Video: Young Americans Pledge Not to Celebrate the Fourth of July

Video: Young Americans Pledge Not to Celebrate the Fourth of July

Young Americans who said they enjoy cookouts and watching fireworks with friends and family on the Fourth of July nevertheless pledged not to celebrate Independence Day “out of respect to indigenous people groups,” in a video released by Campus Reform.

“I don’t like the rah-rah, and the flags, and the patriotism, and the independence part, but I do enjoy the fact that there are fireworks,” one person told Campus Reform’s Emily Fowler.

Fowler went to the National Mall to conduct a social experiment to test if anyone would pledge not to celebrate the Fourth of July when pressed on respecting “indigenous people.”

Watch Below:

“Independence Day kind of celebrates our country’s founding, right? And when America was founded, unfortunately, a lot of indigenous people groups were thrown out of their homes. Do you think it’s respectful to celebrate Fourth of July in light of that?” Fowler asked.

“I actually don’t,” one young person answered.

After being asked if it is “disrespectful to indigenous people groups to celebrate the Fourth,” another person answered, “In a way, yes.”

“Would you sign a pledge to not celebrate the Fourth out of respect to indigenous people groups?” Fowler asked, to which one person said, “I would be willing to sign that, yes.”

The individual — who previously admitted to enjoying watching fireworks on Independence Day — then signed the pledge and told her friend, “And we are not going to watch the fireworks,” to which her friend replied, “Okay.”

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.


Senator Cornyn, Republican Legislators Back Civics Bill That Could Push Critical Race Theory on Every Public School in America

Senator Cornyn, Republican Legislators Back Civics Bill That Could Push Critical Race Theory on Every Public School in America

Critics warn that the Civics Secures Democracy Act (CSDA), which is backed by multiple Republican senators such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), could impose leftwing critical race theory on every public school in the United States if it passes.

The bill would empower Biden’s Secretary of Education to award grants to “eligible entities,” including nonprofit organizations, higher education institutions, and states, which would then use the money to offer subgrants to local educational agencies. Cornyn, who was recently booed at the Texas Republican Party convention over his support for gun control and appears to be working on an immigration package that would include amnestyis among the Republicans who are backing the bill.

The legislation would provide $1 billion dollars annually to eligible entities. $585 million would be earmarked for state education agencies, while nonprofits would receive $200 million, higher education institutions would receive $150 million, $50 million would be earmarked for researchers, and $15 million would be granted to the Prince Hall Fellowship program, which is intended to “diversify the civics and history education workforce.” 

The bill explains that its goals include support of “local educational agencies, elementary schools, and secondary schools in selecting and making available to all students innovative, engaging curricula and programs” pertaining to civics and American government, as well as to “diversify the civics, history, and government education workforce by offering targeted incentives.” 

While the bill does not expressly warrant the creation of a national curriculum, the grant money would be awarded by the Secretary of Education, which previously removed a requirement that grant seekers incorporate elements of the New York Times’ 1619 Project and the work of critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi.

Additionally, Biden previously issued an executive order that mobilized the federal government in an attempt to advance critical race theory under the guise of “racial equity and support for underserved communities.”

Critics have contended that the legislation will allow the Biden administration to leverage the competitive grants to push an ideological agenda, thus incentivizing school districts to adopt leftwing curriculum and giving the Biden administration’s increased control over state and local education systems.  

The CDSA has garnered support from multiple Republicans, including Cornyn, who introduced the bill alongside Democrat Sen. Chris Coons (DE). Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) also joined the two in introducing the controversial piece of legislation. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is also supporting the bill, as is Tom Cole, a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional district.

The National Association of Scholars is one of the organizations opposing the legislation, and has issued a call to both Cole and Cornyn, urging them to withdraw their support for the bill, arguing that it would empower the Biden administration to advance critical race theory.

Cornyn’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Spencer Lindquist is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerLndqst and reach out at


Leaving a Godly Heritage

Leaving a Godly Heritage

How do we form our children in the faith and bestow a Godly heritage upon them? Let us turn to God’s Word for inspiration and instruction.

Sons are a heritage from the Lord
Children are a reward from Him.
~ Psalm 127:3 (NIV)

What does leaving a Godly heritage look like? What does it mean ‘to leave a Godly heritage?’

Heritage can relate to many things, but for our purpose, we will use the Oxford Dictionary definition, which in part states: Heritage is “valued qualities and cultural traditions that have been passed down from previous generations.”

The instructions written by Asaph in the 78th Psalm, especially verses 5-7, encapsulate how ‘heritage’ can be a living experience to perpetuate the teachings of our God and His achievements. It is written:

He decreed statutes for Jacob, and established the law in Israel,
which He commanded our forefathers to teach to their children,
so that the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born,
and they in turn would tell their children.
Then they would put their trust in God
and not forget His deeds but would keep His commands.’

The Big Question

Is this happening in your home and the homes of the families involved in the church? How do we teach and nurture our heritage? Do we pass on all we know about our Lord to our children and teach and encourage them to teach their children?

The family home is the most crucial and important learning environment for our children. It is here, in their early formative years, where the child will be most influenced — for better or for worse. They will learn (or not) to bond with those around them.

Children learn language, positive and negative behaviour, and how to interact with others in the home. Modern research confirms that the first five years of a child’s life are the most crucial and vital time to instil good attitudes and create healthy habits, especially regarding their spiritual growth and understanding.

Research by the noted developmental psychologist and anthropologist at Oxford University, Justin L Barret, about the value of religious faith, has found that we are all predisposed to believe in God from birth. This would be consistent with the Scripture in Ecclesiastes 3:11 —

He has also set eternity in the hearts of men….”

To further explore what it means to leave a Godly heritage, let us now consider the instructions given to Moses before the Israelites went into the Promised Land. Consider how these instructions relate to us today.

My conviction is that these Scriptures set out God’s plan for families and demonstrate how to impart the parents’ faith to their children. I use the word to impart the parent’s faith, as opposed to imposing their faith on their children. The home is the place where children should be introduced to the Lord of Creation and the Saviour of the World.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is known as the Shema (pronounced “Shem-ar”) and is worthy of our examination. These instructions for the family were given to Moses to be passed on. It is considered by devout Jews as the most critical and significant portion of the book of Deuteronomy.

Jewish children are taught this as a prayer. Devout Jews recite it three times a day. Each Friday evening, as the Sabbath begins, in Jewish homes around the world, the father, and sometimes the mother, lay hands on the children’s heads and pray for them.

Deuteronomy 6:4–9  (NIV)

Verse 4

“Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one.”

‘You shall have no other gods before Me’, states the First Commandment. The land into which the Jews were going was a land with a multitude of gods. Sadly, this is the same as the society our children find themselves in today. We have the answers to help them make the right decisions.

Verse 5

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

An expert in the law tested Jesus with a question. “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus quoted this Scripture in Matthew 22:37. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind (might).”

Jesus then went on to say in verses 38-40, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” 

Our children are in desperate need of godly role models. This is a great opportunity for parents, teachers, uncles, aunties and grandparents to be those role models who demonstrate that they love the Lord with all their hearts, all their souls and all their minds.

THOUGHT: If I expect my children to pray, then they need to see me praying.

If I expect my children to love the Word of God, they need to see that in me.

If I expect my children to love the Lord their God with all their hearts, with all their souls and with all their minds, guess where they will be looking?

Verse 6

“These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.”

Notice that this is a commandment, not just any ordinary instruction. Dare I say, not unlike the well-known Ten Commandments!  The Lord tells us these words are to be in our hearts. These are not just for head knowledge, but are to be an outward demonstration and expression of our inner beliefs and convictions.

Verse 7

“Impress them on your children.
Talk about them when you sit at home
and when you walk along the road,
when you lie down and when you get up.”

The word used to “impress” means to engrave. Not merely talking but living it out, which is much harder. We do this to impart our faith, as opposed to imposing our faith on our children. If as parents we use the “do what I say and not what I do” line, it will not work in the long term.

Whom to impress — Our children

What to impress — The Word of God

Where to impress — Walking, lying down, getting up, and sitting down or,
use every appropriate and suitable opportunity.

When to impress — All the time.

This is a “lifestyle” that should be evident in our everyday life.

Verse 8

“Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.”

It is always a joy when you see young people wearing the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets or something similar, and T-shirts that have a Christian message. Not only are these reminders important for our children who are feeling comfortable with a faith that is their own, but we also need to be reminded of the word of God. Hopefully, as they wear these obviously Christian items, they will also become competent in articulating their beliefs.

Verse 9

“Write them on the door frames of your houses and on your gates.”

It is possible to have various reminders, such as Scriptures around the house and other Christian symbols, such as the Nativity scene during the Christmas season. We should endeavour to give our children books, games and items that will strengthen their faith and not cause them to stumble. These practices should begin when the child is very young.

Challenge: To take God’s commandments seriously.

What are the consequences of ignoring God’s instruction for our families?

Let us look at what happened to the Jewish nation when they ignored God’s instructions.

About 120-150 years after entering the Promised Land and experiencing God’s grace, we read these words.

Judges 2:8-11

Verse 8

“Joshua son of Nun died, the servant of the Lord died at the age of one hundred and ten.”

Verse 9

“And they buried him in the land of his inheritance,
at Timnath Heres in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.”

The influence of the godly men and women has now passed away.

Verse 10

After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers,
another generation grew up, who knew neither the Lord
nor what He had done for Israel

After all the wonderful blessings of God, a WHOLE generation grew up who not only did not know the Lord but did not know the awesome things God had done for Israel!

Verse 11

Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baal.

Many of this generation do not know the Lord nor the incredible things He has done in the development of our great nation, Australia, or for that matter, Western civilisation.

That generation did not understand or did not know how to live in a Godly manner. They pursued a destructive and flawed lifestyle with dire consequences. Knowledge of a Godly heritage was not successfully taught or adopted.

Tragically, both of these situations happen too often in Australia and the Western world today.

What heritage will you offer your children to receive and adopt as a lifestyle?

THOUGHT: How seriously do we take God’s instructions about teaching our children?

Suggested reading

  • George Barna, “Transforming Children into Spiritual Champions”
  • Ted Baehr and Pat Boone, “The Culture-Wise Family”
  • Mark Griffiths, “One Generation from Extinction”


Photo by Vlada Karpovich.

Thank the Source

Snowflakes In Hell & Lines In The Sand to Guide Others

Snowflakes In Hell & Lines In The Sand to Guide Others

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.


The Truth About Circumcision

The Truth About Circumcision

EricDubay – June 26th, 2022

The following documentary is a comprehensive compilation composed of several interviews, lectures, podcasts and other documentaries regarding the practice of circumcision. The Truth About Circumcision is that there are many extremely negative and far-reaching consequences from this ancient religious practice turned modern medical procedure while the supposed benefits are nothing but convenient lies. This video is almost sure to get shadow-banned on certain platforms so your help in sharing this with your friends, family and social networks is much appreciated.

Get Connected With Me:
Real Truthseekers:
Dollar Vigilante:
Email: [email protected]

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

ACT Discrimination Law “Reforms” Narrow Religious Freedom

ACT Discrimination Law “Reforms” Narrow Religious Freedom

The fresh anti-discrimination legislation in the Australian Capital Territory will reduce religious freedom even further, applying the strictures upon faith-based schools to other religious institutions like hospitals and aged care, and even places of worship or university student societies.

The Australian Capital Territory government has released an Exposure Draft of a Bill to amend that jurisdiction’s Discrimination Act 1991 (“DA”). They have invited public comment by 1 July 2022. As key protections for religious freedom in Australia are often found in “balancing clauses” in discrimination legislation, it is always worth keeping an eye on reforms to these laws. Sadly, these proposed reforms will significantly narrow religious freedom protections in the ACT.

Current ACT Law

The ACT DA already contains some of the narrowest religious freedom protections in the country, after amendments to the Act made in 2018 (which I commented on at the time when they were proposed.) One result of these changes was that the previous freedom of faith-based schools and educational institutions to conduct their activities in accordance with their faith, was greatly reduced.

Under s 32 of the DA as it now stands since 2018 (even before any further changes are made), “religious bodies” other than schools are generally allowed to apply their doctrines and beliefs in decision-making in

(d)     any other act or practice… of a body established for religious purposes, if the act or practice conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion and is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

However, this freedom is explicitly not applicable to a “defined act” by a religious body, which is defined in s 32(2) as follows:

(2)     In this section:

“defined act”, by a religious body, means an act or practice in relation to—

(a)     the employment or contracting of a person by the body to work in an educational institution; or

(b)     the admission, treatment or continued enrolment of a person as a student at an educational institution.

There is a provision, s 44, allowing faith-based schools and religious groups providing health care to make employment decisions based on religious belief, “if the duties of the employment or work involve, or would involve, the participation by the employee or worker in the teaching, observance or practice of the relevant religion”.

But this is narrowly drafted and would probably only apply to staff whose job was to actually teach religious studies or run religious services in hospitals. Section 46 allows enrolment and staffing decisions in faith-based schools to be based on religious belief, but only if clearly announced in a formal public policy document.

This means, however, that a faith-based school may not set out a policy requiring staff or students to comply with the moral code required by their religion. For example, where a staff member decides to move in with a de facto partner without being married, this would be contrary to classical Biblical teaching that sexual relations are only appropriate in marriage. The school may want all staff to set an example of living in accordance with the tenets of their faith (and parents may send their children expecting this.)

But the staff member may be able to claim that dismissal or discipline in this situation would be discrimination on the grounds of “relationship status” under s 7(1)(s) (which term includes, according to the Dictionary at the end of the Act, being a “domestic partner” of someone else).

Or the school may expect students to adhere to a code of conduct that is consistent with the values of the faith, and students may decide to defy this code and claim that they are being discriminated against on one of the grounds under the Act.

The proposed amendments

(a) “Reasonable, proportionate and justified” — but who decides?

The proposed amendments will, in effect, roll out similar limits to apply to other religious bodies other than schools. The amendments to s 32 would mean that decisions of religious bodies made in accordance with their faith (other than a closely defined set of decisions relating to ordination, training for ordination, or religious services — though see below on this), will not only have to be justified by their faith, but now also be shown to be “reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances” (new s 32(1)(d)(ii)).

While these adjectives all sound sensible and mild, the fact is that where this criterion is imposed, the decision on what is “reasonable” (etc) will have to be made by a tribunal or a court which will not share the faith commitments of the body.

As I have noted in an article entitled “Respecting the Dignity of religious organisations: Courts deciding theology?”, there are some issues of “private law”, involving contracts, torts (civil wrongs) or property held under trust, where secular courts will need to come to a view on religious matters. These will almost always be cases where both parties have expressly or impliedly agreed to be bound by religious principles.

But in other situations, where obligations are imposed on religious bodies externally, by the wider community, respect for religious freedom means that religious bodies should be allowed to determine for themselves the content of what their faith requires.

Part of the respect that should be offered to a religious group, then, is that it be left to order its life in accordance with its own understanding of the religious doctrines that shape its existence.

Of course, there are some circumstances where the living out of those doctrines may need to be controlled in the interests of fundamental rights of members of the group or members of the public — where a religious group, for example, inflicts physical or sexual abuse on children or other vulnerable persons.

There are well recognised limits to religious freedom. But even in those cases, there are significant questions to be raised as to whether the State should be interpreting, or “re-interpreting” doctrine, or rather simply saying that “whatever your doctrine means, we cannot allow this behaviour”.

The latter response is more consistent with the dignity of the group, which is not undermined but actually affirmed when the group is held accountable for the lived consequences of its doctrines.

Foster, “Respecting the Dignity” (2020) at 177.

There is another amendment to s 32 which may have a further narrowing effect. As noted, the current provision in section 32(1)(a)-(c) exempts ordination and training and religious service decisions altogether from the operation of the Act. But the new version of s 32(1) will add a requirement that the decision “conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the body’s religion”.

This means that even in the fundamental decision as to who can be a minister of religion, for example, a church will need to be able to show (again, to the satisfaction of a secular tribunal or court) that a criterion they use flows from their own “doctrine, tenets or beliefs”.

For example, given the deep differences of opinion among Bible scholars over whether women can be appointed to lead churches, even such a core matter as the Roman Catholic church only ordaining male priests might be challenged before an ACT tribunal.

(b) Restrictions on religious groups supplying “goods, services or facilities”

Under the proposed ACT amendments, the existing removal of religious freedom protections under s 32 from schools, will now be extended further to all religious bodies in cases where “discrimination is not on the ground of religious conviction — [to] the provision of goods, services or facilities” (new s 32(2)(a)(iii)). This will have the effect that any religious body providing these things to others, will be forbidden from choosing not to provide those things on any other ground other than “religious conviction”.

This will mean, for example, that a local church that hires out its hall during the week may still be allowed not to hire it to another religious group (as this would be a matter of “religious conviction”). But if asked to provide the hall to a “same-sex support group” whose aim is to present homosexual activity as a normal and accepted part of life (a belief contrary to the church’s commitments to the Bible) — the church would now be required to do so.

The reach of this new provision is unclear. Suppose, for example, that a church provides communion in its Sunday service — a formal religious service where bread and wine (or grape juice) are used to symbolise Christ’s death and resurrection. Suppose that could be regarded as the provision of a “service” to congregation members.

But one Sunday, someone presents to receive communion who has been told by the leaders of the church that they are not to take communion because they are engaged in behaviour that rejects the teaching of the church. If that behaviour can be characterised as a prohibited ground of discrimination (such as living in a de facto relationship), the church may be required to offer communion to that person despite their deeply held religious beliefs.

(c) Religious groups and “functions of a public nature”

In a further restrictive move, protections under s 32(1) are removed under s 32(2)(b) from:

(b) a religious body—

(i) when performing a function of a public nature; or

(ii) whose sole or main purpose is a commercial purpose.

A “function of a public nature” is defined in the exposure draft by reference to s 40A of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (“HRA”). That provision spells out that it includes a number of what might be called “public utilities” such as electricity, gas and water supply, “public education”, and “public health services”.

But the definition under s 40A(1) provides a range of “matters to be considered” which are fairly open-ended, including under s 40A(1)(d) “whether the entity is publicly funded to perform the function”. It might be possible for someone to argue that provision of health care by a religious hospital or aged care provider, if done with access to “public funds”, transforms the provider into a body “performing a function of a public nature”.

That this is a possible view of the law can be seen in the official “Fact Sheet” about the amendments issued by the ACT government, in which we read that:

A religious body providing public health services cannot rely on the exception [in s 32]

Fact Sheet, p 2.

Related to this point, one of the new provisions inserted by the Exposure Draft would be s 23C:

23C Public functions 

It is unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against another person when performing a function of a public nature.

Again, the definition of “public authority” is referred to the HRA (s 40 this time) and is fairly open-ended. In s 40(1)(g) it extends to:

an entity whose functions are or include functions of a public nature, when it is exercising those functions for the Territory or a public authority (whether under contract or otherwise).

While at the moment this may not include a religious health care provider or aged care provider, there may be some pressure to see the definition interpreted in that way. It would be wise for the legislation to make it clear that these bodies are not included.

(d) Tightening decisions based on religious beliefs

The limited protections currently provided under s 44 (for employment decisions based on religious convictions) are now further narrowed under the new version of s 44, which will require that such decisions can only be made

(b) conformity with the doctrines, tenets or principles of the religion is a genuine occupational qualification for the position; and

(c) the discrimination is reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances.

These added requirements, again, will have to be judged by a secular tribunal or court. It is now also made clear under s 44(2) that these limited protections which will apply to “religious groups” do not apply to schools or bodies “whose sole or main purpose is a commercial purpose”.

(e) Clubs and voluntary groups

Another provision that may have an impact on religious freedom is newly redrafted s 31:

31 Clubs and voluntary bodies 

It is not unlawful for a club or voluntary body, or the committee of management or a member of the committee of management of the club or body, to discriminate against a person if—

(a) the club or body is established to benefit people sharing a protected attribute; and

(b) the discrimination—

(i) is in relation to the provision of membership, benefits, facilities or services to the person; and

(ii) occurs because the person does not have the protected attribute; and

(iii) is reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances.

A church or a religious club may be classified as a “voluntary body”. It could be seen to be established to “benefit” people who share a specific religious belief. Any decision on membership, by excluding someone who does not share that religious belief, would now have to be justified as “reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances” before a secular tribunal or court.

This might apply, for example, to an Islamic Student Club at a university. The club may have been set up to serve the interests of Muslim students, but the committee may find themselves forced to defend their decision not to admit a Christian person to membership by showing why it is “proportionate”.

(f) Genuine occupational requirements — but not religious belief

There is a further restrictive provision in the proposed new s 33C. The section reads as follows:

33C Genuine occupational qualifications 

(1) It is not unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person in relation to a position as an employee, commission agent, contract worker or partner if—

(a) it is a genuine occupational qualification of the position that the position be filled by a person having a particular protected attribute; and

(b) the discrimination is reasonable, justifiable and proportionate in the circumstances.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to discrimination on the ground of religious conviction.

Sub-section (2) here excludes the application of sub-section (1) to any staffing decisions based on religious conviction. This means that religious bodies who are protected by s 32 may still apply their “doctrines, tenets or beliefs” (that they cannot rely on s 33C does not mean that they lose the protection of s 32).

But what it seems to mean is that any body or individual in the community who does not fall within the definition of “religious body” will not be able to apply religious conviction as a “genuine occupational qualification”. A “religious body” is “a body established for religious purposes”, under the new Dictionary definition.

Suppose a professional firm where the members would like the firm to be one with a “religious ethos”- all the members of the firm are Buddhists and they want to provide a service to the Buddhist community. But the firm is a group of doctors, or lawyers, or engineers (and so on one view, is not established for “religious purposes” alone). Under this new provision, even if they would like to advertise for new members of the firm and make “commitment to Buddhist belief and practice” a requirement of the position, they cannot do so.

(g) Banning religious boycotts

Finally, while there are other proposed amendments, it seems worth briefly commenting on proposed new section 20(2), which would seem to now make it unlawful in some cases for a member of the public to “boycott” a business because they disagree with a stance taken by that business on a moral issue. The provision reads:

(2) It is unlawful for a consumer of goods or services, or a user of facilities, to discriminate against the provider of the goods, services or facilities—

(a) by refusing to accept the goods or services or use the facilities; or

(b) in the terms or conditions on which the goods or services are accepted or the facilities are used; or

(c) in the way in which the goods or services are accepted or the facilities are used.

One of the “protected attributes” under the DA is “political conviction” (see s 7(n)). Suppose a place that you regularly shop at, one day puts up a sign indicating that the shop-owner supports the One Nation political party. You strongly object to One Nation’s policies. It seems that under this provision you will be acting unlawfully by deciding to switch your custom elsewhere!

Or suppose you support an airline as a regular customer, and one day the CEO of the airline announces that they have undergone a religious conversion and become a Presbyterian. You object to Presbyterians, and decide (and announce on social media) that you will never fly with that airline again.

This would again seem to be unlawful behaviour under new s20(2) (as it is a “protected attribute” that an entity has an “association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is identified by reference to another protected attribute” — s 7(1)(c)). This, in my view, is a provision that intrudes far too much on the general right of persons to spend their resources in ways that they choose!


These proposals will further limit religious freedom in the ACT. There must be some questions to be addressed as to whether they are legally valid. As I have argued previously in relation to the 2018 laws, where a subordinate jurisdiction like a Territory removes protections provided by a Commonwealth law, that Territory law may be invalid. The rules introduced here are narrower than the rules set out in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), sections 37 and 38. As a result, they may be inoperative.

There must also be a question of whether these restrictions are so narrow that they clash with the Constitution. While there is some debate on the matter, most Constitutional scholars today take the view that s 116 of the Constitution is applicable to Territory laws. Any law “for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion” would be invalid, at least if, as it was expressed in the main authority on the provision, it was an “undue infringement” of religious freedom.

Both of those possibilities are additional reasons not to go ahead with these laws. I encourage those concerned with these issues to contact the ACT government to let them know about these issues.


Originally published at Law and Religion Australia.

Thank the Source


Justinian Deception – May 9, 2017

Dealing with the occult-fraud of foreign corporate banking entities.

In relation to the: “Entertainment Only” My family and I received threats from the head of CIB in Cairns: (McLeish) (And other warnings) warning that if I maintain the work that I do, “I won’t know what hit me” and he went on to say that anyone else involved with me will get it even worse. So for this reason, I publish all my work as “Entertainment only” leaving it up to you in order to do your own checking in relation to such subject matter within such videos. Australia is now governed by the UNIDROIT treaty of Rome, under “PRIVATE-LAW” (Foreign corporations and their foreign grammatically debased written language) so all I want Australians to do is wake up to the reality of what the so called “Australian Government” has done to the people of Australia by selling us out to foreign corporations by way of stealth.

The system of “consent” in relation to private contract law is complex and cunning and in order to comprehend such complexities, one must understand the “concept” of how private contract law (Corporate governance) really works first and once you comprehend such a concept, dealing with it starts to fall into place… remember this, the public standing is the highest political stand, the “private” is the lowest rank in the military! so if you claim to be “private” you better know the rules of how the PRIVATE-SYSTEM works or you could loose everything you thought you owned…

The world of PRIVATE-CONTRACTS is the world of the DEAD and the Bible is the warning in relation to dealing with such dead entities. The VATICAN, being the serpent in the garden of Eden, holds the “copyright” over such a DEAD world and its written symbolic language. Adam and Eve, is a hidden code and probably the most important code to comprehend in relation to understanding modern day corporate foreign governance. The “Creditor” and the “Debtor” …. The political standing: Public or Private.

Thanks to all the good people from all over the world that care about our God given rights and freedoms and our public political standing… Romley Stewart.

Justinian Deception Youtube Channel

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

The Story of the Television or TEL LIE VISION

Jim Crenshaw – June 22nd, 2022

Television became available in experimental forms in the late 1920’s, and After World War II, an improved form of black-and-white TV broadcasting became popular in the United States and Britain. In 1927 an American scientist, Philo Farnsworth made the first electronic television system and filed a patent for it that same year. His camera tube design was known as the image Dissector. Like Nikola Tesla, he was ahead of his time. At just 14-years-old, he had already established the basic principles of electric television.

Farnsworth`s invention was intended by its creator to educate people through cultural and sports programs, to bring more understanding to the world of the sheer beauty of our different cultures, habits and beliefs, in order to settle world problems and bring people together. According to his wife, Pem Farnsworth, Philo saw television as a marvelous teaching tool.

Unforunately like all things the government and the elite get their hands on, it was perverted into the mind altering, brainwashing machine we now are dealing with that is so strong people are lining up to kill their children with fake vaccines.
Source: Knowledge Is Power on YouTube.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)