Asking people for a medical covid passport is against many known laws.

In countries like the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and any other common wealth country, When it comes to covid passports, the law is on your side, not to comply.

• Discrimination laws.

You can not discriminate against a person based on health reasons.

If anyone asks you for your medical history, take their name, insist they tell you.

If anyone refuses you entry based on your medical history do the following.

1. If you are kicked out of an establishment, restaurant, school, etc document it.
2. Call the human rights commission. The number is 0800 496 877
3. Make a complaint and get a file number.
4. Use that file number and make a statement.
5. The human rights commission will serve them papers.
6. The place that rejected you will think they can win in court.
7. The judge will force them to pay because the human rights commission will remind them no business private or public can discriminate against anyone based on religion, race and yes any health reasons because it is illegal.

It is also not acceptable for people to be a trial in a medical experiment.

"Article VI Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

No not that one, you can clearly see they do not stick to that one.

THIS ONE!

The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamentally rooted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and further codified in the US. Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the US regarding itself as bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the informed consent of human subjects for medical research. It is unlawful to conduct medical research even in the case of an emergency unless steps are taken to secure. informed consent of all participants.

"Article 6, section 1:
Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any
reason without disadvantage or prejudice Article 6, section 1:
Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice."

Know your rights.

https://uowiscorg.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/prevent-forced-vaccination-un-neremburg.pdf

"(Rom. 13:1-7) Are we supposed to submit to evil governments?

CLAIM: Ethicists note that submission to government is not always ethical. Sometimes, governments are evil, and it is our civic duty to disobey them. How does this harmonize with Romans 13, which is the most extensive passage on government in the New Testament?

RESPONSE: A number of observations can be made:

First, Paul was writing to the Romans, who were not ignorant of evil government. The context of Romans 13 is the persecution of Christians (Rom. 12:9, 14, 17, 21). Moreover, about a decade after he wrote this chapter, Paul was executed at the hands of this particular government under Emperor Nero (~AD 67). Therefore, this letter should be interpreted in light of an evil government—not a peaceful one (see our earlier article Persecution of Christianity from AD 33 to 325)."

https://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/romans-2/rom-131-7-are-we-supposed-to-submit-to-evil-governments/

As I sit and watch the walls crumble, the government walls, the narrative, yes there seems to be an end game, but what is it?

As I slept 16 hours through sheer exhaustion, I set my own record for sleep.

But when you can clearly see they are running out of ideas how to prop up a system they have enjoyed for 200 plus years, I have to ponder, what next?

I know most people simply do not care, they only want to survive not thrive, I get that.
But what next?

The medical industry has shown it's hand, and failed to treat those most vulnerable of souls, but they never cured anyway.

The media has shown it's corrupt hand, and never asked questions when it could.

The police in some countries have gone full on Nazi, in others they threw down their handcuffs.

Science has shown it's corrupt hand too.

But what comes next?

There are so many questions, and so few answers, so I ask you, what comes next?

"The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today."

https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/how-the-second-amendment-prevents-tyranny/

no matter what is written, it seems to make no difference does it?

"constitution
There is irony in the fact that the United Kingdom today does not have a written constitution, yet historically it has had a rich heritage of pioneering constitutional charters and documentation. First and foremost is Magna Carta (1215), the ‘Great Charter of the Liberties of England’. This established the principle that our rulers, at that time the king, could not do whatever they liked, but were subject to the law as agreed with the barons they governed. This simple concept laid the foundations for constitutional government and freedom under the law. Insofar as Magna Carta was ‘the first great public act of the nation’, it also established the direction of travel for our political system towards representative institutions and, much later, democracy itself."

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

"A number of posts on social media have claimed that under “Article 61” of Magna Carta people have the right to lawfully dissent or rebel if they believe they’re being governed unjustly.

Other posts show a video shared thousands of times of a business owner in Liverpool telling the police he did not plan to shut his business, and citing “Article 61” of Magna Carta.

This is wrong."

but it should be right, if any government goes rogue, why should not any person or people be able to declare it so?

At the end of the day we are all just people, every last one of us, regardless of titles, or names.

Just a thought in time, or is it?

Comedy club post later with prizes of course, because, why not. Sharing is caring.

Have a superb weekend.