“Leave the World Behind” movie about a grid down cyber apocalypse was ominously produced by Barack and Michelle Obama
“Leave the World Behind” movie about a grid down cyber apocalypse was ominously produced by Barack and Michelle Obama03/28/2024 // S.D. Wells // 520 Views Tags: apocalypse, big government, chaos, China, Collapse, communism, communist China,…
Read more…
Comments
Not an easy task holding up a 7 pound be-jewelled sword, for 51 minutes....👏🏻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5sk14SZJTE
The Queen had nothing to do with these political decisions....Monarchs, since 1689, are supposed to be above politics...That is what a constitutional monarchy is......We executed a political and absolute monarch, named Charles I, to prove that we do not like political monarchs....And again, we expelled another 17th century monarch, named King James II, as he sought to become politically controversial, as well....In those days, the dispute between Roman catholics and protestants....England being officially protestant, as you may have seen in the coronation, yesterday....
Incidentally, Kenya was represented at the coronation, too....
I would say that I'm not a royalist, but I am a monarchist, as it has a long history of success, after 1689-90 "glorious revolution" and the bill of rights, from which Americans gleaned their own rights....In the UK it was the right to "life, liberty and property"....In the US, they changed "property" to "happiness...." But you can see the origins of the US constit....
King Charles III took an oath to govern the people of the UK, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under OUR LAWS AND CUSTOMS....These laws and customs precede parliamentary legislation......This is the common law of ancient times, being confirmed by oath, as still in effect....... 👏🏻 WE ARE A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE UNDER GOD....👑👑👑👑👑👑👑
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLBLEJYEsrU
Who decided that the Britain should participate in the shameful and disastrous wars of Iraq, Afghanistan etc? Tony Blair or the 'queen'? If the former, what is the purpose of the lie that the monarch is 'the commander in chief' of the British armed forces? If former, how can you praise such above tony Blair?
Furthermore, can you realy be a 'pro-democracy' but don't like leaders elected by the very British pple as 'heads of states', or better, 'commanders in cheif'? I thought it should be the other way round. It is through their elected leaders that Britons 'speak' to the world as to what kind of pple they are. To get a glimpse of what kind of a person a Briton is, we see Tony Blair, not the queen. So much as you might dislike Blair or Cameron, you gotta accept that this is your leader! This is what you elected! You (a Briton in general) gotta look deep into yourself and criticaly examine yourself. See if there is something in you that drive you to elect such a leader.
All this is because to the world, it realy doesn't matter what a 'nominal' leader is. It only matters who makes real decisions for Britain. This is the one that carries the image of Britain a cross the world.
So much better than some ex-politician....Just imagine if we had a "President Blair," or "President Cameron." I say that a constitutional monarch sits better for us and the world mostly agrees...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBkaMWoG0xc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwA7XEDV6Gs
The pomp and circumstance, that makes Great Britain unique....
There is a case to make for this coronation being like all others before it, blessed with English rainfall, blessed by God, as a baptism of sorts...
I chose this news outlet coverage, as it's Fox News and always keen to get the US take on British history in the making......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKBC1JaVxC4
In reality, even if Kenya generates 100% of its electricity using deasel or coal, its forests will still sink more CO2 than the generators emits!
All this is even though Kenyan forests are a minuscule fraction of say the Congolese forest and other equatorial forests! So even if we take all of the dirtiest factories of China and Japan to congo, that forest will absorb all the CO2, making the forest greener!
So ironically, more CO2 actually makes the planet greener! Those pple who want to make you think that CO2 is 'dirty' are misleading you. So goes giving something a name that deserves the opposite name, such as 'green energy'!