Monarchist garbage ! - they claim that the push for Republic is because of today's money power ( LOL ! ) then they show Reserve Bank of Australia in the background ! OMG ! WE ALL KNOW WHO OWNS RBA - the CROWN !!! The QUEEN owns The RBA and she prints money for Australia at INTEREST !!! - this video is PROPAGANDA ! they don't want Australia to be Republic because that would strip the Royal Crown of control and billions upon billions of Australian dollars they STEAL each year from us !
@artyfarty3 Sorry mate I put the reserve bank in just to indicate how the monetary system is corrupt .The queen prints nothing , Our fed only prints misrepresentations of our very own promissory obligations we have to each other. Money is not printed out of thin air or nothing. There's 2 crowns, The CORPORATE crown IS NOT THE ROYAL CROWN. I'm not a Monarchist or a republican but I put this together with illustrations to educate people about our law, our Constitution & our corrupt money system .
Thanks for letting me post Chota I will leave it at that. I think you get the drift of where im coming from, or i'll go on forever. I have been studying this issue for an assignment for a while now and it amazes me to no end, I can't see this going away anytime soon especially when the aboriginals start understanding it on larger levels, I think the elite may be the only ones who may know this at the moment.I'll check out some of your other vids they are very informative.
@thegamblergambler Your welcome its a pleasure to have an intelligent conversation ,usually I just get willful ignorance and abuse . Please check out my channel any time ,I'm always updating the playlists and I use the comments as a blog,, theres many pages there , Knowledge is power whether you agree with it or not my friend.
The aboriginals are the Sovereigns without question.It is looking very clear that Comm Govt is only claiming authority and jurisdiction via ignoring the truth of the aboriginals Sovereign rights and plain standover tactics.And this is only continueing because silly games are being played within courts due to discriminatory laws passed by parliaments like NT Act, and the lack of (legal) knowledge and resources of the Sovereign owners.And no support from the legal industry who clearly know this.
The NT law is discriminatory,the UN has confirmed this.The forst nations should not have to prove who they are to the second/third etc peoples. It is up to others to disprove their claim.A hard ask given their history on that land.The government new that it was easier to keep their rights at bay the other way round because it placed them in the drivers seat.The only claim ever put forward by the Comm Gov is Terra Nullius which the HC found against.Nothing else was placed forward.Then NT appeared
@thegamblergambler I agree the NT police have been know to push the boundary's , but it all comes down to 2 types of law , Admiralty law, the law of the sea which has no place on land , and common law THE LAW OF THE LAND,, our courts , law , police and government have been hijacked by a group of banking elite that are fascist corporate pirates to but it bluntly.
Beware of the UN they have been compromised at the very top by these very same pirates. .Follow the money !!
It is something Australia does not want to face. Why? I am very intrigued by this I must say. It didn't really stick out to me before, but now it is screaming out.
The Australian constitution gets fairly sloppy and inconsistant once it is mentioned in the same sentence as the aboriginals. And you don't have to dig very deep to uncover those "inconsistancies" (to put it lightly).
Does anyone else see this within the Australian Constitution???
@thegamblergambler A referendum was held on 27.6.67, .90.77 % agreed to amended section 51 from the constitution and removed section 127 from the Constitution.
51 removed " other than the Aboriginal race in any State," 127 was completely removed.
In my own personal opinion the Aboriginals are native sovereign they were here first, Ask any aboriginal they have not chosen to be a part of the commonwealth ,no treaty , common law should prevail just like it should with all citizens of Australia.
@chotaboy66 Hoo Ray Hoo Ray. Finally!!!! Exactly, the "Common Law" should prevail. You know your stuff chotaboy, please add me. I have never understood why the common Australian would look down upon the aboriginals as they would be better friends than those darn corporations. They are the true people of the land.
The 67 referendum allowed Comm Gov to make laws for aboriginals. (correct me if wrong). Didnt Comm Gov use that to make the Native Title law,which effectively removed them from CL?
@thegamblergambler Common law of Australia dose recognize native title after Marbo.See Native Title Act 1993 .Unfortunately by giving the aboriginal rights that has put them in white mans dilemma , common law is still there but the law professions etc seems to think and act Admiralty law is above common law .If one reads section 109 of our constitution this is quite debatable when we also look at state laws that are clearly inconsistent with Commonwealth law & common law.
@chotaboy66 It's a mess.I have heard that the legal society does not like looking back at the legal history of Australia because it is a "train wreck".Especially regarding Sovereignty and the aboriginals.My opinion is that the Australian constitution is cleary discriminating against the aboriginals, this is why Australia will not impliment a human rights bill into law. (to get rid of discrimination).Because the Aboriginals rights are protected under the Common Law.And AL does not come before CL.
@thegamblergambler Admiralty law is discriminatory in my opinion , the constitution is based on common law & the discrimination within it regarding aboriginals was cleared up in 67 .
You are correct we have no bill of rights & the current law system is a train wreak past & present.
There are hidden agendas at play that threaten our very freedom, but it will be aboriginal sovereignty that should save the day for all. discrimination needs to be accountable at the personal level ,we are all one.
@thegamblergambler In actual fact if ones parents were born in a country that should make one indigenous, the question I put is how far do we have to go back , is there any stipulation ?.Having said that the Native Aboriginals are true sovereign,there indigenous blood lines go back the furthest in time in the planets history of any other race .So in other words they are the oldest race on the globe,so in my opinion they should hold sovereign title to the world if one looks at it in this respect.
@chotaboy66 Agreed. And, people have worked hard for their little bit of space. It is not your average Aussies fault for what has happened but surely one must agree the Government/s continue with a fraud that is absolute criminal against these people. Man, come on, you good folk need to speak out against that and put those corporate fools in their place. You would find that it would also be good for the rest of the nation, farmers, land holders etc to properly recognise this.
The most horrifying and depressing thing, with videos like this, is always the comments section. The army of scoffing, trolling, pseudo-rationalist atheists who think they are so urbane and sophisticated in advocating global fascism, and attempting to shout down anyone who resists that.
You did not come up with your ideas yourselves, atheistic trolls. Do not deceive yourselves to the contrary.
@petrus4 You see what I do ,,great comment thank you for your support, it is most unfortunate here in Australia as eternal vigilance seems to be a thing of the past now.
1) completely support the message of this video series, Am A monarchist and for the most part, would count myself on the same idealogical side as the doco
2) Am an Atheist. and find your comment insulting and unnecessarily derogatory.
I mean, come on, you didnt even say "trolling, pseudo-rationalist LIBERALS"
you just targeted Atheists, of all people!
what in all fuck has SOME ONES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS got to do with ANYTHING RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTION?
o dear. I didnt know our world was so screwed up like this. I wonder who the guy was that said this was the religious text that reigned supreme over all others.
@lacanau The preamble says WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, The constitution is based on bible principals nothing more with the blessing of god .This terminology insures your birth rights under common law thats all .Go back and listen again if you swear on the bible , not another document , In other words if you swear on the bible "only' you & the court recognize the bible laws are supreme.
@lacanau I also would like to add Common law the law of the land and our Constitution is mostly ignored in the courts and by politicions today .Our courts have been hijacked illegally by maritime law, law of the sea.
The constitution is about our rights under common law, the bible part is basically a history lesson , Educate yourself read our constitution you will see what I mean.It doesn't read as religious text ,its an Act of LAW to enforce our liberty's & rights thats been ignored mostly.
@lacanau Why do you think atheism has been so encouraged in the last few decades, in particular? Who do you think has been behind that?
Go and read about Alexander Pike, one of the leaders of Freemasonry, who makes explicit mention of using atheism to undermine individual sovereignty. Atheism is EVIL, and that is by design. "Free thought," is anything but.
We got the biggest pedafile racket in the world right inside govt our child safety i found porn sites they delete em and move em i have signed documnts from courts saying they like to control weather i just dont see how abusing kids can open doors for them. They attract more pedafiles cause aust laws protect em only cause of their own constitution called research just like the Japanese do to whales aust do to kids same howard changed the laws with UN nd aust cant be touched by laws .....
LOVED the point about money being nothing more then a sophisticated ticketing system that's what i have ALWAYS said to people that say we don't have enough money to help the poor
@Stephen19852009 I have tried to explain the money system to quite well of individuals but they still cant get there head round how money/credit is created today & is only an illusion of wealth, greed for the pretty colors in there wallet has been imprinted in there heads from birth, I'm glad you understand the big picture.Don't they look stupid when they pull the money out of there pocket & say look its real ,I always smile think you ignorant fool to myself.One has to laugh at there delusions.
@pekingduck123456 the Bible does not say "thou shalt not kill" the Bible say "thou shalt not murder" if we can not kill then how can God give us the right to eat meat?
Step 1: Disarm the nation = Then - "Martin Bryant" gun amnesty. Now - "Knife culture".
Step 2: Plunge the nation into financial debt = GFC
Step 3: Republic = Not if "we the people" have anything to do with it.
Step 4: Dictatorship = Not without force and there are many more Australians than there are military servicemen. Why do you think KRudd is getting so cosy with Indonesia and its military??
@Alucardthedeadone I have not seen any law that prohibits an Australian defending themselves from any unlawful attack (even detainment or body search by a police officer without a lawful reason). I suggest going to the austlii site and downloading a copy of the COACA1901
There are some states of America that allow "open carry" where you can have a visible firearm in a holster. A very old law that was never repealed by the people. It's only concealed firearms that require licenses generally.
@Alucardthedeadone There are none in the Aus constitution ,from what I can remember you can have a bolt action rifle but you must be licenenced, anything else such as auto, semi auto, pump Acton firearms are prohibitive unless you belong to a club where pistols are an aception.But of course the criminals didnt hand in the guns and the restrictions of fire arms on citizens owning guns have only increased crime and home invasions. Google Firearms Regulation.
@pekingduck123456 Now I know your a spook gays have nothing do with the constitution as its based on bible principals nothing more,I seems you taking the matter of treason into the realms of sexual preference within religion which is side tracking the issue at hand where the crown oath by lawyers and Judges has been removed illegally in Vic.theres no death sentence in Aus how ridicules ,unless your a fool OR a spook here to confuse the readers of the issue either way 3 strikes your blocked.
@pekingduck123456 It was the christians not the church that abolished slavery in the courts which led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, The existing Preamble to the Aust Constitution describes the people of Australia as 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' PICK YOUR RELIGION all law originates from bible codified law going back to king james bible ,I would like to see you sware on the karan in a court of law, go away you obviously have no idea what your talking about mate.
@pekingduck123456 What do you think these vids represent mate .Please your talking through your ego we are all guardians of the constitution that can rub a couple brain cells together dont try to play it back in my court dose that give you satisfaction by pointing the finger at me now ignorance is the egos defence against pure fear .Wake up you cant be serious why dont you thank me for this info instead you attack my allegiance turn your tv off and wake up mate.
@pekingduck123456 Theres more than a flaw pekingduck theres many many flaws in these illegal acts that are un lawful according to our constitution ,I have personally researched Brian Shaws claims ,looked at all the acts and facts. he has uncovered mass treason amongst the Politicians courts Judges magistrates etc. This is BIG mate and no one seems to care with total media black out. When good men do nothing evil triumphs. Im presuming your a good man.
@pekingduck123456 Rudd didnt sware allegiance to the crown when he was sworn in .Theres your proof & gillard not respecting the constitution according to section 44 in the constitution she cant sit as a member of the House of Reps. How much proof do you need and you trust liars that support war mass genocide of millions of women and children based on admitted lies on WMD and you respect that ?common your living in a dream world neo.TIME TO WAKE UP and think about the childrens future.
@pekingduck123456 May I suggest you visit my channel and view playlist treason in canberra , remember if one is here on youtube to conceal treason one is actually committing treason .I hope your tread lightly from now on pekingduck because its already in the courts the supreme court of victoria.
@pekingduck123456 Ha ha From what I can remember you were the first to start bitching where you claimed to know it all from the start I'm afraid ,If you put your trust judges and lawyers who are professionals from victoria your getting duped and lead astray , you might ask your mates about a man called Brian Shaw and Co then tell them they could be in supreme court of victoria themselfs for concealing treasonably by the way. I trust in god not phoney judges and lawyers politicians.
@pekingduck123456 Im sorry it did contravene commonwealth constitution with the illegal act "Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which removes the Oath of allegiance out of the law making process in vic.Exactly the constitution does not provide a mechanism for the removal of the crown unless sec 128 is used via referendum and sorry there was an expectation of a republic in oct 1999 ,a charter to achieve global governance was developed at the millennium assembly in sept 1999.
@pekingduck123456 So yes legally the state constitutions cannot contravene the Commonwealth constitution which is true according to sec 106 . Which would make the "Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000" illegal which removes the crown from law making process in victoria .currently and invalid and totally inconsistent act according to sect 109 of the Commonwealth constitution.
@pekingduck123456 Sorry sec 106 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall subject to this Constitution so it would go under sect 109 because of THE " Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which was as illegal act which deems it invalid Im afraid. There for YES lawyers and judges etc are acting illegally in VIC courts
@pekingduck123456 Correct me again if I'm wrong the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 regarding Sec 23 Oath of allegiance and Sec 18 referring to referendum.
So wouldn't it be fair to say a successful attempt on the Vic Constitution has it changed by an illegal act namely the " Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which removes the Oath of allegiance PART 2 LEGAL PRACTICE ACT 1996. Then it would be fair to say it violates the Aus Constitution sec 106 ,109 and 128 consecutively.
@pekingduck123456 Too bad the the lawyers and judges etc are acting illegally in VIC courts but one has to question Aust constitution sec 106 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, so would it be fair to say if State constitutions are changed which contradict the Australian Constitution then those changes in the state constitution would be deemed invalid by means of sec 109 of the Australian Constitution Inconsistency of laws.
@pekingduck123456 I dont belive this video says anywhere one has to swear only on the bible regarding the courts ,,so why are you sorry , Too bad WA and VIC courts are illegal cause the crown has already been removed with no referendum to the constitution so one has to ask who is one swearing there allegiance to in the affirmation pledge,, could it be a foreign power,,, if this is the case the act of treason has to be considered in those states ? /watch?v=Cg9OXVmcU6E
Exactly the Private federal reserve bank dose not work for the best interest of the people by defrauding the money system in every nation that has one from the start, I think you will find this criminal organisation that callits self the federal reserve bank of australia really runs our country not the politicians.
You might want to look at a video on you tube called " the money masters " or "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" or google
a bank does not work for the people, a bank is a private organisation that exists in the intrests of profit. If i give you a $100 loan, i want a reward for going out on a limb and trusting you to pay me back. If i have wood, nails, hammers and skill, i still cannot build my own house because i cant pay myself. but my grocer still wants money for my food, fairly enough. can i tell him that its not fair to charge to build my house if we have the skills and supplies, so give me free food?
This video is composed entirely of lies.
linkmaster667 1 month ago
@linkmaster667 Please demonstrate & qualify how & why ?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@linkmaster667 Yes i to am interested to know were the lies in this video?
MilitiaHQ 1 week ago
@MilitiaHQ Read all the comments ,,,part 3 in particular ? I blocked linkmaster667 for reasons you will see.
chotaboy66 1 week ago
We are not a Christian society. Any statement saying so is pure religious propaganda.
HarpDogAustralia 1 month ago
Monarchist garbage ! - they claim that the push for Republic is because of today's money power ( LOL ! ) then they show Reserve Bank of Australia in the background ! OMG ! WE ALL KNOW WHO OWNS RBA - the CROWN !!! The QUEEN owns The RBA and she prints money for Australia at INTEREST !!! - this video is PROPAGANDA ! they don't want Australia to be Republic because that would strip the Royal Crown of control and billions upon billions of Australian dollars they STEAL each year from us !
artyfarty3 4 months ago
@artyfarty3 Sorry mate I put the reserve bank in just to indicate how the monetary system is corrupt .The queen prints nothing , Our fed only prints misrepresentations of our very own promissory obligations we have to each other. Money is not printed out of thin air or nothing. There's 2 crowns, The CORPORATE crown IS NOT THE ROYAL CROWN. I'm not a Monarchist or a republican but I put this together with illustrations to educate people about our law, our Constitution & our corrupt money system .
chotaboy66 3 months ago
@chotaboy66 "I put this together with illustrations to educate people about our law, our Constitution & our corrupt money system"
*And You Did An Excellent Job At It! Thanks For Sharing This, I'll Be Sure To Share It Within My Networks.
NAUresistance 1 month ago
thanks for the info
marcey666 7 months ago
PEOPLE type in kalgoorlie court, and watch what happened to us
jazton1 9 months ago
It sad that only 9000 people watched this
hanvo216 10 months ago
Thanks for letting me post Chota I will leave it at that. I think you get the drift of where im coming from, or i'll go on forever. I have been studying this issue for an assignment for a while now and it amazes me to no end, I can't see this going away anytime soon especially when the aboriginals start understanding it on larger levels, I think the elite may be the only ones who may know this at the moment.I'll check out some of your other vids they are very informative.
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler Your welcome its a pleasure to have an intelligent conversation ,usually I just get willful ignorance and abuse . Please check out my channel any time ,I'm always updating the playlists and I use the comments as a blog,, theres many pages there , Knowledge is power whether you agree with it or not my friend.
Peace!!
chotaboy66 1 year ago
The aboriginals are the Sovereigns without question.It is looking very clear that Comm Govt is only claiming authority and jurisdiction via ignoring the truth of the aboriginals Sovereign rights and plain standover tactics.And this is only continueing because silly games are being played within courts due to discriminatory laws passed by parliaments like NT Act, and the lack of (legal) knowledge and resources of the Sovereign owners.And no support from the legal industry who clearly know this.
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
The NT law is discriminatory,the UN has confirmed this.The forst nations should not have to prove who they are to the second/third etc peoples. It is up to others to disprove their claim.A hard ask given their history on that land.The government new that it was easier to keep their rights at bay the other way round because it placed them in the drivers seat.The only claim ever put forward by the Comm Gov is Terra Nullius which the HC found against.Nothing else was placed forward.Then NT appeared
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler I agree the NT police have been know to push the boundary's , but it all comes down to 2 types of law , Admiralty law, the law of the sea which has no place on land , and common law THE LAW OF THE LAND,, our courts , law , police and government have been hijacked by a group of banking elite that are fascist corporate pirates to but it bluntly.
Beware of the UN they have been compromised at the very top by these very same pirates. .Follow the money !!
chotaboy66 1 year ago
Have you got any thoughts on this Chotaboy66?
It is something Australia does not want to face. Why? I am very intrigued by this I must say. It didn't really stick out to me before, but now it is screaming out.
The Australian constitution gets fairly sloppy and inconsistant once it is mentioned in the same sentence as the aboriginals. And you don't have to dig very deep to uncover those "inconsistancies" (to put it lightly).
Does anyone else see this within the Australian Constitution???
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler A referendum was held on 27.6.67, .90.77 % agreed to amended section 51 from the constitution and removed section 127 from the Constitution.
51 removed " other than the Aboriginal race in any State," 127 was completely removed.
In my own personal opinion the Aboriginals are native sovereign they were here first, Ask any aboriginal they have not chosen to be a part of the commonwealth ,no treaty , common law should prevail just like it should with all citizens of Australia.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@chotaboy66 Hoo Ray Hoo Ray. Finally!!!! Exactly, the "Common Law" should prevail. You know your stuff chotaboy, please add me. I have never understood why the common Australian would look down upon the aboriginals as they would be better friends than those darn corporations. They are the true people of the land.
The 67 referendum allowed Comm Gov to make laws for aboriginals. (correct me if wrong). Didnt Comm Gov use that to make the Native Title law,which effectively removed them from CL?
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler Common law of Australia dose recognize native title after Marbo.See Native Title Act 1993 .Unfortunately by giving the aboriginal rights that has put them in white mans dilemma , common law is still there but the law professions etc seems to think and act Admiralty law is above common law .If one reads section 109 of our constitution this is quite debatable when we also look at state laws that are clearly inconsistent with Commonwealth law & common law.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@chotaboy66 It's a mess.I have heard that the legal society does not like looking back at the legal history of Australia because it is a "train wreck".Especially regarding Sovereignty and the aboriginals.My opinion is that the Australian constitution is cleary discriminating against the aboriginals, this is why Australia will not impliment a human rights bill into law. (to get rid of discrimination).Because the Aboriginals rights are protected under the Common Law.And AL does not come before CL.
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler Admiralty law is discriminatory in my opinion , the constitution is based on common law & the discrimination within it regarding aboriginals was cleared up in 67 .
You are correct we have no bill of rights & the current law system is a train wreak past & present.
There are hidden agendas at play that threaten our very freedom, but it will be aboriginal sovereignty that should save the day for all. discrimination needs to be accountable at the personal level ,we are all one.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
Not looking for trouble, only rational debate. I'll throw a spanner in the works here:
the aboriginals, indigenous people of that land????
Any takers?
(btw you have some good interesting vids)
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
@thegamblergambler In actual fact if ones parents were born in a country that should make one indigenous, the question I put is how far do we have to go back , is there any stipulation ?.Having said that the Native Aboriginals are true sovereign,there indigenous blood lines go back the furthest in time in the planets history of any other race .So in other words they are the oldest race on the globe,so in my opinion they should hold sovereign title to the world if one looks at it in this respect.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@chotaboy66 Agreed. And, people have worked hard for their little bit of space. It is not your average Aussies fault for what has happened but surely one must agree the Government/s continue with a fraud that is absolute criminal against these people. Man, come on, you good folk need to speak out against that and put those corporate fools in their place. You would find that it would also be good for the rest of the nation, farmers, land holders etc to properly recognise this.
thegamblergambler 1 year ago
The most horrifying and depressing thing, with videos like this, is always the comments section. The army of scoffing, trolling, pseudo-rationalist atheists who think they are so urbane and sophisticated in advocating global fascism, and attempting to shout down anyone who resists that.
You did not come up with your ideas yourselves, atheistic trolls. Do not deceive yourselves to the contrary.
petrus4 1 year ago
@petrus4 You see what I do ,,great comment thank you for your support, it is most unfortunate here in Australia as eternal vigilance seems to be a thing of the past now.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@petrus4
In response to your comment
I:
1) completely support the message of this video series, Am A monarchist and for the most part, would count myself on the same idealogical side as the doco
2) Am an Atheist. and find your comment insulting and unnecessarily derogatory.
I mean, come on, you didnt even say "trolling, pseudo-rationalist LIBERALS"
you just targeted Atheists, of all people!
what in all fuck has SOME ONES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS got to do with ANYTHING RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTION?
AustralianPyro 1 year ago
swear on the bible? what if i am hindu? or atheist?
lacanau 1 year ago
@lacanau Swear on the bible ,,,if asked!!
I might add all western law has originated from the king James Bible and the 10 commandments.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@chotaboy66 King James bible!?
o dear. I didnt know our world was so screwed up like this. I wonder who the guy was that said this was the religious text that reigned supreme over all others.
lacanau 1 year ago
@lacanau The preamble says WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, The constitution is based on bible principals nothing more with the blessing of god .This terminology insures your birth rights under common law thats all .Go back and listen again if you swear on the bible , not another document , In other words if you swear on the bible "only' you & the court recognize the bible laws are supreme.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@lacanau I also would like to add Common law the law of the land and our Constitution is mostly ignored in the courts and by politicions today .Our courts have been hijacked illegally by maritime law, law of the sea.
The constitution is about our rights under common law, the bible part is basically a history lesson , Educate yourself read our constitution you will see what I mean.It doesn't read as religious text ,its an Act of LAW to enforce our liberty's & rights thats been ignored mostly.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@lacanau Why do you think atheism has been so encouraged in the last few decades, in particular? Who do you think has been behind that?
Go and read about Alexander Pike, one of the leaders of Freemasonry, who makes explicit mention of using atheism to undermine individual sovereignty. Atheism is EVIL, and that is by design. "Free thought," is anything but.
petrus4 1 year ago
We got the biggest pedafile racket in the world right inside govt our child safety i found porn sites they delete em and move em i have signed documnts from courts saying they like to control weather i just dont see how abusing kids can open doors for them. They attract more pedafiles cause aust laws protect em only cause of their own constitution called research just like the Japanese do to whales aust do to kids same howard changed the laws with UN nd aust cant be touched by laws .....
donnaleon100 1 year ago
Comment removed
rowania 1 year ago
LOVED the point about money being nothing more then a sophisticated ticketing system that's what i have ALWAYS said to people that say we don't have enough money to help the poor
Stephen19852009 1 year ago
@Stephen19852009 I have tried to explain the money system to quite well of individuals but they still cant get there head round how money/credit is created today & is only an illusion of wealth, greed for the pretty colors in there wallet has been imprinted in there heads from birth, I'm glad you understand the big picture.Don't they look stupid when they pull the money out of there pocket & say look its real ,I always smile think you ignorant fool to myself.One has to laugh at there delusions.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 the Bible does not say "thou shalt not kill" the Bible say "thou shalt not murder" if we can not kill then how can God give us the right to eat meat?
Alucardthedeadone 1 year ago
Step 1: Disarm the nation = Then - "Martin Bryant" gun amnesty. Now - "Knife culture".
Step 2: Plunge the nation into financial debt = GFC
Step 3: Republic = Not if "we the people" have anything to do with it.
Step 4: Dictatorship = Not without force and there are many more Australians than there are military servicemen. Why do you think KRudd is getting so cosy with Indonesia and its military??
venuecam 1 year ago
what is australian arms rights under the Australian Constitution? Do we the rights to bear arms like the US Constitution?
Alucardthedeadone 1 year ago
@Alucardthedeadone I have not seen any law that prohibits an Australian defending themselves from any unlawful attack (even detainment or body search by a police officer without a lawful reason). I suggest going to the austlii site and downloading a copy of the COACA1901
There are some states of America that allow "open carry" where you can have a visible firearm in a holster. A very old law that was never repealed by the people. It's only concealed firearms that require licenses generally.
venuecam 1 year ago
@Alucardthedeadone There are none in the Aus constitution ,from what I can remember you can have a bolt action rifle but you must be licenenced, anything else such as auto, semi auto, pump Acton firearms are prohibitive unless you belong to a club where pistols are an aception.But of course the criminals didnt hand in the guns and the restrictions of fire arms on citizens owning guns have only increased crime and home invasions. Google Firearms Regulation.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@chotaboy66 I also think the kife attacks in Melbourne are stage to make new lwas for them too.
Alucardthedeadone 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Now I know your a spook gays have nothing do with the constitution as its based on bible principals nothing more,I seems you taking the matter of treason into the realms of sexual preference within religion which is side tracking the issue at hand where the crown oath by lawyers and Judges has been removed illegally in Vic.theres no death sentence in Aus how ridicules ,unless your a fool OR a spook here to confuse the readers of the issue either way 3 strikes your blocked.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 It was the christians not the church that abolished slavery in the courts which led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, The existing Preamble to the Aust Constitution describes the people of Australia as 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' PICK YOUR RELIGION all law originates from bible codified law going back to king james bible ,I would like to see you sware on the karan in a court of law, go away you obviously have no idea what your talking about mate.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 What do you think these vids represent mate .Please your talking through your ego we are all guardians of the constitution that can rub a couple brain cells together dont try to play it back in my court dose that give you satisfaction by pointing the finger at me now ignorance is the egos defence against pure fear .Wake up you cant be serious why dont you thank me for this info instead you attack my allegiance turn your tv off and wake up mate.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Theres more than a flaw pekingduck theres many many flaws in these illegal acts that are un lawful according to our constitution ,I have personally researched Brian Shaws claims ,looked at all the acts and facts. he has uncovered mass treason amongst the Politicians courts Judges magistrates etc. This is BIG mate and no one seems to care with total media black out. When good men do nothing evil triumphs. Im presuming your a good man.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Rudd didnt sware allegiance to the crown when he was sworn in .Theres your proof & gillard not respecting the constitution according to section 44 in the constitution she cant sit as a member of the House of Reps. How much proof do you need and you trust liars that support war mass genocide of millions of women and children based on admitted lies on WMD and you respect that ?common your living in a dream world neo.TIME TO WAKE UP and think about the childrens future.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 May I suggest you visit my channel and view playlist treason in canberra , remember if one is here on youtube to conceal treason one is actually committing treason .I hope your tread lightly from now on pekingduck because its already in the courts the supreme court of victoria.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Ha ha From what I can remember you were the first to start bitching where you claimed to know it all from the start I'm afraid ,If you put your trust judges and lawyers who are professionals from victoria your getting duped and lead astray , you might ask your mates about a man called Brian Shaw and Co then tell them they could be in supreme court of victoria themselfs for concealing treasonably by the way. I trust in god not phoney judges and lawyers politicians.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Im sorry it did contravene commonwealth constitution with the illegal act "Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which removes the Oath of allegiance out of the law making process in vic.Exactly the constitution does not provide a mechanism for the removal of the crown unless sec 128 is used via referendum and sorry there was an expectation of a republic in oct 1999 ,a charter to achieve global governance was developed at the millennium assembly in sept 1999.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Sorry I have read the Victorian Constitution
sec18
1A In this section
referendum means a referendum conducted in accordance with Part 9A of the
Electoral Act 2002
may be repealed altered or varied unless the Bill has been passed by the
Assembly and the Council and approved by the majority of the electors voting
at a referendum
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 So yes legally the state constitutions cannot contravene the Commonwealth constitution which is true according to sec 106 . Which would make the "Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000" illegal which removes the crown from law making process in victoria .currently and invalid and totally inconsistent act according to sect 109 of the Commonwealth constitution.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Sorry sec 106 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall subject to this Constitution so it would go under sect 109 because of THE " Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which was as illegal act which deems it invalid Im afraid. There for YES lawyers and judges etc are acting illegally in VIC courts
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Correct me again if I'm wrong the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 regarding Sec 23 Oath of allegiance and Sec 18 referring to referendum.
So wouldn't it be fair to say a successful attempt on the Vic Constitution has it changed by an illegal act namely the " Courts and tribunals legislation act 2000 " which removes the Oath of allegiance PART 2 LEGAL PRACTICE ACT 1996. Then it would be fair to say it violates the Aus Constitution sec 106 ,109 and 128 consecutively.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Correct me if Im wrong there are provisons in the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 - SECT 18 for referendum now?
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 Too bad the the lawyers and judges etc are acting illegally in VIC courts but one has to question Aust constitution sec 106 The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, so would it be fair to say if State constitutions are changed which contradict the Australian Constitution then those changes in the state constitution would be deemed invalid by means of sec 109 of the Australian Constitution Inconsistency of laws.
chotaboy66 1 year ago
@pekingduck123456 I dont belive this video says anywhere one has to swear only on the bible regarding the courts ,,so why are you sorry , Too bad WA and VIC courts are illegal cause the crown has already been removed with no referendum to the constitution so one has to ask who is one swearing there allegiance to in the affirmation pledge,, could it be a foreign power,,, if this is the case the act of treason has to be considered in those states ? /watch?v=Cg9OXVmcU6E
chotaboy66 1 year ago
Exactly the Private federal reserve bank dose not work for the best interest of the people by defrauding the money system in every nation that has one from the start, I think you will find this criminal organisation that callits self the federal reserve bank of australia really runs our country not the politicians.
You might want to look at a video on you tube called " the money masters " or "Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" or google
The Gig Is Up: Money the Federal Reserve and You
chotaboy66 2 years ago
a bank does not work for the people, a bank is a private organisation that exists in the intrests of profit. If i give you a $100 loan, i want a reward for going out on a limb and trusting you to pay me back. If i have wood, nails, hammers and skill, i still cannot build my own house because i cant pay myself. but my grocer still wants money for my food, fairly enough. can i tell him that its not fair to charge to build my house if we have the skills and supplies, so give me free food?
UNoUWantMe2 2 years ago