JEFF CLARK, DOJ: it's really nauseating to see Governor Cuomo and Leanne Wen . . . I mean there aren't two more nauseating people, liars who lie to each other and then lie to the public, and it's complete gas lighting

"Cuomo deserves sort of a special place in hell for what he did to elderly people," says former DOJ official Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS).

Clark EXCLUSIVELY details his efforts to gain accountability for those killed in NY nursing homes during the pandemic.

This as Andrew Cuomo… pic.twitter.com/dkEM7HOa7I

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) May 10, 2024

Jeff Clark, DoJ it's really nauseating to see Governor Cuomo and Leanne when I mean there aren't two more nauseating people, liars who lie to each other and then lie to the public, and it's complete gas lighting.  And everyone knows that Cuomo was one of the lockdown mandators in Chief, and everyone knows that Leanna Wen, crisis actor and Planned Parenthood zealot, was the big cheerleader for COVID, the massive health emergency masks in the lockdowns.  [I'm going to include the vaccines. He missed that.  Why would Jeff Clark of the DOJ miss that key factor of this mass democide?] And then comes his apology that recognizing that, "And look, obviously it was a novel disease in many ways it's been overplayed . . . ."  So here we have a federal agent indicting Governor Cuomo and Wen in the court of public opinion.  Talk about your soft criticism, a backhanded compliment, it's like a massaged criticism.  So Clark offers nothing beyond what every normal thinking man and woman was thinking 4 years ago.  Why so late, Jeff?  His indictment is meaningless.  He just compounds the gas lighting, layering it.  

DR. HARVEY RISCH: [T]his military approach that had people in the military underneath the National Security Council, designed a response that all of our government agencies would carry out, they designed a response that would not follow public health principles

🔥"people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." (1/6)… pic.twitter.com/a6BlEZjpbE

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) May 6, 2024

People in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." (1/6)

Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale Dr. Harvey Risch (

@DrHarveyRisch

) describes for Jason James (

@jasonjamesbnn

) how the "upper-levels of [the U.S.] military establishment" brainwashed the government, as well as the American people, into believing that things like lockdowns, masking, and the mRNA injections were necessary to defeat COVID. He highlights the fact that the National Security Council (NSC) took control of the "pandemic" response in the U.S. just seven days after it was declared a national emergency, and, echoing the work done by Sasha Latypova (

@sasha_latypova

) and Katherine Watt, says that the FDA's supposed approval of the COVID injections was pure "theater." "[W]hat happened...during the pandemic, is that...FDA, NIH, CDC, all of them, lost control of what would have been their scientific narratives. And they did that because...President Trump...handed [management of the 'pandemic'] off to the National Security Council, which militarized it, which made the pandemic no longer a pandemic, but a biowarfare attack," Risch tells James. The professor emeritus adds that the COVID injections are "not vaccines according to the government" and are, instead, "countermeasures, because it's a military approach that was adopted rather than a public health approach." "[T]his military approach that had people in the military underneath the National Security Council, designed a response that all of our government agencies would carry out, they designed a response that would not follow public health principles," Risch notes. Prior to the NSC's bizarre and harmful "pandemic" response plan, Risch says that prominent public health officials had said that "you don't lock down the population" and that "there's no point in closing airports [as] that won't do anything." He adds that public health officials also knew that "masks are essentially useless—for either protecting the wearer or for controlling source control, meaning keeping the wearer from spreading infection outside of the wearer." "[A]ll of this stuff was all laid out, and then the military turned it around and did the opposite of almost everything. And so, that colored our whole response," Risch says. Explaining further, the Yale professor says that "people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these [U.S. government] agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." Risch goes on to say: "What happened is that, basically, your rank-and-file people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies, are relatively good people who believe in themselves, they believe in the science the way they see it; they believe that they think they are doing a good job, the best that they could under the circumstances, they think of themselves as wholesome, good-doing people. And they [didn't] realize that they [were being] brainwashed. That [they'd] been brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing of all of our scientific, medical regulatory systems, as well as the general public. And we know how much brainwashing has gone on through the media and all that." "[T]his whole regime of mis-thinking, of propagandized fear and lack of recognition of what were the true issues going on, spread throughout the regulatory approval and scientific review institutions of our government," Risch adds. Touching on the topic of the COVID injections, Risch says that the FDA's VIRBAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) committee, "thought they were doing good by approving vaccines," but were, in fact, "essentially irrelevant." Risch adds that "It was just theater to legitimize that these vaccines weren't vaccines, they were countermeasures and were going to be used anyway come hell or high water, because that's what the military at the top, the National Security Council, had decided, in advance of this whole process unfolding." Indeed, Risch highlights the fact that the COVID injection rollout "was planned this way" and notes that "the military was involved in Event 201, the planning...sessions in September of 2019, and all the previous Event 201s..." that had taken place regularly in the years leading up to COVID. "Why was the military involved? Because they knew the likelihood of a bioweapons attack was grossly, much larger, much higher, than a spread from some animal reservoir into humans. So they were heavily involved in the planning for this and it shows how we carried out all of the pandemic management. Because it was obviously twisted and contorted to be a military response rather than a public health response.

LATYPOVA: who was arguing in court on behalf of Pfizer? Pfizer lawyers were not even in the [court] room. It was the Department of Justice.

🚨USA Accusation #Criminelle contre Anthony Fauci,Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Stéphane Bancel Moderna,Albert Bourla Pfizer,Klaus Schwab WEF, FDA/CDC/CIA et d'autres,racket publicité illégale,fraude,meurtre prémédité des innocents dans le monde pic.twitter.com/CaOqDz9zan

— 🕊️Myriam🕊️Sauvons L’humanité🕊️@CelebritesSM🕊 (@Resistance_SM) May 2, 2024

What we now jointly collaborate on is revealing the structure, the pseudo-legal structure.  It's not lawful.  They made it legal on paper only.  This criminal cartel military-government-pharma military criminal cartel is actually operating all over the world so in addition to that and this is what is less understood by everyone is that the Department of Defense in the U.S. ordered all these COVID products which includes vaccines, but also includes therapeutics, monoclonal antibodies, diagnostics, even masks, and staffing, and there is a whole huge spending, ordering these so-called countermeasures under this contracting framework.  It's called Other Transactional Authority.  It was put in place in the '60s only for NASA.  Now, 11 federal agencies use it.  The Department of Defense is a particularly huge user of this contracting method because it allows them to contract without following any federal procurement rules and regulations with a lot of secrecy.  And they can specifically order products from otherwise regulated Industries, such as Pharma without following any regulations and also without disclosing IP so it's like that, it's a lot of secrecy.  They typically use this framework to order weapons from defense contractors but now they're using the same framework to order what they're telling us is a pharmaceutical product.  And finally, this structure clicks into place when the HHS Secretary, or the Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S., declares a pandemic or a Public Health Emergency, and, of course, they declare it immediately after The W.H.O. declared it based on 40 cases from 8 billion people in the world.  

What's the difference between a Public Health Emergency and a pandemic?  Emma Ross explains,

A PHEIC is the strongest global alert the WHO can formally make and, when it is declared, countries have a legal duty to respond quickly, whereas with a pandemic there is no infrastructure around the decision-making process, agreed criteria, or agreement of what countries need to do in response.

So they just decided it's time to declare a pandemic and in the US they declared a public health emergency so when all of this comes to play together what happens is there is this interesting law in the US this particular us code is cited here which says that the "Use of EUA, Emergency Use Authorized countermeasures is NOT a Clinical Investigation" under Public Health Emergency.  That explains why they need to extend Public Health Emergency into perpetuity because that allows them to implement this crime.  And the significance of this is that if the countermeasure cannot be a clinical investigational product, then no pharmaceutical regulation applies to these products.  So here is the lie that our government told to us and told to the world, and the governments all over the world repeated to their citizens.  They were claiming that it was a health event.  They were claiming that they were producing pharmaceutical products through CGMP, or Good Manufacturing standards when they perfectly well knew I assure you they were all aware of it they perfectly well knew that no pharmaceutical regulations applied to these things that these countermeasures this word countermeasures is a very interesting word.  It's a very fluffy definition. There's no real definition.  If somebody attacks me, and I pick up a rock and throw it at them, it's a countermeasure.  So anything can be a countermeasure.  It's just a category of things.  But once they designate them as such, they are no longer pharmaceuticals.  They're just lying to you that these are pharmaceuticals.  They are actually not.  In fact, when there was this famous case where Pfizer, it was said that Pfizer didn't want, or, the FDA didn't want to release clinical trial data for 75 years.  Well, who was arguing in court on behalf of Pfizer?  Pfizer lawyers were not even in the room.  It was the Department of Justice.  So why is the US government defending presumably a private commercial interest of a pharmaceutical company?  

4:32. Here you can see that the pharmaceutical companies are a third level down they are not in charge but they are getting tremendous amounts of money to shut up and follow the orders and do as they're told but the whole operation is run by the Department of Defense of the US government I'm not absolving farmers by the way of any responsibility they are criminals in this cartel and they're collaborating and they are co-conspirators and should be prosecuted together.  But as Dr. Malone actually mentioned, and I completely agree, here we have an implemented model of fascism.  This is how it's done: government merges with private corporations.  You can't even say who is wagging the dog, but they merged and then they lied.  And then they extended the liability [of the merger] to the private commercial entities from which they extracted commercial interest, or whatever interests they want to extract. 

5:35. So what really happened here was that vaccine development and approval . . . What were they doing when they did this what they were doing was play-acting.  They never had to follow those regulations by law that they wrote themselves.  It's an illegal law it's not lawful.  It's not constitutional but they made it legal on paper that they don't have to do them, yet they went and had and did them in collaboration with the FDA, the CDC, and all the other agencies.  And that was just to convince you, the public, that it really is a pharmaceutical product where it actually is not.  The clinical trials were never ordered. The Good Manufacturing Practices compliance was never ordered.  And legally speaking, there were never even clinical trial investigators, because if you cannot have an investigational product, then there is no investigation.  So the FDA leadership and Global regulatory leadership what they did [was] they impersonated the Regulators, so you, so that you fall for this lie and go get injected.  Finally, Pfizer already invoked this as a legal defense.  If you heard about Brooke Jackson's case in the U.S., she is suing Pfizer under the False Claims Act, 1863, that they defrauded the government.  Well, Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss the case.  It hasn't been dismissed yet, but Pfizer had already stated in court, "Please dismiss this case, Judge. We did not defraud the government.  We DELIVERED the fraud that the government ordered." 

TRUTH JUSTICE @SPARTAJUSTICE FIGHT FOR HUMANITY

On the streets in West Virginia . . .

Bought and paid for FED operatives...pussies in masks... https://t.co/JS30gRM1ht

— CaptMike (@getcloserhome) April 28, 2024

HATECRAFT TO ACCOMPLISH THE POLITICS OF COMPLIANCE

Watch this phenomenal presentation by James Lindsey @ConceptualJames on the The politics of Compliance: The target is You!

Presented at ICS at CPAC pic.twitter.com/g5n1p2YFrO

— Edward Dowd (@DowdEdward) February 28, 2024

00:25. A quote from a lesser known dictator and that's Mao Zedong.  In 1957, he not so famously said, "Not to have correct political opinions is like not having a soul."  And I think that that is kind of a banner for the lives that we've been living for the last few years and that's very unfortunate but it's also very telling.  My talk is titled, "The Target Is You."  What I want to talk about is actually "The Politics of Compliance" is the name I've given this and it's actually derived from a strategy that Mao Zedong used, but to make the politics of compliance work the target is actually you.  And I don't just mean you with the wrong political opinions who don't have souls.  I mean everybody.  There are generally three categories of people when it comes to the politics of compliance: 1) there are the people who are complying; 2) there are the people who are refusing, and 3) there are the people who aren't sure.  And all three are targeted by the politics of compliance roughly the same way with the same Dynamic the goal is of course to get the compliant to feel better than everybody else but also frustrated with everybody else it is to convince those who are not sure to join the programming to begin to comply and it is to use the people who refuse to comply as the wedge around which the entire thing turns.  In fact, it's to dehumanize them and motivate the other two groups to try to destroy them.  So Mao Zedong simply took over China with a very small number of conceptual concepts that I'm lumping together in what I'm calling the politics of compliance.  He separated the population into two broad categories I just mentioned.  I just mentioned three, well he cut it into two.  It was an oversimplification, and those two categories are the people, and the enemies of the people.  Not to put too fine a point on it, that's what he called them: the people and the enemies of the people. And what he said is who are the people?  Well, he gives this kind of historical record in 1957 as to who counted as the people, and when.  And there's a consistent running theme through his 8 or 9 different examples of different historical periods of the Chinese story, whether it's the Japanese or the Sino-Japanese War, the second one, whether it's the period of building socialism after he took power in 1949, whether it's during his 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-Year Plan, and the examples all have the single theme of THE people are the people who agree with Mao, and THE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE are the people who don't agree with Mao.  And it turns out to be really that simple the people at the period of building socialism are those who support the building of socialism and the enemies of the people are those who resist the building of socialism.  He says it explicitly that clearly.  

3:20. And this sets up a dynamic I think the best name for it is Hatecraft, and here is how it works.  The goal of this split is to say that there is a correct perspective on all things, a sacred science (see #5), as Robert [Jay] Lifton described it, and that's called The People's perspective, or at least it was in China.  We could call it whatever, "the critical race perspective on Race"; we could call it "the queer perspective on sexual politics"; we could all imagine a bunch of examples under COVID, "the public health perspective," I guess would be the right name for it.  I see Red Hats in the crowd, you're not allowed to have those.  That's the deplorable side of a different perspective.  But this is the general idea.  There are people who do the right thing.  There are people who do the wrong thing, and the goal is to bring people into the people's perspective, which is also called agreeing with the tyranny.  

4:10. And what you do in order to achieve this idea is that you separate the population into two broad categories, The People and The Enemies of the People.  And then you say,

What we want is unity.  We want Unity but there are certain elements in the population who are preventing us from unity and moving into the future that we can be having, and it's their fault.  The people want to move forward, and the enemy of the people is stopping them.  The people want to open their businesses and go back about their lives, but the people who won't wear masks or take a shot or socially distance or close down their lives or whatever else in the COVID department, are stopping them.  We want to open the country back up, but we can't because there are anti-vaxxers.  They are the problem.

That is hatecraft.

The "huge [mortality] event" in 1918 was called the Spanish flu, "but it shouldn't be called that because it's now proven scientifically that it was not a viral respiratory disease; in fact, what killed people was bacterial pneumonia."

I’m sure the masks they wore back then made the bacterial pneumonia so much better too 🤡 https://t.co/FzwuxW7gkf

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) January 30, 2024

"Rogan is the Neo-Legacy Media. A $100mil business is not indie."

Loads to say! Bret W’s bro was part of Epstein’s Edge when it was 100% funded by Epstein, before that he was UN.

RFK Jr. was at Epstein’s Palm Beach house & on the Lolita Express because they were friends.

Rogan is the Neo-Legacy Media. A $100mil business is not indie.

👇🤨👎 https://t.co/dpA9k9Aiwn

— Johnny Vedmore (@JohnnyVedmore) January 28, 2024

"Your 'Dream Team' is made up of people who were wrong for 2, 2 1/2 years..! LOL!!" 🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/PoCJIHQOVm

— Chauncey (@nada88564211) January 28, 2024

00:27. Brett Weinstein was not a COVID dissident.  He wore the masks, and fine, you want to wear the masks, fine, but he shamed people who didn't wear them.  When so many true COVID dissidents, so many real doctors and medical professionals and nurses had already been out there risking their jobs, their income, their security, their reputation, and sometimes possibly their lives to bring you the facts.  These people are essentially doing The Stolen Valor thing when you claim that you fought in a war and you get all the kudos and you get all the medals and you get all the trust from society and goodwill that comes from that.  But you really didn't ever fight.  You just bought a uniform at the Army Surplus and you go to Memorial Day ceremonies and Veterans Day ceremonies and you're like, "Oh, I fought" and you didn't?  That's what Brett Weinstein is doing.  

Never Forget. Never Forgive. And Hold the Line

Oh, man, can we just move on?  Yeah, as soon as we take out the trash from 3 and a half years ago. 

August 11, 2020

21-year-old Australian mom of three is choked and arrested for not wearing a mask.

She had an exemption from a doctor.

She was charged with assaulting a police officer.

Mask mandates are being reimplemented.

Masks have minimal effect at preventing COVID-19. pic.twitter.com/0JVGI3ne7F

— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) December 31, 2023

My Momma Was Killed by Hospital COVID Protocol

They were withholding her from us until we were willing to let her die.  --Christina Croft

Hard to watch? Imagine being present and going against the masses. https://t.co/rYDrRzoOBF

— Kelly DNP🐭Functional/Integrative Med (@kacdnp91) December 12, 2023

00:04. Christina Croft.

00:07. And this is about your mama?  Okay, first question did your mom take any COVID-19 shots?  

00:12. No, she was not vaccinated. 

00:15:  do you know why she didn't take one?

00:16. Probably because of me.  I kept encouraging her not to take it, because I felt like it was not going to be good for her; I thought it would be dangerous for her.  She had asthma and allergies, and I kept encouraging her not to take it.  My dad took it, but my mom didn't.

00:35. What was going on that made her go to the hospital?

00:38. So she had gotten covid and handling it at home we got her a prescription for Ivermectin unfortunately the pharmacy refused to fill the prescription for her we went to several different pharmacies and no one would fill it.

00:53. Did they say why they wouldn't fill it?

00:55. They just said they wouldn't.  They wouldn't even let us talk to the pharmacist they just said you know we're not filling it and so she we had an oximeter at home and she eventually hurt oxygen went down below 90 and that scared them so they went into the hospital in August of 2021 and she was completely corn from us we weren't allowed to be with her at all.

01:20. Did she have a phone where she could text you or . . . ? 

01:21. She did actually.  She was texting my dad quite a bit.  He was allowed to sit outside the room if he had full PPE on, but they kept the door locked and they would just text each other.

01:34. Is that because he was vaccinated by any chance?

01:36. They had that rule for everybody in the hospital.  They had literal security guards at the entrance to the hospital and would not let people into the hospital.  And then once if you were cleared, you could go up to her room and sit outside the glass wall, but you weren't allowed to go inside her room.

01:54. So did they give your mom and remdesivir?

01:56. They did.  We did not know at first.  They told her it was called the "Trump protocol" or "Trump cocktail," or something, I guess what they gave Donald Trump is what they said they were giving her.  She said it's something with an "R."  She didn't really know what it was.  And we had to do some research before we found out it was Remdesivir.  And we begged the doctors to . . . can you just give her her Ivermectin, she's already got a prescription for it?  They refused.  We showed them studies that it was working, and they said, "Well, that's just anecdotal."  They wouldn't even listen to us.  We asked them to give her high-dose vitamin C, IV, but they said that the hospital doesn't do that, which we found out was a lie; they do offer high-dose vitamin C IVs.  So she had the full course of Remdesivir.

02:51. When was last time she stopped communicating?

02:55. So on September 6th, she texted my dad at 7:30 in the morning and said, you know, "Good morning.  I love you.  I'm not getting better," and then she texted him and said, "There are no fluids, no IVs hooked up."  And my dad texted her back and said "What, you don't have any IVs hooked up?"  And she said no.  And then she just wrote the word RICHARD.  And my mom is a very sweet woman.  If she said, "Richard," that was like pay attention, something is wrong.  And he said what's going on and she said please find out what's wrong and that was the last time anybody heard from her so they vented her without telling anyone and that was the last time she spoke with my dad.

03:36. So when did you hear that she had passed were you there?

03:38. We were there. When they took her to the ICU, they told us basically verbatim what they told everybody, "As soon as you're ready to let her go, we'll unhook her and you can just . . . everybody can gather in her room."  They wouldn't let us go near her while she was on the ventilator, but they were willing to let everybody in the room if we decided to let her die.  And so after she died, I can't remember what day it was . . . it was the 16th.  She she died on September 16th.

04:12. How long was she taking off the ventilator before she died?

04:14.  10 days.  So she was on the ventilator for 10 days, and I think that's their protocol; that was pretty much what everybody would get, 10 days.  And then they would bring in the palliative care doctor to try to make you feel better about letting your family member go, and we have a lot of siblings and we all met together, and she was really, really bad at that point.  So we all decided that it was just best to . . . she wasn't responding to pain, she had no gag reflex, and so once they decided to turn the vent off everybody . . . it was all like, all of a sudden, COVID didn't matter anymore.  There was no protocol.  There was nothing.  We were allowed to be in the room.  Nobody was worried about germs; no one had masks; nobody had gloves, nothing.  We were all hugging her, so we knew at that point that it wasn't . . . they weren't really scared of everybody getting it.  They were withholding her from us until we were willing to let her die.  And so she passed away about an hour after we took her off the ventilator.  We just sat and sang hymns with her . . . until she died.  She was married to my dad for almost 43 years she was a pastor's wife and we have seven kids lots and lots of grandkids and great grandkids and she was just a beautiful person that I feel was unjustly killed they refuse to have us have any say and how she was treated I even have text messages where she would text my dad before she went into the ICU and say like 4:00 in the afternoon I finally got my lunch you know they weren't feeding her regularly she had had an accident and they left her soiled for hours until they came in and changed her but no one was there to advocate for her because we weren't allowed to be in the room we weren't allowed to be in there to you know say hey she needs to be changed or she needs to get her food or whatever I tried to have the hospital investigated but I no one no one will listen no one will help so.

06:28.  Did you get her medical records?

06:29. I did.

06:30.  Have you been through them?

06:32. I've tried.  I'm not very medically intelligent.  I don't know what the word is.  A lot of it is hard to read, but I got to the day that she actually died, and they said that they came in and they said her skin looked dusty and that they decided to put her on a ventilator.  I guess maybe it was turning colors.  But she was texting my dad, so she was still aware.  She knew something was wrong.  She knew something was about to happen.  And even before they vented her, the nurse would say things like "Well, you let us know if you want to go on a ventilator if something goes south."  They just kept asking her, prodding her.  They kept telling her, "You need to calm down.  You need to let us give you morphine or put you to sleep, so you can calm down."  [That sounds like they were building a case against the min, recording it somewhere as a justification for the kill shot.]  My mom was not a very excitable woman.  She wasn't panicking, but obviously, anybody in the hospital would be scared.  But it was like they knew what they wanted to do. [Yeah.  They had a COVID death schedule and they knew the payout once that took place.]  They knew what the protocol was and they were moving her as quick as they could, moving her to get to the end so that they could bring in the next patient.

MUST-LISTEN: Audio: Hero Nurse Records Hospital Officials Violating Their Own Policy, The Nuremberg Code and The Law.

MUST-LISTEN.  Nurse Kim Carter recorded her termination meeting on November 2nd, 2023 with Select Medical Hospital in Cincinnati Ohio for mask refusal and enforcement.  

SUMMARY

Kim is not jabbed and knows the harms of the masks and the shots, regardless of the type of shot. She has warned her co-workers, including Dean Blevins (CEO), Lauren Alexander (Human Resources Director), and Jennifer Dreher (APRN, CNO.) well in advance. Kim also submitted her religious exemption to them with peer-reviewed, referenced, proof of harm. Her religious exemption was denied.

Kim was sent home on Monday, October 30th, 2023, and then returned to work on Thursday, November 2nd, 2023. This was the date of the meeting and the recording.

Kim learned of the recent FDA safety signal (regarding the taking of both the COVID shot and the Flu shot), which dropped on the 29th of October, then she warned them on the 30th, the next day. Kim has always warned her co-workers about the harm of masks and shots, and how informed consent is not being given to the patients or the employees.

As a House Shift Supervisor, she was told to enforce Select Medical’s reimplemented mask policy for those who have not taken a flu shot. Their policy is that if you take the flu shot, you don’t need to wear a mask. If you don’t take the flu shot, you have to wear a mask and force others to do so.

Kim refused, based on religious beliefs and medical facts.

They sent Kim home to silence her. Then, she went back on the 2nd of November and they used her religious beliefs about the mask to further silence her, then they terminated her on Friday, November 3rd of 2023.

In this meeting on November 2nd, 2023, Kim was in a room with Dean Blevins (the CEO), Lauren Alexander (Human Resources Director), and Jennifer Dreher, APRN, CNO (the lady on the phone in the recording).

Kim recorded this meeting.

Above is her recording.

Kim is a friend of mine, a mother, and a patriot of the highest order. She has witnessed atrocities at former hospitals where she’s worked and former nursing homes as well, specifically from 2020 up to the current day.

If you can assist Kim in her legal battle, with any legal referrals or legal advice, please reach out to me at:  americaneducationfm@protonmail.com.  

TRANSCRIPT

1:38. So we just wanted to follow up from our last conversation and make sure you're doing okay, and then kind of go from there.  [Insincere: trying to disarm his audience]

1:46. We wanted to touch base with you before you got here.  We left you a voicemail . . . [Getting to business; tries to establish authority in conversation]

1:50. Yeah, I don't know what happened with that [questioning & indicting his intentions]  

1:51. That's okay [Bevins trying to buy back some creds with her; he's failing and flailing]

1:59. How are you feeling.

2:00. I'm still very concerned and I don't know how to make that and I don't know how to make that concern go away because those are significant safety signals I don't know how I'm supposed to feel I feel the way that I feel.

2:18. So I guess from my standpoint my question to you is do you think that you're able to lead the floor as a house supervisor?  Like knowing what you know, knowing where our patients are at, knowing where our staff is at [with] enforcing the mask with the people that don't have the flu shot, do you feel that you're able to leave the floor?

2:45. That's what I've been doing I mean and I'm not going to enforce a mask when I don't know what their religious standpoint is or what their medical standpoint is that's none of my business that's a HIPAA thing.

2:58. But that's a job requirement as a leader.

3:00. You are too enforce the mask when you know that people don't have the vaccine.

3:06. But I don't know because it's medical information that I'm not privy to

3:12. We provide a list of the house supervisor . . . 

3:13. So you're violating people's Medical information

3:17. We don't know what they're

3:18. If you're giving me a list, you're providing me with your personal medical information.  You're violating HIPAA.

3:23. We're following our select policy

3:24. And your select policy is violating your own corporate policy I mean I don't know what you guys want me to do but you're asking me to break the law and I'm not okay with that.

3:35. I just told you what we want . . . 

3:35. So you're asking me to break the law

3:37. We're not breaking the law.

3:38. You are breaking the law . . .

3:39. We're following our policies from slot[?]

3:40. And HIPAA is very clear, and you're breaking HIPPA. 

3:48. No because every leader gets [a list of] who is vaccinated who isn't vaccinated every hospital.

3:50.  But that is not . . . that is their medical history.  Providing somebody with a medical procedure is medical history.

3:58. Kim, we're not going to continue to do this, like this is everywhere, every hospital, every leadership team you get how many people are vaccinated, what vaccination they have, what they're getting, and we have to enforce on the floor our policy.  Our policy is that you wear a mask if you do not have the flu vaccine.

4:16. Okay well I've already given you guys my religious beliefs and my religious exemption and that's where I stand.  I don't know what anybody else is medical status is.

4:26. I wasn't submitting that to you because I was looking for acceptance.  You, you have no right to accept or deny my religious beliefs. You have no right.

Democrats vote for "kill switch" on all new cars built after 2026. Oh, and for the American taxpayer to pay for the privilege. Good times ahead

The right to travel is fundamental, but the government has mandated a kill-switch in new vehicles sold after 2026. The kill-switch will monitor driver performance and disable cars based on the information gathered. We will vote on my amendment to defund this mandate tonight. pic.twitter.com/Uf0Z2yVNP1

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 8, 2023

Massie said that most Democrats didn't even know the law, didn't even know that the law calls for a "kill switch." Massie's amendment to HR 4820 asked that the taxpayer not fund the "kill switch."  Massie was looking for the American taxpayer.  Democrats said, F you.

During debate last night on my amendment to defund the 2026 kill-switch mandate for cars, some Democrats claimed the technology wouldn’t monitor or disable cars. Here’s the actual law I had to read to them:

My amendment failed. Link to the roll call vote: https://t.co/YWufj9C2C3 pic.twitter.com/JDN1TltaDo

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 8, 2023

Good question.  Who do you think is going to control the "kill switch"?  The same folks who ran the lockdowns on your family. 

Who exactly is going to operate these kills switches?

The same people who mandated lockdowns, masks, social distancing, and useless toxic vaccines? https://t.co/qjubID1I5W

— Toby Rogers, Ph.D., M.P.P. (@uTobian) November 8, 2023

BILL GATES: I don't remember talking about masks at all

Wowsers, The many lies of Bill Gates on one 2 minute clip.....👀 pic.twitter.com/6ycaKIX9Mi

— 𝙍𝙄𝙎𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙇𝘽𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙉𝙀 (@Risemelbourne) November 7, 2023

"Children would die within hours to a week of their immunization"

Executive summary

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) happens to babies, from 1 month to 1 year in age, but most frequently between 2 and 4 months of age.

Recently I interviewed a former police detective who handled over 250 SIDS cases for a major US city. She revealed her full name and I was able to independently verify her employment at the police department.

In the interview, she revealed that 50% of the SIDS cases happened within 48 hours after a vaccine was given and about 70% of the cases happened within one week of a vaccine.

This can only mean one thing: that the childhood vaccines are the leading cause of SIDS deaths.

There is no other explanation.

Even her pediatrician acknowledged this, but they aren’t allowed to talk about it. She said that the American Academy of Pediatrics trains the pediatricians in how to gaslight parents who seek to blame the vaccine.

This is the first time these statistics have ever been revealed publicly.

All the information is independently verifiable in the police records for any health authority who has any doubts.

Also, I am working with the police department to make these statistics public directly from the police department itself (I cannot compel the production of these records because the FOIA laws in the state exempt these records).

My 16-minute interview

 

The key points

1.  3 to 4 cases per month, so over 250 cases total during her tenure

2. 50% of SIDS cases happened within 48 hours of a vaccine administration. Assuming kids are vaccinated every month (which is the most conservative assumption), the chance of this happening by chance is 1.23e-64. This means the cases were caused by the vaccine since there is no other viable hypothesis that can explain the evidence.

3.  70% of SIDS cases happened within 1 week of a vaccination.

4.  Her pediatrician acknowledged this and didn’t argue with the data.

5.  The American Academy of Pediatrics trains doctors on how to gaslight patients who suspect the vaccine caused their child’s death.

6.  Jennifer declined to publicly reveal her name or the police department she worked for, but revealed this to me so I could verify everything using independent sources.

7.  The police department declined to respond to my records count request because it is outside the scope of the state’s FOIA laws since it cannot be accomplished with a straightforward query and “research” would be required. I agree with their interpretation, but I’ve requested they comply anyway as a matter of public benefit. I will update this article when I hear back from them.

Jennifer’s SIDS statistics are validated in the peer-reviewed medical literature!

This paper, Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature, states this:

Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001).

This almost exactly matches what Jennifer said in my interview (70% within one week). Neither of us was aware of this article at the time we made the video.

This is impossible if the vaccines aren’t causing SIDS. There is simply no other viable explanation for the association. But of course, you won’t get your paper published if you say that. You have to say that the association is interesting.

Jennifer is not the only police detective to figure out the connection; Helen Grus in Ottawa found the same thing

In Canada, if you are a police officer and suspect that vaccines cause SIDS, they will prosecute you. It seems that is illegal in Ottawa to question the safety of the vaccines:

"Hearing to continue for Ottawa police officer accused of looking for vaccine links to child death cases," Joanne Laucius, August 18, 2023.

Helen Grus is a Forensic Police Detective in Canada who was looking into the sudden infant deaths that appeared to be connected to mothers being vaccinated.

For the last 2 years she was stoned walled by her own police force. Her court case resumes Oct 2023 and will drag into 2024.

She is being persecuted for seeking the truth. I hope that Detective Helen Grus will be exonerated and continue to investigate the “baffling mystery” of dead babies.

She was suspended without pay for not taking the COVID vaccine and she doesn’t think masks are effective either.

In short, they are trying to get rid of critical thinkers that are trying to get to the truth in the Ottawa police department.

See also these articles which cast Grus as the problem, rather than the vaccines:

1.  Detective tried to uncover vaccine status of dead children’s parents, sources say.

2.  Grieving mother not told nature of misconduct in probe of baby’s death: lawyer. 

Here’s a story casting Grus in a favorable light, pointing out that she didn’t violate any policy of the department and that the police department illegally provided documents to CBC Ottawa reporter Shaamini Yogaretnam which is a criminal offense, yet nobody in the police department is being charged with a crime. Former Toronto police detective Donald Best is baffled that Grus was charged at all, given the investigative discretion bestowed to all police officers. He pointed out that “a fourth-class constable on his or her first day on the job has all the authority to initiate any investigation they want to from parking tickets to homicide.”  

1.  Detective who investigated safety of Covid shot continues to fight to clear her name. 

That article points out that the investigating official, Chris Renwick, is denying discovery requests and refusing to investigate the source of the leak even though it is a criminal offense.

Here are more excellent articles and videos:  

1.  Ottawa Detective was singled out by police leadership for her opposition to Covid mandates.  

2.  Political meddling suspected in Ottawa police investigation of Constable Helen Grus

3.  Articles on Helen Grus from The Epoch Times. 

In short, this isn’t justice. They are stacking the deck against Grus, rather than following the law. CBC is ghosting requests for comment from True North.

Check out the rest of this episode . . . . 

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.