Showing posts with label Katherine Watt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Katherine Watt. Show all posts

Saturday, May 4, 2024

US Gov't using health emergencies to legislate its way to permanent tyranny

Please understand that pandemics are scams.  They are only declared as a way to authorize tyranny.  

Know this: the United States Government's Chemical and Biological Warfare Program is currently housed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  Where was it before that?  Why did they move it? Are we searching for Carmen Santiago, Waldo, or the Holy Grail?  Where is it NOW?  Our bioweapons program [yes, it's ours; we're paying for it] USED TO BE HOUSED in the Department of Defense (DOD).  Wow!  Maybe they changed locations out of convenience to us.  Instead of being alarmed at the bioweapons, our government is making them like medicine.  How considerate of them.    

Katherine Watt explains, 

Through gradual, covert statutory reclassification and program transfers, reinforced through Presidential Executive Orders and related executive branch declarations, and implemented through hundreds of regulatory amendments, the US Government's Chemical and Biological Warfare Program originally housed in the Department of Defense (DOD), became the Public Health Emergency [PHE]-Emergency Use Authorization [EUA]-Medical Countermeasures program housed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Everybody gets the following wrong or states it only peripherally, but you ought not to forget it.  The next paragraph answers the question "Who is behind the biowarfare against the American people?"  Asking "Who" used to be one of the 5 basic questions journalists asked.  But that dates me.  

Read it a few times if you need to:

The bioterrorism program is now jointly operated by DOD, HHS, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, most other US federal agencies and their subordinate departments, divisions, offices, authorities, enterprises, committees, advisory boards and employees, in collaboration with the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other public, private and public-private hybrid institutions around the world…

In 2022 Attorneys General of 15 states sued HHS trying to repeal the HHS’ definitions of “public health emergency”.  --Sasha Latypova

What Does It Mean When Pandemics Are Declared?

Historically, epidemics could only be recognized AFTER the fact: after a substantial number of people became ill, died, and after a significant economic impact. Examples of real epidemics include mostly water-born, crowding/poor sanitation, and vermin-related diseases such as cholera, plague, typhus, and smallpox. All of these diseases are eliminated by proper sanitation of water, hygiene, and improvement in living conditions. It is not possible to predict an epidemic unless one purposefully takes measures to poison water or cause significant deterioration of people’s living standards.

In the clown-infested reality that we currently inhabit, the international government-military blob is claiming that they can predict pandemics and declare emergencies based on one fake PCR case of a made-up virus somewhere in the world.

HHS refused to amend its definitions of a pandemic and insisted that they can claim absolutely anything is a pandemic. HHS ultimately prevailed, the case was re-filed by OK and TX, the judge dismissed it and it was not appealed. In the refusal to amend its definition of a pandemic, HHS stated that “any communicable disease event” - this means a single case of anything they claim “communicable” anywhere in the world (for example, a single cow that “tested positive” for “avian flu”), once announced by the WHO, can qualify for forced testing, tracing, detention and injections of humans or animals in any town or village in any state of the US!

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

DR. ROBERT MALONE was busy in 2020 writing COVID guidebooks and faking science with famotidine for $21M for DARPA. The OTA contracts for COVID countermeasures were issued by the DOD for about $50B back then.

Here is the direct link to Sasha Latypova's open letter to Dr. Robert Malone.  It is so worth the read.

I never knew you were also an OTA expert! That’s good to know. It would have been even better to know this right around 2020 when you were busy writing COVID guidebooks and faking science with famotidine for $21M for DARPA. The OTA contracts for COVID countermeasures were issued by the DOD for about $50B back then. It would have been great to have you utter some mention of it on Joe Rogan’s or Dark Horse podcast or some other high-profile social media venue to mislead Americans who all thought they were getting safe regulated pharmaceutical products and not unregulated, dangerous, liability-free EUA military countermeasures. Why didn’t you say anything back then? Why didn’t you say anything in the January 16 Doc Malik interview to disprove what I said about the OTA/COVID contracts? What evidence of OTA expertise can you offer other than an angry assertion that you have it? Why did you wait to claim you have expertise in this topic until non-OTA-experts, 
Katherine Watt and I found and reviewed the relevant law and the contracts, and until Debbie Lerman, a journalist and not previously an OTA expert, figured out why and how HHS “partnered” with the DOD to circumvent their respective OTA restrictions? Turns out that was necessary to order a massive volume of “prototypes and demonstrations” (unregulated chemical poison) and pretend these were regulated medicines for military and civilians. Did you know this in 2020?

Here is the chart that shows that the DoD was in charge of Operation Warp Speed, or OWS.  At the right, it reads, "In charge: NSC, DOD, BARDA."


And here is a pic of General Gustave Perna, the Chief Operating Officer of OWS.  We may want to ask ourselves, how do we allow ourselves to be ruled by idiots?  



Thursday, April 25, 2024



In my opinion, Sasha is too kind to Dr. Drew.  The fact that she doesn't appear until the 29-minute mark is odd.  She is the marquee guest.  

DREW, 29:10.  You we're starting a frame saying that doctors don't know anything.

LATYPOVA, 29:20. What I mean by anything we were talking about vaccine science and law and my point was that most of these crimes I treat them as intentional crimes so most of it has to do with understanding the law and understanding the pharmaceutical regulations which unfortunately practicing Physicians do not they are treating patients and they believe what the authorities tell them the health department The Regulators and what Pharma reps tell them.  

After looking into this, and I started with the VAERS data by the way, and I totally agree with Tom that the regulators are lying about the various data.  And they do have those thousand different other databases that are much more accurate, and so they know precisely how many deaths and injuries there are due to the vaccine, and even in court filings they don't deny it.  They just lie to the public when they have to respond to the courts.  They say, "Yes, we know.  It's all legal," and that's correct, because the evidence of the intentional crime are the changes in the US law that have been done going back to even the late 80s, starting in the late 80s, and then more recently the partnership between the HHS and the Department of Defense.  Also, evidence of premeditation of this crime goes back to 2016 and 2017.  I published on my substack a leaked audio of the AstraZeneca CEO and VP responsible for monoclonal antibodies Mark Aster discussing in in late 2020s where they describe the part that the Department of Defense approach them in 2017 to start working on the program where the Department of Defense will identify viruses that will cause pandemics and then the farmer companies will respond with drugs and vaccines made in 60 days . . . 

DREW, 31:40. If we have a bioterrorism event I want the defense to have a relationship with Pharma where they could do that no?

LATYPOVA, 31:54. It's not possible to develop anything within 60 days that's fiction and that's exactly how experienced drug developer Mark Kessler responded initially to this he said I thought it was science fiction and that's the correct reaction.  Because it is science fiction it's a narrative it's a fake story that these guys at the Department of Defense manufactured because they want to develop biological weapons but they can't because by a weapons convention prohibits them from doing that so this is the story that they sold to everyone including Congress and pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical companies were quickly were convinced to throw away their skepticism because there was money involved for no particular deliverables and since 2017 they have assembled a Consortium the Department of Defense assembled a Consortium of over 300 companies including Pharma companies academic institutions and all kinds of other organizations where they were keeping this base of people who agreed to do this from which they selected ultimately 6 or 10 companies that participated in operation warp speed got billions of dollars, and the deliverable were emergency use countermeasures, prototypes, and demonstrations purchased through other transaction Authority which is a very secretive mechanism to buy prototypes without disclosing anything to the Congress to the people where the money is going of course these contracts were no bid awarded to friends and cronies of Dr. Robert Kadlec, Former Assistant HHS Secretary.  See what Katherine Watt said about Kadlec on January 9, 2023
In my view, Alex AzarRobert Kadlec and Marion Gruber should be the first American war criminals prosecuted for the American implementation of the Covid-19 mass terror and mass murder campaign. There will be hundreds of defendants eventually; I posted a starter list in August 2022 and update it as I find more criminals in the records. 

And by law, emergency use countermeasures under Public Health Emergency are not pharmaceutical products are not treated as Pharmaceuticals.  They do not have any consumer protections as you would expect from them it's a legal and possibility to conduct a clinical trial using emergency use countermeasures because you legally cannot provide informed consent and IRB does not apply so that's why I'm saying you know when Physicians are told that this is a vaccine it's safe and effective and you read all the law that applies and doesn't apply to emergency countermeasures it becomes very clear that this is a premeditated very carefully plan long-term executed strategy to deceive everyone into taking these poisons.  And also to address what Tom friends just said I am very sorry that his wife is sick with cancer it's a tragedy I just had a guest in my house who is 18 your old daughter was injected with Pfizer and she has cancer I sat across numerous people who lost their children to these injections some died immediately some deaths were gruesome and these people have to go and testify to lawmakers and anybody who would listen and recount the story over and over and over again and this is a massive massive crime and it needs to stop now the FDA was fully aware that these things would cause cancer because they've written numerous guidance documents that's how they regulate industry so even in 2015 and I've read those guidance documents in 2015 2013 even more recently than that they wrote extensive guidance documents explaining to the manufacturers who wanted to develop mRNA products

 

Friday, March 15, 2024

WHAT IS THE PREP ACT, 2005? Why should you care? Because everyone in the supply chain and development chain is not liable for harms caused by the products they are developing, manufacturing, distributing.

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

"the public health emergency laws require those governments to attack their own people with chemical and biological weapons or else forfeit Central banking services"

Specific to the public health emergencies and COVID-19, there is a conflict that is set up between Public Health Emergency laws that require governments to violate other laws, the other laws being the ones that prohibit biological and chemical weapons.  And the public health emergency laws require those governments to attack their own people with chemical and biological weapons or else forfeit Central banking services.  And so, they are in this bind and they have chosen to attack their people rather than forfeit Central banking services.  

Some of the laws implicated in it are: 

*  the UN convention in 1975 on biological weapons.

*  1997 UN Convention on chemical weapons.

*  the World Health Organization's International Health regulations, especially the 2005 amendments.

*  and then in the US are implementing laws for those International laws are:

*  18 USC 175 which prohibits biological weapons 

*  18 USC 229 which prohibits chemical weapons and those are in conflict with . . . 

*  42 USC 247d which puts all the power to order the use of these weapons into the Health and Human Services Secretary's hands during a public health emergency which the HHS Secretary unilaterally declares and sustains and then . . . 

*  the Emergency Use Authorization law, which applies to the products under the Food, Drug, & Cosmetics Act, and that one is 21 USC 360 BBB.

1:49. This is just a list of major US laws that have some of the interlocking pieces:

*  the Homeland Security Act,

*  the Federal Reserve Act,

*  International Organizations Immunities Act which is what gives the World Health Organization the UN and other International organizations and private organizations, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the ability to operate without any legal liability to commit crimes, to commit civil rights violations; everything they can do because they are outside of the law . . .

Monday, January 29, 2024

"To fight this money flow's effect on governance . . . make it clear that when the orders come down from the HHS through state health depts. to the counties that the [sheriffs] and healthcare workers don't carry out their instructions . . ."

Just read this,

To fight this money flow's effect on governance, Watt says it's critical to "repeal emergency preparedness plans and make it clear that when the orders come down from the Health and Human Services Secretary through the state health departments to the counties, the county law enforcement officers and the county healthcare workers are not going to carry out the instructions because they understand... the instructions are to kill the population. Or to round them up so they can be killed elsewhere." --Katherine Watt

"[The BIS is] the central bank for the national central banks." Open that link to see the member banks; they're the central banks of the different nations around the world, hence the name Bank for International Settlements.

Writer and paralegal Katherine Watt describes for Jason Bermas (@JasonBermas) how the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which was set up in 1930 and is privately owned (just like all other federal central banks), is able to control legislatures via manipulation of the monetary system.

"[T]hrough its manipulation of transactions, and currencies, and inflation rates, and the other things that are controlled by central bankers, they [the BIS] have a direct... door to the legislatures," Watt says. "Because Congress doesn't set up its own monetary system, it depends on the Federal Reserve in our case and the same thing is true in other countries." Watt notes that this manipulation mechanism "can go all the way down to... losing your PayPal account, losing your job, if you're a corporation—especially if you're a corporation that has any federal contracts..." She offers as an example corporations losing access to federal contracts in 2021 if they didn't comply with the Biden administration's COVID-injection contractor mandate. Watt also highlights intergovernmental agreements or IGAs in this context, which are "contracts to get the money packages through things like the CARES Act..." that flow all the way down to the county governance level. Watt notes that "at the beginning [of the COVID era] and going forward it'll be the same: to get the money they [the counties] have to do the programs and follow the instructions that are given to them by the executive branch of the federal government." Watt also highlights "a big push" starting in the 2000s at the county level "to do joint training exercises between federal military law enforcement and public health officials and state and local law enforcement officers and healthcare workers to train them in the idea that when these public health emergencies are declared, the law enforcement officers are supposed to go around and control populations and get them to behaviorally comply with these orders." The writer/paralegal adds, "the healthcare workers are supposed to be the front-line that administers the weapons calling them medicinal products..." To fight this money flow's effect on governance, Watt says it's critical to "repeal emergency preparedness plans and make it clear that when the orders come down from the Health and Human Services Secretary through the state health departments to the counties, the county law enforcement officers and the county healthcare workers are not going to carry out the instructions because they understand... the instructions are to kill the population. Or to round them up so they can be killed elsewhere."

Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World, Adam Lebor, 2014.

Here is the full video.

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

KATHERINE WATT on the legal framework for ushering in the 2020 COVID-19 bioweapons.


On January 24, 2023, Katherine Watt was an attendee at a press conference that discussed the ongoing emergency use rollout of bioweapons being marketed as COVID-19 vaccines. She discussed the legal framework for which this is happening and provides ways to circumvent the WHO/BIS/DOD initiatives that undermine sovereignty.

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

COUNTERMEASURES: "It's really a catchall category of products meant to make things that are weapons appear to be medicinal products so that people will take them without questioning what they are being given."


In this clip from a new interview, writer and paralegal Katherine Watt describes for Maria Zeee (@zeee_media) how the term "countermeasure," which is applied to the COVID injections, is just a cover word for "weapons" or "poisons."

"When they use it [the term 'countermeasure'], it actually means 'weapons' or 'poisons' because it means completely unregulated, unmonitored chemical and biological products that are inserted into interstate commerce that don't have to have any valid clinical trial data supporting their safety or efficacy," Watt tells Zeee. She adds, "[they] don't have to have any compliance with any good manufacturing practices; don't have to comply with any normal pharmaceutical labeling; they aren't subjected to any kind of monitoring or quality testing for purity and non-adulteration. It's really a catchall category of products meant to make things that are weapons appear to be medicinal products so that people will take them without questioning what they are being given." Furthermore, Watt describes who she understands to be executing on the C19 kill-shot campaign, highlighting the Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S., the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. "I think the top of the hierarchy is the highest level administrators in the Department of Health and Human Services—so the HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, and the handful of people just under him—the Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the handful of people in the upper ranks of the military leadership, and also their counterparts at the World Health Organization and the United Nations," Watt says. "It is basically a joint project between the UN, World Health Organization, and the United States' military public health complex that are running the whole program and that know what exactly what they are doing, why they're doing it, who they're doing it for, what the goals are, and then they can silo the information so that people lower down know or don't know [what's happening], depending on what level they're at."

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

LATYPOVA: ‘We can now have a non-investigational substance and use it in [a] non-medical and non-investigational way… That makes it [an] illicit drug.”

“[W]hen you switch the status [of a regulatory pathway for a drug with the FDA]… to the non-investigational one [the EUA countermeasure pathway], the clinical trial becomes not a clinical trial—it’s just a collection of people trying drugs. Just like a recreational party…”

LATYPOVA:
The “first time the emergency use authorized thing came in was November 2003 through the National Defense Authorization Act, not through a bill that had to do with the FDA, or NIH, or public health, or anything like that.”

The FDA lawyers said, in effect, “We want to violate the law, and we can’t, unless we design this new, extrajudicial pathway for ourselves.”

Thursday, November 9, 2023

"If they can get people really angry with their own governments, they can get people interested in the idea that maybe the technocrats at the UN can do a better job"

"Preemption Doctrine," an American legal principle where higher levels of government can supersede each lower level.  . . . It's when a company, any corporation, wants to come into a community and do something that the local community thinks will be bad for them or bad for their water or bad for their air.  The local communities would try to pass laws at the local level to stop it, and they would quickly find out that the state could preempt that and tell them no you have to accept this thing that you do not want and that's dangerous for your population.   --Katherine Watt

they want to orchestrate constitutional crises worldwide because that will help them consolidate more power with the globalist organizations.  If they can get people really angry with their own governments, they can get people interested in [the prospect that, hey], maybe the technocrats at the UN can do a better job . . .  --Katherine Watt

Here is a direct link to Katherine Watt's presentation in Iceland

2:30. So I'm a writer and a paralegal and I got involved in these things starting from a background I was raised as a traditional Roman Catholic and that's relevant to the work that I've done since becauFridaysRa to Vatican II in the 1960s, the Catholic church had very clear teachings about the difference between truth and error, the nature of man, his final ends in relations between man and Society, and because I was raised in that traditional Catholic upbringing that was kind of the stuff that was going on in my house.  I drifted away from my Catholic faith as a teenager and then I came back to it during COVID-19 because as it dawned on me how evil the big picture was, it also dawned on me that for that coordinated of an evil to be getting so far, there must be something even more good against which it was fighting.

And that brought me back into the faith.  In my young adult [years], I went to Penn State and studied philosophy and Natural Sciences. I worked as a reporter after that for small newspapers and then I got a paralegal certificate, and I understand you don't have those [paralegalsin Iceland but in the United States, a paralegal is a legal assistant who works for lawyers.  The things they can't do are sign documents and appear in court on behalf of people, but pretty much they can do everything else.  We learn how to do legal research.  We learn how to do legal writing.  We learn how to look at the facts of the case when the client brings them in and apply the law that we have researched to the facts of that case.  So when COVID began in the beginning of 2020 that was the skill set with which I had to try to understand what was happening.  And I'm here because Sasha located my work.  I was writing on my website, which is Bailiwick News on Substack, and also during my adult life I started several blogs.  And I did investigator reporting on other issues that turned out to be related, primarily one called "Preemption Doctrine," which is an American legal principle where higher levels of government can supersede each lower level.  And I learned about it in the context of concentrated agricultural feed operations, called CAFOs in the United States.  It's when a company, any corporation, wants to come into a community and do something that the local community thinks will be bad for them or bad for their water or bad for their air.  The local communities would try to pass laws at the local level to stop it, and they would quickly find out that the state could preempt that and tell them no you have to accept this thing that you do not want and that's dangerous for your population. So that was what I had been doing for 15 years at the end of 2019. 

So I was looking at I live in Pennsylvania in the United States and I was watching the lockdowns and the mask mandates, and I had familiarity with constitutional law and civil rights law and a little bit with criminal law and I couldn't figure out why the cases that were being brought by businesses especially . . . they were suing the state government, particularly the governor, to say we have a right to our property; we have a right to our business to be open.  You can't come in with these executive orders and just shut things down.  And the governor said, yes, I can.  And the one case that was most powerful was one called Butler vs. Yates because it was business owners plus a County Government suing the governor, or [County of] Butler vs. Wolf, who was our governor at the time.  The federal judge [William S. Stickman, IV] got the case in May of 2020, and in September of 2020 issued a really good ruling that said "These business owners are correct.  There may be an emergency but the Constitution is designed to be strong enough to withstand emergencies and still protect individual liberties."  Three weeks later, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the next level up, put a hold on that Federal decision and allowed the executive orders that were shutting down businesses and closing schools and all that to stand.  And it was that pattern that I saw over and over again where cases would come up and then something would come out.  I couldn't tell where it was coming from, from the side, and knock it out before it could do the Constitutional function that the courts are meant to do.  I have since found out just in the last few weeks a reader referred me to the work of Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich [Our Common Destiny and the Definitive Anti-Communitarian Manifesto, 2020; other options] on something called communitarian law and that is one of the names for this blanket of other globally driven law that comes into countries and smothers their constitutional law, their criminal codes, everything else under these kinds of circumstances, like what Sasha was talking about with the public health emergency which is how I tracked it through in 2021 and 2022.  All these findings can be replicated.  You can go to the legal system, and the main post that I did about it is called "The American Domestic Bioterrorism Program."  It's a timeline of the laws that are specific to the United States, but the exact same thing is in place in these countries all around the world, because it's driven from higher than the nation-state level.  So, I was watching these cases and I was really confused. 21 got to the beginning of 2022 and I heard a podcast by attorney American attorney Todd Callender in January of 2022 and he talked about the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations 2005 amendments as being the thing that tied these things together it comes in from outside of a nation-state and supersedes or manipulates its law.  And so I did a first report at the end of February 2022, called "Legal Walls of the COVID-19 Kill Box" and that report was more on the global level, bigger picture, and then I kept digging into the specific American laws that implement the IRH 2005 amendments.  I know that there going through another round of revisions right now, and James Roguski is reporting on it and Meryl Nass is reporting on it and lots and lots of people are reporting on it the 2005 ones or the ones that I did the most research on because that's what was in place already at the time that COVID-19 hit. What I found was that things seem to have gotten really underway in 1944 with the Congressional passage of the Public Health Service Act, which established a new branch of the military that was the Public Health Service.  And from that foundation, all of these other things got added on to each other, like Legos, you put the bricks on brick by brick by brick, and then you end up with this wall that sort of surrounds us now.  

10:40. Another key turning point was a 1983 Public Health Emergencies Program [through Project Bioshield Act, 2004, PREP Act, 2005] which was added Again by an act of Congress and Sasha mentioned that too and then the two there's hundreds of pages of these laws they are in lots and lots of different titles which is sections of U.S. law like they're in the Homeland Security section; they're in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act section, and they interweave with each other and Sasha was talking about that too.  

11:14. The especially bad ones that really put the last pieces into place worthy project BioBioShield Act in 2004 and the PrEP Act in 2005. And the way that the International Health Regulations, IHR, work is that it's not a treaty; it's called a legally binding instrument of international law, so it's like a treaty.  Once it is passed through these insane procedures that the World Health Assembly does with negotiators that are . . . this is more than James Roguski covers.  By default, if the World Health Assembly representatives pass something at their annual meeting in May, according to the law of the World Health Organization and the IHR, those things automatically go into effect 18 months later, unless the political body of the member states explicitly rejects those amendments and says, "We are not going to accept them."  And that's what's going on right now.  There was a set of amendments adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2022, which will automatically go into effect in December 2023, unless the legislators and executives of the member states reject them.  None of them appear to be interested in doing that at this time, but they should be.  Point is that it forces member states to adopt implementing legislation because they are a member state and because they've signed this treaty.  And that's what happened.  All of the laws that are in place in the United States were done to comply with this, and it's ongoing every few months they add more.   

My core findings were that public health amendments are a pretext for power consolidation and legalized mass murder, using state-sponsored biochemical warfare and weapons camouflaged as vaccines and countermeasures.  countermeasures.  This is what Sasha was talking about too.  But I also think that a secondary goal, almost as important if not more important, is that they want to orchestrate constitutional crises worldwide because that will help them consolidate more power with the globalist organizations.  organizations.  If they can get people really angry with their own governments, they can get people interested in, well, and maybe the technocrats at the UN are going to do a better job, so that makes it very tricky for navigating through those two things because the governments are not doing what they're supposed to do to protect their populations, but it's even worse if those governments collapse and the UN moves in.

14:19. The global mechanisms are treaties and treaty-like international instruments.  And then the domestic mechanisms are statutes, regulations, executive orders, contracts, scientific research, and development guidance, legal interpretation documents, and it's mirrored at all levels.  So it's not just that the national government has to do these things.

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

They're just making weapons but to get people on board they say it's defensive and that you will take them to protect yourself from this external, invisible threat.   --Katherine Watt
 

11:00. Good case in Pennsylvania, called County of Butler vs. Wolf.  It was a bunch of business owners and County governments who sued the governor at the time was Tom Wolf about the executive orders that had shut down schools and then had put capacity limits on businesses and government offices changing how they had to do business so they sued the governor say that this is not okay constitutionally is not okay for the governor to have these executive orders that sees property without due process and obstruct people's right to go to school and go to work and all this stuff and then there was a really, really good order.  William S. Stickman, IV, a federal judge in September 2020, so 3 months later, agreed with the plaintiffs, the business owners, and the county, and said sure, there's an emergency, but the Constitution is strong enough to withstand an emergency and people still have all these constitutional rights, civil liberties, and so you must, I, the judge, was saying, I'm halting these executive orders and taking them off the of the table." And I thought hooray.  And then 3 weeks later, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the level above him, reversed his order and left all of the executive orders in play, and I couldn't figure out what was going on there either.  Why did the Third Circuit come in and do this strange thing?  And so that case was playing out through 2020, through 2021 I think that's when they tried to appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court just wouldn't hear it and that was happening with tons and tons of cases like this all over the country.  They were just like nope, we're not even going to entertain discussion about these things.  And so by the end of 2021, I was still following the stuff while I was dealing with stuff in my own family, my husband, and my kids like their schools and work places, and then it was in January 2022 that I heard the podcast by Todd Calendar who is a US attorney, where he talked about the World Health Organization's Health regulation 2005 amendments and how that connected to what was happening in the domestic law in each country, and the relationship between the treaties and the domestic laws.  So that was the point in which I did the deep dive and found the timeline of how it came into play in the United States.  13:49

15:00.  So what I found was starting roughly in World War II and you can trace it back a little farther than that but I tend to start there when I'm talking about it because it seems clear that during World War II "they," the globalists, "the monster," whatever you want to call it, came up with the idea to shift their worldwide war programs and depopulation programs enslavement programs from the overt, like bombs and tanks and armed invasions, to the public health system and the medical system and the pharmaceutical industry.  And they did some of . . . as pilot projects.  It's what Auschwitz and the other concentration camps and the Aktion T4 (1940) for the Eugenics programs and then there was pushback and they did the Nuremberg trials that seemed to send a message to the world that this was not okay but at the same time they were just embedding those programs more covertly into the laws and the public health programs especially in the United States but I think it happened in countries all over the world you can probably track the laws back to the mid 40s in most countries as well also the United States is like the model version of it so it was the 1944 Public Health Service Act and then another milestone in it was the 1969 transfer of the Biological and Chemical Warfare Program, which again, they had the surface level thing going on that "we don't think the biological warfare is good," "we don't think chemical warfare is good," "we're going to have these UN conventions," and then we're going to have the countries comply, but they just moved it over gradually into the public health program and they called what had previously been "The Biological and Chemical Weapons Stockpiles and Production Systems," the "Strategic National Stockpile for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Pharmaceutical Storage and Pharmaceutical Distribution Systems."

17:50. They're really good at reframing they are very good at presenting the argument that there are these terrible threats, there are these terrible communicable diseases, there are these terrible people who might come up with chemical and biological weapons and we need to have these things as defensive, prophylactics or treatments in case these terrible things actually happen, when, in fact, those are pretextual.  They're just making weapons but to get people on board they say it's defensive and that you will take them to protect yourself from this external, invisible threat. 

18:36. They cannot but be defensive weapons by Nature they are offensive.

Right, because of the complexity of the human body, because of all the things about how chemical and biological things interact with living organisms and the uniqueness, mostly the complexity, the fact that the human body is understood on some level after thousands of years of doctors and people trying to understand how it works but we don't understand it in any complete way as far as all of the ways signaling pathways and everything.

So in the 1960s they passed the legislation turning by weapons into pharmaceutical product what was the next stage?

19:30.  The next milestone was 1983 they added the public health emergency suction to the Public Health Service Act in 1986 was when they did the national vaccine program vaccine injury compensation Program and that's where they first separated out the pharmaceutical industry from most other Industries as far as you don't have any product liability anymore for the products that you put into people's bodies they cannot sue you the pharmaceutical company they can only go through this vaccine injury compensation Program which is very small controlled directly by the federal government and the standards for getting compensation and proving causality between a vaccine and an injury is incredibly high so very few people get money out of that system and that later became the model for the countermeasures injury Compensation Program which is where their Channel all the people from these products

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

HOW AND WHEN THE U.S. SURRENDERED SOVEREIGNTY

Bipartisan Presidential Executive Orders in 2003, 2005, and 2014 authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to detain Americans on suspicion of having colds and flus.

Third installment of the Callender Interview series.

Jan. 31, 2022 - Attorney Todd Callender explains the legal framework for suspension of human rights and civil liberties globally. Set in motion by the Bank of International Settlements in 1990, ratified by national governments in 2005, and implemented in 2020 with a “WHO-declared pandemic.”

Feb. 2, 2022 - January 19, 2017 Federal Register. US Health and Human Services final rulemaking, WHO International Health Regulations, and human liberty. 

OBSERVATION:

The governments of nation-states around the world can’t stop the mass murder and mass maiming of the world’s people through forced detentions (in homes, nursing homes, schools, hospitals, and quarantine facilities); forced masking and social distancing; forced withholding of preventative and early treatments for Covid-19; forced administration of ventilation, Remdesivir, midazolam and other lethal poisons; and forced administration of mRNA and DNA bioweapon injections, until those governments and their central banks (the Federal Reserve in the United States) are prepared to forego access to the international financial system controlled by the individuals who control the Bank for International Settlements.

One step would be the signing of a Presidential Executive Order revoking Executive Order 13295 of April 4, 2003; Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005, and Executive Order 13674 of July 31, 2014, and reinstating Executive Order 12452 of Dec. 22, 1983.

2005 - World Health Organization creates International Health Regulations, IHR

In 2005, through the World Health Organization, the individuals who control the Bank of International Settlements created the International Health Regulations (IHR).

The second edition of the IHR is described, by WHO, as follows: 

"In response to the exponential increase in international travel and trade and emergence and reemergence of international disease threats and other health risks, 196 countries across the globe have agreed to implement the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR). This binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”

The stated purpose and scope of the IHR are "to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade."

The IHR "are not limited to specific diseases, but are applicable to health risks, irrespective of their origin or source." 

The IHR further, "requires States to strengthen core surveillance and response capacities at the primary, intermediate and national level, as well as at designated international ports, airports and ground crossings. They further introduce a series of health documents, including ship sanitation certificates and an international certificate of vaccination or prophylaxis for travelers."

The 2005 International Health Regulations required each signatory nation to adopt implementing legislation, which the United States government did, through [among many other acts] revisions to 42 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 70 and 71.

Those federal laws regulate interstate and foreign quarantine activities during "public health emergencies of international concern."

2017 - Major rulemaking by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The most recent, major revisions of 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71 occurred through a "final rulemaking" by the Department of Health and Human Services, published in the Federal Register on Jan. 19, 2017, and effective Feb. 17, 2017. (See 6890 Federal Register. Vol. 82, No. 12)

The Federal Register entry reported that some commenters, during the public comment period, requested clarification concerning whether the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) could continue to serve as the basis for a ‘‘public health emergency’’ if the President or HHS Secretary disagreed with the declaration of a PHEIC on legal, epidemiologic, or policy grounds.

Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control respondents described such a scenario as “unlikely” and noted that “CDC remains a component of HHS, subject to the authority and supervision of the HHS Secretary and President of the United States.”

Another comment addressed the same concern from a slightly different perspective: the commenter “objected to referencing the WHO’s declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in the definition of ‘‘public health emergency’’ because this ostensibly relinquishes U.S. sovereignty.”

Again, HHS/CDC respondents said they “disagreed” with the characterization, stating that US government officials would "give consideration to the WHO’s declaration of a PHEIC" but would “continue to make its own independent decisions regarding when a quarantinable communicable disease may be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals.”

A few paragraphs later, the HHS/CDC respondents again said that “it would be unlikely for the United States to formally object to the WHO’s declaration of a PHEIC, but that CDC remains a component of HHS, subject to the authority and supervision of the HHS Secretary and President of the United States.”

It’s very careful sophistry. HHS states that the US government is unlikely to even try to resist a WHO declaration, not addressing what would happen in the unlikely event of such an attempt. Presumably because it would be financially impossible for the US government to make the attempt because the Federal Reserve would immediately lose access to the Bank of International Settlements.

Other commenters expressed concern that "any disease considered to be a public health emergency may qualify it as quarantinable" and noted that some PHEICs ‘‘most certainly do not qualify as public health emergencies’’ under the proposed definition.

HHS/CDC respondents “clarified” that “only those communicable diseases listed by Executive Order of the President may qualify as quarantinable communicable diseases. For example, Zika virus infection, which although the current epidemic was declared a PHEIC by WHO, is not a quarantinable communicable disease.”

After dispatching with the comments, the HHS/CDC respondents concluded:  “The definition of Public health emergency is finalized as proposed.”

US Presidents’ Executive Orders since 1990

As it happens, there have been three Executive Orders issued by US Presidents related to the quarantine power of the Secretary of Health and Human Services laws since 1990.

They were promulgated under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264(b)), and they assigned the President's executive authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for implementation.

Executive Order 13295

On April 4, 2003, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13295, listing: 

“(a) Cholera; Diphtheria; infectious Tuberculosis; Plague; Smallpox; Yellow Fever; and Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers (Lassa, Marburg, Ebola, Crimean-Congo, South American, and others not yet isolated or named) and

(b) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which is a disease associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, is transmitted from person to person predominantly by the aerosolized or droplet route, and, if spread in the population, would have severe public health consequences.” 
See Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 68, p. 17255

The 2003 Executive Order revoked Executive Order 12452 of Dec. 22, 1983, which specified quarantinable diseases as including "Cholera or suspected Cholera, Diphtheria, infectious Tuberculosis, Plague, suspected Smallpox, Yellow Fever, and suspected Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers (Lassa, Marburg, Ebola, Congo-Crimean, and others not yet isolated or named).”

In other words, in 2003, President Bush added the common cold to the list of communicable diseases empowering the executive branch, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to summarily detain American citizens and prevent them from traveling across state or federal borders.

Executive Order 13375 of April 1, 2005

On April 1, 2005, President Bush signed Executive Order 13375, extending the quarantine power of the Health and Human Services Secretary to include:

“(c) Influenza caused by novel or reemergent influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.’’ 
(See Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 64, p. 17299)

In 2005, the executive branch of the federal government granted itself the power to detain American citizens for the flu.

Executive Order 13674 of July 31, 2014

On July 31, 2014, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13674, revising Section b of President Bush's 2003 order. The new text expanded on the definition of SARS [the common cold]:

“(b) Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or serious morbidity if not properly controlled. This subsection does not apply to influenza.’’ 
See Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 151, p. 45671

Parsed, in 2014, the federal government expanded its power to detain American citizens for common colds, not only if the diseases are "transmitted" but if they are "capable of being transmitted . . . and are causing, or have the potential to cause a pandemic."

That's what made it legally possible for President Trump and President Biden, working through the Centers for Disease Control, to 

1.  place all Americans — including healthy Americans with no symptoms — under house/business/school arrest; 

2.  order that healthy Americans wear medical devices (cloth masks) without individual clinical diagnoses, without evidence of efficacy for infection control, and without a personal physician's prescription; and submit to forcible injection of mRNA and DNA toxins.

Combined effect of International Health Regulations and implementing national regulations and executive orders

Explaining the combined effect in the podcast interview, Attorney Todd Callender stated:

“It allows for, in every instance, a suspension of your human rights, your sovereign rights, your Constitutional rights, charter rights."


Iain Davis, author of Pseudopandemic: New Normal Technocracy, 2021, writing at The Disillusioned Blogger