blackbird

Just now watching the police arrest the illegal occupiers. Good entertainment to see Ottawa freed from a bunch of anarchists and hooligans that harassed and bullied the people of Ottawa. They are getting their just deserts.

If you came from Russia, you should know the danger of letting a small group of unelected extremists running the so-called freedom convoy overthrow our elected government. Can you imagine a group of Texas - Alabama Trumpster red necks running Canada?

When illegal activity such as blockading bridges and occupying cities is condoned by society, what is next? A large group of terrorists attacked the Coastal Gaslink Pipeline project today in northwest B.C. destroying massive earth moving equipment and buildings. The workers barely escaped. This was the site where the RCMP moved in last year to arrest protesters blockading the pipeline project. So now the opponents have progressed to serious criminal / terrorist activity. Is this what happens when anarchists are interfered with and don't get their way?

Nice diversion. The blockades of border crossings and the Ambassador bridge and occupation of Ottawa are illegal activities. They harmed thousands of people.

Can we really believe you, as someone who supports illegal activities? Blockades and occupations of cities are not "protests".

Almost everything you say is total nonsense.

If you are sincere about defending Her Majesty, you should support obeying the laws and not supporting anarchists.

Do you have the right to spread Covid to other people by going to places that require masks or other restrictions? What do you think about masks and social distancing?

No, you do not understand the laws and Emergency Act. Do you really think an injunction is needed? What the occupiers were doing was totally illegal even before a court issues an injunction. The police could have cleared them out but because of problems and lack of resources they did not. The Emergency Act is a higher authority than an injunction and declared the occupation illegal (even though it was already illegal). The police have issued written warnings and are issuing another written warning (the second one) today to make it clear the occupation is ILLEGAL. The laws are clearly against the occupation of the streets. The Emergency Act has declared it is illegal and they must leave now. There is no further need for injunctions or anything else. The government has the legal power and is exercising it. Now the police will move in and remove the illegal blockaders, likely within the next few days.

I thought there had been an injunction a week or so ago that made the occupation illegal, but I can't find it right now. However, the Emergencies Act was declared Monday and that made the occupation illegal. There were difficulties between police departments and authorities which the Emergency Act solved. quote Federal Government declares a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act to end disruptions, blockades and the occupation of the city of Ottawa Unquote Federal Government declares a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act to end disruptions, blockades and the occupation of the city of Ottawa - Canada.ca

No, there was an injunction against the horns a week or so ago, but there has also been a more recent injunction against the occupation. Keep up with it. Our capital city is under occupation by anarchists and they are a threat to our democracy.

That's not true. A court has issued an injunction against the occupation. It is illegal.

No, you are trying to make that link yourself. Dishonest. Read my comments. I was speaking about those who were arrested in Coutts, Alberta, and I referred to those in Ottawa who defied the law and said they were willing to die for their cause. There is an ideological link between the extremist law-breakers. They are part of the extremist far right. I said nothing about the millions of peaceful demonstrators and it might not be millions. Maybe tens of thousands.

The organizer's stated goal is to overthrow the democratically-elected government. That is certainly enough reason by itself to impose the Emergencies Act. The Act is limited to those who are involved in this illegal and seditious action and will not have any effect on the rest of Canadians. It is specifically targeted at the illegal occupiers and those who would blockade critical infrastructure and border crossings. We have already heard the anarchists tried to blockade the Ambassador Bridge again but were stopped a day or two ago. The Act enables authorities to use extra powers to quickly take action to stop illegal actions and freeze funds that would be used for these illegal acts. It also sends a vital message to those who think they are free to break the law that there will be serious consequences.

Yes, law-breaking anarchists and illegal occupiers hiding behind children and a carnival atmosphere. Obviously all very strategically planned.

Are you serious? A cache of guns and ammo and body armor has already been found in Alberta and 13 people arrested, four charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. These people have been linked to the same far right types that are occupying Ottawa. Some occupiers in Ottawa defied the laws and police already and said they are not leaving and are willing to die for their cause. What does that mean? These are terrorists.

Rights exist within the framework of the law of the land. You have no rights to break the law or support lawbreakers as you do. When an unelected group such as the truck convoy threatens to overthrow the democratic system and set up a dictatorship, that is not defending human rights or dignity. It is a threat to our freedom and democratic system. All and every measure must be taken to stop them cold.

We live in a Parliamentary democracy and have a democratically-elected government and we have more freedoms that most countries in the world. The fact you are able to speak on here constantly is clear proof of the freedom you have. You should show appreciation for your freedom and democracy. Instead you whine like a spoiled child. Shame.

Con'd quote “Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population”. Note that it says nothing about progress or development, just change. So damage to a gene is now evolution (it gives a change in a gene pool) so it is possible to claim that this lame kind of “evolution” has been observed because both degeneration and change without increase of complexity have been observed. Also, note that this definition does not allow for the origin of life, since there is no gene pool without a living population to start with. The lame definitions of today’s professional evolutionists cause confusion and enable them to hide behind a smoke-screen whenever it suits them. In what follows the term “evolution” is used, not in this weak, emasculated, lame form, but with the normal meaning as used in the media, all school text-books and most university text-books. Not all professional biologists are up to the sleight of hand that the leaders of the theory have come to adopt. Colbe notes: “very few people - the majority of biologists included - have a satisfactory grasp of it … People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.” So here we have one evolutionary biologist calling the statements of other evolutionary biologists “nonsense” and dismissing their pronouncements as mere speculation. I certainly agree with him on that, but wonder on what grounds he exempts himself from the same criticism! A point that needs to be noted is that professional biologists know perfectly well that the evolution stories being told to the public - and found in most college textbooks - are totally untenable. I challenged one such scientist, Dr. Joel Duff, on this after a meeting in Chicago. His response was that they could not tell the public the truth (i.e. the current theory believed by the majority of “experts” at the present moment) about evolution - the public would not understand and would be confused. Now it is certainly true that variation is observed in species. In practically any population there are different variants of some genes (called alleles), and different combinations of them occur at each mating. Also changing the arrangement of genes on the chromosome causes differences in such features as colour of hair and eyes, length of feathers and size of ears. Considerable rearrangement occurs at each mating. But such variation is not the kind needed for evolution, evolution does not call for a range of possible size of feathers, length of ears or colour of eyes, it requires the appearance of feathers, ears and eyes in the first place by chance mutations. It does not call for the rearrangement of existing information, it calls for the accidental generation of information - extremely complex information! No such event has ever been observed. Even observed resistance to poisons, often cited as evidence for evolution, seems to be produced by duplicating existing genes, not producing new ones by random chance events. On the first requirement of science for a theory or hypothesis - measurement - any meaningful formulation of evolution fails. To be taken seriously any theory of science must make serious predictions, and those predictions must be borne out in practice. Darwin made serious predictions about his theory. One of the most important was this: “ … the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.” He predicted that they would be found in the fossil record. No such intermediate and transitional links have been found. Unquote Creation, Evolution, Christian / Philip Stott | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College As you can see, the whole theory of evolution which is based on random chance processes is bunk.

Quote How Persuasive is Evolution from a scientific perspective ? Science deals with measurements and observations. Mendleev made the famous remark “science begins with measurement”. Einstein made the even more famous remark “What can be measured is science, everything else is speculation”. What measurements support the theory of evolution? None. None, that is, as long as one is thinking in terms of evolution as it is sold to the public. The idea that life progresses from simple to complex, from molecules to man. The idea that new organs and structures appear because “good” mutations generate new information in the DNA. The idea embodied in Julian Huxley’s definition of evolution: “…a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organisation in its products”. Has any scientist ever observed any such increase of variety or increase in organisation happening? No. On the contrary, observation shows that if structural changes occur they are changes for the worse - loss of function, damage - never advance or improvement. Many thousands of mutations have been observed. Not one has ever led to the kind of progress that evolution demands. The evolutionary texts in desperation point to one mutation which they claim to be “good” - a mutation which damages the blood and causes a disease called sickle cell anaemia. This is a serious, debilitating disease, so how can it be held up as a “good” mutation. The fact is that the blood cells are so damaged that a parasite called Plasmodium cannot live and multiply in them. Plasmodium causes malaria, so if you have sickle cell anaemia you are unlikely to die of malaria (though more likely to die of almost any other disease!). A better description would be a harmful mutation with one good side effect if you happen to live in a malarial region. In order to get over this difficulty evolution has to be redefined (though the public is not told about this!). The definitions used today by evolutionists have to be very carefully phrased and utterly lame. Take for example that of Chris Colby in “An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology”: Unquote Part of an article by Professor Philip Stott. For the whole article go to: Creation, Evolution, Christian / Philip Stott | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College

No, I find you to be a supporter of anarchists, insurgents/ criminality.

Are you a far right anarchist in hiding?

The government has found links between people arrested in Coutts, Alberta with firearm offences /criminality and protesters in Ottawa. They share the same ideology and extremism. The Emergency Measures Act is the best way to deal with anarchists / criminals. Thirteen people have been arrested at Coutts Alberta and four are charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The Act also gives power to prohibit blockades of critical infrastructure such as border crossings, bridges, airports, etc. which would be targeted by insurrectionists/ anarchists. A security expert says there are far right anarchists around which the government has to be prepared to deal with. How did Canada get to this situation?

The convoy donated money is funding illegal activities like blockading borders, illegal occupation of Ottawa, and all the illegal harassment, noise, and stopping people from going to work or do their jobs. No it is not the same as the War Measures Act. It is used for specific actions to stop illegal acts, enable powers to force tow trucks to tow vehicles, etc. It also is different than the War Measures Act in that it has built in accountability to Parliament and must be approved by Parliament.

God has nothing to do with law-breakers, anarchists and criminals. He opposes them. You can't claim to be on God's side and support anarchy, sedition against the government and law-breaking. " 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." Romans 13: 3, 4 KJV