https://www.youtube.com/live/f3KhDIrkpgQ?si=Ge8MPeS9DKVTU4Zl

In Belfast ‘Live’ 🍀

It’s Christmas 🎄 💃🏻 🪩 🕺🏼 🎶
🎉 🎈 🥳
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh-4ekOs-7mRt74IDO6IDuIC8gixxwhOl&si=FvagBDlF

Watch real_sam_fisher with me on Twitch! https://www.twitch.tv/real_sam_fisher?sr=a

This information may not apply to all countries, but it definitely does to the UK (a construct of four countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).

There is no Legal or Lawful requirement to have any form of ID in the UK.

Let that sink in.

Now, all these companies demanding you provide ID are imposing such beyond their power. They are doing the bidding on behalf of the government to force in digital ID.

I refuse to give any. It makes my life difficult. Someone said I don't live in the real world. I do live in the real world, but I choose not to comply and suffer the detriment by standing my ground.

Now just imagine all 68 million people in the UK stopped complying like me and accepted the detriment. No eBay, no Amazon, no Vinted, no online banking. No filing with Companies House, no online purchase whatsoever.

How long do you think the companies that rely on our business would last? One week? Two weeks?

Today's date: 25-11-25
25th November 2025

I will tell you. Before Christmas they would either back down on the demands or go bust.

You choose.
A little pain now followed by freedom forever, or a little simplicity now followed by control (possibly forever).

If it's easy, it's not worth fighting for.

"Keir Starmer was aware there was no black hole in the public finances and yet approved Rachel Reeves’s “lies” that exaggerated the fiscal shortfall"

"Ms Reeves is under pressure to quit after the OBR published a detailed account of its discussions with the Treasury that took place before her remarks"

If she said the lies in parliament she is supposed to now go. This "story" is what they call rubbing salt in the wounds. They are telling people daily that they are lying criminals working for a cartel, whilst laughing at them. It's all to inject learned helplessness into people, so they eventually snap in despair. Almost like they're doing everything to cause unrest

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/29/starmer-signed-off-on-reevess-black-hole-lies/

"These showed that the Chancellor and her officials had falsely represented the fiscal shortfall she faced"

When folks claim Magna Carta doesn’t exist because a foreign influence and power annulled it.

Why the annulment had no lawful effectin Constitutional terms
1️⃣ Magna Carta was a contract between the King and the realm — not the Church
The Pope had no lawful authority to annul an agreement made between the Crown and the barons on behalf of the People.
It was not a religious document.
It was not created by the Vatican.
It was not subject to Papal jurisdiction.
2️⃣ The King held his position under constitutional conditions
Even in 1215, the constitutional principle existed that:
The King is bound by the law of the land.
The Magna Carta simply reaffirmed this.
A foreign cleric could not reverse the constitutional settlement of the realm.
3️⃣ The annulment was rejected in practice — Magna Carta was reissued repeatedly
After King John’s death, the Charter was:
Reissued in 1216
Reissued in 1217
Reissued in 1225
Confirmed dozens of times by later monarchs
If it had been truly “nullified,” it would not have been reissued & reaffirmed over 800 years.
4️⃣ Constitutional interpretation: annulment void due to lack of sovereignty
Sovereignty rests with the People
No external authority can override the constitutional order of a realm
The Magna Carta expressed People’s rights against arbitrary rule.
Thus a foreign religious figure attempting to annul the rights of the People is constitutionally void and ultra vires.
❗ Key Point: A Papal Bull is not higher than the Constitution or the People
Even if historically issued, the Bull had no supremacy over:
The Common Law
The constitutional traditions of England
The sovereignty of the People
The contractual limitations on the Crown
🔥Additional constitutional angle: Treason
If Parliament claiming “sovereignty” over the People is a constitutional inversion,
Then a Pope claiming sovereignty and annulling the People’s Charter is even more unconstitutional.
Attempting to annul constitutional rights granted by the People could be construed as an external act attempting to subvert the constitutional order — i.e., an act of constructive treason.
✅ Summary
✔️ Historically accurate:
Yes, Innocent III issued a Papal Bull claiming to annul Magna Carta 1215.
❌ Constitutionally meaningless:
The Bull had no lawful authority to cancel an agreement between the King and the People.
✔️ The Papal Bull is irrelevant:
Magna Carta is foundational to constitutional law.
🔥 Constitutionally:
Any attempt (foreign or domestic) to remove the People’s rights is void and could be seen as treasonous in principle

Far-left journalist among four arrested over alleged satanic paedophile ring https://www.noticer.news/sydney-international-satanic-paedophile-ring/

Late great George Carlin ❤️

Stuck in a weirdo cult and dont know how to escape? We can help.

Trapped in a weirdo cult and dont know how to escape? We can help

How very very prominent for the world we are living in today.🙏🏼❤️🕊️

Trapped in a weirdo cult and dont know how to escape? We can help