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. 

"#13: Do away with loyalty oaths " from Cleon Skousen's 1958, The Naked Communist. We have several examples of Communist takeover of the United States Government

"WHAT WE'VE COME TO FIND IS THAT THIS [MISSING OATHS OF OFFICE ISSUE] IS RAMPANT [AND] THAT IT PROBABLY GOES BACK TO 1964."

When Adams inquires about Trump's cabinet, Callender says that "What we've come to find is that this [missing oaths of office issue] is rampant" and that… pic.twitter.com/ylrfNTzxkP

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) May 30, 2023

Skousen, who worked for the FBI, a Christian, and was a member of the John Birch Society, published the book, The Naked Communist, in 1958. In it, he outlined 45 goals of the communist party they would use to take control of the United States government. Man Today, we have 3 prominent federal government employees whose oath of office is questionable at best.

Llyod Austin's Oath of Office? Not properly notarized OR sworn in.

US Attorney General, Merrick Garland's Oath of Office? No specific date of appointment, not properly notarized.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky's Oath of Office? Failed to specify WHICH POSITION, not properly notarized, not sworn in. Huh.

Attached here are several excerpts from the Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto* submitted to the U.S. Attorney by McGee (with Todd Callender and Kenneth W. Ferguson as her attorneys) following the receipt of the defective or missing oaths of office that she received in response to her FOIA requests.

The Writ says that Lloyd Austin's Oath of Office was produced, but "is not properly notarized or sworn."

Likewise, (supposed) U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's oath "fails to specify the date when he was appointed" and "is not properly notarized or sworn." Also, note that former (supposed) CDC Director Rochelle Walensky's oath "fails to specify which position she was appointed [to]" and "is not properly notarized or sworn." Interestingly, McGee filed her Writ for Quo Warranto on April 12, 2023,**. Walensky, who's listed as a "senior advisor" on her oath, resigned from her position unceremoniously on May 5, 2023, ***.

Does President Donald Trump's Make America Great Again an attempt to purge the communists from within the United States government? Is this what he's fighting?

See for yourself. Here is the 1958 list of communist goals from Skousen's book. You tell me if communists have taken over the United States government.

Todd Callender cites the 1963 Naked Communist. with its "45 Goals of #13 reads,

13. Do away with loyalty oaths. [Note: It is entirely proper and appropriate for our government to expect employees, paid by the American taxpayer, to take an oath of loyalty.] 

From that same link, it reads, 

Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher, and former FBI Agent, Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite:

Is this assessment accurate?  All you have to do is take a quick review of the comments from Klaus Schwab, Biden, and the European Union.

Socialism is seen as the bridge between Capitalism and Communism. The major difference between Socialism and Communism is in the method of takeover.  Socialism (and Progressivism) believes that it can centralize all control of the individual, land and industry by peaceful, but gradual, legislation; whereas Communism seeks a violent and final confrontation to eliminate all dissension to achieve its Utopian goal of a Stateless and Classless society.   

The Naked Communist, W. Cleon Skousen, and Paul B. Skousen, 1958.

MISS THIS AT YOUR PERIL. "Public health has been militarized, and the military has been turned into a public health front or a Potemkin Village such that they are using public health language and public health laws to actually carry out a military campaign."

Their weapons are 1) informational, that's the propaganda piece and the censorship piece, 2) psychological, that's the fear and terrorism piece, telling people they need to be afraid all the time and need to listen to the government, and 3) the third piece is the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons which are called in their campaign pharmaceuticals, vaccines but are actually toxins and pathogens. 

World Health Organization, W.H.O., which is not a health organization, it's a military organization. It's sort of the military arm of the One World Government that they're trying to set up.  

Be sure to listen and read/see the 8:47 mark.

Listen Carefully.

Visit Katherine’s Substack for details.  https://t.co/BVUMcNZ1CJ

Credit: A Warrior Calls on Rumble pic.twitter.com/ArgPp2aY3Y

— Champagne Joshi (@JoshWalkos) February 11, 2023

On January 24, 2023, a press conference took place to discuss the ongoing military deployment of bioweapons.  One of the attendees was Katherine Watt, a Pennsylvania paralegal and law researcher.  Here are her findings in her own words.

Public health has been militarized, and the military has been turned into a public health front or a Potemkin Village such that they are using public health language and public health laws to actually carry out a military campaign.  And I would not call them DoD vaccines; I would call them DoD weapons.  They call it a Kill Box because the first lead that I had was Todd Callender's January 30, 2022 interview with Tuscon, Arizona doctor, Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet.  FYI, a kill box is a weaponry term that refers to "a three-dimensional target area, defined to facilitate the integration of coordinated joint weapons fire."  A military term for defining geographical space, or three-dimensional area, for a military attack by air and by surface to kill people who are in it, and to dismantle the framework and move onto the next campaign. 

She's referring to this interview here:

Who is Todd Callender?  A Colorado lawyer who specializes in disability law.  He's given several interviews.  They've got a website with resources at www.truthforhealth.org. 

Watt continues, 

The DOD and the World Health Organization intend to do, and have gotten quite far in doing but not quite reached their goals, is to set up the entire world as their geographic terrain, their target population as all the people in the world.  The duration of their campaign is permanent.  Their weapons are 1) informational, that's the propaganda piece and the censorship piece, 2) psychological, that's the fear and terrorism piece, telling people they need to be afraid all the time and need to listen to the government, and 3) the third piece is the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons which are called in their campaign pharmaceuticals, vaccines but are actually toxins and pathogens.  So I started . . . after I heard that interview, I'd already been wondering what was going on but I started trying to track down some of the things that Todd Callender talked about in his interview, and figure out what the legal frameworks were, and how they were set up, and what the financial mechanisms and coercions were.  My finding, and what many other people have found from various other angles, was that this project was going on for centuries.  Basically, globalists, central bankers, and lots of related organizations trying to get complete control of human beings through banking programs and military programs.  And they kicked it into higher gear in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.  And then they kicked the public health aspect of it into higher gear starting in the 1930s and 1940s.  Before the 1960s, they mostly did it through orchestrated armed conflicts and financial depressions, and wars, which are very loud and messy, and destructive to infrastructure, and it makes it difficult for them to have plausible deniability and legal impunity for what they're doing.  So, in the mid-1960s, they got much better at inducing suicide and homicide by fraudulently labeling poisons as medicines as vaccines, or prophylactics, and telling people that submitting to that poisoning process was their civic duty.  We saw that in COVID with shorthand for "Do this or you're going to kill your grandma."  And the way that the pharmaceutical method is really useful to them is that plausible deniability is much easier, and legal impunity is a lot easier.  They can achieve the same goal of killing lots of people without their fingerprints being all over it. 

4:05  I looked into the coercion cascades, mostly financial.  Not going to go into a lot of detail with that, but it starts at the top with the Bank of International Settlements.  And they can use their control of other federal central banks' access to financial systems, and then all the way down through state governments, national governments, local municipalities, school districts, hospitals, everything.  If you comply with what they're telling you as far as masking, isolating, testing yourself, and taking injections, then you will get the financial access that you will need to run your business or to have a job.  And if you don't comply, they can cut your off from those [or certain] services, and so that is one of the main mechanisms through which the whole thing was carried out.  

4:57  And then on the legal side, at my website I do trace it back farther, but I am going to start at 1969 just for the sake of starting somewhere.  The U.S. Congress passed a law to set up the chemical and biological warfare program, and in that law, which is 50USC Chapter 32, there are very important, key terms included "protective," "prophylactic," and "defensive," which is how they justify doing it.  They're using those words because the international community of ordinary, non-insane people, was concerned about biological and chemical weapons and they were working on international treaties to prohibit them.  And so they needed to build in loopholes, and the loopholes they built in were not going to do biological research and weapons development except for "protective" or "prophylactic" or "defensive purposes," and that's a false characterization because all biologically active products are intrinsically aggressive and toxic and lethal, and that's where we get this . . .  that's the thing that disciplines like toxicology, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, drug-drug interactions are all related to that fact that everything that goes into the human body or any living body can have some effects which can be toxic.  So that is the way they tried to get around that.  And then the foundational public health emergencies platform came out in 1983 when Congress passed the Public Health Service Act Amendment that set up the Public Health Emergency Program under the 1944 law that originally set up the public health service which is a branch of the military.  And also, in 1983, Congress and Reagan set up a $30 million slush fund and that has continued.  It has a different name now than it did then.  Still being funded as recently as the NDAA Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2022. 

6:56  The other thing they did in the 1980s was set up  the 1986 was the National Vaccine Program and National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.  And that's the one that set up the liability exemption for manufacturers and funneled anyone who was injured by a vaccine into this different compensation program that's been used as the model since COVID started for the countermeasures injury compensation program.  

7:25  So, the international piece, the cornerstone, is The World Health Organization, W.H.O., which is not a health organization, it's a military organization because of this merger that I am talking about.  It's sort of the military arm of the One World Government that they're trying to set up.  And they did a set of amendments to the international health regulations, IHRs, in 2005 that entered into force in June 2007 that basically the IHR, which are currently going through another round of amendments to make them worse, called on national governments to make their own domestic laws and fund more programs for surveillance, testing, detention and quarantine, physical control, enforced treatment during international outbreaks of communicable diseases.  And the pretext that they used because it was bankers who were doing this, was that they needed to protect international trade from disruptions caused by disease outbreaks but the real intent was to set up these legal systems that transfer sovereign government from the nation-state to The World Health Organization and the BIS automatically when a public health emergency of international concerned has been declared.  And Congress, U.S. presidents, and the Cabinet comply with that demand from the World Health Organization.   

8:47  So, two of the key years were 1997 and 1998.  That was when the beginnings of the Emergency Use Authorization was set up.  And when they transferred the CBDR weapons classifications from the DOD to HHS or CDC [chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear] classification and control.  It was the same products, as far as I can tell, and it was just a relabeling and a rehoming of the Department of Defense to Health and Human Services.  

9:23  The EUA was kind of a two-step process.  At the time, the public was really upset about the use of unapproved vaccines for anthrax on military troops and the horrible adverse effects they were having.  So Congress passed a law in November to revoke authorization for testing or using unapproved products on military troops.  But three days later, in a different law, another law allowing for vaccinating the general population with unapproved products was passed.  But the target population would be expanded from just military troops to the entire population.  Then around 2000 to 2002, using the momentum from the 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on Congress, they set up through the statutes again, program management, sort of, structures.  They did that through the 

2000 Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act.

2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.  And people talked about this at the time.  It was construed as putting the country into a permanent state of war, the global war on terror with every other country in the world, so there was no geographic limitation, there was no time limitation.  No identified enemy other than "terror."  And through than "terror."  And through that, and I think people figured this out at the time but it got suppressed/censored, it made everyone in the world a presumptive combatant.  Or an enemy target.  So it was essentially a de facto covert, global martial law act by the U.S. government.  

11:00  And in the early 2000s, we also got the PATRIOT Act, 2001, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, and the Homeland Security Act, and those were more of the merging of the DHS, the DOJ, the HHS, the DOD, all of the cabinet agencies. So since then, 2003-2009, there've been lots of executive orders, [shoring up international and military guidelines on a local level], lots more statutes and appropriations, lots of agency regulations, guidance reports, that were circulated to state, local, and tribal authorities and law enforcement so that they would know that under a public health emergency that the local police are subordinated to the federal military.  FDA issued a lot of guidance-to-industry documents and sent those out to the pharmaceuticals and academic organizations.  [FDA communicated with corporate and academic interests to alert them on how to handle experimental products being coerced on the public.] and NGOs to let them know about how FDA is going to handle experimental products like vaccines, gene therapies, biologics, and they did more test-runs, like 2003 SARS, 2006 MERS, 2009 H1N1.  That brings up to the Other Transactions Authority, OTA, as was revealed through Pfizer's April 2022 motion to dismiss whistleblower, Brook Jackson's False Claims Act case.  They said, "This was not a vaccine.  It was a DOD prototype, and we were never obligated to do valid clinical trials.  We were never obligated to prove safety or efficacy to anyone.  We never had to get FDA authorization through any of the normal guidance to industry channels because it was a prototype.  

Pfizer stated prototypes are not required to go through safety and efficacy testing or clinical trials or FDA authorization. 

October 4, 2022, the U.S. government filed a statement of interest in support of Pfizer's motion to dismiss the claim that they were acting outside standard regulatory practices when it comes to vaccine distribution. 

Basically saying that clinical trials were never material or necessary for DOD to pay the contractors for producing or distributing the bioweapons known as COVID-19 vaccines.  And so all of this became visible from 2020 to the present when the W.H.O. President, Secretary General issued the Public Health Emergency of International Concern at the end of January 2020 and the HHS Secretary immediately triggered the domestic framework through the determination that a public health emergency exists, followed by PREP Act declarations for medical countermeasures, which are the weapons [the vaccines].  

Health & Human Services Violates existing U.S. Law by stating that a public health emergency exists.

And then Congress and presidents, Trump and Biden, pass several additional Congressional acts and funding, reinforcing the structure of the kill box.  

Trump and Biden passed declarations, acts, and legislation and opened up a funding stream reinforcing and incentivizing the kill box. 

And issued more executive orders under the Defense Production Act, the Stafford Act, and the National Emergencies Act to sort of build out the program.  Basically what it built was a huge private/public funding stream for military bioweapons research and use.  It eliminated informed consent by reclassifying people who could be potentially carrying disease as presumptive national security threats so that you can do anything you want to them because you're on a war footing.  

private/public funding stream for military-led experiments on humans. 

Who knew?  We are under martial law. 

eliminated informed consent by reclassifying  healthy humans as biohazards or threats to national security. 

But how is national security even a thing anymore if the W.H.O., an international entity is enforcing these measures?  Because the sovereign countries adopt these measures per the W.H.O.  

State of Emergency is considered a war footing. 

By whom?  

Under current "legal" framework supported by continuation of emergency declarations all liability for private interests and government harms is shielded from investigation or prosecution. 

Gee, how do Rand Paul and Thomas Renz, and Dr. Richard Fleming get around this one?

And to shield products and weapons from product liability, to shield all the people involved from criminal liability and from civil liability, and to shield the government funders, developers, and regulators from criminal prosecution under the other . . . that are in place, that are superseded by this framework for use of bioweapons, for use of chemical weapons, terrorism, things like that.  

I see this as a joint project between the U.S. Department of Defense, the coordinating committee of the Central Banks, W.H.O., and BIS.  And the U.N., but the World Health Organization is like a subsidiary of the UN.  

And, there are things that globalists do not like.  They don't like constitutions, the charters.  They don't like the conflicting statutory frameworks around war crimes, bioterrorism, torture, . . .  They don't like any of that stuff.  They don't like when states or provinces, counties or towns pass their own laws protecting informed consent, protecting people for their continued safety.  They actually put out a report in October 2022: state laws limiting public health protections hazardous for our health.  And there's a whole bunch of things that states have started doing that globalists do not like, so doing more of those things, bringing more control back to the states, using more of Article 10 of the Constitution to reclaim state authority . . . those are all extremely useful.  I do think it's going to break.  I do think there's going to be a tipping point and the criminal prosecutions are going to start.  And we have all the evidence, and every time they try to answer what we're talking about by saying "national security," they reinforce this is the right way to go.  This is what they're doing: they're committing war crimes.