blackbird

Well Sir, let me explain a couple things to you which you may not know. Satan and demons are actually fallen angels. Read Isaiah ch14 vs 12-17 King James Versions. "12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! {O Lucifer: or, O day star} 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" So first of all Satan and demons were once angels in heaven with God, but as the above passage says, Lucifer (and all those angels that followed him) rebelled against God. As a consequence, they were kicked out of heaven. Strangely modern versions of the Bible have changed this passage and taken Lucifer right out of the only place in the Bible that describes his fall. Now, there is no mention of Lucifer or his demons having horns. So one can only assume that the idea of horns is a man-made invention. I am not aware of demons having horns being mentioned anywhere in the King James Bible, the only real and trustworthy Bible, because it is based on the Received Text. Modern versions are not. Secondly, nobody is saying that Satan or demons have physical or material bodies. They are supernatural spirit beings. They can influence people and have control over people. I don't know what you believe, but people who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their person Savior and know the Scriptures to a certain extent could be under the influence of these evil spirits. Even many Christians are under their influence to varying degrees. Now you might find this hard to believe, but the fact is there is a material world which we see all around us and there is a spiritual world which we cannot see. The spiritual world existed from eternity past. The material universe was created by God and Genesis describes this in the first few chapters. If you want to know more about this you would have to study the King James Bible, which are the actual words that God gave to man. You can also Google or search anything about the subject and you might find some correct information. But there is a danger you might find false information as the world is full of that too.

It is a kind of contradiction that PM Mark Carney has a history of being a devout Catholic, yet here he is leading a party which is ideologically contrary to many values held dear by Catholics. He was and still may be on some kind of Vatican committee. I should mention I disagree with the Liberal Party on much of their ideology as I believe it is contrary to Biblical teaching. It is a contradiction for someone who calls himself a Christian to be a part of such a party. This Catholic Register article describes this is some detail: " A Catholic’s caution about Mark Carney Questions raised about Liberal leader and his party’s principles Some Canadian Catholics are eager to have a prime minister who shares their faith yet offers a contrast to Justin Trudeau. Mark Carney appears to fit the bill. In 2015, while serving as Governor of the Bank of England, Carney was named Britain’s “most influential Catholic” by The Tablet. My co-religionists would be wise, however, to look beyond flattering headlines and critically examine the political machinery Carney represents. Carney is no moderate. Nor is he a reformer. He is a well-connected globalist with deep ties to institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, Bank for International Settlements, and the Financial Stability Board. These organizations place little value on national sovereignty, individual liberty, or democratic accountability. His rise is not rooted in public trust or grassroots support. It’s the product of backroom deals, media adoration, and elite coordination. The need for “Catholic Carney caution” goes well beyond the veteran national banker’s personal strengths and weaknesses. It is rooted in the very party he has chosen to lead. The federal Liberal Party has long been Canada’s most aggressive force opposing Catholic social teaching. It pushes policies that are openly hostile to the Church’s moral framework. This is the party that: Labels opposition to abortion as “misogyny” and being “anti-women” Proposes revoking the charitable status of “anti-abortion organizations” and seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate “the advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose Aggressively promotes Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), turning euthanasia into a default “solution” for those suffering from poverty, mental illness, or disability Advances radical gender ideology, pressuring institutions – including Catholic schools –to adopt policies that contradict basic Catholic anthropology, including the sterilization and chemical castration of vulnerable children The concerns don’t end there. The party Carney leads also: Demonizes political dissidents Demonizes those who stand for medical freedom and against coercive vaccine mandates Freezes the bank accounts of peaceful protestors Shows sympathy toward Communist China Promotes censorship and restricts free speech through legislation such as Bill C-16 and Bill C-4 This is not a party that tolerates dissenting views rooted in Catholic moral teaching, let alone advocates for them. Carney’s Liberal party alignment raises serious questions about the principles that will shape his leadership. Concern extends beyond personal religious consistency. Canadians, Catholic or otherwise, must consider the broader consequences of a government led by Mark Carney: Continuation of the Trudeau era’s economic failures: Reckless spending, heavy taxation, and inflationary policies disguised with buzzwords like “green transformation” Opposition to financial decentralization: As a lifelong central banker, Carney is a vocal critic of Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies, which challenge centralized monetary control. While the world increasingly embraces financial independence through digital currencies, Carney is committed to preserving central bank dominance by ensuring Canadians remain tied to inflationary fiat currency Expansion of financial surveillance Preference for global elites over Canadian citizens: Through his involvement with the World Economic Forum and similar global institutions, Carney shows his priorities lie with transnational technocrats – not ordinary Canadians An undemocratic path to power: Carney’s political rise is not a reflection of popular support. It’s the result of elite orchestration. Less than 0.5% of Canadians had any say in his leadership Mass Immigration: Mark Carney recently appointed Mark Wiseman chair of the Century Initiative, an organization advocating for a Canadian population of 100 million by the end of the century. Wiseman has said publicly Canada should eliminate all immigration screening and adopt an open-door policy Carney is not a neutral technocrat. He represents the calculated continuation of a political order built on control and centralization of power. He is Trudeau 2.0. Whether religious or not, all Canadians should recognize he does not represent renewal but the culmination of everything that has gone wrong in Canadian leadership. This is undoubtedly a time for vigilance. A leadership of Trudeau 2.0 offers no path to renewal. It will only intensify Canada’s deepening crisis. As the nation faces escalating challenges, including looming Trump-era tariffs, the real threat does not come from the United States per se, but from the transnational institutions Carney represents. In the upcoming election, Canadians must restore national direction and democratic accountability. Despite his Catholic faith, that requires passing over Mark Carney for prime minister. unquote A Catholic’s caution about Mark Carney | The Catholic Register There are many serious concerns in this report that stand out. I would commend the Catholic Register for bringing these concerns to light. A major concern is his disdain for personal freedom. The authoritarianism of the Liberal party fits well with PM Carney. He is a globalist as well and it appears a believer in mass immigration. There are many other beliefs he holds that we need to examine and be prepared for where this is taking Canada. Unfortunately very few Canadians had any say in choosing him as PM; yet there he is. Is that really how a democracy should work? Since he is the PM, I believe this is a topic well worthy of consideration.

Many MAGA people who think they are doing God's will, in these mass deportations of true refugees and children, and are Christians are deceived by Satanic forces or demons. Non-believers of course don't even believe in Satan and demons, so not much can be said about that. "Truth of every kind makes free, while lies bind up in bonds. Ignorance also binds up, because it gives ground to Satan. Man's ignorance is a primary and essential condition for deception by evil spirits. The ignorance of the people of God concerning the powers of darkness, has made it easy for the devil to carry out his work as deceiver. Unfallen man in his pure state was not perfect in knowledge. Eve was ignorant of "good and evil," and her ignorance was a condition which lent itself to the deception of the serpent. The devil's great purpose, and for which he fights, is to keep the world in ignorance of himself, his ways, and his colleagues, and the Church is taking sides with him when siding with ignorance about him. Every man should keep an attitude of openness to all truth, and shun the false knowledge which has slain its tens of thousands, and kept the nations in the deception of the devil." -From the book "War on the Saints" available on the archive website to read online and the website below. War on the Saints - Original Scans

" Washington DC – As Americans fire up their barbeques this Labour Day holiday, few will divert their attention from the hamburgers sizzling on the grill, and pause to reflect upon events a world away in the Chinese city of Tianjin. But in every way, the meeting there of the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation (SCO) hosted by President Xi Jinping and attended this year by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the leaders of Turkey, Iran and Belarus, is the harbinger of a new, dramatic chapter in global affairs. Xi told his visitors on Sunday that the SCO now bore “greater responsibilities” for keeping regional peace in the midst of a “fluid and chaotic” international situation. “The world today is swept by once-in-a-century transformations”, claimed the Chinese leader. Nothing is more remarkable at the SCO summit than the sudden, burgeoning relationship between Xi and Modi. They have been unwittingly propelled into one another’s embrace by US President Donald Trump, and are creating an alliance that shreds three decades of American efforts to lure Delhi into Washington’s corner. For that, only Trump and his global trade war are to blame. A mere six months ago, the sight of Modi breaking bread in China with Xi was unthinkable. Successive American presidents, including Trump during his first term, engaged in a non-stop charm offensive to reverse decades of Cold War tension and enmity between India and the United States. But Trump’s lumbering, clumsy handling of the bilateral relationship with New Delhi has consigned all of that to history’s ash-heap, and created an opportunity for India and China to bury their own hatchets. From the administration of Bill Clinton onwards, successive US presidents viewed India as the country of the future, with a growing economy to match. No longer hostage to Cold War relationships that had boosted Pakistan’s standing in Washington, they rapidly expanded economic and strategic cooperation with an array of Indian leaders." Trump is shredding America’s most important alliances – and its credibility

" WASHINGTON (AP) — The 22-year-old philosophy student from China did not expect any problems after his 29-hour flight arrived at a Texas airport this month as he was on his way to study at the University of Houston. His paperwork was in order. He was going to study humanities — not a tech field that might raise suspicions. He had a full scholarship from the U.S. school and had previously spent a semester at Cornell University for an exchange program with no issues. But the student, who asked to be identified only by his family name, Gu, because of the political sensitivities of the matter, was stopped, interrogated and 36 hours later, put on a plane back to China." A Chinese student was questioned for hours in the US, then sent back even as Trump policies shift

You're correct about that. The victim could be charged and put through a lengthy legal system and required to pay for a lawyer costing thousands of dollars and a lot of stress, including possible job loss. All just because he tried to defend himself from an illegal intruder in his home. That's not justice at all. It is all because of the Liberal ideology that gives criminals the same rights as everyone else even though they don't warrant having them. The victim ends up being the loser. It is the same scenario as the catch and release laws that allow judges to release repeat and dangerous offenders repeatedly.

Yes, most Prime Ministers only last for a couple terms and are defeated after about tens years. That is normal in Canada. So Harper served a normal length of time and no scandal forced him out. People just seem to want a change after about ten years and the young Trudeau came along and many women adored. I believe many voted for him because they thought he was a young, good-looking, charismatic guy and of course he had the popular name, Trudeau, especially in Quebec, central Canada and the maritimes. Of course he promised everything including legalizing Marijuana, which of course brought out many of the young pot smokers.

What? Do you realize in many communities, emergency rooms have closed for a day or two at a time, causing some emergency cases to have to travel an hour or two to the nearest emergency room? Do you realize there are millions of Canadians that do not have a family doctor? Do you realize there are thousands of Canadians who are put on waiting lists requiring urgent care in some cases and they are forced to wait long periods of time. Some die on waiting lists. In fact there are reports of thousands of people who have died on waiting lists for care. The health care system is becoming a disaster. We pay taxes for the public health care system so why would you be concerned about a system where those who could afford it paid monthly premiums if they were reasonable and made major improvements in the health care system? Politicians control what is spent on the health care systems in each province and they are under pressure to spend money on all kinds of demands. There are shortage of public schools in parts of B.C. and not enough money for many things. We need improvements in the highways in many places, improvements in housing. We have tents cities growing everywhere. Governments have failed to provide the necessities such as a proper health care system in many places. Unless we as Canadians step up and take charge, it will not be improved, but will get worse. It is wrong to think government can solve all the problems. They can't and they simply don't have the money.

Another tragic report of man's inhumanity to man, in this case inhumanity to children. " U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump's government from deporting 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan children. In an emergency ruling on Sunday, Sooknanan said that the temporary restraining order was warranted because plaintiffs "satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief." The order came just hours before the deportations were expected to take place." Trump blocked by judge hours before deporting 600 unaccompanied children

The big problem with the existing legislation apparently is the part about excessive force and laying charges against the victim or home owner. Such charges could mean the victim is locked up in jail for an undetermined period of time until a judge releases him on bail. It also likely means the victim has to hire a lawyer at great expense. We know they can charge tens of thousands of dollars and it puts the victim and his family under stress possibly for many months or even years while the case drags through the slow court processes. He could also lose his job. The problem is also the use of excessive force is purely a subjective opinion in some cases. If the intruder is unarmed but refuses to leave, what can the homeowner do? He is in a very difficult position. According to the law if he uses any kind of weapon, even a baseball bat or some other object, he might be accused of using excessive force. This seems to put the criminal who is in the homeowner's home illegally on the same legal footing as the victim. This is not justice. The criminal has no right to be there in the first place.

What is the difference between hitting an intruder on the head with a baseball bat causing him to be knocked out and "using excessive force"? What is excessive force? Is knocking him out with a baseball bat excessive force? How else do you stop him?

How do you defend yourself using a baseball bat against a home intruder without being accused of using excessive force? If you hit him anywhere but on the head, you will not stop him and he will probably grab the bat and beat you to death. In order to stop him, you would have to hit him hard enough on the head to knock him out. How do you do that without being accused of using excessive force (according to the present law)???

So tell me if this is reasonable. A lawyer says this about the recent controversial arrest of a homeowner. " “For example, if someone broke into your house and they were armed with a firearm, pointed the firearm at you, and threatened to kill you, you would surely be allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself,” Karapancev explained, adding that the response to an unarmed intruder would have to be “proportionate to that threat,” meaning you wouldn’t be able to use an excessive amount of force to expel someone from your property. “You wouldn’t be allowed to, for example, shoot the person or beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat in those set of circumstances,” the lawyer said. unquote Canada’s self-defence laws debated after Lindsay home invasion So according to what this lawyer says, it sounds like the homeowner must not use more force than the criminal intruder appears to be using. So does that mean you cannot use a baseball bat against an intruder if he appears to be unarmed and refuses to leave? What if he has a gun or knife in his pocket and doesn't show it? What if as in my case I am an older age and have health problems and am therefore very weak?? How do I defend myself against a home invader who looks like he is unarmed but is a strong younger man? Am I allowed to use a baseball bat if he refuses to leave? If he refused to leave and I hit him on the head with a baseball bat, it might disable him, but no guarantee. If I hit him on the head and he is disabled, he might be seriously injured. And according to what the lawyer says, I might be charged with using excessive force, right?? So how do you square this hole. This means the law is on the side of the criminal or home intruder. If you use any weapon even a baseball bat, you might be accused of using excessive force. What kind of legal system is that? That puts the criminals in the driver's seat and the innocent homeowner is the victim.

What is the difference between hitting an criminal with a baseball bat once or twice to try to disable him and beating him to a pulp? If the guy is seriously injured by being hit by a baseball bat, is the homeowner going to be charged? How does a homeowner hit a criminal with a baseball bat on the head without seriously injuring him but still stopping him and disabling him from what he is doing? If you hit him on his arm or shoulder, you are likely not going to stop him or disable him. He might then grab the bat and kill you. Criminals also know the sentences for murder in Canada are often very light and he will likely be released on parole after serving half a sentence.

I found an article but repolitics would not allow me to post it without it being first approved. So I will just quote a few sentences and see if that is allowed. That way we don't have to wait for an unknown period to see if it is rejected. You can go to the link below to read the whole article. quote “For example, if someone broke into your house and they were armed with a firearm, pointed the firearm at you, and threatened to kill you, you would surely be allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself,” Karapancev explained, adding that the response to an unarmed intruder would have to be “proportionate to that threat,” meaning you wouldn’t be able to use an excessive amount of force to expel someone from your property. “You wouldn’t be allowed to, for example, shoot the person or beat them to a pulp with a baseball bat in those set of circumstances,” the lawyer said. unquote The full article is about the controversial case that recently was reported. Canada’s self-defence laws debated after Lindsay home invasion It sound like if an unarmed intruder breaks into your house, you can't use any weapon to defend yourself. That is how I take it. I have serious health problems and am an older age and don't have much strength. So how would I be able to defend myself without a weapon if a strong man broke into my home? This is bizarre that the government should have laws that give a criminal the advantage over a law-biding citizen who breaks the law by breaking into someone's home and is a serious threat (even if they don't appear armed).

You are a liar. Nobody is saying you should blow someone away if they are leaving. What if they refuse to leave and are attempting to get close to you?

You are really insane bud. If you have an intruder in your house and you tell him to leave immediately, and he refuses, your life may be in serious danger. If he refuses to leave, you have the right to do whatever you need to do to neutralize the threat (as the police say).

The problem is you can't read the intruder's mind. Why would he not leave? What if he refuses to leave and is trying to get close to you? If you had a weapon, he could grab it and kill you. If someone invades your home, and refuses to leave, I see that as an active threat. Thinking you can just wait for police and doing nothing could cost you your life. It also requires somebody to call police. If you tried to use the phone, he could get you.

What if the criminal does not leave immediately? Can the homeowner shoot? What if it is dark and you can't tell if he has a gun or knife?

At least you admit you believe the criminal is always innocent and the victim is the guilty party. True to liberalism.

You never answered most of the questions. If an intruder refused to leave and an altercation started between you and the intruder, could you grab something to hit him with and try to subdue him? How do you know when you have done enough to him so he won't get up and attack you or if he has a knife, try to stab you with it? How much should you do to try to stop him from doing anything to you? What if he died or was seriously injured and taken to hospital? Whose fault is that?

You are lying. I never said to do anything if he is running away.

I am not holding my breath to see the government change the laws and collect all the guns that shouldn't be out there. I know it would be a big job and there is massive opposition with a large percentage of people having mental issues, but think they should still have guns. That is a political problem. I simply point out the cause of all the mass shootings and the tens of thousands of gun deaths per year. What America does about it is their responsibility. They have been locked in a political struggle over guns for ages while thousands continue to die by guns every year. The pro gun lobby has a lot of influence in the Republican party and the MAGA people. They carry a lot of blame for all the deaths. I don't see any real change on the horizon.

You don't know that because it is impossible to predict what someone with mental health issues will do. That is a well known fact. If it was possible to predict, why do you think we have all the assaults and murders with knives and guns by mentally ill people? Nobody knows what they will do. The Supreme Court already ruled that the government has the power to prevent people with mental illness and convicted felons from possessing firearms. They said the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. Wikipedia says this about the "Right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment: "....... the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court in the U.S. has ruled that is not an unlimited right. Wikipedia says this about the "Right to bear arms" in the 2nd amendment: "....... the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons" Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia From comments on here and comments by gun advocates, I suspect many people do not know the 2nd amendment is not an unlimited right. The government has the right to restrict possession of firearms from certain individuals.