diy solar

diy solar

WHO Pandemic Treaty - Real threat to our freedom they are going overboard to distract you from

Good.. That's good.

Now, remember to write your congressman with the following demands.

1) Term limits for all elected officials and judges.
2) Demand that (Harlow v. Fitzgerald), a ruling by a conservative supreme court in 1982 that put cops above the law, be reversed.
3) Demand that (Kelo v. City of New London), a ruling by a conservative supreme court in 2005 that effectively removed your property rights, also be reversed.
4) Demand that (Citizens United v. FEC 2010), another f*cked up ruling by the conservatives which corrupted this entire country, be reversed.
5) Demand that laws created by republicans which allow the government to take your money (Civil Forfeiture by republican Strom Thurmond R-SC ) without ever charging you with a crime, be nullified.
6) Demand government outlaw and ban all corporate lobbying

Citizens United vs FEC in 2010 was the biggest republican screw up of them all by a long shot. The GOP thought they were going to cheat and sneak one over the line by allowing big corporations to donate unlimited funds to political agendas, except it totally backfired on them and it turned out the Democrats ended up being far better at it once those gloves were off.

So now, thanks to the ignorant and stupid republicans, large corporations can dump unimaginable amounts of money into political pockets, thus owning those politicians.. and since those same "large corporations" are almost universally international conglomerates, it means that foreign nations now have a quantifiable amount of control over the direction of our country.

Way to go greedy republicans.. Now that that cat is out of the bag, I doubt it can be put back in. 50% of democrat voters, and 50% of republican voters, are so ignorant and brainwashed, that they are incapable of voting for the other party or another candidate when their voter demands aren't meant.. and the elected officials who ignore us know it.

That single conservative supreme court decision is going to be responsible for destroying this country.
You are right about all of these issues, what I think you are missing is that both the Republicans and Democrats are on the same uniparty team. There are a few outliers, but most are just there for the power trip and or the money. Don't be fooled by the diguise of their feigned disagreement, it is rarely real and we see it constantly. Look at the voting records of different members of congress to see how different their voting records really are, usually not much.

We are constantly told things like "The Trump appointed Judge ruled...or the Obama appointed judge ruled..." this is supposed to nullify the concerns of one side or the other, but it doesn't.

If some great and just leader (imaginary of course) appoints a judge, does that really mean much as to how they will perform their job? I think not.

In the case of civil asset forfeiture, the court was wrong. This is a violation of our right to due process, plain and simple. Using civil law to claim a crime may have been committed is not even close to constitutional.

Citizens United was wrong as well. The premise that corporations are people is absurd. Corporations are government creations, not people. Our rights are not for corporations they are for humans. I have heard many people say that businesses can run their business however they would like, because they are privately owned, i.e. vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, masks etc. Marsh v Alabama found that a woman passing out religious fliers in the town square of a company owned town absolutely had that right despite corporate ownership. The town square is the town square no matter who owns it and that means the Constitution applies for the human, not the corporation. We agree on many of these important issues, we must work together where we can.
 
This article is a decent summary, the only thing i disagree about is that Spooks have always been corrupt ever since their inception (by the central banksters who they really serve). Obama simply stepped on the pedal to increase the speed of it

 
The premise that corporations are people is absurd. Corporations are government creations, not people
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.
 
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.

Very true.
Whats really amazing is that none of this information is exactly a secret. It is all available straight from the horses mouth, but few bother to read or research. Ofcourse corrupt media will never "advertise" it, in fact exact opposite. But the information, nevertheless IS available for anyone who bothers to look.
Stuff you posted above, information about Central Bank cartels, fiat money, Pandemic Treatey - all of this "crazy conspiracy theory" stuff is right there, on their public facing websites!

This is why i love Corbett so much, he does the research and POINTS OUT things that establishment writes on THEIR OWN public websites!!!

They are telling us EXACTLY what they are going to do, yet few bother to listen.
 
Very true.
Whats really amazing is that none of this information is exactly a secret. It is all available straight from the horses mouth, but few bother to read or research. Ofcourse corrupt media will never "advertise" it, in fact exact opposite. But the information, nevertheless IS available for anyone who bothers to look.
Stuff you posted above, information about Central Bank cartels, fiat money, Pandemic Treatey - all of this "crazy conspiracy theory" stuff is right there, on their public facing websites!

This is why i love Corbett so much, he does the research and POINTS OUT things that establishment writes on THEIR OWN public websites!!!

They are telling us EXACTLY what they are going to do, yet few bother to listen.
I believe that the population is "slowly" waking up, and remember what happens when a sleeping giant awakens.......
 
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.
While I don't disagree with the basic premise, when did you or I give up our state citizenship status? I'm not saying that this isn't true in the sense that it is the way that it works, just pointing out that we not choose federal citizenship. I have never chosen to be governed.
 
What they really fear is about 80% of what people typed on here. As well as this entire board.

You need to understand that "misinformation" is anything they do not agree with. One of those things is not relying on them for your every day needs. This extends to food as well. They do not want you to grow your own food.
1713886852749.png
It is also water, currently it is illegal to "harvest" rain water in some locations. The WEF would like to take that a few steps farther.
1713886961328.png

For a real shocker watch one of those WEF videos on it. They want to control the water it is that simple.



1713886733760.png
 
When did we sign that?
Either you or your parents did. Its highly complicated. and meant to be that way. . Unless you think the government is looking out for you best interest and want absolutely no control over you. The interwebs is full of answers about this but takes lots of discernment.
 

Wave Goodbye To Another Set Of Freedoms With The New Digital ID​

“Papers please” used to be the ostinato of totalitarian systems, at least in the movies.




With the passing of the government’s Digital ID bills, Australians will have to become used to the digital equivalent - so what does that say about present-day Australia?

A few things have surprised me over the last few years, not the least the way the famous Aussie spirit of insubordination has been subsumed into a goody-two-shoes compliance with whatever capricious orders the authorities made.

I can’t imagine our forebears accepting lockdowns and forced vaccinations, and I certainly couldn’t see them accepting an identity card linking not just government accounts but private sector ones as well.

While the first proposition is an assertion based on a gut feeling, the second is very much based on fact.

Remember the Australia Card?​

In 1984, the Hawke Labor government introduced the Australia Card, and for the next three years, the government and opposition parties tussled over it to the extent that it triggered a double-dissolution election in 1987.

Objections didn’t just come from the federal Opposition either.

Queensland Labor Senator George Georges resigned from the governing party in 1986 over the issue, and in the lower house, Labor backbencher Lewis Kent said:

“Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to provide one’s identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. It would be more appropriate for the proposed card to be called a Hitlercard or Stalin-card.”

As a result, while the government won the 1987 election, and had the numbers to push the card through, instead, it withdrew the card when a technicality was found that could have affected its operation. One senses this was a relief.

Individual Freedom Chipped Away, One Law at a Time​

Yet, apart from a few senators this time there has been little outcry in response to the Albanese government’s Digital ID, although the Liberal-National Opposition did vote against it.

A form of this ID was recommended by the Murray Inquiry into the Financial System in 2014, but the committee was careful to avoid recommending a full-blown government-issued identity card because of the Australia Card debacle.

The then-Liberal-National government acted on these recommendations, but its version of the bill was to facilitate private organisations to issue their own digital identity cards, rather than the government.

Why has the government now decided to make the card a government-issued one, when the recommendation and the draft legislation was for a competitive system?

At one level one might say it is symptomatic of this Labor government that it wants to control everything and is suspicious of both private enterprise and competition.

At another level, it has been gnawing away at the independence of the citizenry, particularly the independence of thought, so maybe there is a long-term agenda of control here.

Two pieces of draft legislation, and one draft regulation, exemplify this tendency—the proposed draft Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, the Online Safety (Relevant Electronic Services—Class 1A and Class 1B Material) Industry Standard 2024, as well as the Religious Discrimination Bill.

The combination of these is to restrict what citizens can say, teach, and whom they associate with, depending on what is approved by the government, or worse, regulators.

Recent Tragedies Reveal How Eager Authorities Are to ‘Protect’ Us​

Almost as though to prove the dangers of these proposed laws, the Commonwealth “censor” eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant just days ago ordered Meta and X to remove videos showing footage from the stabbing incidents at Westfield Bondi Junction shopping centre, and the Christ the Good Shepherd church at Wakely.

I’ve seen this footage, as have many other Australians, and suffice it to say, were I the eSafety commissioner, they would still be up.

When it comes to horror, the footage I have seen from Gaza and Ukraine, and reproduced in the pages and on the websites of the major news sites, is more horrific than any of this footage.

And where is the justification for censoring the information that individuals can now access for themselves?

For a moment there, we all became citizen journalists, able to view events and make our own decisions, and now the government is trying to take our accreditation away from us.

Indeed, some of these clips are uplifting as they show acts of heroism as men throw themselves between attackers and victims, or tend to the wounded.

Ms. Grant only has powers over commercial entities, so I can still, for the moment, show the videos on my blog.

But should we all have a unique identifier, known to the government and cross-referenced to every other activity that we are involved in, who knows what petty bureaucrat will hold my free will in their hands? And what else might the government interfere with?

Voluntary? Not Really​

In Canada, a country that shares our democratic norms, we saw the Trudeau government bar protestors, and any supporters who donated money to their cause, from using their bank accounts.

Imagine what an interlinking record could allow them to have done.

Is it too far-fetched to think that could happen in Australia?

The government says these concerns are absurd.

The digital ID card is “voluntary” and will only link records to the person, not link them together, and records will be encrypted. It also claims that it will protect against cyber-attacks.

The voluntary aspect is laughable.

You may be able to access your Centrelink welfare benefits without it, but you will need to physically go down to the Centrelink office, even if you live in Oodnadatta—a remote outback town in South Australia—and if the office is in Perth, Western Australia.

And if you are a company director, you will need one, full-stop, because of the now-mandatory “director IDs” introduced by the Morrison government in 2021.

If “voluntary” doesn’t mean voluntary for all people and all activities, then it doesn’t mean voluntary at all.

Believe It or Not, the Slippery Slope Is Real​

So why are we acquiescing to this scheme?

Perhaps it is because we’ve become too compliant—that the irreverent generation were the original immigrants and their sons and daughters, and now we are onto third, fourth, fifth generations and more, the spirit of adventure that brought people here has dissipated.

Or maybe it’s the case that the frog has been swimming in digital waters that have gradually risen in temperature.

First, we allowed social media companies to monetise us in return for the free use of their platforms, and then we allowed them to cross-reference our online activities to create profiles to then be used for other unrelated sites.

And how is that working out? They abuse their power.

We know that, come election time, they will be putting their thumbs on our scales and showing us material that they deem suitable, rather than allowing us to make our own decisions.

We also know that they work hand-in-glove with unscrupulous administrations to sell us lies like “safe and effective” and to suppress embarrassing facts, such as the high probability that viruses escape from laboratories more regularly than from pangolins in a market (particularly when the market didn’t have any pangolins for sale).

I don’t believe that governments are any more trustworthy than social media, especially if they are staffed with Bruce Lehrmanns and Brittany Higgins’s.

Democracy is meant to be government by the people, for the people. And Google’s motto was “Don’t be evil.”

But one seems to be converging on government by anyone but the people, and the other seems to have dropped the motto, maybe ashamed of their hypocrisy.

Either way, human institutions seem inexorably to head towards dissolution, so the less they know about you and can link together, the better.

So I’ll probably pass on my Digital ID.

Whoops, I’m a company director. Looks like they are closing in on me already.

Looks like I’ve already learned the true, government-approved, meaning of “voluntary.”
 

A very brief summary of the new WHO proposal on PABS and One Health​


  1. The WHO International Negotiating Body (INB) for the Pandemic Agreement is unable to move forward with an acceptable version (presumably this means acceptable to the globalists) of the:
    a) “One Health” approach and
    b) the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system.
    Remember that if a vote is taken, passage of the Pandemic Agreement/Treaty will require a 2/3 vote of the 194 member nations, or what you might think is 130 nations in agreement. However, the rules say that the WHO needs a 2/3 vote of members present in the room and voting. So one strategy of the globalists will be to try and turn NO votes into either abstentions or to convince potential NO votes to not show up for the vote. Watch for this strategy.
  2. Both One Health (gaining WHO authority over everything in the world through redefining humans, plants, animals and ecosystems as all critical to “health”) and PABS (to expedite the rollout of pandemics whenever they are desired, without the ability to identify where they came from since they will have been “shared globally”) are central to what the globalists want to achieve. So these two proposals cannot be jettisoned or postponed for very long.
  3. Furthermore, the WHO process of negotiation needs to appear successful (to keep everyone inside the tent and avoid nations jumping off the bandwagon). Also, there will be a huge amount of difficult future negotiations about what exactly nations are committing to do and who will pay for it, how nations will be induced to comply, etc., so they can’t fail at the first stage.
  4. Therefore a Resolution has been floated to essentially create two NEW committees that will perform further negotiations on PABS, and two other new committees that will perform further negotiations on One Health.
  5. IMHO, the main reason for floating the 4 new committees is to create 4 groups with new negotiators who will be more agreeable with going along with the globalist program.
  6. It is a way of emasculating the existing INB committee which reached an impasse and turning the contentious issues over to new people who will be chosen very, very carefully. As will the WHO staff who will ride herd over them. It is simply a way of further gaming the system.
  7. It also looks as if the EU is now negotiating for the 27 individual EU countries, even though there has not been an acknowledgement by its member nations that it has the competence to do so. Below is the language in the resolution and the EU is the only regional economic integration organization on planet earth, and it is likely that this is also an attempt to supercede the lower house of the Dutch parliament’s vote instructing the Dutch government to delay the 2 votes or vote NO. Other European nations are considering similar actions, so allowing the EU to vote for all is yet another end run around national sovereignty.
CALLS UPON all States and regional economic integration organizations entitled to do so, to consider signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, formally confirming or acceding to the Agreement at the earliest opportunity, with a view to bringing the Agreement into force as soon as possible;
 

Instead of the Pandemic Treaty, the draft Pandemic Resolution is being floated as a way of moving past impasses​

And always, the goal is to get a document that includes the most important goals implemented in great haste: 1)the biowarfare agent collection/sharing and 2)One Health​


Apparently I used sloppy language when I wrote this last night.

Here is what I meant to say: It seems agreement has not been reached on “One Health” and the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system (PABS), and so a resolution has been put forward to essentially say that nations remain serious about these two issues and will continue to negotiate them to come to a quick agreement, but that a method is being suggested to do so outside of the Pandemic Treaty. Please read the draft Resolution and feel free to draw your own conclusions about what is happening.


The Geneva Health Files substack has put out a post today that I think confirms what I wrote above. It is behind a paywall but you can access it for free if you download it on the substack app:

Geneva Health Files
Pandemic Agreement Talks: The Final Toss - Access & Benefits Sharing Vs One Health? Health Financing Politics Come into Play as Africa Group Holds the Wild Card
Hi, In the final lap of the negotiations for a new Pandemic Agreement, a lot will depend on how united and determined the Africa Group will be. But the pressure is beginning to build. For much of the last two years, Africa Group has been the engine in powering the equity agenda in these discussions. These countries have defined the expansive boundaries of this negotiation. As crunch time arrives, there are, of course pressures to shrink these aspirations…
Read more
a day ago · Priti Patnaik

________________

Dated April 16, we have instead of a Pandemic Agreement an 8 page Resolution that nations are to sign promising they will move forward with a pandemic agreement. You can read it all at this website. I will include the parts of most interest to me below, with my comments in brackets.

https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/INB-WHA-resolution-771-draft-16.04.pdf

… Considering the need for an additional Main Committee of the Health Assembly to deal predominantly with health emergency-related matters, and thereby promote coherence and complementarity in the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the International Health Regulations (2005), and other work of WHO on health emergencies; [What do coherence and complementarity mean here?]

Emphasizing the need for expeditious entry into force and effective implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement…

CALLS UPON all States and regional economic integration organizations entitled to do so, to consider signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, formally confirming or acceding to the Agreement at the earliest opportunity, with a view to bringing the Agreement into force as soon as possible; [Presumably the WHO, US, globalists are pressuring EU nations to back off and let the EU as a whole sign up for 27 individual nations, even though there are significant reasons to think the EU has no right to do so]…

FURTHER URGES all Member States, regional economic integration organizations, international organizations and other interested parties to support the preparatory activities referred to in this resolution, and to effectively encourage prompt entry into force and implementation of the Agreement;

… 8. DECIDES:

(1) to establish, in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly, an open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group in order to draft and negotiate an international instrument to define the modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (hereinafter PABS IGWG), in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, with a view to adoption by the Health Assembly under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, or under relevant provisions of the Agreement, as may be deemed appropriate; [Creating the BioHub system and becoming a library of potential biological warfare agents is central to the WHO’s “preparedness” agenda. What are they preparing for? It isn’t preventing pandemics.]

(3) to request the Director-General to convene, as early as possible and no later than 15 June 2024, a PABS preparatory committee, composed of independent experts, on terms of reference to be established in accordance with the Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees, to prepare proposals, in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, for the consideration of the PABS IGWG, and to further request that the PABS preparatory committee submit its report to the Director-General no later than 15 September 2024, with the Director-General communicating it without delay to the PABS IGWG;

(4) that the first meeting of the PABS IGWG shall follow the conclusion of the work of the PABS preparatory committee described in paragraph 8(3), and in any event shall be held no later than 1 October 2024, in order to elect two co-chairs, reflecting a balance of developed and developing countries, and to define and agree on its working methods and timelines, consistent with this resolution and based on the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, efficiency, Member State leadership and consensus;

(5) in order to provide that WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System is operational no later than 31 May 2026, that the PABS IGWG shall submit its outcome for consideration by the Seventy-eighth World Health Assembly, or to the Conference of the Parties, as appropriate to the legal nature of the proposed international instrument deemed appropriate by the PABS IGWG;

9. DECIDES:

(1) to establish, in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly, an open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group in order draft and negotiate an international instrument/s to define the modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of a One Health approach (hereinafter OH IGWG), in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Agreement, with a view to adoption under relevant provisions of the WHO Constitution or the Agreement; … [I told you, the One Health concept is the critical underpinning of the plan to centralize global control—and apparently the globalists will need a new treaty (aka “international instrument” to implement it. I think this is good news—it appears they could not reach agreement on One Health as a part of the Pandemic Treaty after all.]

(3) to request the Director-General to convene, as early as possible and no later than 15 June 2024, a One Health preparatory committee, composed of independent experts, on terms of reference to be established in accordance with the Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees, to prepare proposals, in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Agreement, for the consideration of the OH IGWG, and to further request that the One Health preparatory committee submit its report to the Director-General no later than 15 September 2024, with the Director-General communicating it without delay to the OH IGWG;
 
Back
Top