blackbird

I received some information that the Conservatives are approximately neck and neck with the Liberals right now.

I have to agree with you completely. Trump has his warts but he is on the right track.

The "peoplekind" remark could be good cannon fodder in the next election. Trudeau criticizing our justice system because he didn't like the outcome of the Bouchie - Stanley trial in Saskatchewan was bizarre to say the least. It wasn't good for "reconciliation", although I wouldn't recommend that be used in the election. A court ruling should not be used for political purposes, but maybe his commenting on it could. But it's risky because the whole issue surrounding it could be political suicide for any party that gets into it.

ISIS Islamic terrorists are a powerful force in the southern part of the Philippines. Are we not going to provide any equipment to fight Islamic terrorists because of a poor human rights record? Many countries have a poor record, but should we stand by while Islamic terrorists grow in strength and possible eventually take over a country?

Trudeau and the Liberals oppose selling helicopters that could be used to fight ISIS terrorists in the Philippines.

You don't understand how the world works. Most of the war in Iraq was against the thousands of Al Qaeda supporters and insurgents who went there specifically to fight against the U.S. in a holy war. The U.S. is simply defending itself. Obviously you can't or don't want to understand that. So I will leave it at that as I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

That's your opinion. The prisoners are classified as enemy combatants, captured as a result of a war. They are not considered as civilian or domestic criminals. The U.S. is doing what it has to do in this period of history to defend itself from international terrorism.

No. Obama released a number of terrorists from Gitmo. Some of them went on to get involved in terrorism again.

Maybe, but I still don't believe the legal system is set up to deal with terrorists that have been captured in other countries in the war on terrorism. Because of the stringent requirements for evidence, witnesses it may be very difficult to convict a terrorist in a civilian court. It could result in the world's most dangerous terrorists walking free. Many of the informants may be foreigners located in other countries who may not be willing to give information if they or their families are going to be put at risk.

That doesn't work because regular justice systems are not set up or capable of dealing with foreign terrorists, which often involve secret informants that cannot be exposed as regular courts require. Also the laws are not set up to deal with terrorists fighting in other countries.

What would the U.S. do with Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists or other terrorists they capture?

I would choose Doug Ford because he is the only one to come out and say he would not support a carbon tax. The rest of them might be too much like liberals.

CPP is no joke when you are retired and need it to live on. EI is no joke either if you are laid off and need it to live.

Most churches believe in the trinity. That is what the King James Bible (1611) teaches. The King James Bible is based on the Received Text., which are the Greek New Testament manuscripts available at the time the first English language bibles were produced in the 1500s. Quote The case for the Triunity of God is even stronger in the New Testament. Here it can be unequivocally demonstrated the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that these three names are not synonymous, but speak of three distinct and equal Persons. (1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2). (2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8). (3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.” Unquote The full article defending the trinity is here: https://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god

I don't know what is exciting about changing the national anthem. It is not something that should be changed especially to satisfy #metoo or women's lib. There is nothing wrong with "in all thy sons command" because the word sons as used here refers to both genders. You will find in English grammar a male pronoun can be used to refer to both genders. This is the case in the King James Bible (1611) otherwise known as the Authorized Version. This Bible is the greatest work in English grammar ever completed. It was used throughout the British empire and for the past 400 years has sold more copies than any other book in history. The private member's bill to change this word came from someone whose mother tongue was not even English. The Canadian people were not consulted, but has been imposed by a handful of elites at the top, led by a feminist extraordinaire.

Maybe. Just mentioned there is some conflict. A federal MP claims Brown was ousted in an "inside job" and he claims the elite in the party are trying to purge the party of tens of thousands of members. I don't know if there is any truth to this, just reported what I read.

Right now there is an internal struggle going on in the party and allegations by one MLA that Toronto elites are trying to purge members from the membership roles. He claims that elites are trying to control the party. He says a group of Toronto elites were responsible for getting Brown out.

The Pope leads probably the wealthiest corporation in the world, worth billions of dollars. Read the book "The Vatican Billions" online for free. Just Google it. It is a very controlling, authoritarian and unbiblical religious system that controls hundreds of millions of people, who are basically slaves to this system.

The only indirect connection would be in the church's beliefs. The church itself would not agree with abortion or homosexuality. But this is irrelevant to hiring students for summer camps. Would they give money to Muslims to hire summer students? There are probably lots of things in Islam that one could say violate the Charter of Rights, like the 109 or so verses in the Quran that advocate violence against infidels or non believers. Trudeau has a strong dislike for evangelical christians. Evangelical beliefs do not fit in with his liberal, progressive agenda and further he believes he can punish those who don't accept his progressive belief system. He is basically an authoritarian who does not respect freedom of conscience or freedom of religion. I would also say the liberal ideology of abortion and LGBT is a religion in and of itself. It meets the definition and is pushed by Trudeau the same as a religious cult.

Liberals just created an excuse to persecute faith groups and create a wedge issue for vote-getting.

You are incorrect. There is nothing in the Charter of Rights which says anything about abortion. No law has been passed to make abortion legal either. It is Trudeau's personal progressive crusade driving this.

The idea of native witch doctors, sometimes called Shaminism was viewed as an uncivilized practice. The non-native society, government and churches believed that natives had to be assimilated in white man's society. The idea of people keeping their aboriginal culture and religions was not considered the best way to go. We need to keep in mind society has changed, especially in the last number of decades. 100 or 150 years ago the idea of a Charter of Rights or individual freedom to do your own thing never existed. The rights that are enthroned today for natives and immigrants to keep their own culture and religion is a recent development called multiculturalism. There may still be certain aspects of native religion or culture that are not known and which could not be practiced or accepted today because it would be harmful to people or against the law.

The word "morality" actually is a relativistic term. It comes from the word mores, which refers to the general practices of what society accepts or does not accept. It can change with the times as new fads or ideas develop. We see this with the wide acceptance of abortion and LGBT rights. Other "rights" seem to be coming more to the fore now or being proclaimed as rights. I think if you look into it you will find all societies throughout history have some kind of mores which they taught their children. What they taught their children was likely derived from what their particular religion in their area taught them, whatever it was. It is only in recent times in the west that the idea of secular humanism has developed and grabbed onto by society. This may be partly because of the immigration system. Previously most of the immigrants to Canada and the U.S. came from Europe. That meant they were either Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. But in the last fifty years, with the increasing immigration from third world non-christian countries, it has been decided that no religion should be taught in public schools. Some provinces get around this by providing extra funding to Catholic schools, which are guaranteed by the Constitution to receive funding. But Pierre Trudeau I believe introduced or promoted the idea of multiculturalism. This meant the religion of all immigrants would have to be treated equally in public schools. We also see fewer people attending churches in Canada in recent years. This has resulted in a greater emphasis of no religious teaching in public schools. Except in recent times, the Ontario government has added some human rights code or law to require public schools to "accommodate" other religions to some extent. This is why we see some schools allowing a 15 minute prayer meeting for Islam in the gymnasium on Fridays.

I meant the number of residential schools compared with non-residential Catholic schools. Must be hundreds of Catholic schools in existence.

Your bigotry dominates your thinking and comments. Impossible for you to consider anybody else's perspective.