blackbird

You think using blasphemy proves anything? You need to be born again and repent. The King James Bible New Testament will tell you how to be born again. Are you heading for hell? Read the King James Bible and find out. You haven't given any explanation of how other countries have transitioned away from fossil fuels (if they even have) which is doubtful. More likely a made-up claim.

You are correct. Vancouver Island is a haven for tree huggers and environmental radicals... Eby has gone crazy against a proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to the BC north coast at Prince Rupert. Premier Eby is so far into the extremist camp that the fed gov't doesn't want to even talk to him about a pipeline to the BC north coast. He is being left out because the feds and other provinces know it would be a useless conversation.

Nobody has explained exactly how it could be done. Any new energy source has to have an economic plan in it to give people good-paying jobs. That is the problem. Where does the money come from to make any "transition" financially viable? Nobody is going to invest in any new industry unless they can make a profit. Unless there is a profit in doing something, nobody will touch it.

China's CO2 emissions have gone up in the past ten years and they have the highest emission level of any country at just over 30% of world emissions. They did drop their emissions slightly in the past year by about 1%. But it remains to be seen whether that will continue to drop. They have some of the worst air polluted cities. Fossil fuels is a vital resource for the eight billion people on earth and will continue into the foreseeable future. As I explained, in order to transition to something else, certain requirements would have to be met. There is no pathway to transition. In any transition, the population still need good-paying jobs to support their families, build homes, buy cars, etc. Our economy is highly dependent on fossil fuels and unless their is an economic way to support people, there won't be any transition. Some richer people do buy EVs but that is not going to create a transition for many reasons. What renewables are you speaking about? There is nothing that can provide a means to transition. In order for a country to switch to some other energy source, there has to be a good financial means to change. The billions of people cannot be just cut off their fuel and all the goods require oil to be manufactured. There is no means to transition. All this talk of stopping fossil fuel use is just imaginary nonsense by environmental radicals. There is no way to change to something else. First there is no real viable alternative that could replace fossil fuels. Nuclear power is extremely complex and expensive and can only provide a certain type of energy in a certain type of scenario. It is not going to replace the hundreds of millions of motor vehicles. The cost of EVs is still very high and taxpayers cannot pay for other people's EVs. That is not fair or reasonable. People are just trying to make a living. We don't need or want government to take more money to spread around. We've had enough under Trudeau. Now we are deep in debt that must be paid for. Thank Trudeau for that mess. Wishful thinking is not going to eliminate fossil fuels. The demand will continue and Canada should realize we can't rely on trade with the U.S. We should be selling our oil to the rest of the world instead of 90% to the U.S. Oil exports create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in royalties and tax revenue for the country. That's irreplaceable.

Climate alway changed and always will. Man only contrbutes a very small percentage of CO2. So that's one reason man is not the cause of climate change.

Still, Canada is billions of dollars in debt now. So where would the vast amounts of money come from to build these reactors? How would the reactors power gas/diesel vehicles we have now? What about the trains, trucks, ships, etc. What would power them? The world runs on money. That is what feeds everyone and provides shelter, transportation and everything else. Everything must be geared to money and income. That's the reallity of the world.

That is just a claim with no real proof that man is the cause. But that claim does nothing to explain how mankind could change from fossil fuels to something else. I explained that there would have to be something that could support life in a transition. It would have to be profitable enough to support such a change. Theoretical ideas won't pay for anything. There has to be a financially viable process to change or there can be no change from fossil fuels. As an example, suppose a town wanted to stop using fossil fuels. OK, what would they use instead? Where is the money going to come from to pay for an alternative power source? What about the jobs the people have? Will they lose their jobs? Who is going to pay for all that?

If you stop people from being born, who would pay for your old age pension and fill all the jobs to keep society and life going? That's no solution. Sure, tell us how it can be done. What does science have to do with it? You are talking about changing the world from the use of fossil fuels to something else, but have nothing to offer and no explanation of how it could happen and provide the same financial support to everyone. For example, if someone suggests, bring in nuclear power . How is that going to be paid for? What will it replace? Will it really make any difference if millions of people still need their cars, trucks, ships, planes, etc. etc.? No there is no plan. Idealism that are light on details and have no plan won't do anything. As I said, every change must have the ability to support people financially and provide all the necessities of life in the transition process. Nobody has figured out how such a thing would be possible. That's why it won't happen.

As I said before, you simply don't understand the world. A percentage of EVs in one country is not going to change the world. There are 8 billion people in the world that depend on fossil fuels for everything. Nobody is going to spend money for something they don't need when they barely make ends meet now. Millions of people use gas or oil vehicles and that will be the case for the foreseeable future. Then there are ships, aircraft, trains, and farm machinery. There is no major change on the horizon. only dreamers like yourself who think it can be changed magically.

That's not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future because the whole world is built on fossil fuels. Any change would require an economically viable transition that was profitable and economic at the same time as a transition. Who would pay for the alternative? Someone has to pay for anything new. Therefore it has to have a user who would pay for it. It has to be profitable and most of the world is just scraping by on what we have now. It is easy to sit in your comfortable chair and wave your magic wand and say change the world, but there is no mechanism to make such a change happen. Billions of people depend on the existing fossil fuel infrastructure. I see no way it could be changed.

Why do you not understand such a simple thing? There is no alternative to fossil fuels. They are used for almost everything that sustains life on earth. Around 8 billion people on the planet depend on it. There is nothing else that can just appear out of nowhere to replace oil for example. Everything has to be economically viable and be capable of doing what fossil fuels do for every facet of life. Nothing else exists that can do that. Any alternative will go nowhere unless it is economically viable and nothing has been found to do that. However, if you want to join the protests against the basics of life to make noise go for it. Meanwhile, while the enviro dreamers in Canuckistan and the Europe Union sit in their comfortable armchairs pontificating about how the world should get rid of fossil fuels, the rest of world will continue as it is using fossil fuels and oil for everything and could care less what anybody else thinks.

Much to the dismay of the European Union and some other radical climate change warrior countries, the COP30 summit did not mention phasing out fossil fuels. This is a small step of sanity, but it does not end the world's obsession for a war on climate change madness. That should be a small if temporary relief. We have had enough of the Liberal/NDP war on climate change which has cost Canadians billions of dollars and hurt our standard of living. The war on climate change under the Liberals/NDP helped increase the cost of everything and left society with poorer health care, less housing, etc. The energy industry has been greatly harmed, no more pipelines law, energy caps, carbon taxes, tanker ban, etc. have massively reduced the amount of revenue for the government and increased the federal deficit to around 70 billions dollars, not to mention the increased costs of living for everyone. If they had decided to put phasing out fossil fuels in their final statement, what would the world replace it with? There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are used for almost everything. Hundreds of millions of vehicles, ships, planes, homes, manufactured goods, and almost everything we have depends on fossil fuels. Life on earth depends on it. It is very naive to think mankind can just phase out something like fossil fuels. It is like saying let's phase out the air we breath. Totally insane.

I love oil and we need to extract and ship as much as possible. Make Canada prosperous again.

Put them in forced labour camps up north and make them support themselves.

You hit the nail on the head. We have Marxist liberal governments in Canada.

Exactly, and B.C. has I think the highest percentage of tree huggers, street people living in tents, NDPers, and ordinary families that will never be able to afford a home. I think Vancouver and Victoria are the most expensive cities to live in North America. We badly need good-paying jobs and industries in the resource sector. The Trump tariffs are killing many jobs in the forestry industry in the interior. We need action, not government blocking every potential resource industry.

The BC NDP has driven the province into a deep deficit. The expected BC deficit for the 2025-2026 fiscal years is 11.6 billion dollars. Yet the BC NDP opposes oil pipelines and oil drilling. This article says there is billions of dollars worth of oil under the sea off the BC north coast that is not being developed. Why is Newfoundland drilling for oil in the Atlantic ocean, but B.C. does not off the west coast? This news article from Oct. 23, 2012. " A high-profile conservative think tank says B.C. could make billions of dollars if the ban on oil exploration off the province’s coast was lifted. The Fraser institute issued a report Monday, calling for a suspension of the 40-year-old federal moratorium on West Coast offshore drilling. The report says that big rigs like those off Newfoundland and Labrador could bring in $9.6 billion for B.C. over the next 25 years. "Because we waited, we're in the enviable position that we can learn from successful regulatory regimes, like the one in Newfoundland, the United Kingdom," said Joel Wood, a Fraser Institute Senior Research Economist. The Geological Survey of Canada estimates there are enormous reserves below Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound off B.C.’s north coast, the report said. The report acknowledges that offshore drilling comes with huge environmental risks. Spill reverses financial outcome If there was a major spill, like the BP oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the financial result reverses and becomes a loss of nearly $9 billion. However, the Fraser Institute report says that outcome is unlikely, given the track record of offshore rigs in other jurisdictions. "The benefits outweigh the costs," Wood said. "And a majority of the benefits flow to the provincial and federal government." The federal moratorium is not written into law, but has been federal policy since 1972. The Fraser Institute says if the West Coast was opened to oil drilling a major spill would be unlikely. (Getty Images) A decade ago, the B.C. Liberal government was asking Ottawa to lift the ban, but not anymore. The current government of Premier Christy Clark says her government isn't pushing for any offshore oil exploration, despite a call by one of her MLA’s to revisit the idea. Nechako Lakes Liberal MLA John Rustad recently posted an argument on Facebook in favour of offshore oil extraction, saying it was the only way B.C. would get out of debt. Some environmentalists think those calling for an end to the moratorium have underestimated both the chances of a major spill and its real costs. "There's also no attempt in this report to value things like a healthy population of wild whales or the diversity of life that exists in the Queen Charlotte [and] Hecate Strait area," said Karen Wristen, of the Living Oceans Society. Any decision to open up the West Coast to oil exploration is likely to be very controversial in B.C. On Monday thousands marched on the B.C. legislature to protest plans to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast, because of widespread concerns about the risk of an oil spill. Organizers say more protests are planned around the province on Wednesday. unquote Offshore oil worth $9.6B to B.C. says Fraser Institute | CBC News This is another resource that could create jobs and revenue for BC and Canada if it were pursued. But sadly as Canada sinks further into debt, it is intent on shooting itself in the foot. Unfortunately, the BC NDP is strongly influenced by a relatively small number of environmentalists who are backed by powerful and influential environmental organizations and U.S. billionaire environmentalist money. Even some hollywood movie stars have fought against some resource development in Canada. After all, parts of Canada are used for the rich elite to vacation and fish. Also influenced by FNs activists. But the main obstacle is the leftist BC NDP and now leftist federal liberals who are busy fighting climate change and could care less about debt as we've seen. The following article gives a clue where some of the foreign money originates from to fund environmental organizations. Besides opposing the energy industry, they also oppose logging under the pretext they are fighting to save old growth forests. 10 Billionaires Stepping Up to Fight Climate Change

Why are American oil tankers allowed to travel through Hecate Strait off the BC north coast? " Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s baseless denial that oil tankers will ever navigate the B.C. north coast completely ignores the decades of safe shipping in the area, a reality made even more secure by modern navigation technology. Green Party MP Elizabeth May warned reporters on Wednesday against the possibility of oil tankers navigating Hecate Strait, citing its dangerous conditions to justify a controversial “tanker ban” in the area. “The inner waters between Haida Gwaii and the coast of Canada is something called the Hecate Strait,” May told reporters. “You should look it up.” A brief search would show that Hecate Strait, a critical maritime passageway between Haida Gwaii and the mainland of British Columbia, has been a route for various types of maritime traffic—including oil tankers—for centuries. “The water that flows through the sea has waves and currents that are extraordinary,” May further claimed. “They sometimes go down so low that they expose the ocean floor. That is why there has been a tanker moratorium on our North Coast.” While the Hecate Strait is indeed known for being a dangerous body of water due to severe weather, strong winds, and rough waves, especially during winter storms, this claim is false and misleading and modern seafaring in the area is frequently conducted safely. Indigenous peoples, particularly the Haida, Tsimshian, and Nisga’a nations, have also long navigated the Hecate Strait as part of their extensive maritime networks using canoes. The Haida, for instance, used it as a key navigational body of water, often relied upon when raiding coastal areas to capture slaves. The arrival of European explorers in the late 18th century, such as Jacinto Caamaño and George Vancouver, further demonstrates the strait’s navigability. These early mariners charted the area despite its challenges, paving the way for fur trade routes and later commercial shipping. You won’t find stories like this in legacy media. Become a Juno News premium subscriber today to support bold, fearless independent journalism. Subscribe As for the “tanker moratorium on our North Coast,” May’s comments, again, do not tell the full story. The so-called “moratorium,” initially established as a “commitment” by the Pierre Trudeau government in 1972, was extended to include offshore oil and gas activities but has never been an absolute ban on all maritime traffic. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, enacted more recently, specifically targets crude and persistent oil shipments, but only those exceeding 12,500 metric tonnes, allowing smaller vessels to continue operations and navigate the strait. May’s comment that Hecate Strait is “the most dangerous body of water on the Canadian coastline, according to the government of Canada,” is also inaccurate. True North could find no direct evidence that “the Canadian government,” specifically Environment Canada, has officially stated that the Hecate Strait is “the most dangerous body of water on the Canadian coastline.” While secondary sources, such as articles by paddling enthusiast magazine writers and environmental reports, have described it as highly hazardous, these claims are not directly attributed to an official government ranking or document. True North reached out to the Green Party for clarification on the source for May’s claim, but our calls were not returned. Despite May’s warnings about the dangers posed by the strait’s conditions, historical records and current maritime operations indicate that oil tankers have safely navigated, and continue to navigate, these waters for decades, particularly those associated with the transportation of crude oil from Alaska to U.S. refineries. Contrary to May’s claims, those tankers continue to operate and are often considered a crucial energy lifeline to those living in coastal communities. While no major nautical disasters involving oil tankers have resulted in significant spills directly in Hecate Strait, the broader British Columbia north coast region has experienced a few incidents and “near-misses” with petroleum vessels. Most recently, an American articulated tug-barge, the Jake Shearer, which transports fuel, separated from its fully loaded 80,000-barrel fuel barge during stormy weather in Hecate Strait, about 25 nautical miles southwest of Bella Bella. The barge drifted for several hours before being reconnected, but no grounding occurred, and no oil was spilled." Elizabeth May’s claims on B.C.’s north coast ignores centuries of maritime history

quote Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s baseless denial that oil tankers will ever navigate the B.C. north coast completely ignores the decades of safe shipping in the area, a reality made even more secure by modern navigation technology. Green Party MP Elizabeth May warned reporters on Wednesday against the possibility of oil tankers navigating Hecate Strait, citing its dangerous conditions to justify a controversial “tanker ban” in the area. “The inner waters between Haida Gwaii and the coast of Canada is something called the Hecate Strait,” May told reporters. “You should look it up.” A brief search would show that Hecate Strait, a critical maritime passageway between Haida Gwaii and the mainland of British Columbia, has been a route for various types of maritime traffic—including oil tankers—for centuries. “The water that flows through the sea has waves and currents that are extraordinary,” May further claimed. “They sometimes go down so low that they expose the ocean floor. That is why there has been a tanker moratorium on our North Coast.” While the Hecate Strait is indeed known for being a dangerous body of water due to severe weather, strong winds, and rough waves, especially during winter storms, this claim is false and misleading and modern seafaring in the area is frequently conducted safely. Indigenous peoples, particularly the Haida, Tsimshian, and Nisga’a nations, have also long navigated the Hecate Strait as part of their extensive maritime networks using canoes. The Haida, for instance, used it as a key navigational body of water, often relied upon when raiding coastal areas to capture slaves. The arrival of European explorers in the late 18th century, such as Jacinto Caamaño and George Vancouver, further demonstrates the strait’s navigability. These early mariners charted the area despite its challenges, paving the way for fur trade routes and later commercial shipping. You won’t find stories like this in legacy media. Become a Juno News premium subscriber today to support bold, fearless independent journalism. Subscribe As for the “tanker moratorium on our North Coast,” May’s comments, again, do not tell the full story. The so-called “moratorium,” initially established as a “commitment” by the Pierre Trudeau government in 1972, was extended to include offshore oil and gas activities but has never been an absolute ban on all maritime traffic. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, enacted more recently, specifically targets crude and persistent oil shipments, but only those exceeding 12,500 metric tonnes, allowing smaller vessels to continue operations and navigate the strait. May’s comment that Hecate Strait is “the most dangerous body of water on the Canadian coastline, according to the government of Canada,” is also inaccurate. True North could find no direct evidence that “the Canadian government,” specifically Environment Canada, has officially stated that the Hecate Strait is “the most dangerous body of water on the Canadian coastline.” While secondary sources, such as articles by paddling enthusiast magazine writers and environmental reports, have described it as highly hazardous, these claims are not directly attributed to an official government ranking or document. True North reached out to the Green Party for clarification on the source for May’s claim, but our calls were not returned. Despite May’s warnings about the dangers posed by the strait’s conditions, historical records and current maritime operations indicate that oil tankers have safely navigated, and continue to navigate, these waters for decades, particularly those associated with the transportation of crude oil from Alaska to U.S. refineries. Contrary to May’s claims, those tankers continue to operate and are often considered a crucial energy lifeline to those living in coastal communities. While no major nautical disasters involving oil tankers have resulted in significant spills directly in Hecate Strait, the broader British Columbia north coast region has experienced a few incidents and “near-misses” with petroleum vessels. Most recently, an American articulated tug-barge, the Jake Shearer, which transports fuel, separated from its fully loaded 80,000-barrel fuel barge during stormy weather in Hecate Strait, about 25 nautical miles southwest of Bella Bella. The barge drifted for several hours before being reconnected, but no grounding occurred, and no oil was spilled. unquote Elizabeth May’s claims on B.C.’s north coast ignores centuries of maritime history I also found that some websites claim tankers do not travel through Hecate Strait. But another website says in fact American tankers do travel through Hecate Strait. So who is telling the truth? You be the judge

We see how the assaults on nurses in B.C. hospitals is getting very serious. This needs to stop. But the case of this convicted murderer is clear proof that capital punishment would definitely help to protect the safety of guards, nurses and other workers. This convicted murderer has a record of multiple hostage-takings and assaults in the prison system. Capital punishment would eliminate that problem and protect innocent guards and others. "Between 2000 and 2013, Tobaccojuice amassed a record for multiple hostage-takings and assault in the prison. Victims included other inmates, guards and a nurse. Some were injured." Long-serving inmate with history of prison hostage-takings sentenced in Nova Scotia This system of giving prison sentences to convicted murderers instead of capital punishment is putting many people in serious danger. It needs to be changed. The government needs to stop putting the rights of criminals ahead of everyone else.

" Contradictions in the Qur’an by Matt Slick December 12, 2008 7 min read The Qur’an states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22). If the Qur’an is a perfect book from Allah, then there shouldn’t be any contradictions in it. Of course, the Muslims will deny that any contradictions exist in the Qur’an, but they do. Some of the contradictions below could be debated, but some of them are clearly contradictions. A contradiction occurs when one statement on a subject excludes the possibility of another. The first one here is a good example. In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing. In 15:26, man is created from clay. Since clay is something, we have a contradiction since “nothing” excludes the possibility of “clay.” Both cannot be true. All quotes from the Qur’an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur’an online. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing? “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2). “We created man from sounding clay, from mud molded into shape, (15:26). “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (3:59). “But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35). “He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4). Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur’an? “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things,” (2:256). “And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, – that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it was best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith,” (9:3). “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” (9:5). Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” (9:29). The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses? “And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam,” (39:12). “When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee.” Allah said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then shalt thou see Me.” When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses, he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (7:143). “And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam,” (2:132). Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods? Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed,” (4:48). Also 4:116 The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed, they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: “Show us Allah in public,” but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority,” (4:153). Are Allah’s decrees changed or not? “Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers,” (6:34). “The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115). None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (2:106). When We substitute one revelation for another, – and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not,” (16:101). Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning? “We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: “I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): “Ah now! – But a little while before, was thou in rebellion! – and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!” (10:90-92). Moses said, “Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!” So, he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him,” (17:102-103). Is wine consumption good or bad? O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, –of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper,” (5:90). (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits, and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell forever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?” (47:15). Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed,” (83:22-25)." Contradictions in the Qur’an - CARM

Yes, it is a common part of culture in the world today. The ways of the world are not what God wants for his people. We have all done things in our past that we regret. Having tattoos is not a barrier to becoming a child of God and receiving eternal life. God forgives those who repent and accept his Son as their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And begin studying his written word, the King James Bible in English. Everyone is born a lost sinner until he/she is born again and saved.

False. The verse says " 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. " Leviticus 19:28 KJV The fact is was part of pagan mourning rites does not diminish from the command against marking the body today. The first verse in the chapter refer to the commands as being a part of being holy in the Lord's eyes. That never changed.

Government doesn't have the final say if the courts rule that land belongs to the natives. Government has to go to court to fight it just like anyone else. They can pass new laws, but the court can overrule the laws as was just done in Richmond, BC. Wow! You are totally deceived by leftist NDP ideology. The fact is the court just ruled over 100 property owners in Richmond, BC don't actually have legal title to their property because some native ancestors stayed there at least part of the year way back in history. This means nobody's private property is guaranteed in B.C. We are screwed unless something changes this. The Kamloops band that claimed 240 children are buried beside the residential school in Kamloops, without actually producing the bodies, also claim part or all of the city of Kamloops is their land. Hundreds of citizens of Kamloops could be losing their land. That may become the next court battle.

Elizabeth May said that there is no chance there will ever be an oil tanker up in B.C.'s north coast. Then she goes on to make false claims about the hazards of Hecate Strait. She falsely claimed the tides are 10 to 30 metres. You heard it, 10 to 30 meter tides. That is a blatant falsehood. I just googled the tides in Hecate Strait and the high tides are 6.35 metres. Then she said the bare ocean is exposed because of these tides. That would be along the shoreline, not out in the ocean of Hecate Strait where an oil tanker would travel. In fact, the depth of Hecate Strait is 140 to 240 meters. So actually the tides do not have any real bearing on ships that are out in the Hecate Strait far from the coast. What she is saying is false and not where tankers would be travelling. There is not much chance a tanker would be running aground in those depths of ocean. The width of Hecate Strait is 48 kilometers. That is a wide body of water. So what Elizabeth May is doing is fear-mongering and trying to create more political opposition to oil tankers to ship oil from Alberta to Asia and world markets via the Prince Rupert deep sea port. Oil tankers have operated in and out of the Vancouver area and through the Georgia Strait and Burrard Inlet for around 100 years with very few serious spills. The tides in Georgia Strait are 5.05 meters, not that much less than the tides in Hecate Strait on the north coast. Most spills are relatively minor. The claim that tankers travelling out of the north coast would be a major risk that would destroy the coast which covers thousands of square kilometers is a complete exaggeration and falsehood. Any spill would likely be very rare first of all and secondly, it should be able to be managed and cleaned up quite well. Extensive precautions would be taken such as there will be marine traffic control to control the exact movement of the tankers and tankers would be required to meet certain construction standards. They may even be required to be accompanied through coastal areas by large sea-going tugs. Then there are spill response ships that would be available. This would mitigate the risk of oil spills caused by running aground on the coast. All of man's life on earth entails certain risks to the environment. The idea is to mitigate those risks as much as possible, not ban humans from having the benefits of modern civilization. Here is the approximately one minute video clip of her giving her misinformation. 'No chance’ oil tanker will ever enter northern B.C. coast: Elizabeth May | Watch Currently there are a number of measures that are taken to mitigate the possibility of an oil spill caused by tankers in and out of Vancouver/Burnaby seaport. This includes the use of sea going tugs. quote An important marine safety practice for all large deep draft commercial vessels, escort tugs help minimize the risk of collision or grounding if a vessel becomes disabled for any reason. Local tug escort services support tanker transit and other large commercial ships within the Port of Vancouver per the requirements of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Outside the Port of Vancouver, tug escorts are another requirement mandated by PPA for laden vessels carrying liquids in bulk. Under current regulation, an escort tug accompanies the vessel from the jurisdictional boundaries of Vancouver Harbour until the vicinity of Race Rocks, an ecological reserve west of Victoria. When passing through Boundary Pass (East Point on Saturna Island) and Haro Straight (Brotchie Ledge), the escort tug is tethered to the ship to ensure safe passage. The tug must be able to steer and stop the ship to minimize the risk of grounding or collision if the vessel cannot function. unquote Trans Mountain - Marine Safety I think it is fair to say the same type of safety measures would be taken on the BC north coast, which Elizabeth May never mentioned at all.