blackbird

Maybe your money is filling potholes in Namibia or Botswana, or China as the government funds the China Infrastructure Bank and sends our money all over the world for all kinds of things.

Those of us who have a conscience and oppose progressivism, liberalism, Marxism, may lose the election. But that is because we live in a fallen, evil world where most people don't care and vote for decadent progressives. We who oppose evil can rest in the fact that God is in control and even if evil governments are elected, that is not the end of the story. There will be judgment and those who seek righteousness and honest leaders can rest in the fact we have done what we could do even if we lost the elections. We won't sell out what is right for political gain. Following God and his written word and standing for righteousness versus politics/political gain are two totally different things that most people do not understand. Bible believers do not support evil for the sake of "winning" in the political world. This is something non-believers know nothing about.

You can always start a Go Fund Me campaign and contribute yourself to fight climate change.

The BC government is increasing taxes effective tomorrow, April 1. This includes a 9.9 cent per litre for gas. It also increases the cost of home heating for those who use oil or gas. PST is also being applied to Netflix users which will push the annual price of Netflix up around $14 per year. The carbon tax goes up from $40 to $45 per ton. They claim this will help fight climate change, for those who believe in this scam and hoax.

Yes, many Canadians vote for Trudeau and Liberals and get what they deserve.

Says who? Erin O'Toole and Trudeau, neither of which know anything about the sciences around the issue. Quote: The hypothesis is that the temperature increase is caused by the CO2 that is being released into the atmosphere by human activity. However, it is not possible to design a repeatable experiment to test this hypothesis because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of the ‘system’ (there is only one planet Earth and it is rather complicated). Consequently, we are left with conjectures and predictions. Applying statistical models (such as ARIMA or Hurst–Kolmogorov) to the past temperature data can generate a prediction for the future, but the confidence limits (95%) are so wide that the predictions are useless. And this approach cannot say that CO2 is causing the change. Thus, the climate models that predict a temperature response to CO2 have to be deterministic; that is, they assume that the inputs will determine the temperature. Hence the assertion based on these models that CO2 causes global warming is circular reasoning. Worse, even as recently as a decade ago climate models could not deal with factors like cloud cover. Computers are getting faster, and climate models are getting more sophisticated, but significant areas of the climate are still beyond our modelling reach. Science cannot prove theories to be true; only that they are false.22 Observing a result that is predicted by a hypothesis does not prove that the hypothesis is true (this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent). These same results might also be consistent with some other hypothesis. On the other hand, we can show a hypothesis to be false by finding evidence that contradicts it. Biblical creationists will be familiar with this truth since the evidence said to prove evolution (e.g. mutations, natural selection, speciation) is perfectly consistent with creation. Thus, while the existence of observations that are consistent with theoretical predictions is necessary for the survival of any theory, data that are inconsistent with these predictions are more important. Such data tell us that the hypothesis is incorrect. If there are no contrary data, despite myriad repeated experiments to test the hypothesis, as is the case with, say, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the theory is most probably valid. If the climate models used to predict the future temperature based on carbon dioxide levels fail to predict those temperatures, the models must be rejected or modified. Correlation does not mean causation: That the temperature has been increasing along with the level of CO2 does not mean that one caused the other. For example, between June and December of 2008 both the temperature in Calgary AB Canada and the Toronto Stock Exchange Index decreased dramatically. However, one did not cause the other. Thus, the observation that the atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration are both increasing does not mean that one is causing the other—either one may, indeed, be causing the other, or both could be being caused by something else, or they could be completely unrelated. Science is often captured by a ‘ruling paradigm’: A paradigm is a framework used by default for the interpretation of data. It is just assumed to be true. Sometimes this is done explicitly when scientists do not have a better idea and so they just run with the best idea they have, anticipating that they could be wrong. At other times, the ruling paradigm is subliminal or is being hidden by certain players in the game. In the latter cases, data that are inconsistent with the paradigm are treated as errors by the researcher or dismissed because the researcher is judged not to have appropriate credentials, unacceptable political leanings, any sort of religious beliefs, or funding sources deemed inappropriate. Or, if none of these applies, the errors are accommodated within the ruling paradigm by introducing ancillary hypotheses. The Ptolemaic geostationary model of the solar system is a well-known (false) paradigm that ruled the interpretation of astronomical observations for about 1,500 years. The big bang and biological evolution are two modern ruling paradigms in cosmology and biology/paleontology respectively. Thus, it should not surprise us that climate science has been captured by the ruling paradigm that anthropogenic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change. Nothing else is considered. Peer-review does not ensure truth: Peer review, especially when coupled with publication in ‘prestigious’ scientific journals, has come to be taken as the ‘gold standard’ of science. And the contents of scientific papers are often treated as beyond question. There are numerous examples of failure in the peer review process. A prominent incident prompted one academic to write a scathing critique of peer review that was published in The Guardian:23 “At its worst, it [peer review] is merely window dressing that gives the unwarranted appearance of authority, a cursory process which confers no real value, enforces orthodoxy, and overlooks both obvious analytical problems and outright fraud entirely.” The Climategate emails (see later) showed that this problem afflicts climate science. Unquote - creation.com/climate-change

One reason I don't support Erin O'toole is because he said he believes climate change (man-made) is real and the debate is over. The debate is far from over. There are countless people who don't believe in the hoax. If you want a party that believes in man-made climate change, you already have the other four parties, Liberal, NDP, Green, and Bloc. Canadians should have a party to vote for who don't believe in this scam. O'Toole has turned off a lot of conservative supporters.

You are living in some kind of dream of fantasyland. Russia and China are united in ruling the world with their Marxism and the west is united in maintaining democracy and freedom and holding onto what influence they have in the rest of the world. That's the reality. If you think Marxism is so great, whey don't you try Russia or China instead of trying change people's thinking in the west like some kind of agent?

In the situation of a pandemic, authoritarian states, such as China, may be able to fight the pandemic more easily that western democratic states that have fundamental freedoms. That is a reasonable argument. But there are two reasons why authoritarian and Communism must be rejected. In the long run, after the pandemic, under Communism, there will be no return to freedom for everyone. Freedom is not respected or permitted in Communist systems. Secondly, God has given man fundamental freedoms, private property, and the command not to steal for a reason. The reason is because he created man in his image and not to be slaves to a brutal Communist system. Sometimes there is a price to pay for freedom because the world is not perfect place. In a crooked world with thugs and tyrants trying to take over, we must sometimes fight for our freedom. This is what the new cold war with Russia and China is all about. It is a struggle between two ideologies, Communism (or Marxism) and western democracy (freedom).

It is easily proven Socialism and Communism are contrary to the Bible, God's written revelation to mankind. " Does the Book of Acts teach Socialism? Category: Apologetics, Culture Wars/Popular Culture JULY 13, 2017 1,099 3 There seems to be a belief going around among non-Christians (and even some Christians) that the book of Acts teaches that the early Church promoted a form of socialism or communism. Some use this information to teach that big government is a good or holy thing. Others will use it to convince others that Jesus and his followers were evil. Does the book of Acts teach socialism or communism? Let’s take a look. There are two passages in question when discussing this topic. The first is Acts 2:42-47. These verses say: “They [the early Christians] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (emphasis mine) The second passage can be found in Acts 5:1-11. In these verses, we are told about a believer named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira. They sold a piece of property and, instead of giving all of the profit to the Church; they kept some of it for themselves. Ananias then brought the rest of the money to the apostles. However, Peter told Ananias that Satan had filled his heart so that he lied to Holy Spirit and kept some of the money for himself. After saying this, Peter continued: “Didn’t it [the property] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” Ananias died immediately after hearing these words. About three hours later, his wife Sapphira came in to see Peter. Peter asked her if the money presented to the apostles was the exact amount that the land sold for. She said yes, and Peter asked her “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?” She then immediately died. This episode is thought by some to be proof that the early Church was practicing some form of socialism/communism. The believers “had everything in common.” They sold everything that they owned and gave it to others. This is clearly socialism according to some. Also, God killed Ananias and Sapphira because they dared to keep some of the money and make a profit. They are clearly evil capitalists! Are these passages teaching socialism or communism? The answer to this question is a big no(!) if one takes the time to study the verses in question. First, it needs to be pointed out the book of Acts portrays the early Christians as selling their property and giving to others freely. They are not being forced to give away their property to others by a central authority. Second, socialism and communism directly contradict key teachings of Christianity in the form of the Ten Commandments. The eighth and tenth commandments teach not to steal and covet the possessions of others. These economic systems give the government authority to take from others forcibly thus breaking these commandments. The early Church community was selling their property and giving to others out of the goodness of their hearts. The Gospel frees us from our selfishness so that we will willingly help others and even put ourselves below the needs of others (Philippians 2:3-4). Third, the book of Acts teaches that Christians continued to own private property (Acts 21:8), thus showing that the Church never commanded that they had to sell their possessions. It was voluntary. This model that the Jerusalem church is practicing during this time is never forced upon all Christians by an authoritarian church leadership. Fourth, it must also be noticed that the community of believers gave to those who had need. They didn’t just sell everything and start randomly giving things out to people. Fifth, concerning the issue with Ananias and Sapphira, it is also clear that they were not killed by God because they kept some of the money. Peter says that they are in trouble because they lied to God. They apparently told Peter that the money they were giving to the Church was all the money they had made from the selling of their property. Judging from the way Sapphira spoke it seems obvious that she and her husband had planned the lie. Sixth, Marxism is based upon an atheistic view of the world, (thus breaking the first two commandments).[1] It is also based upon class warfare which is never taught in Scripture. The Gospel is the key to removing different classes in society. How can the rich look down on the poor if they love their neighbor as themselves or follow the golden rule? They can’t. A society that truly follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will resemble a utopia much more than a communist state. Unquote - christianworldviewpress.com Socialism or Communism also requires that the state crush or deny individual human rights of the people. If you want to give up your human rights, why are you living in a western democracy? Why not move over to a Communist country where there are no human rights and no enshrined right to private property?

The new gun law is also targeting air guns used by paint ball sport enthusiasts even though they don't kill people. It may kill the sport.

Quote: All Forms of Socialism Are Theft Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19). This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment: You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21). God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights. Everyone understands this concept. No one likes others stealing their belongings, and they therefore do things to prevent theft, such as lock their door at night. It is also the case that every civilized society prohibits theft. People have property rights, and the government should protect such rights. Yet this all breaks down for many people when the government gets involved. It is wrong for Bob to take a quarter of your income. But if Bob and his friends lobby the government, politicians pass legislation, and the government gives one quarter of your money to Bob, then all is right. This is exactly how the typical Western welfare state works. The government enacts a variety of taxes (sales tax, income tax, FICA, tariffs, etc.) and then redistributes the money to a variety of classes (the poor, students, elderly, disabled, politically well-connected, etc.). But this is not called “theft” because, well, the government says so. This situation exposes one of the chief flaws of democracy, a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner. Thus, modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable. Christians are enabling this problem by limiting the 8th commandment to individuals instead of societies. However, the 8th commandment provides no such limitation. Groups are made up of individuals, and stealing is still stealing when done by a group. Is Taxation Ever Allowed? Some will respond, “Following this logic, are not all taxes and government programs theft?” One possible response is yes, which has some appeal due to its consistency (the view of anarcho-capitalism). However, a more biblical response is that some taxes are legitimate because some government functions are legitimate. Thus, we need to understand the proper role of civil government. It is important to understand that God designed government to enforce what are known as “negative rights.” You have a right to not be killed or stolen from. Hence the “negative.” But you do not have a right to food or shelter or anything else that belongs to someone else. You have to work for these things and buy these things through voluntary exchange. Thus, it is warped when it is said that humans have a “right” to things like healthcare or education. The only “positive rights” are those which are owed you out of a contract (such as the benefits of an insurance policy if certain conditions are met). And government does have an obligation to enforce such contracts. This is the only role of government in regard to positive rights. The government does not owe you any good or service, contrary to what socialists like to claim. God’s institution of civil government has a purpose, and that purpose is to protect property rights. In other words, God has designed the state to enforce the 8th commandment (as well as the 6th, 7th, and other commandments). It is all great when nobody steals. But people are sinful and steal/murder/destroy, and that is where government comes in. Of course, we have a problem when government is the one doing the stealing. If government is to protect property rights, then government is going to need enforcers of the law. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate for government to have police, judges, a court system, governors, and a military. Taxes that fund such things are taxes that uphold property rights. These taxes go to benefit all of society and in no way “redistribute wealth.” These are legitimate taxes and are not prohibited by Scripture. These are the sort of taxes Paul has in mind in Romans 13:1-7 when he speaks of the governing authorities that God instituted to “punish evil” and “reward the good.” Paul ties taxes here to a civil government that punishes crime. He says nothing about the morality of taxes at a high rate as part of a governmental redistributory scheme. Some cite Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an all-out endorsement of government taxation (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). However, that is not what these words teach. The Jewish leaders were seeking to trap Jesus among the Romans (who required the tax) and the Jews (who opposed Romans taxation). Jesus outsmarted His opponents by making reference to Caesar’s picture on the coins—“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (Matthew 22:20). The answer was “Caesar’s.” So Jesus responded, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This was not a wholesale endorsement of Roman government, nor was this a discourse on the morality of taxation. Rather, Jesus actually endorsed property rights by distinguishing between that which belongs to Caesar and that which does not. Contrary to popular claims, Jesus was not a socialist. Just Taxation It should also be noted that there are biblical limits on taxation. When the Israelites demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, God warned them that there would be a tyrannical king who would tax their income at 10% (1 Samuel 8:14, 17). The king would set himself up as God with this “tithe” to his kingdom, which was to make the point that a 10% tax was oppressive. Of course, we have taxes far exceeding this today. How we long for such limited oppression! There are also general principles for taxation that are not as explicit but should guide our thinking. First, taxation is best done at the local jurisdiction so as to provide accountability to the most proximate constituents. This means the federal income tax is a bad idea. State taxation would be far better in this regard, and county and city taxes would be better than state taxes. Second, a flat income tax would be preferable to a progressive income tax (meaning the tax rate increases for higher incomes). However, a sales tax would be preferable to a flat income tax. Incomes taxes are difficult to restrain, and voters are tempted to vote to tax the rich at a higher rate. Under a sales tax, everyone pays the same rate, and the more you buy the more you pay in taxes. Income tax punishes making money, which means it hinders saving and investment. " - knowingscripture.com

Funny how Socialists and Communists have a sense of entitlement to other people's property. Communism and Socialism are contrary to the Bible because it is based on stealing, confiscation of property, enslaving people, and denying people their fundamental freedoms. God gave man the right to own private property. Unconverted thieves, murderers (Communist in Russia, China), Socialists, and Communists will have their place in hell or the lake of fire as per Revelation. Followers of those ideologies are facing a lost eternity in hell unless they give it up and be converted according to the gospel. There are perhaps a million Christians in China who are persecuted by the Communists for their faith.

So you want to run a Communist dictatorship. No surprise.

I don't know if they would lie down and accept separation, but if the people in a province voted to separate, it's probably game over. Can't see how you can force a province to stay if the people don't agree. Maybe you have a way to force them to remain.

Because Judeo-Christianity brought higher principles such as a civilized, democratic society, with human rights to the west. One of the teachings of Christ and the Bible is to love thy neighbour and to have respect for the sanctity of life and for the individual's God-given rights. Bad historical events and criminal behavior by some within the west do not change this fact. This does not exist in the rest of the world. We are still living in the best part of the world, but we don't want to wreck it by turning it into a third world culture of civilization.

Yes, and as I said the information about this 20th century genocide by the Vatican has been covered up. Why? Because most of the western world are followers of the Vatican and papacy and believe the Pope is God's ordained spiritual leader. True Christianity is only as the true God in the Bible has revealed it, not fallible men.

The book I mentioned is called "The Vatican's Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan. There is another book describing the same genocide but it is a foreign language. It is called "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: The Croatian Massacre of the Serbs" by di Vladimir Dedijer (a cura di), Harvey L. Kendall (Traduttore) The Serbs have that massacre burned into their memory, not that it is any justification for anything. But is was monstrous crime against them. I just found an online version through Google. The Vatican' (reformation.org)

Did you know the Vatican and their supporters in Croatia committed genocide against the Serbians during WW2 and killed 700,000 Eastern Orthodox people there. Priests took off their priestly clothing and joined the Ustashi. The military group who did it was called the Ustashi. This has been covered up and is not well known. If you want to read a book free online about it, Google "Vatican Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan. It is fully documented with names, photographs and details. We need less immigrants from countries which are hostile to western culture and more people from Europe and western countries, not because of skin colour, but because of different ideologies, religious beliefs, and lack of human rights belief.

The west would be better off to seek sovereignty because central and east are full of liberals and Marxists who have fallen for the man-made climate change scam. All they want to do is shut down our valuable oil industry and scam us with carbon taxes. I don't think O'Toole has much chance with all the eastern Liberals and Marxists running things or should I say ruining things. Too many suckers believe all the Marxist U.N. climate change nonsense.

If you look at the places that Trudeau brings immigrants, like the middle east and Africa, you will see that's where most of the hate is. Tribalism in Africa and the middle east is what rules. They also have endless wars, revolutions, and fighting. Multiculturalism is a failure and a myth. Trudeau never promoted peace. He does exactly the opposite by generating hate. He is the big divider by constantly telling Canadians they are full of racism, and forcing multiculturalism down everyone's throat and telling Canadians they committed genocide against natives. The CBC and CTV are the biggest promoters of the liberal agenda.

There is a book called "Dark Agenda" - The War to Destroy Christian America. This is a fact and it includes Canada. It is going on in Canada. This is what bringing in one million immigrants from the third world is all about. This is the Liberal/NDP left agenda. Bringing in all these people who oppose our Christian civilization is just a part of what they are doing to attack Christianity. The whole public school system is set up along the lines of Marxism to destroy our western Christian culture. This is the Cancel Culture movement at work. One tool being used in some provinces is the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity program (SOGI). Another tool is the practice of bringing in aboriginal cultural studies where they have even brought in aboriginal people to perform a smudging ritual in the classroom, while claiming this is not a religious practice. Who would believe smudging which is really to drive away evil spirits is not a pagan religious practice? But this is what the court and education system authorities claimed in B.C. when it was challenged. They said it was not religious. If Trudeau is elected another four years, the Cancel Culture Marxists will move ahead full steam and one of the things in their crosshairs is our freedom of speech and the internet.

You also didn't explain why you support Trudeau when he wants to bring in a million immigrants from the third world over the next three years. Where did you come from? Do you support Trudeau because he is destroying our traditional European founding nation which is a Judeo-Christian society? Are you ok with turning Canada into a third world s__thole?

You obviously have a very superficial view of Trudeau and have not been paying attention to what is going on. Trudeau prorogued Parliament last summer right in the middle of the introduction of new laws to provide pandemic aid to Canadians, preventing parliamentarians from making amendments and improvements to the different aid packages. Trudeau used prorogation to hide the WE Charity scandal and take it off the agenda. Your claiming Trudeau saved Canadians with aid proves you don't understand how government works. What makes you think the other parties would not have provided the same aid packages? In actual fact, the opposition made many amendments to improve the aid packages, when Parliament finally resumed after being prorogued. Trudeau was evasive and tries to shut down Parliament and tried to bring in dictatorial powers with his aid package to sideline Parliament but he was caught on it and stopped.

You misled readers by using the pseudonym "CITIZEN 2015". It seems to say you became a citizen in 2015. What do you expect anyone to think? Then you compounded the problem by accusing others of lying for not understanding the pseudonym differently.