blackbird

You're mixing two different drug problems. Prescription drugs don't come in illegally and have nothing to do with the billions of dollars worth of illegal drugs like cocaine. Of course the wall has nothing to do with prescription drugs. You should know that much.

It's more likely a result of the general drift to liberalism and lack of action on undocumented migrants, crime, immigration policies, open borders, etc. Hillary and the dems are more interested in defending abortions rights and having gender neutral washrooms than keeping criminals and bad characters out of the U.S.

At least Trump sounds like he is going to work for Americans. Trudeau and Christia Freeland talked about bringing in aboriginal issues, climate change, and such. They are out of their league. I assume the people doing the actual negotiations for Canada are highly qualified for the job. So doesn't matter what Trudeau does.

I hope Trudeau and the Liberals wake up and face reality. They don't give me much confidence that they know what they're doing.

I'm afraid name-calling and adjectives such as "stupidest, piss away, idiocy, figgin idiot" don't cut it. They don't have any substance. You'll have to think a little deeper and come up with something more meaningful that can be examined for substance. If you had ever read or seen any documentaries, the drugs are coming from central and south Americans in the drug producing areas being brought up by latin Americans, then smuggled into the U.S. by various ways. Billions of dollars worth a year that is harming millions of people in America. But this seemed to be a low priority for Obama and his predecessors. Trump is determined to take action although there are a lot of representatives in government dragging their feet.

Trump is not perfect but he is an improvement over the past presidents that did nothing about a number of serious problems. As far as I know Trump is the only one who advocated building a wall. The wall is badly needed. There are perhaps 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S. A large number of those are criminals who commit crimes in the U.S. Some have murdered Americans. There are also major drug smuggling operations going on constantly with billions of dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs being smuggled across the border from central and South America. A wall probably won't stop it but it might slow it down somewhat. These drugs are being sold all over the U.S. and in Canada, and destroying the lives of millions of people. Obama basically did nothing about the crime and drugs. In fact the opponents of Trump made many cities "sanctuary cities", compounding the problem and making it harder to get rid of criminals.

..

Trump is actually doing a good job. He is being hamstrung by Democrats and obstreperous Rupublicans who are not cooperating. Trump is fighting the liberal democrats and liberal media who twist everything against him. California is a stronghold for leftist and liberals. But read this article on the downhill spiral of California. They are in BIG trouble there. Jerry Brown’s California: Devastation, Plunder, Economic Failure http://canadafreepress.com/article/jerry-browns-california-devastation-plunder-economic-failure California has about 13,500 state and government employees drawing salaries of over $200,000 a year. California has 13 million welfare recipients. They have over 1.4 million formerly government employees drawing overly generous pensions. Quote When you add up the numbers, there are far more Californians drawing from the government than people working outside the government and paying taxes. According to William Baldwin in Forbes, six states are at risk of going into a downward spiral in the next recession because of this unsustainable ratio of private sector workers to state government workers, and those on welfare or receiving welfare benefits. And in California, this does not take into consideration the millions of illegal aliens, some of whom are also on the dole. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, “nearly one in ten California workers is an undocumented immigrant.” Unquote When a recession comes, California will be in serious trouble. There are now more takers than givers. A book has been written "California's War Against Donald Trump - Who Wins, Who Loses" available on Amazon. The leftist policies are sinking California.

Two points.. 1. The created universe around us points to the need to have had a divine creator. It could not have appeared out of nowhere in the complex way it is. 2. The Bible believed to be a direct revelation from God to man teaches that God created the universe. Genesis (KJV 1611). One accepts it is a revelation from our Creator God or does not. Either way the creation is still here and nobody has a better explanation of where it came from.

No, the provincial governments in the period the children were apprehended were not stepping all over the rights of indigenous children. That is a completely false narrative and picture. What happened is simply this. As a result of family dysfunction, alcohol, unemployment, lack of education, domestic abuse, isolation, and many other factors on reserves, many children were in fact in danger. The provincial social services department have a legal responsibility to rescue children that are in danger of harm. This happens in white communities all the time. I lived adjacent to a native village on an island in the 1960s where there were about 1000 natives and 800 white people. I could tell you something from personal experience which I observed but have decided it might be better to not put it on a forum. Apprehending native children is not stealing their identity; it is society carrying out it's responsibility or caring for at risk children. Not much more can be said about that. The idea that governments deprived children's culture or identity is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the reality was. To now give some groups 750 million dollars for allegedly taking their cultural identity from them is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a miscarriage of justice. The Chief Justice Mrs. Bev McLaughlin shows in her essay, which I am glad you took the time to read, shows that the Supreme Court (and other courts) do in fact make new laws. They claim they are interpreting the Constitution or Charter of Rights, but often there is no such subject in the Charter. For example, show me in the Charter where it mentions doctor-assisted suicide or abortion rights. It is non-existent. If you read the essay, you would have seen they make ruling, not so much on the Charter or Constitution, but on what they perceive as would be a society norm or what society would accept as a norm. That's the plain fact that I got out of her essay and is supported by rulings that have nothing in the Charter to clearly support them. You claim that women's right to vote is in the same league as some of these court rulings is ludicrous. Ruling that rescuing at risk children and depriving them of their native identity was not a crime or immoral action by social services workers. It was just natural if they were moved to a non-native home, they would not be in the same environment as natives living on reserves. No taxpayers owe anything for that and it was no offence. Millions of people immigrating to Canada are leaving their former cultures behind. They are adopting Canadian or western lifestyles and culture (hopefully; maybe not all). Nobody receives compensation or should for this. This is not depriving natives of their culture or identity. It is a fact of life in Canada. It has nothing to do with depriving rights. I fear you have a lack of experience and knowledge in the real world. I don't blame you for that. Just that you are confusing women's right to vote with court rulings that having nothing to do with any rights. Aboriginal identity is not a god-given right. We have certain rights that our western democracies have historically recognized such as the basic freedoms of speech, religion, association, and the press. Cultural identity might be something the U.N. came up with from cultural Marxists and aboriginal rights activists who are demanding land and money from the western non-native society. They have been accusing non-native society as being guilty of "cultural genocide". You should also read the Truth and Reconciliation Committees report on their recommended actions and see how ridiculous the demands they made are. Google is your friend.

We're talking about social services taking children from abusive or dysfunctional families in the 1960s. This had nothing to do with John A Macdonald, who live 100 years before that. It had nothing to do with assimilation. It was provincial authorities,, the social services department who is responsible for the welfare of children.

We will be paupers before long the way Trudeau is going. You obviously don't understand how the free market system works. Because Alberta cannot ship much oil to international markets, it is forced to sell it at a lower price to the Americans. They are the big beneficiaries of no pipelines to the east coast. Enabling Alberta to ship it's oil to the east coast through an Energy East pipeline would have allowed them to ship Canadian oil across the Atlantic to Europe and other countries, thus reducing the dependency on the U.S. market. This would have meant they would get a higher price for their oil.

Holding the federal government (which in reality means the Canadian taxpayers) responsible for an alleged loss of "cultural identity" is a classical liberal judge's interpretation of the Charter. The charter of rights has been used as an excuse to give unheard of rights or grant claims that heretofore never existed. They are simply not even stated in the Charter of Rights. That is once again a case of judge's making laws out of thin air. Liberal judges think it is their right to make laws. Read the Supreme Court's chief judge Beverly McLaughlin's essay on what she believe is a judge's responsibility. She actually has a very similar ideology. The government should have fought this right up through the Supreme Court, but as in the Kadr case, they just gave in because they are liberals. This country is in serious trouble. We cannot afford the billions of dollars Trudeau is handing out. He could care less for the average Canadian. We need a new Constitution with realism and a different approach by judges. I don't know whether you are left of centre, conservative, or liberal in thinking. But if you are liberal which includes left of centre when it comes to native rights, you might believe that it is everyone's responsibility to bend over backwards and use as much taxpayer money as necessary to "protect identity". I don't agree. Canada is made up of immigrants who came from other lands and cultures. Most of them are influenced by living in Canada, a western culture. Many from alien cultures don't live in Canada like they may have lived where they came from. They may wear western clothes, watch movies made in the U.S. What aboriginal identity was the government supposed to protect and how were they supposed to do that? I whole idea is far-fetched and just a money grab by special interest groups, which Trudeau and Liberals are more than happy to pay with taxpayer's money to win the favour of some minorities.

I took a look at your link. It says " "The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs. " I don't agree that Canadian taxpayers are responsible for all these problems. The fact is these same problems exist equally among natives living on reserves and off reserves, who were never taken by social services and placed in foster homes. So why did they focus strictly on the so-called "scooped children"? Because that was what the court case was all about and that was the evidence presented by the "plaintiff's experts". They were not looking at the broader situation of the native population in Canada because they were only trying to make a case for the "scooped children". You have to understand how lawyers operate in court cases and only bring "experts" to support their side of the case. They were not looking at the reality that the same problems exist with the rest of the native population. There is something like 90% unemployment on reserves, widespread substance abuse, a greater proportion of native offenders in prisons, dysfuntional families, sexual abuse, murders, and many suicides of native people. These people were never adopted. How would you explain that fact? There are probably a variety of reasons why many natives have these problems. It could be partly due to the change in lifestyle of natives in the last few hundred years as they evolved from the previous system of living off the land to the reserve system after the coming of Europeans to north America. It could be related to the reserve system. It could be a lack of education and job opportunities, which are few on reserves. Dysfunctional family problems could be a kind of inherited social problem. For whatever reason they have the same problems whether some were adopted by white families or not. That is just an excuse to bilk taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars. Canadians taxpayers already support natives with billions of dollars a year through the department of aboriginal affairs budget for native bands. This could have more to do with buying votes and part of Trudeau's misguided efforts toward "reconciliation". Another expensive squandering of taxpayer money and an attempt to divide and conquer.

Exactly. The money could have been better used to fix the drinking water systems in the dozens of reserves that have bad water and some other things.

The Federal government has committed 750 million dollars to compensate children who were taken from their families and adopted by non-native families in the 1960s. I believe the Supreme Court may also have ruled in favour of natives effected by this. I have a lot of concern about this and wonder if it is the correct direction to take. Provincial governments did this over 50 years ago and now Canada is being blamed for taking these children away from their culture. I believe the people that lived at that time, the governments, social workers, believed they were acting in the best interests of the children to protect their welfare. I know from a little personal experience that some of those children were in danger of harm if left in their situation. So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm? Now we are being forced to pay 750 million dollars for the alleged mistakes of past governments in Canada. I understand Liberals today think these children had been taken away from their culture but what was the alternative? How else could the government and social workers have protected children at that time. I think the same problems exist today and some children are being apprehended from native homes to take them to a safe location. Perhaps they are not being adopted any more, but may be put in foster care temporarily. Another 50 million is being set aside for reconciliation.

Good point. I hadn't thought of it from that angle, but I agree. Good that you are here to shed some light on this subject.

You make a good point worth consideration. But I am not sure in what circumstances or how far that should be carried. Should a member of the military making a comment on social media that might be of a political nature result in discipline or ejection from the military in all circumstances? I'm not sure every CAF member should be required to check his brain at the door and become just a robot in every aspect of his personal life.

I wasn't talking or referring to abusive behavior. I was referring to people having the right on their own time to express political views on internet forums, FB, social media or attend peaceful demonstrations. This has nothing to do with somebody yelling abusive comments into a microphone.

Yes, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. Some of the things that happened with the military in WW1 for example were very tragic. In WW1 in Europe I think thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers were given the order to move out of their trenches and over land that was raked by machine gun fire and they were mowed down like grass. A lot of controversy later about how they were ordered to their slaughter followed. The British high officer(s) may also have issued these kind of orders which resulted in thousands of deaths of Canadians. Not everything the government does makes sense. As the opposition member said yesterday, everything Trudeau touches is a disaster. I am not sure military, RCMP, CSIS, Coast Guard, etc. should have their off-duty lives controlled to such as extent. The idea of controlling them may be an old idea which existed before we moved into the era of individual democratic and fundamental freedoms and rights. Maybe they haven't kept up with the times and some of those restrictions should be re-examined to see if they are over-bearing.

I don't know what you mean by stupid. Is going to a peaceful political protest stupid? I doubt an employer can hold it against an employee. We still live in a democracy supposedly with freedom of association and freedom of expression. That means the right to go to a peaceful political protest, even if you disagree with the cause.

Every person in the military in their off time, in their civilian clothes, should have the same rights as every other Canadian in terms of fundamental freedoms.

There is a report on the CBC news today about a leader of the Canadian Forces advising people that members of the CAF do not have the right to belong to extremist groups. I just wondered how an extremist group is defined. The other question I had was when people join the Canadian Forces they are required to sign a paper which surrenders certain individual rights. I was just curious as to whether such an agreement, if it surrenders freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of belief, is constitutional. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the group that 75 members of the CAF are alleged to have joined. The CBC refers to it as a far right group. Would anyone or group who questions immigration policy or a certain religion/ideology be considered as far right? Is it against the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights to question immigration policy or certain religions and ideologies? I am just wondering if one can sign away their Charter of Rights to join the CAF and who decides what is an acceptable or unacceptable organization to be associated with and what is the basis on which high ranking officers determine this? The reason I raise this question is simple. Is the Canadian government moving toward a kind of totalitarian system where all thought, speech, and association will be controlled by government? Is M103 a symptom or example of this? Is there a trend developing?

He came from Somalia, a place known to be infested with terrorists and radicals. The question is how did he slip through the IRB screening process? Why does the law allow someone that had indications of extremism two years ago to walk free, especially from that part of the world. The police apparently said there was not enough evidence to do anything. Wow! What kind of country is this? Would anyone see now why Trump put a ban on immigrants from those countries?

It will prove to be a nut case attack. Worst one in history.