Featured

Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser

New Zealand's Answer to the Colonial Government

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 17 November 2024; Hits: 807

2024-11-17

What to do when government overreach is in your face?

The New Zealand Parliament was treated to the perfect (and I believe legally sound if not entirely in accord with colonial parliamentary tradition) answer.

(26 minutes)

Like / Dislike this video here.

Why Matt Gaetz?

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 17 November 2024; Hits: 721

2024-11-17

We have featured the work of Scott Ritter on these pages because (in my opinion, which matters only on this site!) he is one of the most experienced military / geopolitical commentators that our world has been blessed with.

So his opinion piece on Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz to the post of Attorney General (not well received by many) matters to me.

It may well matter to all of us in due course as the implications become evident.

And it matters to Scott.

The Law of the Spirit, and the Rules of the Legislation

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 15 November 2024; Hits: 764

2024-11-15

Martin Geddes, writing from Florida, muses on the contradictions inherent when considering matters of the spirit from the viewpoint of legislation, and matters of legislation from the viewpoint of the spirit (I'm steering clear here of the word "law", since many hold that "law" is not the same as "legislation", but is akin to "God's law" or "natural law" - that's a rabbit hole that I'll leave as an exercise for you dear reader, once you have read and digested the rest of this article 😎).

I have argued in these pages that legislation is simply an artificial intelligence, created by imperfect humans and therefore itself doomed to imperfection. The wonders of life and the universe are far beyond man's current knowledge, therefore we cannot legislate for all possible circumstances - the task will for ever lie beyond our capabilities.

"Knowledge" is knowing this, "wisdom" is to understand that the attempt to control all matters through legislation is a fundamentally flawed exercise, not least because the rule-book, being subject to eternal expansion, becomes too vast for anybody to completely master - yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

But what is the alternative?

And the Latest on the Rubbery Clots ...

Details: Category: Covid; Published: 14 November 2024; Hits: 1038

2024-11-14

John O'Looney (Funeral Director, Milton Keynes) was/is one of the loudest voices asking why nobody is interested in people dying from with strange rubbery clots in their circulatory system. Reportedly, mainly "vaccinated" people.

Now it appears that unvaccinated people may also be having a similar problem. Although the route of infection isn't clear to me presently, it does seem that there are other causes beside or subsequent to the original intervention.

"I see patients having blood clots on routine blood thinners a lot, as well as unvaccinated turbo cancer patients with self assembly nanotechnology in their blood"

I share this article not to alarm, but to inform, especially about some apparently quite simple countermeasures that are reported to inhibit this clotting, whilst being commonly used to support good health already.

Worth reading?

C of E in the Cross-Hairs

Details: Category: Free Citizen; Published: 13 November 2024; Hits: 796

2024-11-13

The Church of England, originally instituted by Henry VIII when he fell out with the Pope over an inability to sire heirs with his various wives (not to mention the lure of confiscation of vast wealth from the religious institutions of the day), is now threatened with disestablishment, ie: the dissolution of the links between Church and State.

Do 500 years of tradition count for nothing?

Is the established Church not an anachronism in our modern age of anything goes, especially in view of the current state of the C of E?

Has the link not served us well in the past, but will it not inevitably become an impediment to our progress in the future?

I am of the view that this is de facto a constitutional change, and must have the explicit approval of the people before it can be instituted - a private members' bill is not an appropriate vehicle for such drastic change. Our monarch is sworn in at a religious ceremony supervised by the Church on the basis that he derives his powers from God. Anachronism or not, a mere debate in Parliament is insufficient grounds for enacting such a far-reaching change.

Is the Monarch entitled to reject such a Bill, even if passed by both Houses of Parliament? Would he have the gumption?

Principles matter.

We are not rearranging deckchairs, we are meddling with the authority of the Crown and from whence it is derived.

Read the report.

Read the Bill.

Page 149 of 315