blackbird

The strange thing is governments in Canada handed out tax breaks and grants to buy EVs. They claimed to be fighting a war against climate change and believe EVs are a big part of the solution. Then when China comes along with low cost EVs, they suddenly start worrying about the auto industry in Canada and give them special protection by imposing a whooping 100% tariff on EVs from China. Since EVs from China were reported to be only $18,000 while north American EVs, which are made mainly in the U.S., average about $75,000, how can they still claim they are serious about getting Canadians to switch to EVs? The whole thing is political. They are catering to their base just as they did when they cut carbon taxes in the maritime provinces for home heating. The federal government deputy PM Freeland also claimed they want to defend the workers in China who are being exploited for cheap labour, etc. If that were true, what about all the other goods made in China that Canadians buy? There are countless products filling the Dollar stores and other stores throughout Canada. Canada does several billion dollars worth of trade with China per year. They are Canada's second largest trading partner after the U.S. When many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet with high mortgage payments, high rent, and high grocery bills, I don't think they will be able to afford a U.S. made $75,000 EV. If anyone has some money for a new car it will most likely be a gas vehicle for a fraction of the price. Or is the government trying to reduce all motor vehicles on the roads in their blind crusade to fight climate change? At present that seems to be the most logical conclusion. Of course we should not forget the liberal elites will always be able to afford vehicles for themselves and government jets for the PM and his entourage to jaunt around the world creating tons of greenhouse gas.

" Next up, the Liberals are exploring options to bring in environmental regulations for clothing. The cost of clothes has actually gone down in recent years, so leave it to Ottawa to look for ways to bring the cost back up and to limit options. There is also the plan to essentially force Canadians to purchase electric vehicles, that nobody would otherwise want, through government mandates to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks. On a larger scale, the government is attempting to restrict the kind of work people do, specifically work in the oil and gas industry, through steep emissions targets, which will close off lucrative job opportunities in western oilfields. It will also limit the kinds of fuels people will be able to use to heat their homes. There are also policies that the Canadian government hasn’t implemented, but which green activists have endorsed, such as the banning of gas stoves and the ludicrous suggestion from some academics that “climate lockdowns” be implemented to help cut emissions. It is possible to be supportive of all these policies, despite their paternalistic and job-killing nature, but pretending that no one is trying to, or that no one wants to, interfere with our liberty is not a credible position to take. Of course, it isn’t just environmental policy where governments are invading private spaces and limiting personal liberties. The proposed Online Harms Act would allow anyone to make a human rights complaints about “hate speech,” or, practically, any speech they find offensive. Supporters may try to say that only the most egregious forms of expression would be targeted, but the fact is truth is no defence in this legislation and the definition of hate speech is highly subjective. What’s more, human rights law is less rigorous than criminal law for determining “guilt.” I guess we should be thankful the government didn’t do what it initially wanted by banning “misinformation,” which has quickly come to mean anything the Liberals disagree with. Even so, the political nature and the speech-chilling potential of the Online Harms Act are clearly evident. And, there’s more. The federal government’s national daycare plan is currently making it difficult for private daycare owners to operate, thereby limiting not only business opportunities and jobs, but the options parents have. The same is true for health care, where even the slightest hint of privatization is met with progressive rebuke, even when it means limiting choices that would save someone’s life. Finally, at the provincial level, schools have or once had policies in place to withhold health information from parents, specifically when children may be suffering from gender dysphoria. Mandates from the Alberta and New Brunswick governments to require parental notification of, or consent for, changes to a child’s name or pronouns have been met with progressive face melting. Activists think such information should be withheld absent any evidence of abuse. Despite what the preening, raging, social media mobs say, parents have the right to raise their children free of state interference. Teachers and administrators do not have the right to withhold health information. Of course, children are not the property of parents, but we don’t grant autonomy to children, especially younger children. The people best placed to make decisions for minors are their parents, and unless there are signs of abuse, teachers and school administrators should not be assuming that role. It is kind of bewildering that this even needs to be said. A generation ago, the culture wars centred around a handful of issues that were met with resistance from mostly religious advocates, specifically abortion and gay rights. Today, the culture wars are pitted between those who want to impose ever more restrictions on individuals and those who are tired of it." National Post Carson Jerema: Progressives want to control our lives, and Canadians have had it (msn.com)

"Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the majority, said the federal government is free to impose minimum pricing standards because the threat of climate change is so great that it demands a co-ordinated national approach." I see several flaws in his reasoning: 1. How is he qualified to declare "the threat of climate change is so great"? On what basis does he make this claim? Climate change is a normal part of history and has always occurred down through the ages. 2. Canada's fossil CO2 emissions are only about 1.5% of the global fossil fuel emissions. So whatever Canada does is not going to make any difference at all to the global emissions. 3. His reasoning also is flawed because a tax is not going to make any significant difference to CO2 fossil emissions by Canada. So his ruling is flawed and it is punishing Canadians for something they have no control over. Supreme Court rules Ottawa's carbon tax is constitutional | CBC News

Wonder if this is a violation of the Charter of Rights somehow because Trudeau has been hammering us with carbon taxes on the one hand ostensibly to encourage us to reduce fossil fuel emissions; now they are doing the opposite by denying us the right to buy affordable EVs that would reduce fossil fuel emissions. How do they justify that one? Wonder if someone could challenge this in court? Probably have the union mafia after you.

Railways are an essential service for millions, nay, tens of millions of people across the country. A union should not be able to take advantage of its unique position over the economy of Canada and use it as a tool to force the employer to give in to outrageous demands. This goes for seaport workers or longshoremen. These are essential services. Some workers who go on strike only effect that particular business. It does not harm the population in general. That is why there should be no such thing as an option to go on strike in essential services. Contracts should all be determined by binding arbitration.

At the present time, most north American EVs are manufactured in the U.S. The average price of an EV made in the U.S. is about $75,000. People are shunning them because they are so expensive. Yet an EV made in China is about $17,000. The tariff is designed to protect the Canadian and American auto manufacturing industry. The government has put timelines on the future purchase of gas powered vehicles and requires a majority of new vehicles to be EVs by a certain date. So my question is how is this going to work when the price of EVs is so high in Canada and many people are already struggling to put food on the table or make the high mortgage or rent payments? Many younger Canadians cannot afford to buy their own home and probably never will be able to. How is trying to force Canadians to shift to buying EVs going to work when they are so expensive in Canada and people simply can't afford them? While the federal government has been attacking the energy industry, they give billions of dollars in grants to EV battery companies. They are great at picking winners and losers. They have no interest in allowing the natural flow of supply and demand to takes its course. Intervention based on some questionable ideology is the rule, like the farcical war on climate change. This is just another example of how badly the federal government is out of touch with Canadians and how they believe they are the ones who should decide how the world should work. This is another reason why Canada's economy is in the mess it is in.

If you read the two posts, my post is entirely different. He has his own take on it. C'mon, don't be such a dummy. You can do better.

" In resigning and encouraging BCU supporters to back the Conservatives, Kevin Falcon has swallowed an infinitely bitter pill and one that most of us never have to contemplate digesting. But swallow it he has and, in doing so, put the province of British Columbia above his own pride and ambitions. For that, he deserves not derision but congratulations from anyone who believes that a centre-right free enterprise coalition is essential to the continued prosperity of the province. Politics is often a thankless job. Saying so is not to attempt to seek pity for those who stick their necks out and run for office: we all know the game we play and accept the consequences of failure. But very few people who relish seeing a politician crash and burn have themselves experienced full public humiliation or had to admit to the whole world just how wrong they were. It takes a serious backbone and gut check to handle such moments. That Falcon recognized the impossibility of his situation and chose to capitulate should be commended, not condemned. " Adam Pankratz: B.C. NDP doesn't stand a chance now (msn.com) This is cause for celebration. The Socialist, progressive, liberal march in B.C. which was causing havoc in many areas may be brought to a standstill and hopefully correct. Increasing tent cities, street crime, constant release of offenders, free drugs, and increasing homelessness coupled with a housing crisis needs to be stopped or at least the brakes put on. The failing health care system is a difficult problem which it appears the NDP could not solve. That needs a fresh approach. Hopefully the Conservatives will win and take serious action to repair the failing system. The Conservatives face a huge challenge of all these problems plus the increasing debt we are in.

I know what you mean. I didn't say it was the British Commonwealth. I think the word British was dropped some time ago. We still share the same King and are part of one commonwealth. I don't think the word equal comes into it. Each country or realm is independent. We are not subject to Britain in any way. But we do share a similar culture and language. So we have a lot in common. The annoying part is I think Quebec liberals are trying to turn English Canada into a kind of third world multicultural group and thereby diminish our English roots while making French the only language allowed in Quebec.

Just wondering. We were discussing the horrors that happened in history, but that really ignores the central issue. What about salvation? I just came across a good summary of what some Protestant churches profess. These would be Presbyterian or Reformed Churches. I don't agree with everything they believe, but on this central issue, I would agree. I would prefer a fundamental Baptist Church which believes in Dispensational Theology and the King James Bible only. But the parts I quote I think most Christian churches would agree with. So I am just using this particular part for the topic and not recommending a particular denomination. This sums it up from the True Life Bible Presbyterian Church based in Singapore. quote We believe that man was created in the image of God, but sinned through the fall of Adam, thereby incurring not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and become sinners in thought, word and deed (Gen 1:26-27; Rom 3:19-20, 5:12, 6:23); 4.2.6 We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died a propitiatory and expiatory death as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice, and that all who repent of their sins and believe in Him are justified before God on the grounds of His shed blood (Rom 5:8-11; 1 John 2:2; 1 Pet 1:18-19); 4.2.7We believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His ascension into Heaven, and in His exaltation at the right hand of God, where He intercedes for us as our High Priest and Advocate (1 Cor 15:1-4, 15-19; Phil 2:9-11; Heb. 3:1, 4:14-16); unquote Would you agree with that? If not, where would you differ? What do you believe about salvation? Where does the Bible fit into your thinking?

You don't determine when life begins by pulling a number out of a hat. Human life is defined by God who created it and revealed when it begins to us in the Holy Scripture. This has been known for several thousand years. It is wise to understand we are living in a godless world of anti-God people who think they can define when life begins, how it can be lived, and how it can end by their own humanistic reasoning. But really to understand this subject, one needs to be born again by faith in Jesus Christ and his written revelation, in English, the King James Bible (1611). The New Testament is entirely based on the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. Watch some videos at: ltbs.tv (Let the Bible Speak)

"17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. " 1 Peter 2:17 KJV

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what immigrants can contribute if we don't have the housing, accommodations, or apartments to house the people we have now. Immigration in the present situation is just making things worse. Canada has to solve it's housing and accommodation crisis before letting in large number of people. Solving that problem takes a long time. The government has already created the mess we are in.

That is a not quite correct. It is not correct to say there is no British Crown in North America because we share the same king as Britain and about 14 other countries. Canada is a part of the Commonwealth Realm and King Charles III is the head of the Commonwealth Realm. So King Charles III is the King of Canada as well as 14 other Commonwealth Realm countries. Wikipedia describes it in detail: " The Commonwealth of Nations, often simply referred to as the Commonwealth,[4] is an international association of 56 member states, the vast majority of which are former territories of the British Empire from which it developed.[2] They are connected through their use of the English language and historical-cultural ties. The chief institutions of the organisation are the Commonwealth Secretariat, which focuses on intergovernmental relations, and the Commonwealth Foundation, which focuses on non-governmental relations between member nations.[5] Numerous organisations are associated with and operate within the Commonwealth.[6] The Commonwealth dates back to the first half of the 20th century with the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was originally created as the British Commonwealth of Nations[7] through the Balfour Declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference, and formalised by the United Kingdom through the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The current Commonwealth of Nations was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which modernised the community and established the member states as "free and equal".[8] The Head of the Commonwealth is Charles III. He is king of 15 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, whilst 36 other members are republics, and five others have different monarchs. Although he became head upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, the position is not technically hereditary.[9] Member states have no legal obligations to one another, though some have institutional links to other Commonwealth nations. Citizenship of a Commonwealth country affords benefits in some member countries, particularly in the United Kingdom, and Commonwealth countries are represented to one another by high commissions rather than embassies. The Commonwealth Charter defines their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law,[10] as promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games. " Commonwealth of Nations - Wikipedia I would question one thing Wikipedia said in the information above. It said "Although he became head upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, the position is not technically hereditary.[9]" Since when has the position not been hereditary. Never heard of such a thing. Nobody questions King Charles III's right to be king.

What exactly did she tell you? What convinced you? Of course it is absolutely essential to get along with your wife. That is a high priority. We are called to love our wives as ourselves. I think that means one should not argue with a spouse about religion.

I am hardly forcing you. You try to paint it that way because the Devil told you to. A suggestion is not forcing anyone. You can do your own thing, but I speak the truth which many modern day Christians do not do. They are afraid of offending anyone and have been fed the nonsense that one should never say anything that might upset someone. That is not the way Jesus spoke or the Apostles. Many of them died as martyrs. You should read Foxe's Book of Martyrs free on the internet. See what happened to many people who spoke the truth. The truth is not welcome in today's world. Liberalism teaches that everyone can and should do their own thing even if it takes them to hell. But you don't have to listen to me. This just might be the last period in your life somebody actually is trying to help you. But if you reject a lifeline, that's your choice. Most people are like that in today's world. Well, I am especially glad you are getting along with your wife. That is not always the way it is today. Half of marriages end in divorce. I have had Catholic friends. Many Catholics are amicable people and quite easy to get along with, which is a good thing. I am not sure what you mean. Bible-believing Christians do not mourn either. Perhaps you meant some Catholic churches mourn. I can understand that. Their beliefs are contrary to the Bible and they have no assurance of salvation. That is reason to mourn. Not sure what you mean by open-minded and not sure what you mean by singular manner. Don't let the world fool you. There is only one way to heaven and that is by faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. If people are not telling you that, they are confused or not being truthful. A real Christian will never win a popularity contest by telling you what the Bible teaches. That is just a fact of life. The Bible and biblical Christianity is not welcomed by the world. If the world loves you, you are probably on the wrong path. That is just a reality.

Watch some of the sermons on this website. It may make a big difference to your life. Video Recordings | Let the Bible Speak (ltbs.tv) The truth shall set you free.

Yes, there are a lot of people who feel entitled. They should take courses, get educated and trained and take a different job or career if they want higher pay. Yes, that could explain your opposition to Biblical Christianity. Haiti is not exactly a Judeo-Christian place. It probably had a very negative influence on you. But you still have time to learn the real Biblical truth, which is based in Jesus Christ and his written word. You may be surprised how it could change your life and thinking and give you something very positive to live for. You might consider watching some of the Let the Bible Speak video sermons at this website. This is not political. It is strictly Biblical. Excellent preaching. Video Recordings | Let the Bible Speak (ltbs.tv)

If the only argument you've got is you don't like Trump, you have nothing, no argument against the OP.

Did you read the article? It is the Democrats that support all these despicable policies. "The Democratic Party has fully embraced feminism and its natural descendent, the LGBT movement. Both have propagated the idea that men and women are indistinguishable. This justifies the party’s attempts to mix and match the roles of the two sexes in society. They are opposed to the Christian idea that man and woman were made distinct from yet complementary to one another. " These beliefs stem from narcissism or self-centeredness. Trump and the Republicans generally oppose all this liberal, progressive ideology.

You didn't explain what you mean at all. Nobody knows what you are saying. So who is blathering?

Really. You must mean Canada is much further left than the U.S. which is a fact. We have had carbon taxes for years now. I don't think the U.S. ever dared to put carbon taxes on people. Canada seems to be a leader in interventionist type of policies. That has scared away a lot of investment and helped drive up the price of everything. Canada seems to be a leader on MAID (medical assistance in dying or assisted suicide). Another Marxist policy. The government imposed a tanker ban on the B.C. north coast and they banned the construction of several major pipelines. Again government intervention in a major way. Canada brings in mass immigration from the third world without any regard to culture or our historic Judeo-Christian civilization. There is very little assimilation of these third world immigrants. They pretty well stay in their own ethnic groups. Each group thinks differently and supports their own culture. We are losing what historic Judeo-Christian culture we ever had. Now we are a conglomeration of foreign cultures that do not mix. We are a post-national state which blindly follows the U.N. Canada is much further left than the U.S.

What you say about Trump does not change the nature of the Democratic Party. What the Democratic party supports speaks for itself. " The Democratic Party has fully embraced feminism and its natural descendent, the LGBT movement. Both have propagated the idea that men and women are indistinguishable. This justifies the party’s attempts to mix and match the roles of the two sexes in society. They are opposed to the Christian idea that man and woman were made distinct from yet complementary to one another. By destroying marriage and the distinctions of the sexes, the party helped craft sexual activity into a vital expression of choice and liberation. These are the party values over the Christian practices of restraint and modesty. It has removed the incentives to abstain from sex and promoted perverse sexual behavior. In doing so, it has helped to normalize sexual depravity. The idol of abortion also affirms the desire of the Democratic Party to exempt society from taking responsibility for its actions. By dehumanizing children as “parasites” and framing abortion as a right, the party encourages people to blame others for their decisions to have sex. This is despite Christians asserting that all life is sacred and formed by God upon conception. " Why would anyone support this kind of depravity? I don't see the Republican Party into all this stuff.

I never said or suggested I understand God perfectly. I have pointed you to Jesus Christ because you gave no evidence you are a born again believer. If you are, give us your testimony how you came to be a Christian and what exactly you believe. Do you think it was wrong for the Apostles and disciples of Christ in the early church to go out into the world to preach the gospel to every person? Should they have just kept to themselves? Jesus said "15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. " Mark 16:15 KJV Are you saved? How do you know? The Holy Scripture was given to men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. " 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV The Bible is therefore God's revelation to man. It is God speaking to man. How is it crazy then to believe that God does not speak to man through his Holy Scripture. That is how God the Holy Spirit communicates with people, through his written word, the Bible. If you don't believe that, why do you mention the Bible? What does it mean? This is similar to what you already said. You want to silence anyone and stop them from talking about what God says in his word. As I said, do you oppose the apostles, prophets, disciples of Christ who spread the gospel to the world after Christ? Do you oppose the missionaries that went out into the world through the centuries and spread the message of Christ and preached the Bible? It sounds like it. Countless people gave their lives to spread the gospel of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Were they wrong to do that? They were martyred by being burned at the stake, crucified, and various other ways. Really? Are you really in a position to judge Joel Osteen? I don't think I am qualified or in a position to judge him. I have a million other things in life to do and don't know much about him. People make their choices about who they want to support. Of course faith is between me and the Lord. Never said it wasn't. But it makes sense to share the gospel and help others be saved and receive eternal life doesn't it? Why would you want to silence believers and let people blindly go to hell? If you saw someone in danger would you not want to warn them if you had the chance? Your reasoning is seriously flawed. We are not even talking about material wealth so I don't really get your point. Salvation is strictly by faith in Jesus Christ, not by works. Nothing wrong with voluntary charity. That is a good thing. But you can't earn your way into heaven. See Ephesians 2:8, 9 KJV If you are saying one must do good works or support Socialism to earn salvation, that is completely false. That is a false gospel. Socialism is evil anyway because it is stealing from those that have to give to others. The Bible condemns stealing. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. A conversation doesn't force anybody to do anything. You choose your own path. But you must accept the consequences of your own decisions.

God through his Son, Jesus Christ, will save anyone. But we must realize we are lost sinners in need of a SAvior. We must come to him with a humble heart. That is why these gospel message are a life line. Do not pass the opportunity to be saved for eternity. Life is short. Grab the lifeline now while there is still time. Home Page | Let the Bible Speak (ltbs.tv)