Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    7,648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. That is not factual. Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Stott and many others are scientists in some field but they have taken a great interest in the subject of evolution versus creation and have spent a great deal of time studying the subject in great detail. They know what they are talking about. This article has 15 loopholes in the theory of evolution: Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com) Here they are: " There is almost universal agreement among specialists that Earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The primitive atmosphere. The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million years older than the earliest life. There is also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland—indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217:237–244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that ‘there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought’ (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009). NB: these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds — see How long were the days mentioned in the biblical creation account? and Evidence for a Young World. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20). All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form. Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins. Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions. No geological evidence has been found anywhere on Earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup — failed paradigm. Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water-absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem. Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (that can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (that can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of life: the polymerization problem. Sugars are destroyed quickly after the formose (or Butlerov) reaction that is supposed to have formed them. This reaction involves formaldehyde and alkali, but the very same alkaline conditions destroy aldose sugars—including ribose and glucose—via the Cannizzaro reaction, which converts two molecules of an aldehyde to an alcohol and an acid. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?. Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, and 9). Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks. Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates — equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong-handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of life: the chirality problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote). Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–5000 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See World record enzymes, New DNA repair enzyme discovered, and Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability. The origin of the coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded — a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-replicating enzymes? and Can nucleobases and self-replication arise from non-living chemicals?. The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g. the Nobel prize-winning biochemist Robert Bruce Merrifield (1921–2006) designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine."
  2. I doubt very much if any scientist only specializes in evolution because what would be the point? How could he earn a living? Probably all scientists have certain things they specialize in such as micro-biology, certain field of chemistry or biology, physics, etc. They have to be able to get a job related to their field to earn a living. I doubt any scientist who claims to specialize in evolution could get a job because I doubt there is even a job strictly in that field. You are playing games. If you want scientists to talk about evolution, you will have to accept the fact that they are not necessarily strictly dealing with evolution. They may be specialists in related subjects like biology or archeaology, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Many scholarly scientists are quite capable to studying and learning things outside a narrow field that they have a degree in. I don't even know if there a so-called evolutionary scientist in existence. Of course many others will claim they are experts in the field but that can be taken with a grain of salt because it is only a theory and has been refuted by many other highly educated scientists. But there is an article that you might want to consider: Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (creation.com)
  3. He also caused the death of the federal PC party and the rise of the Reform Party in western Canada. Then we had two parties, the PC and the Reform Party and of course the vote was divided and could never form government. That eventually led to the Canadian Alliance party which joined with the old PC party to form one federal Conservative Party of Canada. O'Toole was more of a liberal and was defeated in the federal election and had to be replaced too. O'Toole wanted to take the party back to the days of the PC Party. I am not exactly sure which way the present Conservative Party is heading. But at least it may be able to get rid of Trudeau and the Liberals for a while. Most Canadians have had enough of them.
  4. The forward to Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. is written by Don Batten, B.Sc. Agr. (Hons. 1), Ph.D., Senior Scientist, writer and lecturer, Creation Ministries International, Australia.
  5. I just gave a name of an important and highly recommended book "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. The author, Dr. Sarfati,is not only a brilliant scientist, but a master of concise, clear communication and logical thinking. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had published an educator's guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. It had been made available to educators throughout America to encourage teachers to incorporate more evolution in their classes and basically teach particles-to-people evolution as a fact. Dr. Sarfati, in his relatively small book, does as excellent job in refuting the NAS guidebook. I can't spend a lot of time on here quoting the book. If you are serious about learning something about this, you will have to get the book and make some effort yourself. A lot of Dr. Sarfati's book and maybe all of it can be found on the creation.com website. So it won't even cost you anything to learn something about the creationist point of view. No, that is not true. The people I mentioned to you are highly qualified scientists. I already told you that but you don't seem to pay attention very well. Dr. Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. is a highly qualified scientist.
  6. No, that is not correct. Darwinism is a very apt term because the theory was invented by Darwin. Hence Darwinism. Simple logic. But you should really study the subject evolution versus creation rather than getting hung up on the word "Darwinism". When I say study, I don't mean only studying from the evolutionist's side, but also study from knowledgeable creationists as well. I will ask you one question that Professor Philip Stott asks: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?
  7. I am not into word games. You don't know anything about me or what I know. I believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ. I have also read some good materials on evolution versus creation. I also heard a five evening slide show presentation by Dr. Philip Stott, a mathematician/scientist who has extensive knowledge on the subject and has spoken to conferences in different countries on the topic. You can find his youtube videos by putting Dr. Philip Stott in a search window. I also read a book called Darwin's Universe: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee. You need to read that book. It is very good. You can get some of these books on Amazon. Another is Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PhD., F.M. Another book by Philip Stott is Vital Questions. You can also search the internet for countless articles. I don't spend a whole lot of time on this now because I have other priorities. But if you want to know more, there are lots of resources. By the way Darwinism is more a religion than a science. Evolution is not supported by science and has been rejected by some scientists. The Bible makes it clear. " 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36 KJV I would suggest you do some studying before you commit yourself more into the atheist position. There is a lot to the subject which you have not even begun to consider. Being on the wrong side of God will get you a lost eternity so it is a serious matter, probably the most serious subject in your life. Not everyone is elect or given the grace to believe. But there are people in the world who try to help you by giving you the gospel of salvation. Just insulting them is not a good sign. A better attitude would be to try to keep calm and discuss things rationally and study the issues from all angles. There are lots of books around and endless videos and articles on the question of creation versus evolution at the website creation.com The book "Darwin's Universe" has a good definition of Darwinism. "Darwinism is a belief in the meaningless of existence". That sounds about right.
  8. This seems more like the Heiltsuk FN are using the arrest of two FN people a number of years ago to further FNs political objectives. The police department did apologize and in fact travelled to Bella Bella for an apology ceremony but it was rejected because the two officers who arrested the two FN people did not travel to Bella Bella. The two officers did send a written apology, but the band says it does not recognize and respect their culture. This is ridiculous because why should the police or anyone else be subject to FN demands to fly hundreds of km and subject themselves to some ceremonial practices? I believe they are using this to make more demands on the government or white society, hence the endless demands and being offended. Vancouver police, First Nation ties have 'broken down' since settlement: review (msn.com)
  9. You obviously know nothing about the Bible or Christianity and care nothing about justice and the protection of society. " 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. " Genesis 9:6 KJV "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered} 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. " Romans 13:1-4 KJV Before you get carried away with your liberal soft-on-crime ideology, you need to become a Christian and believe the Bible. Then you might make some sense. Capital punishment for unborn babies is fine with liberals but for murderers, no. Letting murderers escape with a 25 year sentence (some get far less) and then tormenting the victim's families with parole board hearings every few years makes no sense. Meanwhile it all costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Now we have people being murdered almost every day in Canada and they know there is no death sentence.
  10. A 19 year old student from Sri Lanka is being charged with the murder of six people who he was staying with. This is horrific news. Capital punishment for murder must be brought back. If for nothing else but to carry out justice and send a message that this is completely unacceptable.
  11. I agree but it's not going to happen as long as Quebec remains part of Canada. Mulroney tried to change the Constitution to give Quebec special status in the Meech Lake Accord and then the Charlottetown Accord but failed on both. Thankfully two provinces (strangely including Quebec) voted against it. It would have given Quebec special status but they probably realized they already have special status and they don't need to sign on to the Constitution. A referendum was held on the Charlottetown Accord and the people of Canada voted against it, thankfully. However it appears Quebec has been able to achieve special status anyway as they seem to be able to operate as an independent country with a lot of control over most things. Even so they also benefit by getting equalization payment from mainly western Canada while they oppose things that would benefit western Canada like an Energy East pipeline project that was rejected by Quebec. We can expect ongoing trouble from Liberals from Quebec as they try to shut down the energy industry in western Canada also. Trudeau put a Greenpeace radical in a key cabinet position to hammer Alberta.
  12. Taxpayer money should not be used to support DEI at all. People should be hired on their skills, training, and experience. In other words by merit.
  13. Nonsense. Loraine Boettner is an extremely professional scholar. I have his book "Roman Catholicism". This is very extensive work of scholarship which discusses all the major doctrines of Rome and goes into what the Bible says about each subject. This was not written by an amateur. It would be far beyond your abilities. It clearly proves the dogmas of Romanism are false and gives a detailed explanation from the Bible why they are incorrect or false. There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot read and quote what others say about faith and practices and biblical doctrine. The point which you conveniently ignore is that these sources quote and explain the Scriptures that are relevant to the topic. What is the difference between me explaining a verse and someone else explaining it? I don't understand what your point is in your last line. Your question is purely hypothetical because Jesus did not mean one must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. You still have not explained what the point of eating his flesh and drinking his blood would be. It would be cannibalism anyway.
  14. "This doctrine of the mass, of course, is based on the assumption that the words of Christ, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 6:26-28), must be taken literally. The accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, both in the Gospels and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, make it perfectly clear that He spoke in figurative terms. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). And Paul quotes Jesus as saying: “This is the new covenant in my blood. ... or as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26). In these words He used a double figure of speech. The cup is put for the wine, and the wine is called the new covenant. The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant. How ridiculous to say that they did! Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, “I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to hem, remained “the fruit of the vine”! Paul too says that the bread remains bread: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the pup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. ... But let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). No change had taken place in the elements. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine. Another and more important proof that the bread and wine are not changed into the literal and actual flesh and blood of Christ is this: the literal interpretation makes the sacrament a form of cannibalism. For that is precisely what cannibalism is—the eating of human flesh. Rome attempts to deny this, but not with much logic. Clearly there is a contradiction in the Romanist explanation somewhere. Indeed, how can Christ’s words, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood,” be taken in a literal sense? At the time those words were spoken, the bread and wine were on the table before Him, and in His body He was sitting at the table a living man. The crucifixion had not taken place. They ate the Lord’s Supper before the crucifixion took place. Furthermore, we do not, and cannot memorialize someone who is present, as the Romanists say Christ is present in the mass. But in the future, in His absence, these things would symbolize His broken body and shed blood. They would then call to mind His sacrifice, and would then be taken in remembrance” of Him (1 Corinthians 11:25)." --Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Incidentally nowhere does the Bible say we cannot read commentaries written by others. Loraine Boettner is far more knowledgeable on Roman Catholicism than I am. He wrote an in depth book on it. He explains clearly what the verses you mention mean.
  15. After he talked about eating his flesh, he answered your question. " 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " John 6:63 He said clearly it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. He was speaking about eating figuratively and meant you must receive him by FAITH. That is what he meant. He made it clear he was not speaking about the flesh or literally eating his flesh. He meant it spiritually only.
  16. Jesus preached believing in him. That is by faith. Not thinking you can eat him physically. That is false dogma. There is nothing more I can say now. I don't think you listen to anything. Your mind is made up. Let's give it a rest now on that subject. Lies. That is all you have. I won't waste any more time with you now. You are not listening to anything.
  17. No, it is you that believe in false RC dogmas claiming you can eat Jesus in the host. Cannibalism and idolatry. That is not worshiping Jesus in spirit and in truth.
  18. Nonsense. I believe on Jesus Christ, just not your false dogmas. "32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. " John 6:32-35 When Jesus said this did he mean he was to be physically bread to be eaten? Of course not. He was speaking metaphorically or figuratively. After he said he was the bread of life, the said "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". That explains what he mean. We must come to Jesus in faith and believe on him; then we will never hunger (spiritually) or thirst (spiritually). There was nothing literal about him saying he was the bread. He also said elsewhere that he is the door. Again he spoke figuratively.
  19. It was not founded on Peter. Peter was an apostle to the Jews; Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Nothing in the Bible supports the idea the church was founded on Peter. The Bible clearly teaches it was founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. "19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:19, 20
  20. Of course you don't want to hear about the true history. Scripture was completed 2,000 years ago and of course does not record the history in the past 2,000 years. But it is an eye-opener to know what happened. "by their fruits ye shall know them"
  21. So you think it was ok that the Roman church in the past persecuted and burned at the stake those who they considered as heretics. No church that did that kind of thing could have been a true church, not to even begin about all the false doctrines. So rejecting Roman Catholic dogma and the RC church and forming one's own church or group is "attacking the church"? Many of these so-called heretics in the past centuries believed in sola Scriptura and were persecuted for that. You sound like a papal extremist from the Dark Ages.
  22. There were many before Luther who rejected the apostasy and false dogmas of Rome. Many of these persecuted Christians believed in sola Scriptura. One such reformer was Beregarius whom you can read about below. This was over 500 years before Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the church door at Wittenburg. " Persecution of the Waldenses in France Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness. The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity. Many, from conviction, assented to his doctrine, and were, on that account, called Berengarians. To Berengarius succeeded Peer Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the protection of an earl, named Hildephonsus; and the whole tenets of the reformers, with the reasons of their separation from the Church of Rome, were published in a book written by Bruis, under the title of "Antichrist." By the year of Christ 1140, the number of the reformed was very great, and the probability of its increasing alarmed the pope, who wrote to several princes to banish them from their dominions, and employed many learned men to write against their doctrines. In A.D. 1147, because of Henry of Toulouse, deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henericians; and as they would not admit of any proofs relative to religion, but what could be deduced from the Scriptures themselves, the popish party gave them the name of apostolics. At length, Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native of Lyons, eminent for his piety and learning, became a strenuous opposer of popery; and from him the reformed, at that time, received the appellation of Waldenses or Waldoys. Pope Alexander III being informed by the bishop of Lyons of these transactions, excommunicated Waldo and his adherents, and commanded the bishop to exterminate them, if possible, from the face of the earth; hence began the papal persecutions against the Waldenses. The proceedings of Waldo and the reformed, occasioned the first rise of the inquisitors; for Pope Innocent III authorized certain monks as inquisitors, to inquire for, and deliver over, the reformed to the secular power. The process was short, as an accusation was deemed adequate to guilt, and a candid trial was never granted to the accused. The pope, finding that these cruel means had not the intended effect, sent several learned monks to preach among the Waldenses, and to endeavor to argue them out of their opinions. Among these monks was one Dominic, who appeared extremely zealous in the cause of popery. This Dominic instituted an order, which, from him, was called the order of Dominican friars; and the members of this order have ever since been the principal inquisitors in the various inquisitions in the world. The power of the inquisitors was unlimited; they proceeded against whom they pleased, without any consideration of age, sex, or rank. Let the accusers be ever so infamous, the accusation was deemed valid; and even anonymous informations, sent by letter, were thought sufficient evidence." Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
  23. There were many and they were persecuted by the Church of Rome. It was during the Dark Ages. Papal Persecutions 2. Persecution of the Waldenses in France 3. Persecutions of the Albigenses 4. The Bartholomew Massacre at Paris " CHAPTER 4 Papal Persecutions Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages." The kings of the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair, as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal persecution first burst upon the Waldenses in France." You can read about it in Fox's Book of Martyrs available online: Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
  24. I have a KIndle book I bought on Amazon for a dollar or so called "UNRESTRICTED WARFARE - China's Master Plan to Destroy America" by Qiao Lang and Wang Xiangsui. I read a little of it but have been too busy to read the whole thing at present. You can get it on Amazon. Unrestricted Warfare is the People's Liberation Army manual for asymmetric warfare, strategically and tactically, using weapons not limited to bullets, bombs, missiles and artillery shells. This book appears to have been written by two PLA officers who advocated the strategy described. The thing about biological weapons is they could be used without openly being in a hot war and they can be used without being detected as the perpetrator. I see biological weapons as an absolute tool in the arsenal. Canada has been a extremely naive country about the whole subject of foreign interference, threats, and foreign affairs. I am convinced government has fallen under the influence of foreign powers long ago and could be one reason we are a weak contributor to NATO. Canada does not meet its commitment of 2% of GDP for military spending and falls far short. For some strange reason, many in the Liberal and NDP are very pacifist although they would never admit it. They seem to think that Canada should somehow be as neutral as possible in the world and they would strip Canada of any military if they had the chance. They blindly trust such organizations as the U.N. to take care of us which of course is a useless hope. Canada is allowing popular opinion to determine armed force spending and priorities. I see this as a very dangerous position to be in. Canada's government is largely pacifist and believes in talk more than real action on the world stage. The openness of our system means foreign powers can have a very effective influence in our system at every level of government. I don't even know if there is anything we can do about it. Even the committee presently investigating foreign interference is weak and impotent and it appears the public has no right to know much of what is going on.
×
×
  • Create New...