blackbird

" The title "Anti-Semitism in the United Nations" was carefully chosen. It does not charge the UN, an indispensable world organization, with anti-Semitism. Rather, it suggests that there is a considerable anti-Semitic component behind the policies pursued there and expressed without challenge (except by the United States) in its fora. Emergency Special Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. In fact, during the last 15 years they have been called only to condemn Israel. Whereas Arab states have traditionally used UN fora to demonize and isolate Israel (for example, they routinely attempt to deny Israel its credentials), they now believe they enjoy "Western" support which emboldens them. The latest Emergency Special Session, called to address Israeli construction at the Har Homa site, set in motion steps to de-legitimize Israel and to bring it to its knees. During its July meeting, the Session considered a resolution that requested member states "not to allow any import of goods produced and manufactured in occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem" -- a virtual boycott and collective sanctions against the state. During its November meeting, it took a further step towards making Israel an outlaw state. In a vote of 139 to 3 with 13 abstentions, it set in motion the eventual convening of states parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which grew out of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Thus, that Convention will now be employed against the people who were Hitler's victims. The resolutions of the November meeting requested that the Swiss government, as the depository of this Geneva Convention, convene by February 1998 a meeting of experts to initiate the process of condemning Israel for violating the Convention. This was done despite the admonition of Switzerland's UN Observer that such action could damage the peace process and politicize international humanitarian law. As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. It is no surprise that the Oslo agreements were negotiated outside of, and contained no role for, the UN. Though Israel has been the subject of aggressive wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and the victim of countless terrorist attacks, the Security Council and the General Assembly have never once censured its assailants. As Thomas M. Franck, Professor of International Law at New York University, has written, "...the UN is a place of convoluted realities. The Assembly's majority has also done its best to achieve an anti-Israeli politicization of the Secretariat." It is not just an issue of anti-Israel bias; it is difficult to ignore an anti-Jewish bent in many instances. For 50 years the UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets -- including xenophobia -- but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism until 1993, and then, only under intense US pressure. Instead, the General Assembly established two Special Committees and two "special units" in the Secretariat devoted exclusively to Israeli practices, costing millions of dollars yearly. These produce anti-Israeli and Anti-Zionist pamphlets, booklets, papers and films, which are even distributed in the UN's six official languages to school children around the world. The intense hostility that Israel faces in the UN and the anti-Semitic reverberations are illustrated by two events that occurred at the Commission on Human Rights in 1991 and 1997. During the 1991 session, the Syrian Ambassador repeated the Damascus Blood Libel that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make Matzoth. The Western democracies could not be stirred to challenge this age-old anti-Semitic libel (which the Ottoman Sultan as the ruler of Syria, denounced when it surfaced in the 1840s). It took intense US pressure to procure a challenge to this libel in the record, and then only months after the Syrian representative emphasized to the Commission, "it's true, it's true, it's true." On 11 March 1997, the Palestinian representative charged, in a chamber packed with 500 people including the representatives of 53 states and hundreds of non-governmental organizations, that the Israeli Government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the repeated interventions of the Governments of Israel and the US, and UN Watch, this modern Blood Libel stands unchallenged and unrefuted on the UN record. No appropriate action by any UN body or official has been taken to date. The Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, a Czech, agreed to place on the record his letter to the Ambassador of Israel, sharing his "concern as to the charge made" against Israel -- "an allegation made without evidence, on the basis of a newspaper article ... proved completely false." The Chairman reneged on his agreement after he was called to task by a delegation of Arab Ambassadors and received no support from other regional groups -- including Western Europe. Blood Libels are vicious and persistent carriers of anti-Semitism. The "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were but a fiction of the Czarist police in the 1890s. Yet they are a well of anti-Semitic pollution -- published today in thousands of copies world-wide. The Damascus Blood Libel was raised 150 years later in the Commission on Human Rights. The latest PLO Blood Libel bears the imprimatur of the UN record and has yet to be removed by consolidated action of the Commission or by any UN agency or official on the public record. (Nor was there any rebuke in 1992 to a UN document circulated in the Commission by the PLO observer, which stated that Israelis "celebrating ...Yom Kippur, are never fully happy even on religious occasions unless their celebrations, as usual, are marked by Palestinian blood.") The treatment of Israel in the UN is often dismissed as realpolitik -- the power of Arab numbers -- and recently, as a reaction to Israel's Likud government and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yet even during the hopeful days of the Rabin/Peres peace negotiations there were the usual anti-Israel resolutions passed each year in the UN General Assembly and 5 in the Commission on Human Rights. Since the Oslo accords, 259 Israelis have been killed and 5000 injured by Palestinian terror attacks. During the same period, 34 resolutions deploring Israel were passed at the UN, but not one against the terror attacks. The unique treatment of Israel cannot be explained on purely political grounds. Though anti-Semitic canards can go unchallenged in the UN, the mere reference in the 1997 Commission on Human Rights to an allegedly blasphemous reference to Islam, by a UN expert and from an academic source, brought a rebuff by consensus by the Chair, and the deletion of the offending sentence. The viciousness with which Israel is attacked, and the reluctance of even democratic states to defend Israel or to accord it the same latitude for mistakes and wrongs that it freely and reciprocally accords other states, has a special quality and origin. There is ample justification for the conclusion of Professor Anne Bayefsky of York University, Canada, writing of the UN Human Rights system: "It is the tool of those who would make Israel the archetypal human rights violator in the world today. It is a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. It is a sanctuary for moral relativists. In short, it is a scandal." The infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution was passed in 1975 when Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister. Describing the circumstances of the passage of the resolution, a representative in the chamber stated that "hatred was crawling on the floor." Although the resolution was rescinded in 1991, anti-Semitism in UN fora is still a force to be reckoned with, bearing in mind that 25 Member States voted against repealing the resolution and 13 abstained. Anti-Semitism is not dead. Although anti-Semitic incidents have declined and a multi-cultural acceptance has produced wider tolerance in many states including the US, a 2000-year-old virus has mutated, and lives on, often in a disguised form. And the existence and achievements of the Jewish state in an area of relative backwardness stimulate anti-Semitism and furnish a respectable cover. Once anti-Semitism had a religious basis but, with the declining significance of religion in the West, anti-Semitism in church circles has relatively little standing as such. Hitler exploited anti-Semitism with deadly consequences for Jews and the world. But racial anti-Semitism has been tabooed after the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials. Now the existence of the state of Israel permits anti-Semitism to assume a political form, safe from challenge as intolerance or racism. How many times one hears: "I like Jews but I can't stand Zionism," or "I have nothing against Jews, but I don't like Israel." The existence and achievements of Israel offer a visible and irresistible target for dormant anti-Semitic feelings aroused by a focus on Israel's mistakes and misdeeds, which are characteristic of every state including the US. Some Arab states appear to have now found a way to accomplish a purpose that the unrepealed PLO Charter, pledging the destruction of Israel has not achieved. Wars with Israel have been disasters and are much too problematic to repeat. The attempt to bring Israel to its knees through sanctions and boycotts at the Security Council faces a US veto. However, these Emergency Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly, in which all but 3 states have joined in a collective denunciation, show the possibility of a slow but sure de-legitimization of Israel and the hope of some for its eventual strangulation. Israel stands at the precipice of being treated at the UN as South Africa during apartheid. It is certainly not comparable, considering that Israeli Arabs are citizens, vote and sit in the Knesset. The challenge to Israel's right to exist as an equal state may soon move from the PLO Charter to the UN. The adjourned Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly is a harbinger of worse to be attempted. The world faces a dilemma. The UN exists, and there is no present alternative. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former US Ambassador to the UN warned long ago, "the UN is a dangerous place." The United Nations held their first ever conference on combatting anti-semitism on Thursday January 22, 2015. Barely half of the UN's 193 member states attended the informal meeting, which was planned four months ahead of time in hopes that many members would be able to attend. All 57 Islamic nations represented at the UN unanimously condemned "hatred, anti-semitism, and Islamophobia," in a move that US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power called "extremely significant." Speakers including French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy delved into historical anti-semitism and made the case that European anti-semitism today is as dangerous as ever. Levy stated "In Paris, just a few days ago, we heard once again the infamous cry 'Death to the Jews' and cartoonists were killed because of cartooning, police for policing and Jews just for shopping and being Jews. In other capitals in Europe and elsewhere, faulting the Jews is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins, unless it is the same but cloaked in new habits. This assembly was given the sacred task of preventing those terrible spirits from re-awakening, but they have returned and that is why we are here." The most common theme of the day was that anti-semitism is the first step down a long road of racism, bigotry, and discrimination. At the meeting, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said that "Grievances about Israeli actions must never be used as an excuse to attack Jews." The meeting concluded with a panel discussion featuring a group of CEO's of human rights NGO's. Source: UN Watch; Jerusalem Post (January 22, 2014); Time Magazine (January 23, 2015)" Anti-Semitism in the United Nations

The U.N. and its associated organizations have a long history of anti-semitism and anti Israel resolutions. Everything they do is automatically anti Israel and has no credibility.

" If I forget thee, O Jerusalem… (Psalm 137) It is the great moral disorder of our time. Dear Israel is but a spit of earth on a huge globe. Three years after six million Jews were put to torture, humiliation, whippings, rape, medical experiment, starvation, and vile death, was it not surely time — time for all the nations of the Earth who had reached some moral understanding of life and government — to allow Jewish people time to rest, time to mourn, time to see what and who might be left of them. To find just one period, just one time, just one place where and when they did not have to start up in the middle of the night when unfamiliar sounds disturbed, did not have to hear demagogues howling at them from street corners, or put up with the trendy, ignorant western pseudo-radicals shouting in bullhorns from library steps. To not see their shops and homes targets of mobs and slanders, their synagogues battered. A time when they might gather on a bit of land where dogs were not set upon them; where children did not mock them; where passerby thugs did not attack their elders in the street; where Jews unique in their sorrow and pain could meet with some of their tormented doubles, if for nothing else but to share laments and profound griefs, generate solace by shared company and memory. Ah, Jews. Ah, Israel." Rex Murphy: Hatred of Israel is the great moral disorder of our time

It seems the TDSB is using schools as a tool to brainwash liberal/ leftist ideology into young minds. Of course as a liberal lefty yourself, you would scoff at any exposure of it.

The Toronto and District School Board has come under fire for opposing Capitalism. Is this a sign that school boards and schools themselves in Canada are brainwashing anti western values and anti-Capitalism ideology into young people? This is something that should be investigated and examined. Should school boards be abolished and a new governance model established? "“Our capitalist system,” I have just learned, “is one of the main reasons our planet is getting stripped away and destroyed.” That is according to the Toronto District School Board, which made the claim in the November edition of its EcoSchools newsletter to promote something called “Buy Nothing Day” on November 29. The TDSB says that by buying nothing for a day people can protest consumerism and help the environment. The reality, of course, is just the opposite: capitalism and buying things are nothing to protest. Nor are they responsible for “our planet getting stripped away and destroyed.” Matthew Lau: Schools should stop teaching lies about capitalism

Pantheism is just another false religion or false god. This is a fatal belief. The nature of the Bible, fulfilled prophecies, and eye witness accounts of miracles and the supernatural all recorded in the Bible point to it being true and supernaturally inspired by God. Many make the same conclusion as you without having studied it. Such judgments are based on zero knowledge of the Bible.

I don't know what the percentages are. Truth is not determined by numbers. Truth is truth, whatever it may be. Most of the world believes in false gods or false religion. So what do numbers prove? Nothing. There is a very good book called Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing, Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee. You can purchase it on Alibris as a used book and other websites. This is a bit of information about the book: "Darwinists hope to bury God in an avalanche of a causeless universe and a godless evolution. But instead of liberating us, they plunge us into a cosmic depression. We are reduced to: From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - an accidental leftover from the Big Bang, evolved by a lucky chance, and are here for no ultimate purpose. We are just walking molecules, birthed through a cosmic accident, dancing to the music of our DNA, and destined to disappear in a cosmic blink - nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. And when we look to science and evolution for answers, all we get is a blank look. Life has no real purpose dude - it is about the survival of the genes in us - feeding, fending, fleeting and fathering - just live through it and get it over. Our final destination is the hole in the ground. But is it true? Perhaps we are: From Someone, By Someone, For Someone . Perhaps there is an unexplored and awesome universe beyond the Darwinian world of survival for nothing. Science encourages us to think critically and let us place Darwinism in the crosshairs and examine it in the light of empirical science - is it observable, falsifiable and repeatable? If not, it is not experimental science. And, as we shall see, Darwinism is an unobservable and unreproducible pseudo-science. This book will walk us through cosmology, biology, philosophy and end with theology, the queen of the sciences. Empirical science buries Darwinism and resurrects Creationism. We are more than cosmic orphans lost in an accidental, uncaring and dying Universe; we are living souls, made in the image of God, and designed to have a wonderful relationship with an awesome Creator. Yan T Wee, the founding Pastor of Shalom Baptist Church, Singapore, writes from his fascinating research into the latest skirmish between speculative Darwinism and deducible Creationism. He concludes that Darwinism, when viewed in its entirety, is not only disingenuous, but a guaranteed, one-way ticket into the universe of ultimate meaninglessness and despair." Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T Wee: Compare Prices on New & Used Copies | Alibris

I would say you ignore many angles and thoughts around the subject of evolution, the Bible and the supernatural. You come across as someone who holds strictly to a purely humanistic, worldly view and seem to reject the supernatural and God out of hand. That is not rational. Man was not present at the time of creation and therefore has only theories of how it all started and happened. Logic should tell you an extremely complex universe with all the life forms could not come into existence just by an accident of the cosmos. In other words something as complex and wonderful as the universe and man had to have a designer-Creator. Something does not come from nothing. That is the first principle of logic. Extreme complexity does not come from nothing.

Actually many of the articles and videos on the creation.com website are speaking from a scientific point of view to demonstrate how the theory of evolution is not credible. Many authors have degrees and are scholars.

This is where you are wrong. Scientific evidence so called does not prove the theory of evolution. There are countless articles on the creation.com website refuting the theory of evolution. The Bible says in Genesis ch. 1 that God created the universe and life in six literal days. This was a supernatural event. This is what many Bible believers believe. That is what I believe. I thank God for the gift of faith to believe this. The theory of evolution is a rejection of God and his almighty power to create everything is six days. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but according to the Bible, rejecting the supernatural has eternal consequences. "11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. " 1 Corinthians 2:11-15 KJV Unless the Holy Spirit of God gives a person the gift of faith to believe the Bible, he will not believe it. There is a battle going on in the world between God and Satan. Satan's destiny is already determined. He is not going to win. But he wants to take as many souls down with him as possible in the meantime. All I can tell you is if you have any interest in knowing the truth, you need to read the King James Bible with an open mind and be born again. Remember we are talking about the supernatural. Read the gospel of John. Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and seen by eye witnesses as recorded in the Bible. This was a supernatural event just as creation was.

No wonder the Canadian military is in a disastrous condition. No wonder the health care system doesn't have the money it requires and is in a crisis with 6.5 million Canadians with no family doctor and ERs shutting down. People dying on waiting lists in the so-called public health care system. Food prices out of reach for millions who are forced to go to food banks which are running very low. But 32 billion for indigenous issues and billions more to fight climate change. Not to mention the billions spent around the world for various things. quote While the Trudeau government has tripled the amount of money it spends on Indigenous issues from $11 billion annually in 2015 to more than $32 billion earmarked for 2025, it doesn’t appear to be improving the lives of on-reserve Indigenous people, according to a new study by the fiscally conservative Fraser Institute. In “An Avalanche of Money: The Liberal Government’s Policies Toward First Nations,” author Tom Flanagan argues the most effective program at improving the lives of Indigenous people on reserves has been the Liberals’ Canada Child Benefit introduced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2016 — a universal program that helps all Canadian families, except for those in the highest income brackets. That raises the question of where all of the other federal money being spent specifically on Indigenous issues is going, Flanagan said. He notes that from 2016 to 2021, Statistics Canada’s Community Well-Being Index, which measures the standard of living of communities across the country on the basis of education, employment, income and housing, reported that the average gap between First Nations families living on reserves and other Canadian families was reduced from 19.1 points to 16.3. He argues this occurred mainly due to the increased income the CCB gives to First Nations families living on reserves because they have more children and lower incomes on average than other Canadians. The CCB allocates up to $7,787 annually per child under age six and up to $6,570 annually for children age six to 17. These amounts start to be reduced when a family’s adjusted annual net income is over $36,502 and the Trudeau government says it has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. But it also raises the question of where all the money from other federal programs targeted specifically to Indigenous people is going. For example, the Trudeau government has repeatedly broken its 2015 promise to end all drinking water advisories on First Nations reserves by March 2021. According to the latest data available, while the federal government has lifted 147 long-term advisories since 2015, 31 remain in effect in 29 Indigenous communities. Auditor General Karen Hogan reported in 2021 that “Indigenous Services Canada did not provide adequate support to First Nations communities so that they have access to safe drinking water” predicting the problem could continue on some reserves for years In addition to tripling annual spending on Indigenous issues to $32 billion from 2015 to 2025, Flanagan noted the Trudeau government is settling many Indigenous class action lawsuits without litigation, resulting in increasing liabilities for taxpayers. Canada's 'net zero’ greenhouse gas emission targets are ‘wishful thinking’: Report Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux reported in July that the federal government’s estimate of all of its outstanding contingent legal liabilities, as of March 31, 2023, was $76 billion, growing by about 30% annually since 2016, a large portion of this attributed to Indigenous claims. Giroux noted that in 2023, the Trudeau government recorded expenses of $26 billion related to Indigenous litigation in that year alone, and advised parliamentarians to seek better information from the government on how these expenditures impact the government’s budgetary balance. Meanwhile, Flanagan said, specific legal claims with Indigenous groups are being settled by the Trudeau government at a rate four times higher than that of the previous Progressive Conservative government, leading to a significant transfer of land and money to First Nations. “If policy makers in Ottawa want to help Indigenous people, they should look closely at what types of spending policies produce the most tangible benefits,” Flanagan said. unquote GOLDSTEIN: Trudeau gov't tripled spending on Indigenous issues to $32B annually in decade, report says

LILLEY: Trudeau blames everyone else for his screwups

" Well, Justin has a message for you: It’s going to get even harder, Buster, because he is quite willing to jack up the carbon tax. He knows what the real priority is and it isn’t your kids. It isn’t your mortgage or rent. As of April, the federal minimum tax was set at $80 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, set to increase to $170 in 2030. The carbon tax increases the price of everything and Trudeau is willing to hit you harder. If you and your kids cared about global warming the way he and Guilbeault do, you would train your little offspring to get along on twigs. Perhaps your family could investigate the practice of breatharianism — the belief that a human can survive on air and light. No food required. Just like that cult, Trudeau is treating global warming like a religion. He is a carbon-taxifarian." AGAR: Time for a carbon tax election

If you are talking about the books in the Old Testament that tell the history of the Jews, that was written by Hebrew (Jewish) men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. It was written by several dozen authors over a period of more than a thousand years ending around 400 B.C. or ending about 2,400 years ago. The Old Testament history of Israel is recorded in detail in the historical books of the Bible. This website is a brief outline of it. A Brief Chronological History of Old Testament Israel | by David Norczyk | Medium This history says in part: "In all, Old Testament biblical history spans from Adam to John the Baptist. This is a chronological expanse of some 4,100 years with Abraham occupying the center point at roughly 2,000 years before the arrival of Jesus Messiah, the promised God-man sent from heaven to save His people from their sins (Mt 1:21)." I don't know of any other nation which has such a long history and which began as the Jewish nation approximately 4,000 years ago. They are also unique in the fact that their identity as a people survived the past 2,000 years while dispersed throughout the world.

Offhand I don't know whether DNA mutates, but mutation does not add new information. The vast information in a cell did not just happen by accident or chance. It had to have been put there in the beginning by our Creator. There is no other rational explanation. The theory of evolution is untenable. At the time Darwin came up with the theory of evolution he had no idea about DNA. Not much was known about biology at that time. DNA and all the complexity of a basic cell was not known until the mid or latter 20th century. There is many articles on the subject of natural selection. This is just one: It says "Despite the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions, natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of ‘inventive step’." The reason natural selection does not cause evolution is because the information in cells for every species is extremely complex and natural selection never provided that information. It was only provided by our designer-Creator. This is a good article. quote This is an important ‘equation’1 that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.2 Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it. The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack. If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new. This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained. © CMI The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about natural selection about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution. Blyth clearly saw this remarkable phenomenon as arising from the providence of the all-wise, all-knowing, ingenious Creator God. Knowing God’s love for beauty (reflected in men and women who are made in His image), God probably also had in mind the spectacular array of birds, fish, dogs and cats that we have varied by ‘artificial selection’ purely for the sake of ‘beauty’ rather than survival.3 But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created. Evolution desperately needs ‘Natural Invention’, ‘Natural Novelty’ and ‘Natural Creation’. Patent law calls for a product to have an ‘inventive step’ in order for it to be patented. Mere changes in design of an existing product cannot be patented. Many legal battles over patent rights have been waged over this point. Evolution requires the same thing—an ‘inventive step’, a novel organ or body part, facilitated by new information in the DNA that wasn’t there before. Despite the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions, natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of ‘inventive step’. Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6 Evolution desperately needs ‘Natural Invention’, ‘Natural Novelty’ and ‘Natural Creation’. ‘Natural Selection’ just does not pass muster as exhibit A for evolution. Rather, it is a wonderful tribute to God’s design, and His providence for a fallen world. Natural Selection ≠ Evolution. unquote Natural selection ≠ evolution The fact is the first cells that God created had a vast amount of information in them. This could not have happened by chance. It had to have a Creator-Designer we call God.

He is attending the APEC summit in southeast. This grant should come as no surprise. He is constantly giving out Canadian taxpayer money by the millions in his jaunts around the world to various meetings and conferences. Is he hoping after he loses the election in Canada, he will be given a plumb job in the U.N. or some international organization? "Aiming to bolster cybersecurity in Southeast Asia, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), announced a C$3.9 million investment in the Malaysia Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence (CCoE)The announcement was made during the APEC Leaders’ Summit, where BlackBerry’s (TSX:BB) team expressed gratitude for the support" Canada invests $3.9 million in Malaysian cybersecurity

Whose fault is that? So instead give some illegal migrant or fake refugee that just walks across the border or any refugee for that matter $224 a day or $81,760 a year. There are billions of people in the world living in poverty. Why not force Canadians to support millions of them? Isn't that what your Socialism says should be done? That's what the U.N. wants you to do. There are millions of Canadians who have lived and worked here all their lives and don't earn near that much money. If you don't see the insanity of this, nothing anybody says will help.

Two points which you don't understand. Many Christians and churches give money to charitable causes. So when you accuse Christians of not giving enough or not giving any, you are lying. You have no idea what they give. Christians don't go around broadcasting what they give because they are warned about not boasting about any good they do. The Bible says if they boast then they have their reward now, not in heaven. Secondly, Socialism or Communism is contrary to the Bible because it is stealing. When government takes a person's money to give to other people, that is what Communism or Socialism is all about and it is stealing. What gives you the right to say you should have what your neighbour has and the government should take it for you?

Michael Hardner finds that funny? Give us a break. Explain yourself. Michael you are out of touch with reality, just as the Liberals are. Canadians are paying for this disaster of a government. Many Canadians have to depend on food banks and the health care system is failing while Trudeau gives vast amounts of money to refugees.

Sadly you and NDP's science means a young boy can be a girl. Some science. So much for rational progressive thinking.

"Premier David Eby says he will use his new, diminished, one-seat majority government to reach out to rural British Columbia, an area that largely rejected his party in the election. But, he says, he’ll only be speaking to those he deems hold acceptable views, part of a new “bright-line” that will limit his cooperation." Premier Eby vows to only work with MLAs who hold acceptable views - Northern Beat This hard-line leftist attitude foreshadows a very conflicted legislature and likely means not much will be agreed on or accomplished. Coming in with fists up is a kind of declaration of war. It does not bode well for the newly-elected government of B.C. An elected government should be attempting to represent all the citizens of B.C. That should include the other half of the voters that voted for the opposition party, at least as much as possible. It should not mean clinging to a radical, woke, progressive agenda that half the people of B.C. reject. Most of rural B.C. citizens voted for the BC Conservatives. Premier Eby says he will reach out to these voters. How about reaching out to the BC Conservative members of the legislature whom these rural voters elected? It is the MLAs who debate and vote on legislation in the legislature. The rural voters don't make the laws. They are not in the legislature. It is some of the MLAs that Eby says he is not going to speak to because he has black-listed them. So I wonder how that works when he comes out strongly and rejects anything they stand for. Many Conservatives do not support the NDP's woke agenda on such things as the SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) curriculum in schools. So is he going to persist in wanting to continue to teach school kids that transgenderism (changing one's sex) is normal? Is he going to condemn people who oppose the LGBTQ / SOGI agenda or call them names or make other false accusations against people? Is this the kind of cooperation he has planned? What exactly does he mean when he says he is going to reach out to rural B.C. while he claims he is not going to speak to those MLAs he deems hold unacceptable views?

"Michael Higgins: The woke takeover of Remembrance Day" " Left to our virtue-signalling elites, our hapless leaders and our ignorant educators, Canada would have forsworn its solemn duty to remember the dead and honour those who served. Thankfully, ordinary Canadians are less susceptible to the vagaries of woke culture and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies, and understand that bravery, duty and sacrifice are virtues that require us occasionally to pause, reflect and honour those who served. But what can we say to the likes of Aaron Hobbs , the principal of Ottawa’s Sir Robert Borden High School, whose characterization of Remembrance Day was that it was usually about “a white guy who has done something related to the military”? Hobbs’ insult to every Canadian who has served and serves still was made in defence of allowing an Arabic-language Palestinian protest song to be played during a Remembrance Day assembly at the school. Only after righteous anger ensued did Hobbs issue a pro forma apology. Remembrance Day should have been about honouring those “who have sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we hold dear,” he said in a statement. The inclusion of the song was not in line with the schools “values of respect and unity.” Whatever values Hobbs seeks to instill in his young students, virtue is not one of them." Michael Higgins: The woke takeover of Remembrance Day

You liberals have found a partial final solution, abortion and MAID and mass immigration from the third world.

Why do you think the lefty liberal government brought in medical assistance in dying (MAID) or assisted suicide? Not to mention the federal government is pushing abortion as a good choice for women. This is no lie if you have read what they have been saying and doing. That includes the new liberal Premier of New Brunswick who advocates abortion. MAID and abortion, mainly for the white people, who are dumb enough to do it. Probably cuts the white population of Canada down by around 100,000 per year, while liberals bring in around 300,000 to 500,000 immigrants and fake refugees per year from the the third world. We can see the destiny of white people in Canada.

This is the first I have heard of this. Has Trudeau really spent 9 million dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize a cricket factory in Canada? Appears to be true. Is this part of Trudeau's war on climate change? By changing Canadian diets does he hope to reduce fossil fuel emissions? I wonder if this comes from the World Economic Forum (WEF). "FIRST READING: Trudeau’s $9 million bet on edible crickets runs into trouble TOP STORY Just two years after the Trudeau government put up nearly $9 million to help build the world’s largest edible cricket factory, the facility is dramatically cutting staff and production in what they say is an extended retooling. Aspire Food Group, which cut the ribbon last year on a 150,000-square-foot edible cricket factory in London, Ont., has just laid off two thirds of its workforce and significantly cut back shifts, saying they need to make “some improvements to its manufacturing system.” Speaking to the trade publication AgFunderNews, Aspire CEO David Rosenberg said the company “will be running the production line four times a week instead of two shifts a day every day. We’re 150 people down to 50 and we plan on hiring back up in July.” This is despite very generous grants from the Trudeau government. In June 2022, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced a grant of “up to $8.5 million” to build a “commercial facility to produce cricket protein.” What resulted was a factory billed by Aspire as the “world’s largest cricket production facility.” As per a CBC profile published at its grand opening, the factory was to house four billion crickets at any one time, and churn out 13 million kilograms of edible crickets each year. Aspire’s signature pitch – and one of the main reasons they attracted federal government attention – is that crickets have a lower environmental footprint than meat or dairy. The 2022 Government of Canada statement announcing the $8.5 million grant mentioned this several times. The subsidy would help Aspire produce “high volumes of nutritious food with a low environmental footprint” and “meet global demand for food by using less water, energy and space and emitting significantly less greenhouse gas emissions.” FIRST READING: Trudeau’s $9 million bet on edible crickets runs into trouble If this doesn't prove the insanity of this government, nothing will.