blackbird

Multiculturalism has led to: “Now is the time for all Canadians, but especially non-racialized Canadians, to listen, learn and reflect on how white privilege and systemic racism contribute to injustice and inequality in this country.” - the woke liberal left. This proves how evil multicultural ideology is. Non-racialized Canadians are being put on the defensive even though they did nothing wrong. The problem originates with a band of NDP-Liberal warped thinkers who were not willing to respect and defend western Judeo-Christian civilization. They found there is more votes to be had from the third world.

Just more proof of the insanity of the liberal-NDP government. Should we be concerned? Yes. Should we panic? No. But this kind of radical government ideology will have negative effects on everything they do or touch. The Canadian Forces is a good example. Morale must be at an all time low in the Canadian Forces as they have the woke ideology forced on them. That is the last thing a country needs. It will be the same in the civil services.

We are wasting time on this topic. There is no credibility in the climate change alarmism or fake blaming of man.

The U.S. Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Energy report were among those who made wild predictions that turned out to be false. Do you not think they get their information from scientists?

Ok Chicken Little, the sky is falling too!

I hate to burst your bubble, but these were not considered "doomsayers". These were scientists who made these false predictions. If it "matters what scientists say" as you say, why don't you consider what many sicentists have said in the past that turned out to be false? quote 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” 9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years). 14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” 18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI quote The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity? As reported in The New York Times [August 1969] Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016. In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, and Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, 30 years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970. This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil.” There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide. Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free. unquote Walter E. Williams: False environmental predictions | Opinion | westnewsmagazine.com

quote The False Prophets of Climate Change JANE CLARK SCHARL The unjustified moral panic over the Amazon fires is not unique. The last five decades are full of climate doomsday predictions that have been proven false. Some—like the 1970 proclamation that, by 2000, the world would be gripped in a new Ice Age—are exactly the opposite of current climate panics. Of course, this information should not be used to say that we have no responsibility for the environment. Modern industry has introduced new environmental challenges that, as stewards of Creation, we have a responsibility to address, such as the horrifying levels of pollution in the Ganges River in India and the mountains of garbage in cities like Manila. But the last fifty years have shown with certainty that simply because climate change activists say that the end of the world is coming does not mean they are right. The facts show that the environment is much more resilient than we give it credit for being, and that worldwide climate systems tend to fluctuate around an average sustainable temperature. For climate change activists, these facts simply don’t matter. What matters is that they see an impending climate disaster—a disaster which they believe justifies distorting the truth. This is exactly the same kind of prevarication Catholics must watch out for. Because many leaders in the Church—including the Holy Father—have come to believe that there is an impending climate disaster, we shouldn’t be surprised if we see doctrinal distortions as a result. ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW Consider, for example, the looming moral disaster of the Amazon synod. In the wake of Laudato Si and other doomsday declarations by Pope Francis, the synod appears poised to adopt such a laudatory tone towards the environment that it threatens to veer into neo-paganism, denigrate the special role of humanity in creation, and subvert the Church’s primary function of bringing souls to salvation. The working document of the Amazon Synod implies that moral superiority is equivalent with living in harmony with the environment. For example, the document elevates the indigenous people of Guaviare as moral arbiters because of their closeness to the environment. Unfortunately, these peoples include tribes that participate in shamanism, which is often a form of demon worship. The document says nothing about entering into an evangelical conversation with these tribes. It may have (for instance) simultaneously encouraged them to worship Jesus Christ while inviting the rest of us to learn from their love of nature. Instead, it merely scolds Western Christian cultures while unequivocally lauding neo-pagan cultures. A Catholic exorcist once related to me a conversation he had with a demon during an exorcism, in which the demon told him that the Satanic forces will use anything—even inherently good things like work, human love, and family—to distract a soul from God. “Anything but God,” the demon said. That has sobering implications for the contemporary conversation about the environment within the Catholic Church. Today, that conversation is so dominated by fear that it is indeed distracting us from God. By insisting on an impending environmental collapse without acknowledging that the climate regularly fluctuates, Catholic environmentalists have cut themselves off from reasonable conversations about what proper stewardship of the environment looks like. unquote For rest of article: The False Prophets of Climate Change (crisismagazine.com) quote Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited. 1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’ unquote Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

The policy of "multiculturalism" adopted about 50 years ago really laid the groundwork for what is happening now. "How about a betrayal of democracy itself? The lie that Justin Trudeau is working for “all” Canadians when only 3rd World Canada really counts to our government. The attack upon Canadian of European heritage is the biggest betrayal of all. This began in 1968 with Pierre Trudeau, and has been brought to its apotheosis in the year 2020 by Justin Trudeau. When haters rule. For CAP, this is the essence of our downfall– as well as the “core identity” which has transferred Euro-Canadians into a social trash bin." "White Privilege, Systemic Racism" BUILT INTO Society: Canadian Human Rights Commission (capforcanada.com)

Many activists such as the federal liberal-NDP government, antifa, BLM, groups in universities, and various organizations and individuals have already decided that if you are Caucasian you are guilty of white supremacy and systemic racism. Actual proof or evidence is not required. The fact you are a colonial or descendant of a colonizer makes you guilty and you are expected to support affirmative action programs that will give special consideration to minorities in every facet of life. New systems or affirmative action programs must be put in place to give preferential treatment to minorities to combat the colonial state's systemic racism. "In a settler colonial state like Canada, systemic racism is deeply rooted in every system of this country. This means the systems put in place were designed to benefit white colonists while disadvantaging the Indigenous populations who had lived here prior to colonialism. This power dynamic continues to be upheld and reinforced in our society, extending its impact on new racialized citizens." Systemic racism: What it looks like in Canada and how to fight it? | VPFO | UBC Part I – Systemic racism and discrimination in the Defence Team: Origins and current reality - Canada.ca "CAP Translation: When it comes to debate or dialogue within Canadian society regarding racism, there is to be no questioning of Liberal government positioning: Canada is a racist nation stepped in perpetual white privilege. The descendants of the colonial founders of our country have racism and bigotry “built into their brains.” Canadian society is intrinsically anti-black, not to mention anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, anti Jewish, as well as haters of homosexuals. PM Justin Trudeau has informed society that white Canadians are genocidal toward First Nations peoples. Let the punishment begin. What CBC has buried away is the fact that the punitive measures toward our people has been in place for some forty years. The catalysts was Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau and two pieces of governance which exist to transfer power away from Canadians of Anglophone and European heritage." "White Privilege, Systemic Racism" BUILT INTO Society: Canadian Human Rights Commission (capforcanada.com)

Black civil servants file discrimination complaint against federal government with United Nations (msn.com)

We do have freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Get off your high horse and quit trying to silence others. You know nothing about what a fake Christian is or a false religion or what it means. You have already proven you don't read or pay attention to the Bible.

You misinterpreted what I said. I said third world immigrants in general have a different ideology. It could be because of their false religious systems or it could be because they are willing to accept Socialism or Communism. They have no Christian belief system to defend themselves with. Socialism and liberalism lead to evil laws and government and the denial of fundamental freedom as in Cuba, N. Korea and other places. People who oppose western Judeo-Christian civilization or morality should not be admitted. It is as simple as that. Jews should be welcome because they support Judeo-Christian beliefs and morality. Howevers liberals did not welcome them in the case of the Komagata Maru. That is an example of liberal's anti-Semitism at that time.

The matter of separation of church and state has a different interpretation depending on who you ask. Those who oppose Christianity or the Bible and who may be atheists or agnostics, will give you one extreme interpretation. Others who believe the U.S. was or is a Judeo-Christian culture will give you a different understanding. My opinion at this point is all the separation of church and state means is the government shall not make any laws establishing a state religion or state denomination as exists in some countries. Freedom of religion for everyone shall be the law or no religion if that is what someone chooses. That exists now. There is no law establishing a religion and no law establishing a state church. Separation of church and state does not mean elected members of government cannot have religious beliefs and it does not mean they cannot pass laws that reflect their religious beliefs. There always have been many laws that are based on Christian religious beliefs. The modern progressives and anti-Christians are saying nobody can bring in a law based on Christian beliefs. That is total nonsense. The separation of church and state does not mean the country cannot have laws based on Christian teachings because that is what morality is all about. An example is the Mormon religion in earlier times believe in polygamy. That was considered immoral by orthodox Christianity and was outlawed. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state. quote Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain. But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity. unquote ChristianObserver.org » The United States Constitution and Christianity

You are a typical liberal/ NDP calling those who disagree with you "racist". That is the calling card of liberal-left. Better look up the definition of racist. To be a racist one must be biased against a race. I oppose false religion and evil ideology and do not want more of that brought into this country. That is not racist. Third world people have many problems. But that should not determine Canada's immigration policy. A country has the right to only take in people who will be a benefit to their country and not cause harm. The proof that Socialism and liberalism is harmful would fill many books. Right now the Socialist ideology is causing a crisis in the public health care system. The liberal NDP promise everything but they are unable to deliver by putting sufficient money into it. They do not put enough money into the health care system and yet won't allow people to pay for some private care themselves. That is evil Socialism. A vast number of people in BC need image scanning for cancer but the system does not have enough resources to take care of these people. Many might receive screening too late. Cancer can spread fast. The liberal NDP care nothing about anything except votes in the immigration policy.

I don't know what you know about Christianity, but it sounds like you know nothing. I don't exhibit any hate for people. That is your third world anti-Christian bias coming out. Yes, I hate evil political ideologies such as Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and progressivism, liberalism, and what have you. Why should anyone who believes in God and his word, be expected to embrace and like evil? Your logic is faulty. But that is because of your unbelieving background. You still believe all religions and cultures are equally valid and should be recognized as equals. Total nonsense. God rejects all false gods in the Bible and forbids the worship or even the recognition of them. So multiculturalism must be rejected on that basis alone. Christ does not love evil and he does not expect any of his followers to embrace those who love evil. It's quite simple. Christianity is a broad word embraced by anyone today even if they don't believe in the Bible, which is God's revelation to man. Your idea that church and state are separate is nonsense. That claim is a liberal left, Commie invention. First there is no such thing as the State of North America. There is the U.S.A. and there is Canada. The U.S. recognizes the supremacy of God in it's Constitution. God and the Constitution (christianpost.com) Canada's Charter of Rights does the same. There is a serious shortcoming to this though. Canada's Charter does not specifically recognize the Christian God, but recognizes all gods, which means the heathen gods, which are false. The important point is Canada and America were founded by Judeo-Christian civilization and culture. That is a historical fact. Multiculturalism is an attempt to embrace heathen cultures and in doing so, creates problems. One problem is Christianity brought with it the recognition of basic freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. These are unknown in the third world. So people coming from the third world have no understanding of the importance of basic freedoms. You can dance around that all you want, but it is still a fact. Socialism is a rejection of those basic freedoms. Socialism is intent on establishing a totalitarian society with no individual rights as it is in China or Russia.

"Canada was built by immigrants. They came here because of our great cultural heritage which allows for freedom of expression, religion, association and peaceful assembly. Radical Islam does not recognize those freedoms and thus poses a clear and present threat to what makes Canada such a great country and the envy of much of the world – our Christian heritage." ‘Radical Islam’ a clear threat to Canada | ARPA Canada What do most of the immigrants from the third world have to offer in defence of freedom of expression, religion, association and peaceful assembly? These fundamental freedoms are unknown in much of the third world. I don't even think the liberals or NDP are big defenders of these freedoms.

quote Sovereignty The second reason for Brexit is the rise of nationalism across the world. There’s a growing distrust of multinational financial, trade, and defense organizations created after World War II. The EU, the IMF , and NATO are good examples of this. Many who oppose the EU believe these institutions no longer serve a purpose. Not only that, these organizations take control away from individual nations. Mistrust and fear of losing control made Brexit a reasonable solution to them. But for the supporters of the EU, such organizations are self-evidently valuable. They may need to be tweaked but not abandoned. The immigration crisis in Europe was a trigger. Some EU leaders argued that aiding the refugees was a moral obligation. But EU opponents saw immigration as a national issue, as it affected the internal life of the country. Steering clear of this issue was an important driver for the “leave” vote. The EU doesn’t understand the power of nationalism. It attempts to retain nationality as a cultural right. On the other hand, it deprives individual nations of the power to make many decisions. This may have worked before 2008, but it has become increasingly difficult to accept. unquote 3 Reasons Brits Voted For Brexit (forbes.com) The elite political class in Canada support multiculturalism and are globalists. Trudeau and his cronies jet off to the U.N. meetings and other globalist meetings regularly. They depend on multiculturalism policy driving immigration and bringing in more liberal left NDP supporters from the third world and keeping them as the ruling class in Canada. That's what politics is all about for them. They could care less about the ordinary citizens who must struggle to make ends meet and in some cases, struggle to try to obtain health care. The elites think they have given us a communal system and put the money into it. If there is not enough health care to go around or not enough housing, they have done their bit. They have lots of money and big pensions coming. That's what matters to them.

The question is not whether any particular person is a Christian or not. That is God's business. The correct question is: is a particular church or denomination Biblical or Christian? We have to know the answer to that in order to know which church to support or attend. quote The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” unquote Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical? | GotQuestions.org

Glad to see Italy elected a conservative leader who rejects the open borders and the woke agenda. There is a bit of hope there. Britain rejected the open border concept with Brexit. Open borders and multiculturalism has already caused a lot of problems in their country.

" 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. " 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV Frankly it has nothing to do with race or skin colour but everything to do with beliefs.

No country follows the Bible to any great extent. The world is a fallen place ever since the fall of man back in the garden of Eden. Consequently everyone is born with a corrupt, wicked heart the Bible says and need to be born again. The love of Christ is an individual thing between individuals. But even the Bible commands Christians to be separate from evil and the unclean thing. See 2 Corinthians chap. 6. Immigration policy has to be based on what is good for a country and every country has that right and in fact practices what they think is best for their country. Frankly I don't care what the Conservative Party believes. I am an individual with my own beliefs. If you don't believe an individual has the right to his own beliefs, what are you doing here? "Legislation in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for the immigration regime Canada has today, which embraces multiculturalism. In 1967, Ottawa introduced a points-based system for evaluating applicants, after which Canada saw a jump in immigration from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. A 1971 policy first articulated the government’s support for cultural diversity, and legislation in 1976 explicitly codified Canada’s commitment to refugees, mandated federal and provincial officials develop immigration targets together, and cast immigration as a tool for meeting the country’s cultural, economic, and social objectives." What Is Canada’s Immigration Policy? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org) So even Canada has a way of choosing immigrants, even if it is the wrong policy and the opposite of what I believe. You say the third world has a right to come into Canada shows you do not understand that. In spite of what liberals and left think, Canada does not belong to the rest of the world. Every country has a sovereign right to determine who it lets in for their best interests. Global Communists such as the U.N. don't accept that and want Canada to accept the rest of the world's immigrants. If you descended from the third world and are not a Christian, then of course you would oppose what I say. That is logical. The best solution is for you to study the Bible, particularly the New Testament. The world in general is a corrupt, fallen place and the only solution is an individual solution, i.e. to believe the Bible and be born again. Apart from that there is no salvation. Different racial and cultural backgrounds do not unite people except in evil Socialist systems which is Communist in the sense of being anti-God and communal. China is a good example where the state, meaning Communist Party is above everything else. Individuals rights are sacrificed for the Communist system or communal system ( in reality the Communist Party and it's leaders). I don't care much for what the Conservative Party believes. That is politics. Politics is not my guide for life. If you don't believe an individual has the right to his own beliefs, what are you doing here?

America has huge problems. The problems are because much of America does not follow God of the Bible. But as I said everything is not black or white. America is still one of the best countries in the world and is far superior to the third world. Some Catholics who oppose abortion and the liberal left agenda are preferable to the third world immigrants. If they oppose Socialism, oppose abortion, and respect the sanctity of life and individual rights then they are preferable to those liberals and NDP who do not. Much of the Liberal government and many other progressive politicians are opposed to God and many belong to the Catholic religion yet support abortion, etc. That shows it is not black and white even in that religion. Unless you have been born again and accept the Bible and Jesus as your Savior you will continue to say BS to everything I say. So that is your fundamental problem. I am not saying we should restrict immigration of Catholics except from central and south America. They have a history of violence, Communist revolutions, and are a mess. My preference is to restrict immigration from the third world in general, rather than on the basis of religion. Immigration should be from Europe, and other western countries like Australia and NZ which share the same western values as Canada and America.

I said even bringing the third world in (Multiculturalism) is bringing the downfall of Canada or helping to change it into a Socialist disaster. Liberalism, progressivism are working to destroy our western Judeo-Christian civilization. That is why voting for them is proving to be a disaster for Canada. No, latin America is not a source of Christians. Mexico in fact is listed as one of the countries that heavily persecutes Christians. Mexico is a country half taken over by murderers and criminals. We know many things went on in Europe that were unbiblical and anti-Christian. Catholicism is not a Christian religion. I never said it was. But Christian principles existed in Europe which do not exist in the middle east, Asia, Africa, latin America to any extent. Everything is not black and white. There are some relatively small numbers of Christians in those heathen parts of world but they are heavily persecuted by the majority. In spite of the wars in Europe, democracy and human rights exist in Europe and the west far more than the third world. The UK and west abolished slavery two hundred years ago. There are no human rights or respect for the individual in much of the third world, including Russia and China. Canada is heading toward becoming a more heathen nation and is one to a large extent now. That means less civility, less respect for the traditional family structure, more crime, more Socialism, continued failing health care system, increased taxation, more government authoritarianism, and more rebellion against parents and authority. Generally a more corrupt society is what we are seeing. 2

By calling names you just give more credibility to what I said. You have nothing else to offer. Read my further comments. Not all, but many third world immigrants do not believe in the fundamental beliefs and principles of freedom of the individual, sanctity of private property and sanctity of life. They come from heathen lands that do not believe in Christianity or the Bible. In fact much of Asia, middle east, and Africa persecute Christians. Yet we bring them in here by the millions. Consequently, they vote liberal and left NDP or for Socialism which is an evil ideology. The liberal left has a war against Christianity and declare it as extreme right. This is why the left, liberals prefer third world immigration. It supports their liberal left ideology. If you want less freedom and more Socialism and nanny state government, more government control of everything, and more taxation, continue to support that system.

I would add to that danger atheist, or agnostic progressivism or liberalism. They try to equate historical Judeo-Christian beliefs with extreme right wing fanaticism, when in fact if you look at reality, the fanatics today are the progressives and liberals. We are moving toward an Orwell's 1984 world where old people or people with health conditions or certain beliefs could be simply euthanized. The final solution. Biden is starting to talk in a very aggressive way and categorize half of America as the enemy.