blackbird

The Heritage committee in Parliament apparently starts studying the motion on Islamophobia today. Ezra on The Rebel Media thinks they will come out with a law to try to stop "Islamophobia" in all federal government departments including the Armed Forces. What exactly that will mean remains to be seen because the word Islamophobia seems to mean fear of Isalm. How do you outlaw or ban a fear of Islam? We will see what they come out with.

Correct. People who find themselves displaced by lower paying jobs or are displaced by technological advances need to prepare themselves by making plans to get into another occupation or field and retrain. Society is constantly changing. Telephone companies used to employ large numbers of people to maintain and repair the old mechanical switching system in the telephone exchanges. It took a lot of maintenancemen to maintain, and lubricate those mechanical switches. When those were replaced with electronic exchanges in the 1970s, people had to retrain or transfer to other jobs in the company or retire if they had enough time. The new technology probably reduced the workforce to 10% of what they had before in the telephone exchanges. But they still needed a lot of employees in all kinds of other jobs in the company. But newer technologies create some jobs in computer sciences, programming skills and software/hardware engineering. The days of the small town shoemaker, candlestick maker, and blacksmith are gone. Barbers are still needed though. I know a barber who was once a janitor in the hospital but when they announced they were laying off because of government cutbacks and he wouldn't have a job, he re-trained maybe twenty years ago to be a barber and has not regretted it a bit. He said cleaning up blood, etc. in the hospital was not a pleasant job. Now he has good working hours and can choose his own days off and gets to chew the fat with all the customers. It's an easy stress free job. Another barber I know hires a replacement in the winter and takes off to his mobile home in Arizona.

I have been involved in watching everything for years and I can tell you nothing is decided or chosen from Britain. The Governor General goes to England to be sworn in. That's all. Yes he is chosen by PM. It is because the Queen is still the Queen of Canada. We have what is called a Constitutional monarchy. It means we have a Queen as head of state and a Governor General who represents the Queen in Canada. We also have a Constitution which gives us all the rights to self-government. The Queen is only a figurehead. She visits Canada occasionally and may perform a ceremony. But that's about all she does with Canada. The system with a governor general and a Queen is a good one because the Armed Forces and RCM Police swear allegiance to the Queen and the people largely support the Queen. This means it would be very difficult for someone to come in and take over the government like a dictator. I am not criticizing other systems such as republics, but we are satisfied with our system.

No. I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of how our system in Canada works. It's not a dictatorship at all. You would have to do some studying and talk to people to see how it works here. I was involved in a political party in a local electoral district or riding. Each party in an electoral district has annual meetings where they elect their board of directors and executive. Anyone who wishes may put his name forward to become a candidate for a party in that district. Then the party members choose which contender they wish to be their candidate. It is done by having a campaign and then an election in that district. Then when a general election is held, each party's candidate runs to be the member of parliament for that district. There are 338 electoral districts in Canada and 338 members must be elected to fill the seats in Parliament. It is an involved process that is governed by a department of government called Elections Canada. There are certain rules about financing parties, riding (district) associations, and campaigns that must be followed. It is done democratically by the Elections Canada laws. It has nothing to do with Britain which is far away on the other side of the ocean and has no interest in our elections and how we choose our government.

Actually the British royal family has nothing to do with governing Canada. Neither does the governor general in Canada. He is not involved in the political process. Canadians have different political parties and elect the members of parliament. The party that gets the most members of parliament elected becomes the government of Canada. The governor general is chosen by the Prime MInister who was chosen by his party and elected to be a member of parliament. The governor general is mainly an official representative of the Queen but was not chosen by the Queen. His function is to attend official ceremonies, give out the Order of Canada awards in a little ceremony. But he has nothing to do with the executive branch of government which introduces laws in Parliament which must be passed by a majority of the 338 members of Parliament. The governor general is more of a figurehead. The only time he does something to do with the government is if the government is defeated and falls. Then he can call an election or if there are enough members of the opposition parties, he can appoint an interim government to govern. But he never makes laws. We know this because we have studied it for years and follow what the governor general does. Is is sometimes interviewed on the news. I was fortunate to have met three prime ministers and met one of them twice. Before he became PM, he came to our town to campaign, I was fortunate to have lunch with him and about eight people and talk with him for about half an hour. I am just an ordinary person; not a politician. That was a a number of years ago. That was a big blessing. Canada became mainly independent from Britain in Confederation which we celebrate this year as it is the 150th anniversary since 1867. Canada became more independent over the years until now we are completely independent.

No, not true. Canada is an independent country and has been for a long time. We share the same Queen and belong to the Commonwealth of Nations. But we are completely independent.

I live in a town of about 18,000 or 20,000 people in the area and Walmart certainly does save a lot of money. What is the alternative? I have seen cherries sold in Walmart for $1.97/LB or KG and sold at the same time in another supermarket for $5 /LB or KG. Clothes in Walmart are a fraction of the price of small clothing stores. Same with shoes. You can get a pair of runners for $20 or $30 in Walmart. In a small shoe store you may pay double the price. Even breakfast cereals are much cheaper in Walmart than regular supermarkets. Walmart has the advantage of obtaining and selling goods in quantity and using their own networks of warehousing, trucking and infrastructure. They are able to do things more economically and efficiently through the whole infrastructure and supply network. Small businesses do not have that ability. It's a bit like comparing McDonalds and ordinary restaurants. You can buy a hamburger in McDonalds for say $6 but I have seen hamburgers in independent restaurants for $12 or more, plus you must leave a 12% or 15% tip. I have compared prices of some things in Walmart with other stores. Saying Walmart doesn't save money is not a believable statement for anyone who has shopped in Walmart and compared prices. Almost everything is cheaper in Walmart. That's the advantage of free enterprise. You say it damaged small business. That is true. Now you are telling the truth. But small businesses also only pay minimum wages to hired employees, which is the same that Walmart pays. The only people that make significant money in a small business are the owners if the business is successful, not the hired employees. But you need to consider the cost of living for the thousands of customers that don't make a huge wage and must buy their goods. They would be a lot poorer without the Walmarts and Canadian Tire stores, and the No Frill grocery stores. Some towns controlled by the small business sector have managed to keep Walmart out of town. This has hurt the majority of the population by forcing them to travel great distances to find a Walmart or forcing them to shop in a small shop with high prices. Should a few small business owners be protected at the expense of the thousands of ordinary citizens? I don't think so.

OK. Of course there are benefits. We have Walmart and Canadian Tire which I am always running to. I'm sure without Walmart, life would be far more expensive and a lot of things would not be available here. I consider Walmart a very valuable store. When I need something, that's the first place I think of because the price is not so bad. A lot of groceries are coming from China as well. We are pretty much dependent on goods from China now. Instead of learning French in western Canada, young people should start learning Chinese, especially in greater Vancouver. It would probably be more useful.

So at what point do you draw the line? Do you think there could be any consequences for dealing with China?

CNN had a one hour documentary on Inside North Korea last night. Everyone worships their leader. Nobody criticizes anything. They seem to be reasonably happy and have a certain amount of material goods. The family CNN was visiting had good food on the table at dinner. Think they have stores that sell smart phones. They have TVs in their homes although they looked like older TVs, not the modern flat screen TVs. It's not permissible to criticize the government or leaders. They have camps in the mountains were prisoners are sent or are executed. That way they have no problems or disagreements.

I think the Canadian governments since Pierre Trudeau opened diplomatic relationship with China have built up a huge relationship. No, I am not saying we should or could cut economic and political ties with China or other countries right now. It is far too big and complex. FN is a whole different issue. I would like to stick to the issue of China for now as it has me thinking. But you raise a good question about where do we go now and what should Canada be doing.

Yes, Trudeau speaks at times on the subject of human rights to "encourage" China. Personally I think Trudeau and many others are very naive. They have drunk the Kool Aid so to speak. I hope you keep an open mind on this subject and don't become too entrenched in defending Trudeau or the liberals on their cozy relationship with China because there is much more to learn about this and what it may mean in the long term. In your link, this is part of what Trudeau said: "Building closer economic ties will make it easier for China and Canada to speak frankly about governance, human rights and the rule of law, Trudeau told several hundred people at an event hosted by the Canada China Business Council. “I remind everyone that as a country that has seen first hand the benefits of free expression and good governance — Canada encourages China to do more to promote and protect human rights,” he said in his 22-minute speech. “In the global village, we all have stake in what happens here. “The success of the world is inexorably linked to China’s success, and I know that these are not easy conversations to have, but they are necessary ones.” The Liberals and Trudeau seem to be very naive and I think their reasoning is flawed. I don't believe he is correct at all. Liberals have the exalted belief that somehow forging closer ties and intertwining Canada's economy with China is going to cause them to listen and change. This is the biggest fallacy and charade one could imagine. AS I said before the whole concept is the individual has not rights; the collective is all that matters and all individual rights and existence is subservient to the good of the state and collective.

Nobody says Trudeau needs to be an evangelist for democracy, but there are bigger questions that are well beyond Trudeau and his comments. China has perhaps a third of the world's population and is economically moving ahead steadily. But they are still a one-party totalitarian state which does not recognize such a thing as individual human rights. Some people say China has changed but I would question this. In what way? Economically yes, but politically, no. It is still the same system. Since Pierre Trudeau started the diplomatic relations between Canada and China, it has grown tremendously. There is supposed to be a big difference between our system and theirs as far as human rights. Some people might think they are just being stubborn and not really understanding what we mean in the west by human rights. I think it goes far deeper than that. The Communist revolution was essentially to establish a totalitarian system where everyone works as they are directed and the state in return takes care of everyone. The essential belief is that there are no such things as individual rights. The individual is subservient to the state. The individual only exists for the common good and the state is the supervisor or enforcer of that principle. Any outside criticism or advice on that basic ideology is considered interference in internal matters of the state and is not welcome

You asked for something to cite, but I'm not exactly sure what kind of information you are looking for. Pierre Trudeau was the one who opened diplomatic relations with China in 1970 and it has blossomed ever since. Pierre Trudeau shunned our traditional allies and cozied up to the USSR, China, and Russia. That should tell us something. While Canadians have slept, our Liberal governments have been getting closer and closer to China. "Canada’s long-standing and comprehensive relationship with the People’s Republic of China operates at many levels and in many areas, including in trade, governance and values, health, education and culture. " As I said the Liberals (and probably Conservative governments as well) pay lip service to the lack of human rights in China. This government website describes Canada's relationship. Lots of cooperation and business. Human rights issues? Not so much. http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/china-chine/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng Chairman Mao and Pierre Trudeau

Simple facts. Trudeau said he admired the Chinese system because they can turn it on a dime. I assume he means make instant decisions. But he in his admiration he said nothing about the fact millions of people were killed in the Communist revolutions and the ongoing denial of human rights. Dissidents are locked up. There is not freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, and no fundamental freedoms. The internet is government controlled. Yet Trudeau meets with powerful billionaires from China and Canada allows China to invest in industries in Canada and possibly take them over. Canada is looking for deals with China, but human rights are ignored. http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/priority-countries/china

They pay lip service to human rights in other countries and Canada goes along like a dumb ox. Trudeau prefers to admire the Chinese system than say anything against their human rights.

Hell has been taught all through church history. It is not an interpretation that occurred 1600 years after the time of Christ. Once one starts giving credence to other writings and fables, he could sink into a pool of quicksand. The Bible is the only authority on spiritual and eternal matters. Hell was always taught, but rejected by some modernist bible translators in modern versions and preachers in modernist churches. Jesus describes hell as a place of suffering in Luke ch16 Revelation describes what happens to the devil and those whose names were not found in the book of life. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Revelation ch20 vs 10 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15 Other writing such as books and myths that claim hell does not exist are not the word of God and do not carry any weight or authority. Rather than trying convince one's self that it doesn't exist, it is better to accept the Bible as God's Word and the gospel. Much better to be born again by faith in Jesus Christ, trusting in his sacrifice for our sins. Salvation is not by works (Ephesians 2:8). Salvation is only through God's grace and mercy that we receive forgiveness of sin. Jesus is the only saviour. We must call upon him and trust in him.

It had nothing to do with exercising church authority. It had everything to do with the Reformation and a return to biblical or apostolic christianity. Rome opposed the Reformation and fought it every step of the way. I think there was the thirty years war and the Inquisition for four hundred years. The founding of the Jesuits and creation of the Counter-reformation in the 1500s, and the Council of Trent to oppose the Reformation were some of the tools used to oppose the Reformation There is a fascinating video on youtube about much of this. I think it is called the History of the Bible but not 100% sure. It's about a 2 or 3 hr video. Prior to the 1500s, there were no translations of the Bible in the English language. Prior to the Reformation, the church was controlled by Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe since it started after 312 A.D. It became the Holy Roman Empire and kings and emperors were under the authority and control of Rome. (with the exception of a few smaller independent baptist sects in Europe who were eventually killed by the RCC) The RCC had it's own version, the Latin Vulgate, which it had been using down through the ages within the Catholic Church. A large part of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church were rejected during the Reformation. Followers of the reformed churches and other churches which split from Rome wished to have a bible in their own languages and not one which might be tailored to support the doctrines of Rome. Rome did not believe individual people should have a Bible or be able to read it in their own languages. For over as thousand years, people were told by their priests what to believe. Then in the 1500s Martin Luther and some others discovered that the teachings and practices of Rome contradicted what the Bible said. About that time Rome's representatives were going around Europe selling indulgences to collect money to build the Saint Peter's basilica in Rome. Indulgences were meant to cover a person's sins and there were different prices for different kinds of sins. Then when the Reformation took place in the 1500s, those who followed the Reformation and left the Roman Church required a Bible which they could understand. The Reformation brought a rejection of the Roman Catholic system of the church as the final authority and interpreter of truth and their system of all grace and salvation comes only through the mass, baptism, and other sacraments, plus a long time in a fictitious purgatory. The Reformation returned to the apostolic teaching of the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith alone, the Bible teaching that all truth came to ordinary men and women through the Scriptures by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not priests or popes. Therefore it was necessary for ordinary believers to have access to Bible written in their own language so they could read and study it for themselves. That meant new Bibles had to be translated from the most trustworthy extant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into the English language and other languages in Europe such as German (Martin Luther's) in the 1500s. Several English bibles were produced in England in the 1500s with tremendous opposition from Rome. Some people were burned at the stake for opposing Rome and working on producing Bibles in English. Rome had always used priests to teach people what the Bible meant and always used only the Latin Vulgate which nobody could understand except the priest who had learned Latin. The New Testament had originally been written in Greek and so copies of the originals were kept in the eastern orthodox part of the world. When the Muslims overran the byzantine empire, some eastern orthodox people fled to western Europe bringing the early Greek manuscripts with them. These were some of the manuscripts which were used to produce the English versions in the 1500s and the 1611 King James Version. This web page gives a history of the King James Version and events leading up to it. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Here is a short article which will shed some light on it. Quote “Hell” or “Hades” in Matthew 11:23 et al.? "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23, KJV) Critics claim that the KJV is wrong for translating two Greek words “αδης (Hadēs)” and “γεεννα (Gehenna)” both as “hell.” These critics claim that Hades is merely a place of the dead, and not a place of torment and fire. However, we must get our understanding of biblical words from the Bible rather than from Pagan lore. The biblical definition of “Hades” indicates that it is a place of fire and torment. Luke 16:23-24 portrays the rich man being “tormented” in the “flame” of Hades. Thus, “hell” is an appropriate translation of “Hades.” Since “Gehenna” is Hebrew and “Hades” is Greek, it would make sense for the Greek-influenced Hebrews of the New Testament to use the two words interchangeably in referring to hell. Paul, despite referring to Hades numerous times, never uses the word “Gehenna” in all his letters which were addressed to Greek-speaking Gentiles. The only place outside of the Gospels where “Gehenna” is referred to is in James’ epistle (3:6) which was addressed to Jews. We must understand that the Greek of the New Testament is not a uniform dialect. Jesus used a Semitic dialect to Jews in Judea whereas Paul used the standard Greek dialect in his letters to the churches throughout the Roman Empire. "Hades" was the word for hell when the audience may not have understood "Gehenna". Apparently with the Hellenistic influence the word "Hades" was gaining currency even in Judea. But "Hades" was the only word for hell for the Gentiles. Why in the world would a Gentile in Rome understand the Hebrew word "Gehenna"? Common sense must be applied in ascertaining why the Bible uses both "Hades" and "Gehenna". There seems to be no difference between the biblical Gehenna and the biblical Hades. “Gehenna” is the Hebrew word for hell and “Hades” is the Greek word for hell. The KJV, being a translation, translates both words for hell as “hell.” Unquote http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/hell-or-hades-in-matthew-1123-et-al

The accurate translation in English is the King James Versions (1611) because it is the only translation based on the received text or textus receptus for the New Testament. Around 1880 two heretical Church of England (possibly priests) decided to make a new version based on two corrupt New Testament manuscripts. They did not like the King James Bible (1611). They appear to have been influenced by Rome and diabolical powers. At least one of them was involved with the occult. One manuscript is called the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript and was found in a waste paper basket in a monastery. The other corrupt manuscript was called Codex Vaticanus and was pulled out of the Vatican library. These two manuscripts were older than the manuscripts upon which the KJV (1611) was based and they developed a theory claiming they were more accurate even though they differed with the Received Text in thousands of places in the New Testament. Age does not prove accuracy. These two manuscripts were probably discarded in the early centuries because they were corrupt. And the accurate manuscripts upon which the received text is based were probably worn out from use. That would explain why the accurate manuscripts are not as old as the few that were pulled out around 1880. Yet these modernist heretics grabbed onto them and based their new translation on them. In a separate but related issue, modern version have in fact taken the word hell almost completely out of the Old Testament. Modern bible translators have altered the Bible in thousands of places, in some ways, to make it is more in line with new age thinking. It is all part of the corruption of literally all modern versions of the Bible. I would add that hell has been taught in the Bible for the past 2000 years. It is only in modern versions and modernist churches that have taken hell out of the Bible and want to present a more gentle approach. It's all part of the great falling away or apostasy prophesied would occur in the last days. The failure to teach something does not change the fact of it's existence. I am a follower of the KJV (1611) and completely reject the corrupt modern versions. If you want to know more about this I suggest you get the book "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. Available through Amazon or from their actual website avpublications dot com

Good grief! I hope you're wrong about 40% in the polls. Rex Murphy has an excellent opinion piece on the National Post website called "For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action". I think this describes him to a tee. He made many promises that he did not keep in the election campaign. We know what some of them were. So it amazes me that he still has 40% in the polls. Shows how gullible a large part of the electorate is. They probably never pay attention to what is happening after they cast their ballot.

No it wasn't invented. Jesus taught it is an actual place. But he doesn't want anyone to go there. We get involved in talking about politics and ideology often on the internet. Try convincing someone who believes in Marxism-socialism that it's a bad idea. Communist countries banned religion or tried to abolish it because it doesn't fit in with the ideology of Communism. The Marxist ideology if I am correct is based on the idea of taking from those that have and giving to those that do not have (by force if necessary). If you want to oppose Marxism or some offshoot of it, the Bible will support you.

Correct. Jesus gave an account of the conversation between a rich man in hell (after he died) and Abraham. Jesus never said it was a parable, which leaves the conclusion that it was an account of a conversation that took place from a rich man in a place called hell. Luke Ch16 vs 19 - 31 (King James Version 1611) The KJV (1611) is God's written revelation to man.

You must admit our legal system has often convicted people who were later found innocent. It is not infallible by any stretch. Much use has been made of the not criminally responsible plee. It is a difficult thing to oppose when there may be experts who may view people who commit those kinds of crimes as not mentally fit. A lot of power has been put in the hands of experts. A non-expert in the field of mental issues up against a ostensible expert such as a psychiatrist has an uphill battle in a court.

Yes. I shouldn't have used that phrase. It makes light of a real place. It wasn't invented.