Search the Community

It appears from most if not all MSM reports that this question has already been settled. I have written the governing party of my own province asking their policy on climate change. I suspect they don’t have one or are trying to avoid the subject. The problem in my oppinion is that the answer to this question was never properly answered. For years now MSM has simply said “scientists agree with each other that humans have caused climate change (global warming) or whatever. I could go on and on, but there are many credible scientists that have never been allowed by the MSM to have their say. It may be true that most people who only follow MSM may agree that “Humans are causing Climate Change”. That does not make it true. Only if enough people do their own research, will there be any hope of getting at the truth and stopping what I believe is a historically evil hoax intentionally put in place to allow for a world governing dictatorship, never seen before. For the sake of your grandchildren you at least owe it to them to explore this issue further. Here is a good article to get you started on some alternative views: https://www.iceagenow.info/

For those that argue against 'taxes' as though they are a burden, I thought of this analogy when responding to something Betsy here said in her blog space here. Taxi services are business entities meant to get people from one place to another and its name is derived from the nature of one to be charged for a ride. However, because one cannot know how far a trip is, often many pay AFTER they reach their destination. One against taxes is often one who reverses how they pay for their 'ride': UP FRONT. Because one can afford the expense, they are confident of paying for the trip ahead of time. For the rich, instead of paying for a cab AFTER they reach the destiny, they are better off hiring their own PRIVATE cab exclusively or buy their own car if they like the control of driving. Then they CAN afford to pay for the trip prior to getting to where they want to go, right? So a "taxi" is to 'taxes' in that those using them both HAVE to have money prior to paying but don't pay UNTIL later...your destiny. By contrast, if you can afford to pay up front, this is fine too. But to think that the poor bastards requiring to pay AFTER the trip is having a "FREE RIDE" ignores that they pay IF and WHEN they get to their destination. The ignorance amiss is to those who simply believe that you should pay the cab driver up front as a form of assurance you have the money and then trust the driver to pay the customer back once you get there. Regardless, the anti-tax conservative arguers are actually like those who can afford their own cars or private limos and so demand there is no need for taxi cabs UNLESS the customer is able to default to blindly trusting those taxi cab OWNERS of putting down a deposit up front and then allow the power be transferred to the trust of the cab driver to give you back at the destiny any unused worth. This requires one trust the cab drivers, either as owners or representatives of the owners, to SERVE those taxing with priority. The idiocy of the anti-tax arguers misses this point. There certainly ARE customers who will rip off the cab driver. But those taxis would not exist if this behavior WAS the norm of service behavior by most. In fact, taxi owners also act deceptive in equal measure to the population of those ripping them off. However, the wealthier ones demanding NO taxes are like saying this service altogether should NOT even exist! It tells you more about HOW well off they are by contrast: they have their own cars they drive or they hire private limo services that they have complete power over. If NO one should require taxes nor taxis, these more privileged travellers who by default have their own means to 'freely' drive from one place to the next both have control over who gets the privilege to get to their destiny quickly AND are the ones setting the BURDEN of those disempowered by virtue of their lack of power of owning the 'taxis' (let alone their own car or limo) to requiring the FEE of whatever the demands of the wealthy want to set non-competitively! In essence, the wealthy do not need taxis and yet demand THEY should be empowered to tax (ie, 'burden') the masses by controlling how people travel. They control WHO gets to travel....who gets permit to pass to their own destination 'freely' while they alone have 'free' capacity to create their own destinies AND reach them!

15 Citizen Community Globally, Political Philosophy for Human Future By Exegesisme 1 I just reflected the possible foreign policy of US tea party, for it might take more power of US in future. 2 basically its goals are lower debts and lower taxes. 3 positive and effective foreign policy on these two goals could only be citizen community globally. 4 by the phrase citizen community globally, I mean US successful private citizens would play larger role internationally, and US foreign policy would at least encourage this tendency to partially replace the function of governmental foreign relationship. 5 the tendency of citizen community globally would be a strong force for global peace, for the private citizens do not have the power to use troop for their goals. 6 as an example, maybe an US entrepreneur would teach entrepreneurs of other nations how to deal with the relationships with their governments, and force the change of government with more rational and prepared power. 7 this is a good way of more peaceful, more effective, and less expensive for a good national and international order. 8 I believe there are few US entrepreneurs having been preparing to get job done this way. 9 if US politics develops along the way, it would be benefits both to US and the whole world. 10 Cruz is a person prepared to play a role on the way. ​

First off do churches even deserve tax exemptions and why do we grant them? Is it because they do something positive for the community? I know some do for sure, but do they all? How do we know which groups are doing ‘enough good’? They don’t have to open their books. Secondly, who decides what is a church and what is just a group of enthusiasts? Seems like a fine, arbitrary line to me. In my opinion, if Mormonism passes the test then the gate is really wide open for anyone. Let’s say I believe the universe is really a fishbowl on the night stand of a giant. If I round up enough children and teach them the giants require our devotion or they will flush the contents of the bowl and we will be doomed to a massive sewer system full of alligators and rats for eternity, in a couple of decades we’d have a solid following. Who at the CRA has to decide if that qualifies? Finally, these deductions aren't chump change. I've read estimates that the tax savings amounts to at least 48 bazillion dollars. Sure, a bazillion may not be a real number but the actual total is certainly large. So to fix this problem I think churches should not receive tax exemptions. Instead, they should apply for charitable status. They will then have to abide by the same rules as charities. They will have to open their books and refrain from ‘political activism’. Those that want to be politically active or hide their finances can simply pay taxes. To me this approach seems fair, open and free from bias. Thoughts?