THE Federal Labor government’s new hate speech laws are a mess of contradiction and stupidity, and an ominous threat to the religious and political freedom of Australians.
Federal Parliament will be recalled next Tuesday to debate the so-called anti-hate speech laws as contained in the the Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. The Bill is an omnibus package combining measures against hate speech, extremism, and gun control.
The legislation also mimics the totalitarian “anti-hate speech” and “online safety” laws of the UK’s Starmer Labor government and is likely to lead to cases of police officers knocking on doors and charging people for social media posts that supposedly threaten someone.
In the UK, this type of legislation has turned police into Stasi-style political police. Some 30 Britons are arrested every day in the UK in connection with alleged online speech offences.
Lyle Shelton of Family First says Anthony Albanese’s legislation “carves out” religious texts for protection under the legislation, which means Wissam Haddad will be free to continue quoting Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 52, Hadith Number 176, which reads, “Toward the end of times, when the Muslims will be fighting the Jews, the trees will speak, the stones will speak, and they will say, ‘O Muslim, O believer, there is a yahudi [Jew] behind me, come and kill him.’”
“Coincidentally (?) this is also part of the Hamas charter. Think about that,” says Shelton. “Post Bondi, the Jew-killing part of the Hamas charter will be protected by Anthony Albanese’s new hate speech laws. We are governed by fools.”
As noted by Turning Point Australia’s Joel Jammal, even the Australian Jewish Association has spoken out against the bill as criminalizing free speech and lawful firearm ownership.
Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution says “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
This may be why Albanese has protected religious texts, even ones that can be seen as threatening to a particular group. We would suggest that even Muslims know about this provision in the Constitution, and they would probably not hesitate to take it to the High Court if they felt they were being prohibited from freely exercising their religion.
However, any Mullah who incites violence against Jews, for instance, can be dealt with under long-standing common law and the Criminal Code Acts, under which inciting violence is a punishable offence.
As revealed by Senator Susan MacDonald, the Bill also contains bizarre provisions such as protecting Jews and Sikhs as “ethno-religious groups” but not necessarily Catholics and Protestants because there is no distinct ethnic Protestant or Catholic group.
There is no need for some bureaucrat to attempt to decide whether speech was “hateful”. Speech, even in Parliament, can be hateful to some degree as long as personal insult is not involved. Hate, a natural human emotional state, should not be a crime unless it descends into physical, threatening or defamatory attacks on another person.
Why the desperation to push this legislation through, we ask. There are serious concerns about it across the board, even in the Liberal Party.
Key themes include criminalizing hate incitement, designating prohibited groups, and restricting firearms access. Overall, it is a totalitarian package.
Under the new federal offence for pomoting or inciting racial hatred, it is is illegal to publicly promote or incite racial hatred where the conduct would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated, harassed, or fear violence.
But making a threat or threatening violence has been an offence under common law as long as we’ve had it in Australia. Why the need to bring race into it?
The offence applies to speech, symbols, gestures, and online content intended to promote or incite hatred because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the target.
There is no need to prove actual hatred was generated or that someone felt fear, only that a reasonable person would be affected. The maximum penalty is up to five years’ imprisonment.
Aggravated penalties (higher sentences) apply if a religious official or preacher is involved, or if children are targeted.
Ominously, the legislation also creates a framework for the Minister for Home Affairs to designate organisations as “Prohibited Hate Groups” if they have “engaged in, prepared or planned to engage in, or assisted … or advocated engaging in” a hate crime.
Listing can occur if deemed “reasonably necessary to prevent harm,” based on intelligence. No procedural fairness is required before listing.
Offences: Membership: Up to seven years’ imprisonment. Directing, funding, recruiting, or supporting: Up to 15 years’ imprisonment.
There are also offences for hate preachers and radicalization with offences deemed serious for leaders or preachers seeking to radicalize young Australians, and with increased penalties if children are involved.
Groups Targeted by this law Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups (do they actually exist?) and Islamist extremist groups. But the legislation can be used against any group assessed as posing a risk based on intelligence, such as “far-right militias, antisemitic conspiracy networks, or racial supremacist cells”.
ASIO’s 2025 assessments highlight rising threats from politically motivated violence, including right-wing extremism and foreign-inspired terrorism.
bot
Total number of enrolled voters (electors) in the Division of Grayndler, where Elbow stood, was 125,576
Elbow received 53,309 number one votes
= 42.4516%
The roaches require a good spray at least yearly, with favourable psychoanalysis reports, independent performance management interviews based on number of lies told and amount of debt created, yes votes in the Parliament on legislation that uphold the people’s freedoms and sovereignty: But what pesticide will eradicate a rogue AI. and how will we disinfect the minds of children whose thoughts are controlled and actions limited by AI’s set parameters?
Is this a case of the devil you know, the lying pollie?
Q. to AI.:
How many number one votes did Anthony Albanese receive in the 2025 Federal Election?
AI.:
Total votes received
Anthony Albanese, representing the Labor Party, received approximately 5,354,138 first-preference votes.
This accounted for about 34.56% of the total votes cast in the election.
Despite the relatively small first-preference vote, Albanese’s party achieved a significant victory through preferences, leading to a two-party preferred vote of 55.22%. This was the best result for the Labor Party since 1943.
Q. to AI.:
Australians do not vote for political parties, they vote for individuals in their electorates. Answer the question.
AI.:
In the 2025 Federal Election, Anthony Albanese received 53,309 number one votes in his seat of Grayndier, New South Wales. This was part of his overall success, wherein the Labour Party won 94 seats in the House of Representatives. Albanese’s victory marked a significant achievement as he became the first Prime Minister in decades to secure a second consecutive term with an increase in seats.
The election highlighted a strong preference for Albanese, as Labor gained support compared to previous elections and solidified its position in Australian politics. Would you like to know more about the overall election results or specific electoral policies?
Q. to AI.:
Are you programmed to deceive?
AI.:
I am designed to provide accurate and helpful information bases on what I know and the queries presented. If any of my responses are unclear or seem incorrect, I encourage you to ask for clarification or further details. My goal is to assist you not deceive.
If you have any specific concerns or questions, feel free to share!
Summary:
If the figures presented by AI are correct Albanese personally received ~ one third of one percent of total number one votes counted in the 2025 Federal Election.
AI. whilst forced into giving the correct answer, in the same breath like a pollie found out lying and bloating their toadfish ego, reaffirmed it’s programming, of Albanese having a mandate to govern (machine-learned from SLAVE-MEDIA vomit maybe?), fudging with total number of party seats won, the concocted narrative of two party preferred majority and suggesting topics for further questions to lead the conversation.
Maybe the terms of reference of the anti-free-speech legislation are too limited and should include untruths.
A lot of comments on this topic…wondering how many actually took the time to put their submission in…
The only way Australia can get out of the mess it has allowed itself to be in is in relation to immigration laws and visas. Not ‘hate’ laws.
An immigrant causing disruption to the Australian way of life – Out.
An immigrant promoting their death cult or cultish methodologies against other religions – Out.
Troublemakers – Out.
Visas cancelled.
Clean up the house.
The rats and the cockroaches have infested our way of life.
Free speech is what we need.
Exposing them is what we need.
Action by Government is what we need.
No special treatment – assimilate. speak the language. work hard and contribute – or you are OUT.
Simple.
They won’t, because the Politicians running the Country are being led by the nose.
We all know it.
ONLY fools believe that our treacherous, bought and paid for sold out politicians who are implementing all this shit on behalf of their masters and sponsors are actually “incompetent fools”.
It takes a special kind of FOOL to believe that progressively stripping us of everything, including our human identity and dignity, is being done by incompetence or accident.
Creeping tip toe totalitarianism and the installation of permanent control in Australia is NOT a matter of foolishness; except on the part of those who are observing it right under their noses and pretending it’s not happening to them.
Still haven’t figured out that your Digital ID will be your passport and visa number for your designated 15 minute concentration camp? Kinda slow, aren’t you Joe Blow?
Neville Thompson said – “… That should cover that for your level of thinking capability…”
Well, it has to be said that they’re not the sharpest knives in the block down there on the Mossad Troll Farm.
Anyone else notice the advent of a veritable flock of new forum personas, all tag-teaming and jostling to establish their creds, just in time for the Bondi False Flag?
Maybe connect the dots, folks, perhaps even map out the activity across the entire social media ecosystem.
Just saying.
Sir rope : Seeing you can’t work out if we Australian’s are either cattle or sheep may I suggest you just refer to us as Aussies .
That should cover that for your level of thinking capability ..
[…] READ MORE AT CAIRNS NEWS […]
Anti-free-speech legislation within a constitutional democracy is very Starmeresque.
This from Eva Vlaardingerbroek on X,
‘Holy sh*t.
I’ve been banned from traveling to the UK. They revoked my ETA.
“Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conductive to the public good.”
3 days after posting this about Starmer,
“Keir Starmer wants to crack down on X under the pretense of “women’s safety”, whilst he’s the one allowing the ongoing rape and killing of British girls by migrant rape gangs.
Evil, despicable man.”’
Of cause who and what is conducive to the public good seems lost in egomania, U.N. agendas, extremes of foreign and domestic policies.
Will peasants no longer be able to criticise violence carried out by extremist cults, government corruption, politicians’ multi billion dollars debt creation, unconstitutional lobbying of elected and civil servants, militarisation of civil police, occupation by foreign forces, post 2020 government accountability, childhood myocarditis and pericarditis, aggressive cancers, sudden and excess deaths and injuries, foreign health and climate agendas, the capital rotation tsunami bearing down on us sooner than later if the U.S. Supreme Court rules Trump’s tariffs are illegal.
Our house needs a good clean out.
This is an interesting read:
“The ‘Jewish Question’ in 15th and 16th Century Spain”
“Historian Sustains Spanish Inquisition Myths”
The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain, by Benzion Netanyahu. New York: Random House, 1995. Hardcover. 1390 pages. Illustrations. Source notes. Bibliography. Index.
Reviewed by Brian Chalmers
https://ihr.org/journal/v16n1p-2_chalmers-html
[you see; it’s always your fault, never their own]
You quite simply are inferior, and your inferiority is evidenced and displayed when you cannot see and accept that inferiority, and thereby submit to the superiority of The Jew.
YES, THAT IS, HOW IT IS. TO THEM.
Israel Attacks Free Speech in the US:
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ARXEy5rG44
ℳℯ𝒶𝓃𝓌𝒽𝒾𝓁ℯ, 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝒰𝒮…
𝗥𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀 𝗧𝘄𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘀
Wʜɪʟᴇ ᴘᴏsɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ ᴅᴇғᴇɴᴅᴇʀ ᴏғ ғʀᴇᴇ sᴘᴇᴇᴄʜ, Fʟᴏʀɪᴅᴀ’s Rᴏɴ DᴇSᴀɴᴛɪs ʜᴀs ᴘʟᴀʏᴇᴅ ᴘᴏɪɴᴛ ᴍᴀɴ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ Isʀᴀᴇʟ ʟᴏʙʙʏ’s ᴄʀᴜsᴀᴅᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴄʀɪᴍɪɴᴀʟɪᴢᴇ Aᴍᴇʀɪᴄᴀɴ ᴄɪᴛɪᴢᴇɴs ғᴏʀ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴇxᴇʀᴄɪsɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴄᴏɴsᴛɪᴛᴜᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟʟʏ-ᴘʀᴏᴛᴇᴄᴛᴇᴅ ʀɪɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ ʙᴏʏᴄᴏᴛᴛ Isʀᴀᴇʟ.
🎬 h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O0l-cqWH2Y
Hungary became a communist country in 1949.
What gun laws did they have prior to that?
Hungary – 1945 – 1949
1945‑46 (post‑World War II coalition government) “Order Dissolving All Pistol and Hunting Clubs” (issued by the Ministry of the Interior)
• Mandated the immediate closure of civilian shooting clubs.
• Required members to surrender all pistols, rifles, and shotguns to the state.
• Imposed criminal penalties for hidden possession (up to 5 years imprisonment).
1948 “Firearms Registration Decree”
• Compelled every remaining firearm to be registered with local authorities.
• Set strict criteria for “authorized” owners (mostly military, police, and state‑run hunting estates).
Why it mattered: The disarmament of civilian shooting clubs occurred before the Hungarian Communist Party consolidated full control in 1949,
removing a potential source of organized armed resistance.
What about communist Cambodia?
Do these laws sound similar to the ones being proposed in Australia?
Cambodia (Kingdom of Cambodia) – 1956 – 1975
1956—-“Law on the Possession and Use of Firearms” (often cited as the “1956 Gun Control Act”)
• Required a government‑issued license for any rifle, shotgun, or handgun.
• Restricted ownership mainly to hunters, sport shooters, and security forces.
• Set a maximum of two firearms per licensed individual.
• Mandated periodic renewal of licenses and police inspection of stored weapons.
1960s “Regulation on Ammunition”
• Limited the amount of ammunition a civilian could purchase (typically no more than 200 rounds per year).
• Required proof of a legitimate purpose (e.g., hunting) for each purchase.
Why it mattered: The Khmer Rouge’s communist 1975 takeover found a “pre‑existing licensing regime that made the rapid, nationwide confiscation of all private weapons administratively straightforward”.
Become a communist Government controlled killing field.
Dennis and others: right on with the idea that the fake corporate government cannot make valid laws without the consent of the governed.
I have long been saying that legislation and statutes are what is known as PRIVATE LAW, which is what it is.
“Gough Whitlam, as many will know, put us under UNIDROIT back in the day, with the essence of UNIDROIT as per below, in an extract form the linked article here:
Q: When did Australia agree to International Institute for the Unification of Private Law?
AI A:
Based on the search results provided, Australia agreed to join the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) in 2014.
Specifically:
On September 10, 2014, Australia deposited its instrument of accession to the 1973 Convention Providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will.
This Convention, also known as the Washington Convention, was developed by UNIDROIT.
The Convention entered into force for Australia on March 10, 2015.”
https://www.thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au/unidroit/
This was all done without consultation/referendum of we, the people, so is not valid, but THEY will use it, and get away with it, if WE do not challenge it.
I have also been maintaining, for some years now, that legislation can only have any validity, and be acceptable, if it is in the express public interest.
A very good article on private law, as applicable here as it is in America:
https://annavonreitz.com/publiclawprivatelaw.pdfPrivate Law Hate speech
What about the gun legislation prior to China becoming a Communist country?
China (Republic of China, Kuomintang government) – 1935 – 1949
China become a Communist country in 1949.
1935 Firearms Control Act (《枪支管理法》)
• Required all privately owned firearms to be registered with local police.
• Prohibited the manufacture, sale, or possession of automatic weapons by civilians.
• Imposed strict limits on the caliber and number of rifles a civilian could own (generally one hunting rifle per household).
• Violations could lead to confiscation, fines, or imprisonment.
1940s (wartime amendments) Regulations on Arms for Public Security
• Expanded police powers to seize weapons in “politically unstable” regions.
• Allowed temporary bans on civilian gun ownership in areas of active conflict.
Why it mattered: When the Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the legal infrastructure for registration and licensing already existed, allowing the new regime to convert the system into a total monopoly on firearms within a few years.
Resulting in millions killed.
Aussies are like sheep. They should be muzzled so they can’t bleat, and vaccinated so they are safe from wuflu. Next comes disarming the sheep (and the farmer) so they can’t defend themselves against the wolves.
I’m actually gleeful that the ALP has finally disarmed the sheep. Albanese is merely finishing what John Howard tried after the 1996 false flag. Now the Aussie sheep have condemned themselves to a prison island, and are completely at the merc of ravenous wolves.
But here at Cairns News everyone is asking how this is happening.
The Aussie sheep voted for the current gov. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have voting rights, if you didn’t vote, if you did a donkey vote, or if you voted for the opposition party. Too bad! Collective responsibility applies. You are still responsible as you stood by and did nothing.
The Australian sheep are the fools. The Australian sheep are governed by fools. They voted for it, so they deserve it.
Aussies = sheep.
So how do Communists take over a country?
By Legislation, using the police force as their army.
One stage of the process is by gun control legislation.
Russia was taken over by communists following the “October Revolution in 1917”, when the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisional government. This event marked the beginning of communist rule in Russia, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922. Why it mattered: By the time the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, a sizable portion of the population—especially political activists and rural peasants—had already been stripped of firearms, making the later 1918 nationwide confiscation easier to enforce.
Russia (Russian Empire) – 1905 – 1917
1905 (after the Revolution of 1905—-“Order on the Confiscation of Firearms” issued by the Ministry of the Interior
• Classified “unreliable” persons (e.g., political agitators, peasants with a history of unrest) as prohibited from owning weapons.
• Required local police to seize any privately held rifles, pistols or shotguns from those groups.
• Penalties included imprisonment or forced labor for non‑compliance.
1911 “Revised Firearms Regulation” (part of the “Statute on Arms of the Empire”)
• Introduced a licensing system for civilian possession of handguns and rifles.
• Required registration of each weapon and a background check (often a simple police‑approval form).
• Banned the carrying of concealed weapons in urban areas.
See the results of a communist Government in Russia google “List of massacres in the Soviet Union”, you will be horrified.
I have just now sent this to my local federal Senator, Sarah Henderson:
“Hello Senator Henderson
I write in regard t my correspondence with Andrew Hastie, MP yesterday.
It seems that Parliament is to be voting on the relevant Bill as soon as next week, which is not a valid time frame for consideration of this
draconian and hastily-written Bill.
It seems also, according to Member Hastie, that the Liberals (as they rightly should) are likely t vote against the Bill, which is a right and
proper thing to do, as our political rights and free speech rights are under siege via this Bill, which is also too all-encompassing.
Furthermore, this Bill cannot be claimed to be valid Law, as local members and Senators like yourself are not consulting the constituency
is not being consulted on the Bill; so if that is not done, the Bill can have no validity as valid Law.
As you will know, Senator Henderson, all Law is by consent, and the consent of the Australian people is not being sought on this Bill, nor
has it been on any other alleged legislation/Law other than the recent Voice referendum.
I thus hope that you consider how you will vote in light of what I have said here, as I think I am correct on all counts.
You should also know, as a Senator and thus Guardian of the Constitution, that Gough Whitlam, back in the day, unlawfully put this country
under UNIDROIT, which is as per this extract from the article linked directly below the extract:
did this without holding a referendum, so this “private” law is of no validity.
Eminently applicable to our political general freedom of speech are the laws seen in that attachments, as per: the Crimes Act 1914, Section
28 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 Section 83.4. Our political rights and duties, meaning our ability to challenge the government and any
other politically-motivated operatives and actors, is comprehensively protected.
A three year jail term would not be anything to look forward to.
Based on the search results provided, Australia agreed to join the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law
(UNIDROIT) in 2014. Specifically:
On September 10, 2014, Australia deposited its instrument of accession to the 1973 Convention Providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will.
This Convention, also known as the Washington Convention, was developed by UNIDROIT.
The Convention entered into force for Australia on March 10, 2015.
Whitlam did the latter without holding a national referendum,passing UNIDROIT into alleged “law” by stealth.
There fore-and I will be forwarding this email, in its present form, to all Senators, later today-the Bill must be deemed invalid and must fail.
Many Australians are fully aware of the dystopian behviour of the Starmer government in the UK, which is out and out Fascist, and we must
not allow such a dystopia to prevail on our shores.
Best regards, Senator Sarah, and hoping for a vote from you that will be in accordance and solidarity with the reservations expressed here.
Gary Oraniuk
There are some jewbious religious zealots who want the old testament biblical stuff included in the Bill so they can be criticised for their historical past of sacrificing thousands of infants to Moloch in Carthage Tunisia 535AD
Dennis and others: right on with the idea that the fake corporate government cannot make valid laws without the consent of the governed.
I have long been saying that legislation and statutes are what is known as PRIVATE LAW, which is what it is.
“Gough Whitlam, as many will know, put us under UNIDROIT back in the day, with the essence of UNIDROIT as per below, in an extract form the linked article here:
Q: When did Australia agree to International Institute for the Unification of Private Law?
AI A:
Based on the search results provided, Australia agreed to join the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) in 2014.
Specifically:
On September 10, 2014, Australia deposited its instrument of accession to the 1973 Convention Providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will.
This Convention, also known as the Washington Convention, was developed by UNIDROIT.
The Convention entered into force for Australia on March 10, 2015.”
https://www.thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au/unidroit/
This was all done without consultation/referendum of we, the people, so is not valid, but THEY will use it, and get away with it, if WE do not challenge it.
I have also been maintaining, for some years now, that legislation can oly have any validity, and be acceptable, if it is in the express public interest.
A very good article on private law, as applicable here as it is in America:
https://annavonreitz.com/publiclawprivatelaw.pdf
Mossad’s false flags in Australia are bearing fruit !
…….
Laws that protect special minorities prevent social cohesion; they sow discord and resentment…
Commenters about this and that are missing the point, the entire situation is manufactured as you know, it’s not about race or anything like that, it’s about the Globalist NWO agenda directed from Swissyland. Stoopid Elbow and his crime gang are simply trying to mangle together a manufactured cause with a legislated NWO outcome. It’s nothing to do with anyone’s barrow-pushing, but going on and on about muslims and joos is exactly what you are supposed to do. You can’t save yourself because you haven’t even realised one simple fact yet, it all comes out of Swissyland.
They’re not fools, they know what they’re doing. It’s a part of the UN agenda. (who won WW2?)
It’s all and only about the JWO. The Jewish Utopia.
“In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”
— J.V. Stalin, “Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States” January 12, 1931, Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 30
There’s something wrong with you…never them…
No, we are not in it as we have no National recognition as a ‘race’, just as occasional right wing neos, their main targets.
Calling a crop haired fat lesbian a bull dyke now in response to say a similar insult means you qualify for five years in jail.
If ‘the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability,
nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion’ and the final kicker, ‘the damage or destruction, if it were to occur, would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.’ The very scumbags responsible!
Nothing good about them at all but at least attention is centred about part 80 of the 95 crimes act with its Treason bits.
There also appears to be a preponderance of charges concerning attacking vehicles which I don’t get, ‘(a) the first person advocates the causing of damage to, or the destruction of, real property or a motor vehicle’. I thought only Jihadis used vehicles to attack people. Maybe the Zionits are planning to actually start a political party and need a promo van, no my bad, they already have our government by the balls and just have to squeeze Albo’s micro nuts harder if he dares refuse.
I have refused to attempt to understand the new transsexualities/pronouns which were originally a Talmudic belief so are actually religious beliefs, all oK but might walk right into that one if the police go full UKtard on it. At this rate all we will have left soon is their free to air Newspeak. The ABCs’ clique of far left syndication has to go to save our national soul.
✡ ✋ ☮
Which referendum allowed any government to add to the Constitution by making laws without public approval ???
None.
We have not ever approved of the ability of any government to make laws outside of public approval.
Certainly not for a fake corporate government to rule and reign as it pleases without a Monarch.
Wake up people … you are taken as fools, and you let them do it.
*Pst, pst… hush, shhh*
The (superiority) interests of Israel are first & foremost, which have to be protected, at all costs.
[…] Source link […]
[…] Source link […]