She said that Peter Thiel’s Palantir decides who goes on the domestic terror watchlist for the CIA based on individuals’ internet activity. In the second video, Webb linked all of the heads of the major social media platforms with Jeffrey Epstein.
.
You can run, but you can not hide. The humongous new AI data centers, satellite networks, ground sensors, cell phones, and all the data on earth will combine to create a “Skynet” scenario to control everything, and all life forms. Driven by a lust to get to “net-zero”, this will far exceed anything related to climate change.
This simulation of satellites has now largely been fulfilled, but plans for more launches are in the works. This blanket of surveillance will monitor every square inch of the planet as systems are layered on. As the industry graphic above depicts, the payload for Technocrats lie in the “interventions.” — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood
By: Frost & Symons via Euronews
How do you know when a small-scale farmer in Africa, Latin America or Asia has sufficiently adapted to longer droughts or shifts in traditional monsoon seasons?
The complexity of this question means it is often left unanswered, with funding for such adaptation in developing countries dropping to around just a quarter of total climate finance provided by developed countries.
Delegates gathering at the Bonn Climate Change Conference to prepare for this year’s UN climate talks will be anticipating such questions, with COP29 already dubbed the “finance COP”.
In Baku, Azerbaijan, later this year, countries are expected to discuss a new climate finance deal after reaching the target of $100 billion (€93.2bn) a year in finance for developing countries two years later than agreed.
Historically low-emitting countries across much of the Global South desperately need more financial support to improve their climate defences across key sectors such as agriculture.
Less than 1% of international climate finance was spent helping smallholder farmers adapt to climate change in 2021, with many forced to spend up to 40% of their own incomes to cope with floods, droughts and crop pests.
However, in addition to more finance, countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America also need ways of measuring adaptation to direct investments more effectively.
While efforts to transition to sustainable agriculture across Europe have sparked protests among farmers this year, adapting to the evolving impacts of climate change is already a matter of survival for those in the Global South.
One emerging solution is an adaptation index, which scores resilience to climate shocks to highlight where finance for climate adaptation is most needed. Such models can quantify levels of adaptation and preparedness, giving policymakers, development agencies, investors, and donors clear guidance on where and how to invest in adaptation finance.
Water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.
Adaptation indices, developed at a country or commodity level, complement other work to consolidate climate data and research, such as CGIAR’s Africa Agriculture Adaptation Atlas, which provides interactive data insights and forecasts.
This new methodology is already providing actionable insights to direct adaptation funding and have the best chance of increasing the resilience of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities.
Over the past two years, the first-if-its-kind Adaptation Equivalency Index (AEI) has been developed for Guatemala and Honduras by Heifer International, Conservation International and local partners, supported by the Global Environment Facility. Guatemala and Honduras have both ranked among the top 10 countries most affected by climate change over the past decade, with heavy rains, floods, droughts and hurricanes becoming more frequent and affecting agriculture.
The index ranks the adaptation levels of the countries’ major agricultural commodities: spices, cacao and coffee.
What makes this index novel is that it starts off with the farmers themselves, identifying the real-world climate threats that producers are already experiencing and anticipating, as well as their capacity to adapt.
This work has already uncovered the fact that water scarcity is the most common climate risk for crop farmers in Guatemala and Honduras across the different commodities.
Sourced from Technocracy News & Trends
from: https://www.activistpost.com/2024/08/digital-twin-of-earth-being-created-to-predict-the-future-micro-manage-everything.html
The matrix control system acts like a disease masquerading as a cure, sneakily giving the illusion of democracy. The undermining of our democratic processes continue: Brutal tyrannical laws; ordinances, rules and oppressive restrictions have further ramped up, tightening the controlling noose on what we’re not allowed to do and say.
Then there’s the highly encroaching technocratic mass surveillance operations, petty police intimidations and reprisals that could lead to imprisonment or threats of getting heavily fined, planned 15-minute cities, raging unfair taxes and out-of-control money-draining manufactured inflation… etc., etc…
-These attacks on our freedom are designed to drain the life-force energy out of we-the-people as the perpetrator globalatarians get richer…
The resulting inevitable societal collapse has long happened. However, because the related traditional societies and societal values have eroded away so slowly, many people with their unchallenging complacency, having been conditioned through social engineering, are yet to wake up and realize just how un-free they really are.
The delusional, power-mad, ego-maniacal, greed-driven parasite globalists involved in orchestrating this matrix control system charade, imposing their governance on almost every aspect, are doing it ultimately for total global domination and complete ownership. Yes, it’s all just a game, and it’s that pathetic. (Remember the WEF (Wrecking Everybody’s Future) statement: “You will own nothing, and be unhappy happy.”)
However, many people refuse to lay down and roll over like lame dogs in their acquiescence. Further, the more oppressive it gets, the more it serves as a wake-up clarion call to action.
-In light of this, here are 7 ways to stop the matrix control system from enslaving you?
In 1930’s middle-America, some plantation slaves started to learn how to read. They then furthered this reading by learning law, discovering that their enslavement was illegal and acted…
-This can be used as an analogy in respect of what’s going on today. In other words, if you want to stop being a slave to the matrix control system, then educate yourself and act.
Educate yourself to see the bigger picture. Remember the application of knowledge is true power. From what you’ve learned, take the necessary precautionary measures needed to protect you and your family from the endangering globalists control system. As the saying goes, the truth will set you free.
Whatever it takes, do what calls, moves and inspires you and live it by setting example. For instance, you could develop a certain skillset.
Following on from 1, live life as an inquiry: Keep questioning everything. Play detective, look for irreconcilable errors, inconsistencies and so-named coincidences. Discernment is key.
For example, discernment of truth from lies through questioning the official mainstream media narrative. Then there’s the ability to discern those hidden ulterior motives from the globalists…
An awakened peaceful activist truth-seeker refusing to be enslaved knows that questions are answers.
Those orchestrating the controlling matrix know that they thrive on getting our compliance. So, refuse to comply.
-It’s that simple: No matter how much the farmer shouts and whistles to his dogs barking desperately, but the sheep continue to refuse en masse to be moved through the gates, then there’s nothing that can be done. The farmer is helpless.
The same goes for we-the-people. When we fearlessly refuse to comply en masse with the fascistic oppression the controllers are rendered helpless.
Have a look at this awe-inspiring video featuring Christine Anderson (German MEP) with a view to non-compliance:
Globalists involved in tyrannical control systems don’t want you to be self-sufficient. They ideally want you in a state of total dependency on them. So, become independent, avoid the matrix control system by practising and maintaining self-sufficiency.
Devote your time to practicing self-sufficiency through natural health, growing food, financial matters, alternative energy, ways of mobilising and preparing for a worst-case scenario…
For one of many examples, practice food freedom by homesteading. When it comes to supporting each other look to others who align with food farming communities. These established communities help each other out with agricultural expertise, trading and legal matters. -Yes, community-power does exist!
Give Up Consumerism
Care of media brainwashing, advertising and marketing, consumerism entices you into becoming socially conditioned with the so-called cultural norm.
It’s a trap that keeps you stuck in an endless insatiable loop of consume, consume, consume, where you can never be satisfied, as you’re forever chasing the latest material item in fashion to be so-called socially accepted, successful, happy and fulfilled.
An aspect of the matrix illusion, it works under the rubric of “He who dies with the most toys wins.” –All part of the empty-shell social conditioning to the detriment of the false persona.
It’s a distraction, designed to take us away from life’s real values: Spirituality; personal growth, expressing your authenticity through the true self, handling relationships well, living in peace, being a unique individual…
Getting distracted is a sure-fire way of staying inescapably bound to the chains of the matrix control system. It takes real devotion to escape. Stay focussed.
For example, don’t get distracted by the mainstream media moron box (T.V – Tell-lie-Vision) designed to forever blurt out its addictive distraction in the form of worthless empty shows, disinformation, misinformation, lies, coverups, unjustifiable character assassination, fear mongering, biasedness, mind controlling such as Bernaysian subliminal advertising… -Avoid, avoid!
Do however, pay attention to the alternative media. It’s there to guide you.
Disengaging is key to breaking free from the chains of the matrix control system.
Disengage from:
*Fear through the fear mongering the controllers and their associates try to put upon you. Choose love over fear.
*Supporting fake wars fomented by bankers, corporations and politicians. Let them fight these illegal, amoral wars amongst themselves. Let’s see how far these low-lives would get.
*Enforcing unfair oppressive laws if you’re a policeman.
*Working in a healthcare system: If you know in your hearts and minds that you’ve been told to use toxic/invasive medicines capable of maiming and killing people, all in the name of making profits on a fake disease. Have the courage and integrity to walk away from the system.
-There are many things that you could disengage from. The more you do this, the easier it gets as you develop confidence.
That concludes just 7 ways to stop the matrix control system from enslaving you.
What have I missed out? Would love to hear your comments.
The chosen cities are being intentionally crashed so that certain mega-conglomerates like BlackRock can pick up the real estate for pennies on the dollar. People will demand a solution to crime and degradation, which will be technology, AI and automation. China is the model for a technocratic dictatorship. John WIlliams gives the timeline for implementation and says that in the next 24 to 36 months these cities will make huge changes.Bac
.
from: https://needtoknow.news/2024/05/21-smart-cities-confirmed-in-the-planned-fall-of-american-cities/
The Denver Police Department has launched a new program that will include the use of drones as a tool to help officers respond to 911 calls.
The law enforcement agency that was recently defunded by millions to pay for migrants is now launching its own drone program, along with other Colorado police departments.
Robert White, the former chief of The Denver Police Department originally disagreed with the use of drones in 2013 and in 2018, and the agency’s only drone was shelved.
Now, the department is planning on using a $100,000 grant from the Denver Police Foundation to start the program. Denver police plan to buy several drones with that money, and begin their drone program within six to 12 months.
‘We would never simply replace calls-for-service response by police officers,’ Phil Gonshak, director of the department’s Strategic Initiatives Bureau told The Denver Post.
The Denver Police Department has launched a new program that will see the use of drones introduced to help officers respond to calls. In some instances, a drone may be deployed to verify reports made to 911 or assess their severity
‘The DPD would respond to any call for service where someone is physically requesting a police officer on scene. But if there was a fight at Colfax and Cherokee and we put a drone in the air and there is no fight and nothing causing traffic issues, then we would reroute our police officers to other emergent calls.’
‘It’s beginning to lift off,’ Gonshak said.
‘The long-term scope of what we are trying to do is drones as first responders,’ he added.
‘Basically, having stations on top of each one of our districts so we can respond with drones to critical needs or emergencies that arise throughout the city.’
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, based in Centennial, Colorado, has been using the robotic flying devices since 2017.
‘This really is the future of law enforcement at some point, whether we like it or not,’ Sgt. Jeremiah Gates, who leads the drone unit at the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, said.
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office has 14 pilots that have used 20 drones to conduct tasks, including tracking fleeing suspects, searching for missing people, providing overhead surveillance during SWAT operations, and mapping crash or crime scenes.
Gates said that the department is now considering using its drones to respond ahead of officers and in some rare instances, instead of them attending at all.
If a drone is deployed before an officer responds to a call, it could map out the area and send live streamed video footage back to the cop before they arrive.
In the case that a drone is flown to the scene of a 911 call, the device will be able to determine the severity of the call to inform officers if they need to respond.
‘I could fly the drone over (a reported suspicious vehicle) and say, “Hey, that vehicle is not out of place,” and I never had to send an officer over to bother them and I can clear it with that,’ Gates said. ‘It’s saving resources.’
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, based in Centennial, Colorado, has been using the robotic flying devices since 2017. (pictured: officers testing out a drone)
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office is still in the ‘very early stages’ as they have to consider the cost, public opinion, and determine what kind of equipment will be needed to operate the drones for emergency calls.
Gates said that the flying devices could also be used to respond to traffic light outages by sending a live video to officers.
He added that the remote devices would get to emergency scenes faster than a cop would as they won’t have to deal with traffic congestion in the area.
Gates told The Denver Post: ‘What if we get a call about someone with a gun, and the drone is able to get overhead and see it’s not a gun before law enforcement ever contacts them?’
The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office has 14 pilots that have used 20 drones to conduct tasks, including tracking fleeing suspects, searching for missing people and providing overhead surveillance during SWAT operations
While Gates is for the use of drones, American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado staff attorney Laura Moraff, is worried that law enforcement agencies using drones could impact people’s rights.
‘We’re worried about what it would mean if drones were really just all over the skies in Colorado,’ Moraff said.
‘We are worried about what that would mean for First Amendment activities, for speech and organizing and protesting — because being surveilled by law enforcement, including by drones, can change the way people speak and protest.’
Moraff also expressed concern that the deployment of drones could result in ‘more over-policing’.
‘We know there is a problem with people reporting Black people doing normal everyday things as if there is something suspicious going on,’ she said.
‘So sending out a drone for any time there is a 911 call, it could be dangerous and lead to more over-policing of communities of color.
‘There is also just the risk that the more that we normalize having drones in the skies, the more it can really affect behavior on a massive scale, if we are just looking up and seeing drones all over the place, knowing that police are watching us.’
Sgt. Jeremiah Gates said that the remote devices would get to emergency scenes faster than a cop would as they won’t have to deal with congested traffic in the area
Meanwhile, Littleton Police Department only uses drones ‘proactively during large public events to monitor certain areas,’ spokeswoman Sheera Poelman said.
The Loveland Police Department used a drone to deliver a defibrillator to a patient before paramedics and authorities were able to respond, Sgt. Bryan Bartnes said.
‘One drawback to it is, obviously, it requires the citizen on scene to apply it and put it on,’ Bartnes said. ‘Drones don’t do that yet.’
The largest drone that the Loveland Police Department has can carry up to 16lbs, Bartnes explained.
Ben Birdsell, the Commerce Police Department’s community service officer supervisor said that the agency plans to launch drones for 911 calls within the next year.
‘What we see out of it is, it’s a lot cheaper than an officer, basically,’ he said.
Drones have to be flown at a limited range as they have to operate in the line of sight to the pilot, and have to follow the Federal Aviation Administration regulations around flights.
Drones have be flown at a limited range as they have to operate in the line of site to the pilot, and have to follow the Federal Aviation Administration regulations around flights. (pictured: Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office tests out using a drone in law enforcement)
White said that kickstarting a drone program for the Denver Police Department would cost about $1.5million to $2million.
The department has already drafted up a ‘Drones as a First Responder Program’ policy and have several trained pilots on the force.
Denver Police spokesman Doug Schepman said that the agency’s SWAT team uses a single drone for limited indoor searches and can use it for emergency response upon approval.
‘So there is no question about what we are doing, because I know there is concern about us flying drones and peering through windows without search warrants,’ Gonshak said.
In April, the Denver City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee approved plans to defund the police as the ongoing migrant crisis has cost city about $89.9million
‘We want to be very public-conscientious in our efforts.’
In April, the Denver City Council’s Finance and Governance Committee approved plans to defund the police as the ongoing migrant crisis has cost the democrat-led city about $89.9million.
The finance committee determined that $41 million in cuts from multiple city departments is needed to house migrants, KDVR reported.
Following the decision, the department experienced $8.4million budget cuts, including the sheriff’s office which lost $3.8million, and the fire department that lost $2.4million.
The sanctuary city’s progressive Mayor Mike Johnston unveiled the budget proposal, allocating $89.9million to assist incoming undocumented migrants, who he referred to as ‘newcomers.’
from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13465921/denver-police-department-drones-911-calls-cops.html
The currency in Argentina has been devalued and people are being pushed into dollar-denominated stable coins like Tether that allows the FBI to spy on users. The goal is programmable currency, whether it is issued by central banks or private companies, that allows bankers to control the money and spending over all people.
Every capital city of latin America has eagerly signed on, unaware of the strings attached to the partnerships, paving the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence under the guise of combating climate change.
.Latin America is quietly being forced into a carbon market scheme through regional contractual obligations – enforced by the satellites of a US intelligence-linked firm – which seeks to create an inter-continental “smart grid,” erode national and local sovereignty, and link carbon-based life to the debt-based monetary system via a Bitcoin sidechain.
Sweeping across the shores of Latin America comes a scheme from some of the most predatory figures in the venture capital ecosystem of the United States. It is a brazen attempt to assert foreign influence across Latin America and threatens to reshape the very fabric of the region and the day to day lives of its people. At its core is a serpentine set of contractual obligations, held at the municipal level, cast throughout Central and South America, upheld by an intelligence-linked satellite company, and controlled by a private sector consortium of green-washed financiers aiming to turn the region’s forests into equity and carbon credits. At the same time, it obliges local governments to spend “conservation” funds on projects that further financialize nature and aid the construction of an inter-continental “smart” grid. One of its key ambitions appears to be further entrenching the debt load of the region through the multi-lateral development banks and the dollarization of the continent from the subnational level up through carbon markets upheld by a digital ledger. What seems like a technological marvel aimed at progress and connectivity harbors a darker agenda — one that intertwines planetary surveillance, financial predation, geopolitical maneuvering, and the domination of a resource-rich continent buried in debt.
This grand design, known by the acronym GREEN+ and conceived by stalwarts of the digital dollar and debt schemes of the private sector, has quietly taken root through a web of political entanglements at the local level. Even a key figure in the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond scandal plays a role. Astonishingly, every capital city of Latin America has eagerly signed on, apparently unaware of the strings attached to these seemingly benign partnerships, while a majority of municipalities in the region have also made commitments with these same groups that will push them to join GREEN+, potentially in a matter of weeks. The (hopefully) well-meaning regional governments have unwittingly paved the way for a sweeping surveillance apparatus tied to American intelligence that threatens to erode privacy and civil liberties under the guise of progress and combating the climate crisis.
Upon further observation, GREEN+’s connections reveal a disturbing narrative of financial interests melding with geopolitical ambitions. The backers of the satellite company share ties with former members of the highest offices of US financial policy and regulation alongside the key architects and profiteers of private capital creation, aiming to consolidate control over monetary flows in Latin America within the redistribution of distressed government debt from the public to the private sector. As this two-part series will show, this concerted effort is not merely about surveillance – it’s a calculated move towards further dollarization, tightening the grip of corporate and technological monopolies over the economic landscape of the Americas.
The scheme’s proponents also speak of how it will significantly advance the “economic” and “regional” integration of the Americas, invoking visions of unity while obscuring the true nature of their agenda for economic domination and stronger regional governance. Their model, eerily reminiscent of the EU’s transition from a free trade union to a bureaucratic behemoth yoked to the US through the Eurodollar, sets the stage for unelected entities to enforce policies through programmable money, enabled by smart contracts on blockchains and designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. What materializes before us is not just a technological evolution but a quiet banker coup — one that lays the groundwork for land grabs and invasive surveillance under the guise of progress and conservation. It’s a narrative that echoes throughout history, where intelligence-linked figures and predatory financial interests converge to prey upon the Global South, leaving a trail of economic exploitation and geopolitical manipulation in their wake. What masquerades as progress for individuals and the environment at large may very well be the harbinger of a new era of subjugation and control.
In 2022, several groups came together to launch the GREEN+ (Government Reduction of Emissions for Environmental Net + Gain) Jurisdictional Programme, the “first program that will monitor by satellite all subnational protected areas of the planet” and – through contracts with numerous local and state governments – propel and deepen the economic integration of the Americas through the quiet imposition of a continent-wide, blockchain-based carbon market.
GREEN+ has been piloted in a handful of Latin American cities since its founding and is due to launch globally in just a few weeks time. Most of the GREEN+ agreements with “subnational” governments have remained focused on Latin America. Per the program, the subnational agreements have established the “rules and requirements to enable accounting and crediting with GREEN+ policies and measures and/or nested projects, implemented as GHG mitigation activities,” with GREEN+ being described as “the planet’s new subnational government advisory mechanism.”
Key to the program are the services provided by GREEN+ founding member Satellogic, an Argentina-founded company closely aligned with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Elon Musk’s SpaceX that specializes in sub-meter resolution satellite surveillance. Satellogic, a contractor to the US government and whose founders were also previously contactors for the US’ DHS, NSA and DARPA, will provide surveillance data of the entire world’s “protected areas” to GREEN+’s governing coalition, composed of the NGOs CC35, the Global Footprint Network, The Energy Coalition and other “respected stakeholders.”
According to the press release that details Satellogic’s alliance with GREEN+, the satellite surveillance data “will enable individuals, organizations, and global markets to accurately monitor the compliance of signatory jurisdictions to avoid deforestation.” However, other information in the press release reveals that forests will actually be monitored for the purpose of generating “credible” carbon credits to be traded on exchanges by GREEN+ on behalf of subnational governments. The press release also states that the GREEN+ alliance with Satellogic will “advance the future measurement of energy emissions in the most populated areas of the planet,” i.e. the surveillance of carbon emissions from space. Satellogic launched some GREEN+-affiliated satellites in 2022 as part of its pilot and is due to launch the remainder this April during Miami Climate Week. Satellogic’s past and upcoming launches of GREEN+ satellites were/will be conducted in collaboration with Elon Musk’s SpaceX, also a contractor to the US military and US intelligence agencies.
Though framed as a way to develop economic incentives to mitigate climate change, the program is based on California’s controversial and grift-prone cap and trade program and has been created (and is being implemented by) individuals and companies that are seeking to covertly dollarize Latin America and/or have deep ties to US intelligence. Its ultimate ambitions go far beyond carbon markets and seek to use satellite surveillance to enforce carbon emission levels in both urban and rural areas. It also seeks to impose a new financial system centered around energy, commodity, and natural resource “credits” that are underpinned by extensive and invasive surveillance, underscored by the motto: “Earth observation is preservation.”
The alliance that created GREEN+ includes the NGOs CC35, the Global Footprint Network (GFN), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Catalytic Finance Foundation (CFF, formerly R20) and The Energy Coalition (TEC); the Gibraltar-based law firm Isolas; the global insurance giant Lockton; the satellite company Satellogic; the “green” blockchain company EcoRegistry; the dominant carbon credit certifier in Latin America, Cercarbono; and Rootstock (RSK), the bitcoin side-chain protocol responsible for “smart BTC.” Several members of the alliance, though how many is unclear, now operate as part of a consortium linked to a company called Global Carbon Parks, which is discussed in greater detail later in this article and now manages major aspects of GREEN+. The NGOs (i.e. CC35, GFN, CFF and TEC) involved in founding GREEN+ are those who actually govern the GREEN+ program from California.
As previously mentioned, the program takes carbon in “effectively conserved protected areas of a sub-national jurisdiction”, i.e. a city, county, province, or state/region, and converts them into carbon credits. Per the program, “these credits are traded on the [carbon] offset market, and income is deposited in a trust fund” that is controlled by GREEN+ and is known as the GREEN+ Trust. That trust is run by unspecified individuals who work for Lockton, Isolas and Rootstock. Alejandro Guerrero, head of Lockton’s Argentina & Uruguay branch, is the only publicly acknowledged member of the trust.
Another website tied to the GREEN+ initiative describes the initial process as follows:
Subsequently, “a partial release of trust funds is made periodically during the crediting period of the jurisdictional initiative.” From this “partial release,” “a percentage operational fee” is deducted (the percentage is undisclosed in the program’s documents) and paid to the GREEN+ program while a separate (and also undisclosed) fee is also deducted “for the operation of the GREEN+ Trust.” Disbursements of what remains are made annually over a ten year period and, per graphs produced by GREEN+, those payments remain the same, fixed value even if the value of the carbon credits of the protected areas grows.
Unlimited Hangout article: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2024/04/investigative-reports/debt-from-above-the-carbon-credit-coup/
from: https://needtoknow.news/2024/05/whitney-webb-bankers-use-climate-scam-in-latin-america-to-introduce-digital-currency-globally/
Published Jul. 25, 2023, 4:55 p.m. ET | Updated Jul. 26, 2023
Editor’s note: This story was updated to include a response from Chase.
Lydia Nusbaum co-authored this report.
CAPE CORAL, Fla. (FLV) – Employees of a Florida-based retail health company said JP Morgan Chase Bank suddenly terminated their personal and company bank accounts without an explanation.
One of the employees believes the account shutdowns were politically motivated and due to their employer’s controversial stance on COVID-19.
Another Mercola Market employee said the sudden decision to close her account is creating additional hurdles to help send money to her husband who is bedridden with dementia in the Philippines.
The owner of Mercola Market, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has criticized of COVID-19 vaccines and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Responding to the report, Chase told Florida’s Voice Wednesday that the accounts weren’t closed for political “affiliations.”
“For privacy reasons, we can’t discuss customer relationships, but we don’t close accounts because of political affiliations, and we didn’t do so in this case,” they said.
Mercola Market sells specialty beverages, food, supplements and other health items. A store is located in Cape Coral.
On July 13, Mercola Market, along with the CEO, CFO and some of their family members, all received similar letters from Chase Bank saying “[they] have decided to close” their individual personal and business accounts.
The letters obtained by Florida’s Voice did not provide a reason why the accounts were suddenly closed. Florida’s Voice reached out to Chase Bank for a response.
A voicemail from a Chase representative to CEO Steven Rye said the reason for closing his personal and wife’s accounts can’t be disclosed “for legal reasons.”
However, Rye believes his the accounts were suddenly shut down because of Dr. Joseph Mercola’s opinions on COVID-19.
“I believe they cancelled all of the accounts because of Dr. Mercola’s (our employer) opinions,” Rye told Florida’s Voice. “He has carried a contradictory view throughout the COVID narrative and co-authored the best selling book The Truth About COVID-19 which exposed the likelihood that this virus was engineered in a laboratory funded by the NIH.”
Rye said he was told his children would not be able to carry accounts with Chase Bank in the future.
“It’s just hard to believe that your family, your wife, your kids can’t have a bank account because of the opinions of your employer and they’ve never done anything wrong,” Rye said. “We all have completely clear records.”
A voicemail from a Chase Bank representative urged Rye to submit paperwork for their accounts to be reconsidered.
“We are going to try because you’re a good client of our institution,” the Chase representative said in a voicemail.
In an email from Chase to Rye Monday, a representative said he is “still trying to figure out what is going on.”
Amalia Legaspi, the CFO of Mercola Market, said both her personal and her son’s personal accounts were canceled. Her son is using the accounts to pay for college expenses.
“I received the letter during weekend and I was surprised that we received the same letters for business accounts with exact wordings,” Legaspi said.
Legaspi’s joint checking account with her husband, who has dementia and is bedridden in the Philippines, was also closed. She uses the account to send money for his medical needs and said she is not allowed to open another bank account in his name.
“I have to provide all the legal documentations including notarized physicians affidavit from the Philippines to prove that my husband is incapable of handling his finances and request the Federal to directly deposit the pension to my own personal account,” Legaspi said.
With regards to the company’s accounts, she said Chase will not give them a reason for the closure to protect the privacy of their clients.
Dr. Mercola said he published articles about the benefits of vitamin D, zinc and quercetin to boost the immune system. He also published testimony from a nurse who claimed patients were being “intentionally killed on ventilators.”
The FDA also sent a letter to Dr. Mercola telling him to take “immediate action” to address “violations” in the letter regarding supplement products the doctor said would aid in COVID-19, calling them “unapproved new drugs” that are “misbranded.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in May to prohibit financial institutions from denying or canceling services based on political or religious beliefs.
from: https://flvoicenews.com/retail-health-company-has-chase-accounts-suddenly-terminated-owner-critical-of-covid-vaccines-fda/
In this video, I interview repeat guest Dr. Meryl Nass, who has a monthly podcast with journalist James Corbett on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV. Their show is focused on the implementation of the World Health Organization’s efforts to install global tyranny with respect to health and global governance.
The implications for public health are enormous and extremely troubling. The WHO is basically laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity.”
In this interview, Nass explains how the WHO is being set up as a central governing body for the world, and what we can do to stop it. She also details the price she’s paid for taking a stand against the false COVID narrative and offering early treatment.
Nass was one of the doctors who, during the COVID pandemic, offered patients early treatment in Maine and Maryland. As a result, her medical license was suspended and the medical board forced her to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Apparently, in the present era, doctors who think saving lives is more important than following unscientific medical advice created by bureaucrats is considered insanity. She comments:
“This whole pandemic, and the takeover of the world by ‘elites, (global cabal)’ has been orchestrated primarily through fear, and one thing that’s necessary is to make doctors cooperate. To do that, the best way is to scare them, and the best way to scare them is to threaten their medical licenses …
In July and August of 2021, there were national news reports of several doctors who were prescribing ivermectin and [who] were being investigated, but none of them actually lost their licenses.
Apparently, this was not enough to stop doctors from prescribing ivermectin, and in states where it was allowed, hydroxychloroquine. These are both licensed drugs and the federal government had no legal authority to take them off the menu.
Licensed doctors could prescribe licensed drugs, as could nurse practitioners, PAs [physician’s assistants], et cetera. Neither one had a black box warning, neither one was a controlled substance. They were both safe, and they both had been used for a number of decades.
So, instead, it had to be done through the states — because states regulate medical practice in the U.S., and pharmacy practice — so, about 30 states issued either guidelines or rules to pharmacists and doctors telling them whether they could prescribe these drugs and under what circumstances.
That had happened in early 2020. In my case, the board got an anonymous complaint against me saying I was spreading misinformation — another charge that the government really needed to control people on. They couldn’t have the truth coming out about COVID, the drugs, the vaccines, and about this whole takeover.
So, they created this baloney concept of ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ and pretended that it was the law, that people who spread misinformation could be charged, and had to stop. A whole huge system was created within the federal government to surveil our online presence and go after people [who went against the narrative].
So, I was accused, initially, not of using these drugs, because I used them legally, but of spreading misinformation. And I think that the feds were looking for an excuse to really scare doctors … I was fairly well known.
So they went after me and said, ‘Not only are we investigating you, but we find, even before an investigation goes forward, even before any hearing, before the medical board even gets to see you and you get to say one word to them, we’ve decided that you are such a danger to the people of Maine, we must immediately suspend your license.’ They did that on January 12, 2022.”
Nass has not been able to practice medicine since. Before the first hearing, the state medical board tried to get her to plea bargain and surrender her license voluntarily. She refused. By then, she was already working with CHD, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who founded CHD, offered to pay for her legal defense.
Of course, before the first hearing, they realized they couldn’t possibly take Nass to court for misinformation. After all, the First Amendment allows her to say whatever she wants. So, they dropped the misinformation charges and charged her with using medications off-label instead — only, that’s perfectly legal as well.
So, they dropped that charge, and instead argued she’d been speaking ill of the COVID vaccines. But that wasn’t a winning strategy either, because, of course, they didn’t want to defend the shots in court.
“So, basically, they went through my records and they tried to find little piddly things, like my records weren’t neat enough. I had been doing telemedicine and I hadn’t written down the vital signs for a patient, things like that,” Nass says.
“So in the hearings that have gone on so far, we’ve managed to shoot down all of those charges. There’s nothing substantive, there’s nothing left for them. In fact, the attorney general didn’t even question my last witness, who was Harvey Risch, an emeritus professor and M.D., Ph.D., from Yale, who blew apart the part-time ER doctor’s testimony that I hadn’t done things correctly.
So, that’s where we are. They don’t have a case, so what they want to do instead is drag this out forever, which will do two things that are good for them: One, prevent me from being able to say I won my case and get national attention for that, because they managed to put me in the national news when they took my license;
No. 2, they want to cost Children’s Health Defense a whole lot of money by just dragging it out, and it doesn’t cost them anything to drag it out. They’ve got the assistant attorney generals who are already working for the state managing the case.
Somebody up there is pulling the strings and figured out how to make this as painful as possible for myself and CHD. Well, I want to assure them that it’s not painful at all because we’ve had up to 180,000 people watching each hearing in real time.
CHD and Epoch Times have streamed every one, so everyone has been able to see what kind of kangaroo court this is, and the state of Maine has a black eye already. So let’s go forward. Let’s give them some more black eyes.”
Unfortunately, threatening a doctor’s medical license is an exceptionally effective way to ensure compliance, and an effective coercion to follow the rules even though they are wholly unlawful. The reason for this is simple economics. Most doctors owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, and unless they’re independently wealthy, they can’t afford to go into private practice.
That means they work as an employee for a hospital or big clinic, where the rules are being set by hospital administrators. In addition to that, medical education is wholly captured by Big Pharma, and has been for the last 100 years. As such, medical students are being brainwashed from Day One. On top of that, you have peer pressure.
“We’re in the middle of a war,” Nass says. “It’s a war about who gets control of people, and doctors just happened to be a necessary chess piece for them. By doing this to me and others, the state has been very successful at getting most doctors to keep their mouth shut and go along, and comply with what they want.”
Indeed, it takes enormous courage and commitment to patient welfare to buck a system that has all these built-in pressures. In my estimate, perhaps only 5% of the 1 million doctors in America took a stand against the COVID tyranny.
“More than 75% of doctors are employed by somebody else, and that means they don’t have a say,” Nass explains. “If they’re employed by a hospital, the hospital bean-counters said, ‘Look, everybody who comes in is getting remdesivir, that’s it, if they’re admitted with COVID.’ And they can’t fight back.
There was so much money involved that people who tried to fight back lost their jobs. And this was what hospitals and employers were told to do by government and so-called ethicists like Art Caplan. You fire people and then everybody else goes along. So that’s what happened.
The other thing is … you can’t expect someone to believe something if their salary depends on their not believing it. So there’s that. The peer pressure is huge, for several reasons. One is malpractice. If you don’t go along with everybody else, you are liable for malpractice if your patient doesn’t do well.
So if I give someone hydroxychloroquine for COVID and they wind up dying, I can be sued for malpractice because I wasn’t following the standard of care. But if I gave them remdesivir and they die, I was following the standard of care, and I can’t be sued for that.
These are terrible things. This means that the entire profession has been pushed — through these rules and standards — to do things wrong. And all of this was probably thought of, or even planned, long ago, so that it would be relatively easy to control all the doctors.”
As noted by Nass, most of you who are paying attention will have noticed that all kinds of crazy things are now happening all at once. We were mandated to get fast-tracked “vaccines” that turned out to be both ineffective and extremely dangerous, and even though the proverbial cat is now out of the bag, government is still trying to pressure people into taking additional boosters.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized vaccine manufacturers to make a third, bivalent, version of the mRNA shot, to be rolled out in the fall in combination with the flu shots.
“Why would that be, when everyone knows that after a few weeks, [the shots] make you more susceptible to get the disease, as well as have heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, et cetera, and sudden death?” Nass asks.
We’re also facing the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and an international digital vaccine passport. We also know that the U.S. government was funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to design more lethal coronaviruses. Why did they do that? To what end?
We’ve also seen stupendous changes within our school system. Transgender ideology now trumps everything else. We’ve seen a rapid growth of online schooling and the lowering of educational standards at all levels, all while using the right pronoun has become incredibly important.
We’ve also seen a radical shift away from true environmentalism in favor of a “green” agenda that forces the poor and middle class to lower their standard of living while the wealthy profit. The fact is, the destruction of our environment and the raping of underdeveloped countries for their natural resources was done by the same globalists that now blame all of these problems on the public.
“What’s going on now is that the ‘elites’ (global cabal) have somehow gained control of enough pieces of our culture and our education system, and certainly our mass media and government, to roll out these cultural concepts and convince people of their validity,” Nass says.
“The elites have decided — they’ve got the ability now, through surveillance, through control of media and control of governments — to take over much of the world. The simplest and most legal way for them to do that, without having to fight wars, is to take over public health, and wrap the rest of the world into public health.
So public health is not just between you and your doctor. Public health now involves wild animals … They want to control the interactions of humans and wild animals.
They also want to control what happens with our livestock … so, livestock have become part of health. Ecosystems have also become part of health, and so has everything else. The name for this is ‘One Health.’
The WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) — the world organization on animal health — and the UN Environmental Program, are all pushing for these things to be part of One Health and public health.
This didn’t happen by chance. It’s a scheme … funded by the Rockefeller Foundation around 2009. Many U.S. federal agencies are supposed to be using the One Health approach. This means that health problems have to be solved with a whole committee of people, not just doctors, not just veterinarians, but you need the ecologists, the plant pathologists, the livestock people, et cetera.
Everybody has to work together. But that’s not enough. You also have to throw in the police. You also have to throw in governments and legislators and everyone else into this concept of One Health.”
As noted by Nass, One Health is already enshrined in U.S. law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), so there’s no question that U.S. agencies are all on the same track as the WHO.
In the interview, Nass goes on to name some of the organizations that are part of the global cabal that is reworking society for their own aims. Named players include the Rhodes organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House, which is the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.K.
All these groups, and many more, are linked to each other. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cofounded the Trilateral Commission and was a Rhodes scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kissinger selected Klaus Schwab to create the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, and they’ve been working together ever since.
In 1993, the WEF founded a Young Global Leaders program to groom international heads of state. Today, Germany, France, Canada, Finland and other countries are led by graduates of this program.
“It’s not exactly a secret society, but Klaus Schwab and his group have managed to identify people who would go along with their program,” Nass says. “I suspect these are people who are not the most intelligent, who lack imagination and are very obedient.
Therefore, they have been convinced that climate change is a dire emergency, and that they need to take extraordinary measures to deal with it — even if they have to reduce the population, even if they have to reduce our standard of living, even if they have to impose 15-minute cities, get rid of air travel and … eat bugs.”
As explained by Nass, from its inception in 1948, the WHO has been an organization that transferred money from wealthier countries to poorer countries to help them with health problems like tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria.
During the COVID pandemic, the WHO and diplomats from member countries decided that a comprehensive pandemic treaty was necessary. The justification was that COVID had been mismanaged, hence we need a central decision-maker.
“Of course, what was never said is that things were managed so poorly because most countries were following the WHO advice, which was absolutely awful,” Nass says.
If this pandemic treaty goes through, either a regional epidemic or global pandemic would authorize the WHO to step in and dictate how the matter should be addressed. WHO members are also working on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which would strip member nations of their sovereignty to make health-related decisions.
And, recall that “health” is being redefined to include all aspects of life, under the already existing One Health paradigm. As Nass explains:
“What has been proposed is that either a regional director-general or the WHO director-general can simply declare a public health emergency of international concern, or the potential for a public health emergency of international concern.
Once they make that declaration, all these powers would then accrue to the director-general of the WHO, if it’s for all countries, or if it’s regional, to that regional director-general.
That person could then say, ‘OK, medicines in your country need to be shipped to this other country.’ Intellectual property on how to make vaccines need to go away. Let’s say Abbott has a vaccine to combat whatever it is. They have to now give the recipe to Rwanda so they can make that vaccine in their own country and use it for their own people.
They can close borders. The WHO director-generals could basically take control of anything. If they say, ‘Oh, people are getting this from animals,’ they can stop contact with animals, stop you eating chicken or whatever, because One Health has taken jurisdiction over ecosystems.
The entire planet is ecosystems, and that’s part of One Health. Animals and plants are also part of One Health. So, they can tell you what to eat, they can tell you where to go and where not to go. They can lock you in your home. They can put masks on you, they can mandate vaccinations — if these [IHR] amendments and the pandemic treaty are passed.
They’re still being negotiated. The final versions are not out. But we have certainly criticized and analyzed the early versions, and they will be voted on next May [2024], and could potentially go into force on a provisional basis. The treaty could go into force almost immediately.”
In many ways, it seems the WHO was already exercising these powers, or at least attempting to, during the COVID pandemic. So, how do these two instruments — the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty — alter their existing authority? Nass explains:
“There are existing international health regulations and they’ve been in existence since at least 1969 … Although the WHO claims that part of the IHRs that exist right now are binding, they aren’t binding. So, countries followed them, but there was no legal requirement for them to do so.
The International Health Regulations stated very clearly that the way they were to be carried out was with ‘full respect for freedom of persons’ dignity and human rights.’ In the new version that is being negotiated, they have struck that out. There is no longer a need to respect human rights, dignity or freedom of persons.
And, they have specifically said that these new regulations will be binding on countries, and countries are required to have a focal point that is required to carry them out and report back to the WHO how they’ve been carried out.
There are additional new provisions that countries are required to perform surveillance of their populations. They want you to think this is surveillance of only bacteria or surveillance of only social media, but it’s both. So, the WHO could require people to be swabbed in your country, whether or not they’re crossing a border.
Say there’s an outbreak. Everybody has to line up and get swabbed to see if they’re infected with X. And animals have to be surveilled as well, because they’re looking for pathogens that have the potential to be become pandemics. So that is supposed to happen.
Now, there’s a huge problem with that, and that is, you can always find viruses that have the potential to become pandemics … So, if you start surveilling for them, you’re going to find them, which means that would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency anytime he or she wants.
The other surveillance is they require countries to surveil their social media and mainstream media, and censor anything that goes against the public health messaging of the WHO. So this is big. This is huge.”
While it may seem there’s no way to derail this proverbial bullet train, Nass remains optimistic. “This is a dystopian future that actually is not good for anybody. Even the people who want it are going to find it’s not good for them either,” Nass says.
Now, the global cabal that is trying to seize control have access to essentially unlimited capital. But they’re also using our tax dollars. As noted by Nass, the U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response.
“That’s our money, not theirs,” she says, “and a lot of that money, most likely, went to bribe media.” Hospitals were also paid to go along with the narrative, as were celebrities, churches, medical groups and other social organizations.
“These very wealthy people do not want to spend their own money to take over the world. They want to spend our money or put us in debt. But are these expenditures justified and legal?
If we get governments of people who are responsive to normal life, we can investigate where that money went. What are these public officials doing? We can put them on trial, and we can probably even claw back a lot of this money.
Now, to do that might require some new laws, but if we had really good people in office — like Bobby Kennedy — we could potentially create the laws, very quickly, that will allow us to try government officials and others, heads of media, et cetera, if they’re doing things that are against the law.”
The reason we need new laws is because current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, and federal government employees as well as many private organizations.
Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified. We need to pass new laws that eliminate all these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed.
“This whole thing goes against the principles of the Constitution, the principles of natural law. This is a dystopian nightmare that was figured out by some very clever people in public relations and in consulting groups. We know the French government paid something like €1 billion or €2 billion to McKinsey to help manage the pandemic response.
So we can identify organizations that have brought these things on us and go after them. We also need to tell our members of Congress, our parliamentarians, and legislators, we don’t want this dystopia. Government doesn’t give us rights. We have rights. We are giving government authority. Government doesn’t have authority and own us. We own the government.
We’ve been led to believe that it’s the other way around, but it isn’t. And we can fix all this. There are about 50 members of Congress already who have signed on as co-sponsors to HR79 [the WHO Withdrawal Act1]. We need to get out of these international organizations.
The UN is trying to do something similar. The WHO was simply pulled in because there was an opportunity to gain control legally through the WHO because of the way its constitution exists, because of several Supreme Court cases, et cetera, there was an ability to use the WHO. The cabal may try to use other international organizations or other means to gain control.
But look, there’s a few thousand of them. There’s 8 billion of us. This is like a million to one. We can beat them. We don’t have to go along with any of it. If everybody says no, if the police don’t enforce, if the Army doesn’t enforce, it’s not going to happen. So people just need to realize what’s going on.”
To that end, Nass is working with a new organization called Door to Freedom. Their website, which will launch shortly, will contain all the relevant WHO and UN documents, criticisms of those documents, and both long and short explanations of what’s going on.
It’ll be a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely.
Personally, I’m skeptical about the likelihood of winning this battle through legislative efforts because this cabal has been working on this plan for decades, if not centuries. So, they already have everything buttoned up, or close to it. Perhaps someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get it done, but it will take a small miracle to get him into office as well.
What I do hold out hope for is that public resistance will block attempts of implementation. So, the key, I think, is to educate people. Henceforth, most of the day-to-day choices you make will take the world either closer to freedom, or closer to slavery, so it’s crucial to understand where we are, where the cabal intends to take us, and how they intend to get us there.
That way, you can make decisions and take actions that will move us in the opposite direction. Door to Freedom will be able to help you understand all of that, so please bookmark doortofreedom.org, and check back regularly.
from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/16/who-global-tyranny.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230716&foDate=true&mid=DM1433941&rid=1857121056
Wikimedia Commons, Franz JantzenIn a statement made today on a case concerning Title 42, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch breaks the painful silence on the topic of lockdowns and mandates, and presents the truth with startling clarity. Importantly, this statement from the Supreme Court comes as so many other agencies, intellectuals, and journalists are in flat-out denial of what happened to the country.
[T]he history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed.
Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.
They shuttered businesses and schools public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.
They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.
A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.
We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.
But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.
Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.
In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.
At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.
Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half-century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Arizona v. Mayorkas marks the culmination of his three-year effort to oppose the Covid regime’s eradication of civil liberties, unequal application of law, and political favoritism. From the outset, Gorsuch remained vigilant as public officials used the pretext of Covid to augment their power and strip the citizenry of its rights in defiance of long standing constitutional principles.
While other justices (even some purported constitutionalists) absconded their responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights, Gorsuch diligently defended the Constitution. This became most apparent in the Supreme Court’s cases involving religious liberty in the Covid era.
Beginning in May 2020, the Supreme Court heard cases challenging Covid restrictions on religious attendance across the country. The Court was divided along familiar political lines: the liberal bloc of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to uphold deprivations of liberty as a valid exercise of states’ police power; Justice Gorsuch led conservatives Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas in challenging the irrationality of the edicts; Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, justifying his decision by deferring to public health experts.
“Unelected judiciary lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people,” Roberts wrote in South Bay v. Newsom, the first Covid case to reach the Court.
And so the Court repeatedly upheld executive orders attacking religious liberty. In South Bay, the Court denied a California church’s request to block state restrictions on church attendance in a five to four decision. Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, urging deference to the public health apparatus as constitutional freedoms disappeared from American life.
In July 2020, the Court again split 5-4 and denied a church’s emergency motion for injunctive relief against Nevada’s Covid restrictions. Governor Steve Sisolak capped religious gatherings at 50 people, regardless of the precautions taken or the size of the establishment. The same order allowed for other groups, including casinos, to hold up to 500 people. The Court, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal justices again, denied the motion in an unsigned motion without explanation.
Justice Gorsuch issued a one paragraph dissent that exposed the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Covid regime. “Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there,” he wrote. But the Governor’s lockdown order imposed a 50-worshiper limit for religious gatherings, no matter the buildings’ capacities.
“The First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion,” Gorsuch wrote. “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
Gorsuch understood the threat to Americans’ liberties, but he was powerless with Chief Justice Roberts cowing to the interests of the public health bureaucracy. That changed when Justice Ginsburg died in September 2020.
The following month, Justice Barrett joined the Court and reversed the Court’s 5-4 split on religious freedom in the Covid era. The following month, the Court granted an emergency injunction to block Governor Cuomo’s executive order that limited attendance at religious services to 10 to 25 people.
Gorsuch was now in the majority, protecting Americans from the tyranny of unconstitutional edicts. In a concurring opinion in the New York case, he again compared restrictions on secular activities and religious gatherings; “according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians… Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
In February 2021, California religious organizations appealed for an emergency injunction against Governor Newsom’s Covid restriction. At the time, Newsom prohibited indoor worship in certain areas and banned singing. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett, upheld the ban on singing but overturned the capacity limits.
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, joined by Thomas and Alito, that continued his critique of the authoritarian and irrational deprivations of America’s liberty as Covid entered its second year. He wrote, “Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner.”
Like his opinions in New York and Nevada, he focused on the disparate treatment and political favoritism behind the edicts; “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
Thursday’s opinion allowed Gorsuch to review the devastating loss of liberty Americans suffered over the 1,141 days it took to flatten the curve.”
from: https://www.technocracy.news/gorsuch-covid-lockdown-mania-stripped-civil-liberties/
In mid-February 2023, I reported that the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1
Within days, fact checkers were burning the midnight oil trying to debunk the idea that individual people are being tracked, or that these data could be misused by government or third parties.
Strangely enough, the most egregious “misinformation” example USA Today’s fact checker could find was a social media post that “generated nearly 200 likes in less than a month.”2 Two hundred likes? To most influencers, that’s nothing, especially not over the course of 30 days.
Why is USA Today stressing over a post with 200 likes? Seems a bit panicky if you ask me. Reuters also came out with a fact check and, like USA Today, Reuters claimed there was a lack of “context:”3
“New diagnostic codes that describe a patient as under-immunized against COVID-19 were introduced to help doctors identify patients potentially at risk for more-severe COVID and to help health officials track vaccine effectiveness and mortality statistics, among other public health questions, not for U.S. government tracking of unvaccinated individuals, as some are claiming online.
The codes in an individual’s medical record, like all personal health information, are protected by U.S. privacy law and could only be analyzed at the group or population level uncoupled from individual identities …”
As is so often the case, the fact checkers are the ones taking the issue out of context or, rather, not presenting the full picture. The fact is, your medical data are not nearly as private as you think. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is rife with exemptions when it comes to your privacy.
Federal agencies such as Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have every right to access identifiable information, as they are exempt from the privacy clauses, and they’re particularly justified to access your private vaccination data if there’s an outbreak of infectious disease, be it real or fictitious. As noted in the HHS’s and CDC’s HIPAA guidance:4
“Balancing the protection of individual health information with the need to protect public health, the Privacy Rule expressly permits disclosures without individual authorization to public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including but not limited to public health surveillance, investigation, and intervention …
[T]he Privacy Rule expressly permits PHI [protected health information] to be shared for specified public health purposes. For example, covered entities may disclose PHI, without individual authorization, to a public health authority legally authorized to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability …
Further, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to make disclosures that are required by other laws, including laws that require disclosures for public health purposes.”
Government agencies and a number of third parties or “covered entities” can also use a number of loopholes to re-identify previously de-identified patient data. As explained in a CDC Public Health Law document detailing the lawful sharing of private medical data:5
“While HIPAA limits the use and disclosure of health information, it also permits certain secondary use exceptions for public health purposes. HIPAA provides certain circumstances under which patient data can be disclosed to health departments without patient authorization.
Under HIPAA, providers may disclose identifiable patient data (protected health information or PHI) if required by law, allowing states to pass legal exceptions to HIPAA restrictions.
Providers may also disclose PHI to health departments without patient authorization for public health activities, such as communicable disease reporting, or to a public health authority to prevent or control disease, injury, or disability under the public health exemption. A covered entity may access, use, and disclose PHI for clinical research without an individual’s authorization if:
1)it obtains documentation of waiver of individual’s authorization by an institutional review board or privacy board
2)the PHI is necessary for this research
3)the research is using PHI of decedents
Providers may disclose EHI without patient authorization when the data have been ‘de-identified’ … but still permits re-identification by providers or regional health information organizations through randomized patient source codes should a public health alert or case report become necessary.
Finally, providers may disclose a ‘limited data set,’ including dates and zip codes, without authorization and still re-identify patients if they maintain patient codes derived from certain identifiers.”
So, can your vaccination status be accessed by federal health agencies? Yes. Can that information be identifiable? Absolutely yes. Does that mean that you, as an individual, could be surveilled and/or get caught in a forced vaccination dragnet or end up experiencing negative repercussions in other areas of your life due to your vaccination status? Probably.
U.S. “privacy” laws certainly make allowances for such scenarios, and considering the behavior of government over the past three years, it would be naïve to believe they would never use your vaccination data against you.
Reuters also muddies the water in other ways. For example, the fact check stresses that medical providers have used the general code Z28.3 (which represents “underimmunized”) since 2015, and that “these codes are not used with purposes beyond monitoring and reporting diseases and mortality statistics or for insurance billing.”
While it’s true that the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code Z28.3 has been around for years, the new subcodes that track COVID jab status were added in mid-September 2021 during a ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting, and during that meeting, they specified that “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized.”
Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda6 distributed during that meeting. There’s no ambiguity here. The new ICD-10 codes were added for the specific purpose of “tracking people” who are unjabbed or only partially jabbed against COVID-19.
They didn’t say they wanted to track “general population data.” They specifically said “people” are to be tracked. They also clearly state that this tracking is “of value for public health” — and again, the key words “public health” open the door to federal health agencies accessing identifiable data.
Moreover, additional subcodes specify the “why” a person chose not to get the COVID shot or stopped getting boosters. Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Underimmunization Status.7
The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.” Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but some day, it might be, and these codes lay the foundation for that kind of medical persecution.
Another tipoff that these codes will become part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid, even if they’re not used in this way now, is the fact that code Z28.39 — “Other underimmunization status”8 — is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”9
In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.
They’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling,” which explains the codes detailing “why” you refused a vaccine. So, if you didn’t get a vaccine due to “personal decision” (code Z28.2), or due to “personal beliefs or group pressure” (code Z28.1), then your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating vaccine propaganda and trying to change your mind.
Giving credit where credit is due, Reuters Fact Check did point out a potentially beneficial purpose for the new ICD-10 codes:10
“[Eric Burnett, who specializes in hospital and internal medicine at Columbia University] said the ICD-10 codes could also help track data on vaccine efficacy, including comparisons between vaccination statuses of hospital or ICU patients with COVID, or patient mortality data based on vaccination status.”
That would be great, but the risk of these data being misused by the government is, I believe, greater than the possibility of them being used to protect the public from dangerous mRNA shots, seeing how overwhelming amounts of data showing harms are already being willfully ignored.
Another red flag is the fact that the CDC has refused to answer questions about how it intends to use the new ICD-10 codes. In mid-February 2023, nine House Republicans sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers to these five questions:11
As reported by The Daily Signal February 28, 2023, the CDC for some reason does not want to answer these questions:12
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told The Daily Signal that it ‘will not be tracking’ the reasons Americans give for refusing to take a COVID-19 vaccine … Meanwhile, congressional Republicans told The Daily Signal that the CDC failed to respond to their questions by a deadline last week.
‘Two weeks ago, we sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers about its new COVID-19 vaccine database,’ Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal in a statement …
‘The CDC is stonewalling us and refusing to respond. Why won’t the CDC explain why it’s gathering data about Americans’ personal choices? House Republicans are not afraid to use the budgetary process to keep the CDC accountable to the American people,’ Brecheen warned.
House Republicans raised the alarm about the CDC’s involvement with the World Health Organization’s recently codified International Classification of Disease, or ICD, codes related to COVID-19 vaccination status, which went into effect last April. The codes enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect data on the reasons Americans refuse to take one of the vaccines …
‘The ICD codes were implemented in April 2022, however the CDC/NCHS does not have any data on the codes and will not be tracking this information,’ Nick Spinelli, a CDC spokesman, said in an emailed statement. ‘The codes are developed and managed by the World Health Organization to enable healthcare providers to track within their practices …'”
The mention of the WHO brings me to my next point, which is that all of this information will likely, eventually, be transferred into a global vaccination database. Hence the reason why the WHO develops and manages the ICD-10 codes. It’s to allow for the “harmonization” of health care across the world.
Incidentally, the fact that the WHO develops and manages these codes also means that the WHO has approved these new codes that track vaccination status, and we already know that the WHO is working on a global vaccine passport.
To work properly, a global vaccine passport system needs a global vaccination database, and there’s no telling what privacy measures, if any, such a database might end up with. What we do know is that white papers13 and proposed legislation14 published during the COVID era that discuss health tracking and/or vaccine passports have stressed that privacy concerns must be relaxed or dropped altogether to ensure global biosecurity.
We also saw how COVID “vaccination” status was not considered a private medical matter at all during 2021 and 2022. In many places, you had to disclose your status and show proof that you’d been jabbed. Yet mainstream media now want you to believe that your COVID jab status is protected by medical privacy laws. What a joke.
As noted by Dr. Robert Malone in a January 25, 2023, Substack article, this vaccine passport system is being put into place right under our noses, and it would be incredibly naïve to think that these new ICD-10 codes are not part of that scheme:15
“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …
They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking vaccine status on individuals.
They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there, or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”
As of January 1, 2014, the U.S. government required public and private health care providers to adopt and use electronic medical records (EMR) if they wanted to quality for full Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement.
The government also financially incentivized physicians and hospitals to adopt electronic HEALTH records or EHR.16 The difference between EMR and EHR is that EHR provides a far more comprehensive patient history than EMR, as it contains a patient’s medical history from more than one medical practice.
In essence, EHR is what you get when doctors share your medical data to create one comprehensive file that covers all your interactions with the medical system. While that sounds good in theory, Big Pharma immediately seized the opportunity to misuse it by placing drug ads within the EHR system.
This in turn has driven up medical costs and resulted in poor prescribing decisions that put patients at risk.17 Patients are also directly targeted with drug marketing through patient portals.
Physicians and hospitals who adopted EHR got paid extra. Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) paid out EHR incentive payments to hospitals totaling $14.6 billion.18 Meanwhile, those who chose not to capture, share and report clinical data on patients were financially penalized through reduced Medicare reimbursements.19,20
Needless to say, these “sticks” and “carrots” led to the rapid adoption of both EMR and EHR, both of which government requires if it wants the power to control the population through medicine, and we now know that’s exactly what government intends to do.
At the end of September 2022, President Biden laid out a “bold goal” to “end hunger and increase healthy eating and physical activity by 2030” through a federally-backed “Food Is Medicine” campaign.21
Integrating food and nutrition with health care so that food and health policies are under one umbrella will facilitate the creation of new policies, funding and control over both areas. Eventually, food purchases and health records will be linked to your vaccine passport/digital identity, which also holds your educational records, travel records, work records and bank accounts.
That this “Food Is Medicine” campaign has nothing to do with promoting real nutrition or whole food is obvious, as that same month Biden also signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”22
This specifies that biotechnology and genetic engineering be used to transform the food and medical industries in order to promote a transhumanist agenda. It’s all about creating fake, synthetic and genetically manipulated foods and tinkering with the human genome.
On a larger scale, this plan is also promoted by the World Health Organization, which is trying to seize power over health care globally through International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments and the Pandemic Treaty. For more information on that, see “Pandemic Treaty Will Usher In Unelected One World Government.”
The WHO is also seeking to put food, medicine and climate under one umbrella. This would allow it to control the global population in any number of ways, as a climate issue could be positioned as a public health issue, or a food issue, and vice versa. In other words, people could be forced to eat bugs instead of beef because it “benefits the climate.” Private vehicle use could be restricted because it helps lower vehicular pollution that endangers public health, and so on.
So, to bring us full circle back to where we started, while media are now trying to lull you to sleep with “promises” that there’s nothing nefarious about tracking the unvaccinated or “undervaccinated,” think long and hard before you close your eyes to the possibility that this is all part of biosecurity-based totalitarian control grid.
from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/04/18/media-covers-up-tracking-unvaccinated-people.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230418&cid=DM1384405&bid=1776322061