in history has used any means as its disposal to enforce its will on the populations. Many if not most of our political leaders and their liberal supporters are in fact Romanists. The question is what is their main loyalty to? Is it to Rome and Romanism or to Canada and Canadians? It is a unspoken rule of Romanists never to mention religion and play it low key. But it is behind the scene as the driving force. It is what built much of the educational institutions which many Romanists attended such as both Trudeau Prime Ministers. Even the present controversial figure and former GG, David Johnston can be seen as a loyal Romanist. Google it. He led a delegation to the Vatican representing Canada when he was GG on one occasion. Johnson has now been appointed to protect the Prime Minister in a special position supposedly investigating foreign interference. But is it really a political job to protect Trudeau and Liberals? Many of our political leaders have bowed and scraped to the Popes. An example of the totalitarian nature of Romanism in history is the Holy Roman Inquisition. An internet article on mainstream news about the Spanish Inquisition makes the claim the Inquisition was directed against Jew and Muslims. This is not completely true. The Inquisition was directed against anyone who questioned Romanism. Various independent groups that formed in Europe as separate religious groups were targeted and genocide was committed against them to eliminate them. This went on for centuries. Our supposedly democratic government, while under the heavy influence of Romanism, has become more authoritarian than ever. We see that with the imposition of carbon taxes and regulations on Canadian companies and the particular attacks on the energy industry. All this is driven by ideology which the Vatican pushes. Liberals push open borders and oppose patriotism and nationalism of any kind because of the Vatican doctrines of globalism. Trudeau and liberals are strong proponents of globalism and internationalism, which are central to Vatican ideology and beliefs. We see influence of authoritarian Romanism in liberal ideology where they want to censor everyone and control freedom of speech and other things. This harkens back to the middle ages where Romanism thought they have the right to control everyone. Now with the internet under increasing regulation, it is becoming more like Orwell's 1984. That is Romanism. The only escape from this mind control is on an individual basis by reading and believing the King James Bible. Rome hates this. Even modern Bible versions have fallen to some degree under the influence of Romanism and should be rejected. Many have fallen for them. The King James Bible was on the list of forbidden books long ago. It is not approved reading by the Vatican. But it is the absolute source of truth that can deliver an individual from falling or remaining under the mental influence and control of Romanism. This also mean liberalism or liberal ideology, which is closely associated with Romanism. What exactly was the Spanish Inquisition? (msn.com)

The Indigenous children had to be removed from the backward, barbarian culture and taught how to live in white man's world. The world has been changing for centuries and something had to be done so they could survive. There were some bad consequences such as poor living conditions, but we do not know the extent of it. It may be overblown in order claim endless compensation. Funny you have not offered any solution on what could have been done instead. There was nothing else that could be done. Of course they had to learn to speak white man's language, English or French, in order to get a job and survive. Aboriginals had a different idea of work, and life and that had to be changed in order to survive. People did feel they need to help aboriginals and that was what it was all about. The reason FNs are in such a sad state is because they were not fully and properly integrated and assimilated. They cannot be fully supported by taxpayers forever. Many of them are unemployed, on alcohol and drugs, and committing suicide. It is a dire situation in many reserves. Poor housing in many places, poor water, and lack of services. The reserve idea may have been a mistake, but of course they wanted their own property where they could live and govern themselves to some degree. It has not worked very well. You can condemn helping them as "assimilation" but that was what was necessary to help them.

Nonsense. I have firsthand knowledge of the kind of thing that happened. Social services put two indigenous kids in my home for a week or so and the little girl said a man in the indigenous home where she lived, perhaps a father, or grandfather, put her hand on the stove to teach her a lesson.

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? "The sinful ways of Sodom and Gomorrah were so corrupt that God destroyed the two cities with fire sparing only the family of Lot." Why Did God Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Their Story of Sin in the Bible (christianity.com) "The Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a cautionary tale of the destructive consequences of sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities mentioned in Genesis, notorious for their flagrant sin. Genesis 18:20-21 states, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” Why did God destroy everyone on earth with the flood except Noah and his family? Hint... "6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. {both…: Heb. from man unto beast} 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. {perfect: or, upright} 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:6-12 KJV