blackbird

The condition of the public health system speaks for itself. This article gives details and explains the problems. Global News is just reporting another Emergency Room is closed, an excellent example of the results of the Socialist ideology. " Not only is the concept of socialism flawed due to natural law that demands the survival of the fittest in order to guarantee the future of life, it confers a contradictory elite status on those chosen to decide what is best for the millions. This school of thought claims to be all about “equality” but is blind to the reality that when you force “equality” on another it frequently reduces society’s ability to do what all life demands — to continually improve the species, making it stronger and more resilient. Why? The truth is that we are not born equal, and you cannot mandate upward ability. Mandates can only limit the abilities and opportunities of the above average to reach “equality.” Like it or not, some individuals have superior intellectual abilities, talents, physical or mental strength, agility, eyesight… or whatever is demanded in the moment to overcome adversity. If that were not true, the human race would have died out by now. Those who disagree will claim that equality is all about opportunity and I support that, but socialists always follow that by imposing laws that promote quotas, saying their way is the natural and proper way. That makes no sense at all. If socialism were the natural order, you wouldn’t need quotas and enforcement. Opponents of capitalism will point out that rules and laws govern this system as well. But there is a difference. In the capitalist world, the rules are looser, focused on creating a level playing field without destroying initiative or worrying about “equality.” Capitalism rules insist on freedom of choice — which is why there are laws preventing monopolies. Under socialism, creating monopolies is the greatest, albeit most counterproductive, tool. Health care is an example. In Canada, competition in the health system is an evil notion. Yet the most successful programs around the world allow private care to compete with public programs. Socialists here argue that a “two tier system” is “unfair.” The rich, they say, will get all the best doctors and the poor will be served the dregs. Not according to worldwide experience. Under our system, though, it is a race to the bottom where everyone has the equal opportunity to spend whole days in the waiting room — rich and poor alike. To illustrate this, I had a note from a frustrated reader who spends his winters in Mexico. He became ill and has no personal doctor, so he went to emergency where he had been waiting for eight hours alongside another patient in severe abdominal pain who had been waiting 20 hours. “In Mexico, I would have been in and out of a hospital in less than 30 minutes, and the cost would be about $40,” he wrote. As for a two-tier system, we already have that. The wealthy simply pack up and go to a doctor down south. The mess with the health system is just one illustration. Our government-owned auto insurance and energy systems are also in a mess. Without competition to hone practices, encourage true innovation, and keep costs under control, huge and cumbersome bureaucracies build up. Preserving the status quo becomes the number one pursuit instead of striving for efficiency and innovation. This can also happen to big business, but when it does, the business fails. Under the socialist system, it just gets worse until some brave and strong-minded capitalist gets elected and deliberately dismantles the monster. What concerns me most, though, is the contradictions, illogic, hypocrisy and the outright arrogance of this school of thought. It assumes that the State knows better than the individual, even though the State is made up of individuals. In a world of “equals” how can this be? How can one class, in a supposedly classless society, know more about how best to live than others? I, like most conservatives, believe in a world where we co-operate and help those who need help, but without destroying the dignity of the recipient, without assuming that we know better than they do, without dictating how others should live. That way of thinking causes a lot of trouble and some of it can be far reaching. Think back to 2018, a year much like this one. Spring started out with hope and optimism. We had a young new prime minister with lots of energy. China had sent their prime minster to visit in 2017, and the Canada-China Year of Tourism had been declared, sending us a record 737,000 visitors from China. We looked forward to continuing this growth. In Winnipeg, we were putting the finishing touches to the Chinese Lights of the North Festival. All sorts of dignitaries from both countries were scheduled to attend — then the bottom dropped out. Trudeau had words with Shi Jinping, which he leaked. The Chinese leader lost face and that was the end of that. He could not be lectured by some self-appointed arbiter of governance morality. Trudeau tried to back away by praising China only to get himself in deeper. There is much more to this story, but the lesson in this piece is that we have no right to try to dictate morality to others, not as individuals nor as a country. We have democratically agreed upon standards of behaviour in our own country. They may or may not serve the needs of those in a different culture. That is their decision. We are not superior. Nevertheless, while our socialist friends declare equality for all, they really feel themselves to be superior and to have the right to dictate to others. That is the underlying arrogance. Capitalism is not perfect — nothing is. But at least it doesn’t pretend its ideas are like an act of God. — Dorothy Dobbie, C.M., is a former MP and the publisher of the monthly Manitoba Lifestyles 55, and a guest writer for the Winnipeg Sun." DOBBIE: The underlying arrogance of the socialist belief system

Those are phony excuses not to sign a letter against anti-semitism. Anti-semitism has been common in the world for much of the past 1,500 to 2000 years. You are just continuing to prove to be part of the problem.

My own view on tatoos is they are not a great thing to have because they change the appearance of the natural body. I prefer the natural body appearance. The Bible says God created us and our bodies belong to Him. Some people get them and then later regret it because people sometimes change their thinking about them later. If you look at the removal processes on a search on the internet, one method uses a laser. It looks like they are not completely removed or it still leaves some impression although not as evident or obvious as the tatoo was.

A Bible commentary doesn't say God is an physical image of man or vice versa. The Bible in Genesis 1:27 is not referring to a physical likeness. God is a spirit or non-corporeal. One commentator says man was created in a natural and moral likeness, which was his sinlessness. But man lost his sinlessness with the fall of man. But man still has a natural likeness of intellect, emotions, and will the commentator says. Do I have to have a point?

A guy on a very noisy motorcycle went by today closely following a car and making as much noise as possible revving his motorcycle. He appeared to be trying to annoy the car ahead of him. No shirt but his back was completely covered with tatoos.

Forget international law.

Forget it. Guess you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Never heard of the Dillon-Wagoner principle. Sounds like something you just made up. A country cannot make up it's own rules and impose them on the rest of the world unless it thinks it rules the world.

So you don't believe in a justice system to deal with criminals. This is not a war situation. A "chain of command" is a military process. In this case it is using the military to execute domestic suspects. I thought the main principle in a justice system was that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty and a requirement for the accused to go through the justice system.

So you believe there is no need for a justice system to deal with criminals. The government will be the judge and jury and decide who is guilty and punish them themselves.

I just asked you to explain what you mean "I need saving" and you refer me to some website. That doesn't answer what you believe and what you meant.

We can only go by what you say. You said " I know I am a sinner and I need saving." What does that mean?

How do you know? Were they tried and found guilty? How could it be acceptable to just go out and kill eleven men on a boat somewhere on the ocean? This doesn't sound good at all.

So according to you, migrants with one charge twenty years ago of marijuana possession, must be big time drug dealers. I thought the principle is everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Sounds more like an invented scheme to deport people without justification.

Would you say what Trump is doing is very authoritarian and domineering in the area of undocumented immigrants?

You seem to ignore the fact you accused me of comparing deportation with the Holocaust, even though I said nothing about the Holocaust. I never accused anyone of supporting a Holocaust. I likened the deportation system to Naziism, meaning Fascism. I didn't say you were a Nazi. There is a difference. quote fas·cism [ˈfaˌSHizəm] noun -an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. -extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior: "an outright ban is just fascism" -very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: unquote I wasn't referring to individuals. I was referring to the way the system of mass deportation is done. Just arresting people, throwing them in a harsh prison in Alligator Alcatraz or sending them to an inhumane prison in El Salvador. Denial of human rights. That fits in with the definition of fascism.

Actually I did not call individuals Nazis. I think I said the whole depotation system has some similarities to Naziism. Big difference. But you appear to often twist my words to make false claims.

It is more like mob rule now.

False accusations. I think we've reached an impasse. I tried to reach out but your mind is set. Sad. A Christian doesn't "need saving".

It is sad that you would say things like that. Are you a Bible believer or Christian? If so, we should be finding a way to be at peace with one another instead of throwing hateful comments around. I am sure Jesus would not want us to behave like this. We shouldn't be bringing everything down to a personal level and personal attacks. That is a Satanic thing. I am going to make an effort to avoid that. I do apologize for any personal attacks or comments.

I never said anything about the Holocaust and never said deportations are the similar to the Holocaust. So you are wrong about that. I won't say you lied about it, but you are seriously mistaken. I said the mass deportation is similar to Nazisim, meaning in the way people are being treated inhumanely. That's all I meant. Nazis hated Jews. I didn't say you are practicing a Holocaust. But there seems to be a hatred of undocumented migrants going on in the way they are treated.

Hatred of others for their opinions pointing out what one considers as evil attitudes toward other humans is not how I see Jesus Christ as operating. Jesus said love they neighbour (including undocumented migrants). How is that shown by all the comments on here? I am not perfect, but I do try to point out what I see as wrong. Perhaps we all need to think more about what Jesus would think or do in any circumstance. I have also at times been accused of not being a Christian by people that don't even profess to be Christians. These people know nothing about the Bible or Christianity.

Hatred is hatred. Those on here who have made endless statements saying just deport all the undocumented migrants regardless of their situation or circumstances (they call them illegal aliens). That shows a contempt or hatred for these migrants. Their statements have shown they don't care for them at all regardless of the fact it might destroy their families. They were even ok with illegally sending them to that torture prison in El Salvador. You don't see any similarity between that kind of hate and Nazi hate of the Jews. Hate is hate and is an evil thing and you want to claim it doesn't exist? So you hate me for pointing it out.

You have to admit there is hatred for undocumented migrants in America. They are rounded up like a herd of animals and sent wherever it can be arranged without any real fair process. This kind of hatred of immigrants is similar to the hatred the Nazis had for Jews. The Jews were also persecuted for 1,500 years or more throughout Europe. There was a hatred of Jews and still is by many people. It looks much the same as the hatred of undocumented migrants. Comments on here show no mercy or consideration for treating people in a humane manner. So what are you getting up on your high horse for? You believe they should all just be rounded up and deported without question. Sure, they are not being sent to concentrations camps or gas chambers. But they are receiving inhumane treatment and families are being broken up. It is pretty bad. You need to admit that.

No. I don't think Trump and the MAGA differentiate much between legal and illegal immigration. The proof is also shown in Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, a long established practice. The laws make it next to impossible for an undocumented immigrant to obtain legal status. The U.S. system is not accommodating to undocumented migrants at all. There is no mercy. Trump has consistently shown his hatred or disdain for immigrants. His whole election campaign was built on an anti-immigrant stance. " On the campaign trail, President Trump made his promise to drastically slash immigration a rallying cry. Since taking office, he’s issued a flurry of executive orders aimed at achieving those goals, from ending birthright citizenship to freezing funding for refugee resettlement and migrant legal aid organizations. Immigrant rights groups have responded with lawsuits challenging the legality of these orders and report a climate of fear that is making people question whether to accept farm jobs or take children to school. Trump’s rhetoric and policy actions alike are dramatic. But heated political conversation about immigration, laced with issues of race and class, is nothing new in the United States. Trump’s executive actions are the latest entry in the long saga of our nation’s fraught relationship with immigration, a subject on which Hidetaka Hirota, an associate professor of history at UC Berkeley, is an expert. Hirota studies American immigration law, stretching back even before the U.S. was formed. Anti-immigrant, or at least anti-outsider, sentiment has existed throughout our nation’s past, he says, and many tensions over labor and race that fuel immigration debates today are continuations of a centuries-old standoff. “Trump is really outstanding, in a sense. He is bold,” Hirota said. “But at the same time, his language, his approach, the way he views immigration were actually built on earlier discourses.” Recently, Hirota spoke with UC Berkeley News to provide historical context for Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship, explain how demand for immigrant labor has shaped U.S. policy and share his perspective on America’s shifting attitude toward migration." How Trump's immigration policies compare to those of America's past - Berkeley News