blackbird

I sent an Email to him once and he actually sent me a reply. Very few wealthy, powerful people would answer an Email from an ordinary guy.

Black had two of the charges overturned and he was sentenced for a charge of mail fraud for which he received a three and a half year sentence. He did his time and paid for his offence. He later received a Presidential pardon. The fact is he is one of the most successful and brilliant men in the world. He built one of the largest newspaper chains in the world, Hollinder International, that owned countless newspapers. He wrote books including a History of the U.S.A. which I read. He received the Order of Canada in 1990 for his achievements. He also was made a British Lord although the Canadian Liberal government under Jean Chretien would not accept it. But that was likely because Black was a conservative and wrote conservative articles in his newspaper. The Liberals resented it and were trying to get even. That's how politics works. Black's intellectual abilities far exceed anything you ever dreamed of and his achievements far beyond anything you ever heard of. I understand your sadness because Black has no use for the evil left, liberalism and Socialism. You condemn Black for his fraud conviction, but you blatantly support evil liberalism so you are nobody to judge Black for anything. What liberal politicians have been doing for years is far worse than what Black did. What about the Sponsorship Scandal under Jean Chretien? Scammed taxpayers out of millions of dollars. When are they going to repay taxpayers?

This is an interesting article by Conrad Black on the over-reach of government. Governments seem to believe they have the right to intrude on everyone's personal lives and business. Conrad Black: Government has no business in the bank accounts of the nation (msn.com) These are Marxist-oriented politicians who have no respect for individual rights and freedoms.

Quote Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this ba lance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id) Unquote How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions? (skepticalscience.com) quote Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much. Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.) Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits. The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling. Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel: There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. Unquote Man’s Contribution to Global Warming (dailysignal.com) You should try Google and learn a few basic facts before spouting nonsense. Man's contribution is negligible. You could easily have learned that long ago. Ignorance is bliss.

Not really. There is no way to determine if man is causing global warming because man only contributes 3% of the total greenhouse (CO2) in the atmosphere. The other 97% of CO2 is natural. Therefore it has been impossible to prove man is the cause. Man is blamed simply because it is in human nature to blame mankind for everything and now including the weather and climate. Besides it is a good excuse for the U.N. to extort more money from developed nations to give to the rest of the world.

The 2022 budget proves once again that Socialist systems get an F for failure. Socialist systems want everything but they fund nothing adequately. An example is the public health care system. The provincial and federal governments do not provide adequate funding for the health care system because to provide proper care for everyone would require a vast amount of funding. So we have 900,000 people in B.C. who do not have their own doctor. The system provides a degree of health care for everyone, but it is inadequate for many who need health care. The majority think it is adequate but that is only because most of them are in the younger age bracket and do not yet require health care. Many people who require health care start to learn the deficiencies of the system. It is the same with the public insurance system in B.C. B.C. pays the highest auto insurance rates in north America. They have been over-charging us for years and the last year or so have been giving rebates because they have been caught with their hands in the till to often. But that's Socialism. Inefficient, wasteful and expensive. But it keeps a lot of bureaucrats employed to run it who have all the job security, benefits, and pensions that many other people do not have.

I think we agree on that. I look at police, roads, fire protection as basic public services, not Socialism. Just one of the serious problems arising out of our Socialist public health care system in B.C. is that it was reported today that 900,000 people in B.C. do not have their own family doctor. The Socialist NDP solution is to build clinics where mass health care can be provided. This would provide second class care, not the kind of care people would get with their own family doctor who knows their health conditions and problems and is dedicated to his patients. Socialist politicians don't worry about things like that. They just want to mass produce inferior services because there would never be enough money to provide first class services in the Socialist system. A large part of the money has to go to the huge bureaucracy to run it. B.C. is facing contract demands in a few months for 300,000 public servants whose contracts are up for renewal and they want 5% to cover inflation. This will cost billions more. The money is just not there. This on top of everything else like millions for the RCMP for retroactive pay, and massive housing shortages, etc.

I'm sure the Communist parties in Russia and China all reach agreement to do all the evil things they do too. Compromise among a gang of thieves doesn't make it right. Right and wrong is not determined by a so-called "compromise" between crooked politicians, Communists, thieves or anyone else. You have no right to other people's property simply because you think they have more than you or you need something that you think they don't need. However Socialists think they are not bound by any kind of moral laws. They think they can do whatever they wish. They think, after all, it's for the "common good". Rob Peter to pay Paul. It's all ok with them. That's the same reasoning we have abortion on demand which is the killing of the innocent and medical assistance in dying, which again is killing of people based on some kind belief that what a Supreme Court says must be morally correct. It is simply moral bankruptcy.

Your problem is you have no moral compass. Socialism is simple stealing. I would suggest you consider going out and buying a King James Bible and reading it or read it online. Nobody has the right to confiscate someone else's property and redistribute the wealth. That's called Communism, Marxism, or Socialism depending on a variety of related factors.

I said quite a while ago we are wasting our time trying to talk to these birds. They are totally blind to reality. Like talking to a brick wall.

The only churches who ran the residential schools were the Roman Catholic church (about 60%), the Anglican, the United, and the Presbyterian to a lesser extent. The rest of churches, such as Baptists, Community churches, Evangelical churches, etc. and the cults had nothing to do with residential schools. The Roman church is not a "Christian" church. It was formed from Nimrod's Babylonian religion back in the early centuries. Read this article and watch the video: The Babylonian Roman Catholic Church – Hear the trumpets If you seek the truth with all your heart in the King James Bible, you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Frank Stronach, founder of one of Canada’s largest global companies, says the country is “fairly close” to a public debt crisis and Canadians need to force politicians to rein in spending. Canada may be heading for bankruptcy as happened to Greece a number of years ago. The NDP and Liberals don't seem concerned and the NDP is pushing and signed a deal with the Liberals that could increase spending by tens of billions of dollars. Canada's debt is increasing by 400 million per day according to this article. When the country is spending more money than it receives in revenue, there is the potential for bankruptcy. Stronach says we are fairly close to bankruptcy. So how do Canadians force government to reign in this potential debt crisis? I don't see any way that Canadians can stop the governing party from it's present course.

First of all, I am not going to say Stanley Knowles was evil. That is not my job. He was a long-serving and famous politician in Canada highly respected by many Canadians, much like Tommy Douglas and others. This is what the Canadian Encyclopedia says about Stanley Knowles. "Born in the US of Nova Scotian/New Brunswick parentage, Knowles had a profoundly religious upbringing in the SOCIAL GOSPEL tradition of the Methodist Church. He never forgot his mother's death from tuberculosis in 1919 or his father's firing from a machinist's job in 1932; both incidents marked his choice for theological studies at United College, Winnipeg, and then for political action via the CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION in 1935. He had to change laws rather than souls." " for almost 40 years he badgered successive governments into enlarging Canada's nascent WELFARE STATE. " So we can understand why he believed in making Canada a welfare state. This is what he was thoroughly indoctrinated in by the false ideology of the social gospel taught in the Methodist Church in those days. He badgered the government for decades to make Canada a welfare state. Or a Socialist state in common terms. This is much the same as Tommy Douglas who was a minister as well. It is ironic that these men came from social gospel churches and now their party is the most anti-Bible party in existence as they support same-sex marriage and abortion more strongly than any other party. These ideas were the centre of the CCF party which he belonged to and later became the centre platform of the NDP. Today the Liberal party is shifting more and more toward the ideology of a welfare state. We can see how it originated from the false gospel or social gospel of certain denominations and today from the Pope as well.

I would assume every denomination thinks they have the "one true faith". Certainly the Catholic Church has always believed they have it. But that was why the Reformation took place five hundred years ago. It was a return to the Bible and biblical truth or the one true faith. No church has it perfectly because mankind is not perfect. But there are some churches that believe closer to what the Bible teaches than others. The Catholic church is not one of them. Therefore those that support it and follow it's belief system are in error. Socialism is one of the serious errors of some apostate and false churches.

You are free to donate and help low income people all you want. That's a good thing to do. But you don't have the right to help yourself to other's money to do it. That's stealing. That's what the liberal left think they can do without any limits. The belief of liberals may partly come from the Socialist side of the Catholic church or apostate churches that think government should be some kind of social service agency for everyone (Socialism). Passing a law doesn't make something moral as you seem to think. Hitler passed lots of laws or issued orders-in-council. So did Stalin and Chairman Mao. That doesn't make things moral. Some Catholic priests in central America and south America were supporters of Communism decades ago. They were known as liberation theologians. Our present Liberals and NDP seem to think there is nothing they cannot do and if they wish to do it, they think it must be moral. Socialism is only one characteristic of this Liberal - NDP government. It also considers itself as liberal - progressive which is why it passes immoral laws which I already mentioned.

No the Liberals did not promise a Dental Care program, or a Pharmacare Program in the last election. The NDP might have but nobody expected them to form government. Most Canadians did not vote for new Socialist programs. Most Canadians did not vote for a majority government. Nobody told Canadians how much all this is going to cost either. Is is presumption to say Canadians are willing to pay for all these things. Here's what Trudeau's Liberals have promised for their third term | CTV News

quote Like Bernie Sanders, the pope is a socialist. He has had many unkind words about capitalism (“the dung of the devil”), but no corresponding criticism of socialism. Like Sanders, his ideas about economics were shaped by Marxist thinkers and activists. unquote www.crisismagazine.com/2019/pope-franciss-socialist-agenda Trudeau and company are Catholics and therefore follow the Socialist agenda of the Vatican. This is why they send Canadian's taxpayer money around the world as part of their agenda. This has nothing to do with charity. Taxpayers have no choice. It is all politics of liberal elites who believe in multilateralism and working for the U.N. Marxist agenda. It also helps set them up for a future position after they retire from electoral politics and seek a good job in the U.N. like Bob Rae received. John McCallum became an ambassador to China until he was removed for being too China friendly? They also combine their beliefs with evil progressivism and send money to support abortion in third world countries. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (un.org)

No, they are not. Their educational institutions are not Christian. Far from it. Read the Jesuit Oath and their Extreme Oath. The Jesuit Oath (truthontheweb.org) Read: ROMAN CATHOLICISM EXPOSED (jesus-is-savior.com)

No, Canadians did not vote for these programs. Only a minority voted for Liberals and NDP.

The morally bankrupt government we have takes by force the money from those that produce something and gives it away around the world as well as spends it on every imaginable cause as well as spends it in vote potential ridings. They must have learned this from their Jesuit masters who started some of the educational institutes that some of them attended. One of the problems with democracy is that votes must be earned and money buys votes.

We do live in a kind of Liberal-NDP dictatorship. When did Canadians vote for these expensive, multi billion dollar, social programs being pushed by the NDP and supported now by the Liberals? When were these programs put before the voters as campaign promises in the last election? Only about 30 or 33% of voters supported the Liberals, and about half that supported the NDP. Yet here we are with these parties planning to implement these expensive social (ist) programs. This is not democracy. Trudeau loves to talk about democracy as if he really believes that it exists. Of course what we have is far preferable to Communism. But claiming we are a pure democracy is a stretch. I would say we are somewhere in between democracy and dictatorship by the liberal oligarchy, which is a liberal Borg run from the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal elites. A minority government should never be trying to bring in major new spending programs without the overwhelming will of the people. There is also the Biblical principle of not stealing from taxpayers and respecting private property that should not be ignored.

Entitlement on the backs of the producers and taxpayers is now a big thing in Canada and promoted by the liberals and left. Yes, it is a form of stealing and Marxism. NDP: " make the rich pay their fair share". Actually it will be everyone who pays but they don't tell you that. Meanwhile, investors who create jobs and wealth will go elsewhere and Canada will sink further into debt.

" 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matthew 23:23 KJV Explanation: Quote Matthew 23:23 "Judgment, mercy, and faith" can be paraphrased to make them easier to understand. Judgment means "being fair and even-handed in judgment." Mercy means "being compassionate and kind in action," and faith means "being loyal to God "in keeping His law." Justice is a more accurate, modern translation of "judgment," and "faith" might be better rendered faithfulness or trust. Thus, Jesus is speaking about justice, compassion, and faithfulness (or loyalty). Jesus applied these concepts in confronting the Pharisees because they had reached a tragically wrong conclusion regarding the intent of God's laws. Weightier means "more important," "central," or "more decisive" as compared to what is peripheral or secondary. Thus, the intent of God's law is to produce justice, compassion and kindness, and loyalty to God. Of course, the major thing that will be produced is a right relationship with God and men, and character will be built. The Pharisees were guilty of a massive distortion of God's will, or what could even be called God's pleasure, and in their zeal to be absolutely correct, they corrupted those they were leading. Their problem was their attitude toward law, one opposite from most people's. Most people tend to become looser and more liberal in their application of law, but for some strange reason, the Pharisees corrupted the law in the complete other direction. God felt it necessary to correct this corruption so that we would understand that it is equally perverse. John W. Ritenbaugh Unquote Matthew 23:23 (KJV) - Forerunner Commentary (bibletools.org) It should be obvious to anyone this has nothing to do with Socialism. This verse is speaking about individual justice, compassion and kindness as qualities that are essential. Socialism has none of those qualities. Socialism takes by force income from it's citizens to redistribute in various ways to others. Plus it requires a huge bureaucracy to administer which cost a large amount of the tax revenue. Important services such as health care, dental care, and pharmacare can still be provided and available by private industry. There is nothing that say it must be provided by Socialism or government. That is what is missing in this discussion. People assume if government doesn't provide services through Socialism, they will be deprived of something. That is false. Private enterprise can still provide those services as it has. Government run (public) health care has been found wanting in many ways. A million Canadians do not even have their own doctor. There are long waiting lists for some services. During the pandemic, thousands of people with urgent health needs have been put on hold and denied health care in the public (Socialized) system. In B.C. we have a crown corporation called I.C.B.C. (Insurance Corporation of B.C.) which provides the highest cost auto insurance in north America. No private insurance company is allowed to provide auto insurance. They have a monopoly by government decree. I believe Quebec was paying something like half the amount for auto insurance premiums. ICBC recently reduced the price somewhat although likely by not much. We will see. We have been ripped off for years by the high cost of crown corporations. If you are going to quote the Bible, at least find some passages that have something to do with Socialism. That one had nothing to do with it. Socialism has nothing to do with individual charity, compassion or kindness.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. It all depends on what the purpose of the taxes is and how the money is planned to be spent. If it is to redistribute the wealth then that is Marxism or Socialism and is evil. It's like stealing other people's property to equalize the wealth. It is criminal. Some taxes are necessary for essential services like roads, fire department and police department. Nobody would disagree with that. There is no other way to live in a civilized society without basic essential services. But when it becomes ideologically Socialism for the purpose of providing everything to everyone, such as the taxpayers paying for housing, health care, pharmacare, dental care for everyone, whether they want to work or not, then is becomes stealing. There is a line that should not be crossed. The Bible says if a man will not work let him not eat. That's an important principle. Why should anyone work or improve their skills and education if the state is going to provide everything. Get off your lazy ass and get a job.

There are certain principles which apply forever, such as the right to private property and stealing. You know as well as I do that stealing is wrong. Advocating helping the poor is referring to voluntary charity by individuals who agree to donate, not state-mandated confiscation of private property and earnings to spread around. If you see something your neighbour has and you don't have, do you think it's your right to help yourself to it?