blackbird

Here is a website you might like that I came across. Some good articles on there and food for thought. One is Dalhousie University is "Swimming in a Sea of White Supremacy". http://www.eurocanadian.ca/

Good point. Our main industry is extracting natural resources. I guess there is only so much value-added to resources that can be done because the market for it must be limited. We can sell only so much logs, coal, oil, and natural gas. Don't you think we should be able to find some way to capitalize more on raw resources? Maybe get a bit for more them. Paying 20 or 30% duty for exporting lumber doesn't make much sense. Are we selling raw logs to the U.S? Maybe we should stop doing that and sell more lumber instead at a higher price. What's the solution to that one? Government cannot tell companies what to produce. But they can negotiate trade deals that might encourage selling more of something, like more lumber or natural gas/oil. Our biggest problem is the liberal left who won't let us build pipelines and sell our oil overseas. The next big problem is the courts and liberals who require us to negotiate with native bands and native leaders to develop resources and other projects while at the same time telling the government to pay millions to aggrieved Muslims and aboriginals. The third problem is the strong environmental lobby and NDP that obeys them. Is there anybody in Canada that represents the interests of ordinary Canadians?

Trump has a lot of clout since he can cancel or reject NAFTA any time. Canada does have a few things which work in it's favour. We have natural resources, including oil, natural gas, electricity from hydro-electric dams and water. Do we also have uranium? Once the whole NAFTA is opened up for renegotiation, which is what Trump did, I would think everything is on the table.

Harper's analysis was very accurate.

I think you greatly underestimate Trump. He has a core of tens of millions of ordinary, middle class people who are tired of the globalist leftward drift of government. When Trump ran he was running more as an independent than a Republican. He knows a lot of his base are fed up with all government and he promised to clear the swamp. Trudeau and the Liberals don't really have much of a clue on NAFTA. Taking progressives ideas like native issues, environmental issues, and labour issues to the bargaining table was a disastrous move. That's exactly the kind of thing that Trump hates. Also trying to negotiate a deal with a tri-party deal which includes Mexico was a serious mistake as well. Trump made it clear during the election his main concern with NAFTA was Mexico not Canada. Now Trudeau and the Liberals have made Canada a big concern for Trump. If we get through this reasonably unscathed we will be very fortunate indeed. NAFTA could be finished. Then Canada will have to negotiate piece meal for each industry. That could be very costly for trade. We already signed a trade deal with Europe and some other countries. It is not easy or even possible to replace the U.S. with other countries.

Here an interesting perspective on Bill 62 in the Toronto Sun which makes sense. It says the progressives that are opposing bill 62 in Quebec and the rest of country and defending the wearing of a face covering are inadvertently supporting the oppression of Muslim women and girls. They say nothing about the danger these women face if they try to stop wearing a Niqab or Hijab and want to dress like a westerner. Apparently they're more concerned with a Muslim's so-called right to wear this symbol of fundamentalist ideology than Muslim women or girl's bondage and safety. A Muslim teenage girl finally, after being beaten and abused by her father for not wearing a Niqab or Hijab, filed a report to the police. This happened in Gatineau just across the river from the Ottawa mayor who condemned bill 62. Sad. http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-progressive-reaction-to-bill-62-lets-down-vulnerable-muslim-womenA

Jesus did die for the sins of those who belong to him. Calvinist, reformed or presbyterian doctrine teaches he died only for those who are saved or forgiven, not the whole unbelieving world. At the same time, Jesus does want everyone to be saved and nobody to be lost. But nobody knows who will become a believer so nobody can say who will be forgiven in the future. Basically I think it's fair to say the Bible teaches one must have faith which is a gift of God, not by works. (Ephesians Ch2 vs8) Receiving forgiveness for one's sins should not be taken as a licence to sin. That argument has been made before but it's due to a lack of understanding of the Bible. It's easy to take bits and pieces of something you hear and throw it out there to try to be a little controversial, but actually knowing what the Bible teaches takes a bit of study and effort.

You have a one-track mind and the same old same old keeps coming out on here. What is an illegal invasion to you might not be to the western world. It's might be a matter of point of view. If you are on the opposite side you probably would say that. The U.S. does what is necessary for it's security. A few things might be debatable. But then you even say the war against terrorism is wrong. You would rather see terrorists like al Qaeda run rampant with no opposition. You lost all credibility on the subject of 9-11 and al Qaeda. If you had picked certain things you might have convinced someone of some things; but when you called everything illegal, including the war on terrorism, you lost it.

Because there is no logistical way to ban a thought or ideology. You know that. You are saying banning a face covering is the same as trying to ban an ideology. It's not. A face covering is a physical thing. You want to label anyone who disagrees with the face covering as a bigot or racist. That's the only excuse liberals can use when they have no other answer.

No, I never said to ban the the ideology. How would you ban an ideology? It's not possible. I disagree with it and don't defend it. I don't agree that face coverings should be allowed in public because it is a form of intimidation and tells everyone they reject our culture of freedom and human rights. If you want to call someone who disagrees with Islam a bigot, that's your choice. But it's not a rational argument for anything.

The nun's habit doesn't cover their face. So what do nuns have to do with bill 62? The purpose of a nun's habit is also different. It is not a sign for a fascist ideology which denies women's fundamental rights and treats them as inferiors and rejects our western freedoms and human rights. It is hypocrisy to say one believes in equality and human rights for women, but accept this symbol in public places which means the opposite.

How is democracy big nonsense? The people decide who they want to represent them in government. Who else should decide who will form the government? Who has the right more than the people to decide? Democracy is not perfect and they make some bad decisions but nobody has found a fairer system than letting the people choose their leaders. The Bible says Christians must obey those in authority unless of course they do something which is against God's teaching in the Bible such as killing innocent people as Hitler and the Nazis did.

Bill 62 is about banning a face covering in certain circumstances, not about banning religion. The Niqab is sending the message that our western culture and freedoms are rejected. This is a political ideology of control under the cover of a religion. Do you support this?

So how does the Queen choose the Prime Minister or members of parliament in Canada? The people elect the government in Canada every four years. Democracy is far from perfect, but as Churchill said there is no better system. What is the alternative? The only alternative is a dictatorship. Then you have one person who dictates everything to the whole country and makes all the laws. This has been the case in many countries throughout history. Sometimes it turns out very bad for the people. Many of us disagree with the Prime Minister but we will have a chance to change the government in two years by elections. In the meantime, anyone who disagrees with the government is free to speak against what they are doing or write to government or newspapers to complain. But anyone is wise to obey the leaders in all the laws and avoid any problems. This is what the Bible says. Obey those in power. The U.S. banned alcoholic beverages around 100 years ago but it didn't work well. I think it was called prohibition. There was a huge black market and it was sold illegally. The government had to give up.

I agree with Betsy. The Communists killed about 100 million people in the 20th century imposing their system in the USSR and China, and they opposed and banned any kind of religion. While they professed to not believe in God and opposed religion, they set up their own belief system based on Karl Marx's ideology. Anyone who disagreed or questioned it was exterminated. Hundreds of millions of others were enslaved. About 1/3 of the world was enslaved and remains so to this day. I can't think of any religion that killed that many people in the 20th century. But let's face it the world has always been a place where people fought wars over land, resources or political control for thousands of years.

There is no connection between banning last married names and banning face coverings in certain limited circumstances. Two totally different matters.

An interesting article on Bill 62. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/banning-the-niqab-is-bigoted-and-sexist-or-is-it/article36696047/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe Personally I agree with Bill 62. The European Court of Human Rights has agreed the requirement to show one's face in public is not unreasonable. According to this article, many media pundits, CBC, and liberals, leftists oppose bill 62. These people are out of touch with most Canadians. One report says about 70% of Canadians oppose face coverings. A number of European countries have banned face coverings in various circumstances. I think while it is a relatively small number of people effected by bill 62, it is the best time to ban face coverings in certain circumstances before the practice spreads far more widely. It is a symbol of a kind of conservative political Islam (one group which enforces it is the fundamental Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia) which is not held by most Muslims in the world. To encourage the wearing of face coverings could be laying the groundwork for greater future problems. The face covering really cuts off people from communicating with fellow Canadians and works against fitting into Canadian society. It really isolates people. There are restrictions to religious practices in other religions already, as for example, polygamy is illegal. There is no such thing as unlimited freedom to do anything.

Actually she is speaking the truth. The reason is simple. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became "fallen" or sinful human beings. Since they were our first parents, all descendants are born with a fallen or sinful nature. That's what makes people not obey God's command to love thy neighbour as thyself. See the account of the fall in Genesis and the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans in the New Testament. The reason the fall of Adam and Eve is passed on is because they are representative or the head of the human race. Just as when a leader of a nation decides to go to war, the whole nation must go to war. Adam and Eve represented the whole human race and when they rebelled, all of humanity was effected. So it is reasonable to believe everyone is racist in some way or degree even if we would like to think we are not. It is just a bias we have against things that are different. It might not manifest itself in outward signs or actions, but it is still there. A good book on this biblical doctrine is called "The Westminster Confession of Faith (for study classes) by G.I. Williamson. This book explains it much better than I can. It is in Chapter 6 called "Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof". Available from Amazon online. Quite interesting actually.

The government of Canada has a website which describes the conditions that people are accepted as refugees. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/menu-safethird.asp In the case of the migrants crossing the border from the U.S. this year, I am not sure how the requirements are applied. The news media does not report how the IRB makes it's decisions. I doubt if the IRB releases any information to the public or media. Does anyone know how the IRB has been operating and what basis they make their decisions this year concerning the migrants crossing from the U.S.? It would be interesting to know how it works, but I doubt we will ever know. I think the public has a right to know what exactly is going on so that we can make our decisions on political input to our elected MPs and the electoral process. How Canada is governed is the business of Canadians.

I just think in a free society, everyone should be able to see everyone else. But I think the chances of this Quebec law being struck down in courts, including Supreme Court are very strong. I am almost certain the law will be struck down. There might also be legitimate concerns about security. The face covering is a practice of Wahhabi Muslim women. Wahhabism is a particularly fundamentalist form of Islam. It was the sect that the 9-11 hijackers belonged to. It is the sect in Saudi Arabia where they enforced their Islamic laws by beheading people or cutting off limbs in the square. Women take a much lower place in society than men. Quote With the help of funding from Saudi petroleum exports[23] (and other factors[24]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[3] The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades the capital Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsher, intolerant Wahhabism.[25] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

There was a woman on CBC today, possibly a Muslim women, who spoke against wearing the Niqab (face covering). She claimed it is not part of Islam but comes from a small sect of Islam called Wahhabi, who originate from Saudi Arabia. According to Wikipedia this is a fundamentalist, strict interpretation of Islam. The guest on CBC said she thought they wear it as a statement for political Islam. Reading on the internet sites on Wahhabism, most Muslims do not support that branch of Islam. It appears only a very small percentage are of that persuasion. The woman said it is not in the Quran and she doesn't believe it is a religious thing. Quebec's Bill 62 .

Would you agree private enterprise's purpose is to make money? Corporation's purpose is to have a return for their shareholders. Unless they are a philanthropic organization, should we expect them to be concerned with things other than the bottom line? Do you expect corporations to make charitable work or contributions to be one of their main functions?

Personally I am not opposed to French or Quebec. I had a couple close personal friends years ago whose primary tongue was French. I have read some of Quebec's history although my memory and reading comprehension is not that great; so probably have forgotten a lot of it. One of my close friends was a French Canadian who grew up in a French community (Beausejour) near Winnipeg and the other was visiting for a few years from Paris. I was very fortunate to get to know these gentlemen. Politicians are another kettle of fish. Left-leaning and liberals have their own agenda. For some reason they think they know what is best for the rest of Canadians as far as what we believe and how we should think. As an example, I received an E-mail which quote a couple statements from Trudeau which reveal some of his thinking. "Justin Trudeau's recent statement that "Canada is the world's first post national State" and "Canada has no core values" is a precise expression of the values of George Soros and his "Open Borders Society". "

I would also say we would all be better off with less government. Less command and control, smaller government means less taxes. Liberals and NDP mean more government, more taxes. Liberals think they can social engineer Canada to their version of what they think everyone should think like and what we should watch for entertainment, such as the CBC. The internet gives everyone access to the world and countless videos produced in many countries now. We shouldn't be taxed for watching that. It's a matter of personal freedom.

It's all part of their anti-Americanism and making people pay a premium for watching any movies not made in Canada or Quebec. It's probably only the tip of the iceberg of what they would do if they were able.