by

Trump Administration Opposes Bill Gates’ Vaccine Tracking System on ‘Personal Liberty’ Grounds | Big League Politics

pjimage-2020-04-09T230720.714-1200x630By Shane Trejo

The Trump administration has come out against a proposed digital tracking system that could tell authorities about an individual’s vaccination history.

The Orwellian measure has been proposed by technocratic oligarch Bill Gates, who is attempting to exploit the coronavirus pandemic to inch closer toward mandatory vaccinations.

“Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” Gates said during an “Ask Me Anything” appearance on Reddit about the coronavirus.

Attorney General Bill Barr is skeptical of Gates’ idea to tag people with these mark-of-the-beast implants. He said he is concerned about “the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.” Barr also said that he is “very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty.”

However, Barr said he did feel like “appropriate, reasonable steps are fine.” This leaves the door open for some sort of government action in order to enforce vaccine compliance.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bankrolled research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that advocated essentially tattooing vaccine data “directly into the skin” of children.

“Along with the vaccine, a child would be injected with a bit of dye that is invisible to the naked eye but easily seen with a special cell-phone filter, combined with an app that shines near-infrared light onto the skin. The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish,” a Dec. 2019 Scientific American article wrote about Gates’ scheme.

Gates has been aggressively propagandizing on behalf of vaccines throughout the coronavirus pandemic. He has made it clear that he wants countless shots administered to supposedly stop the spread of coronavirus.

“Our foundation works a lot on diagnostics and vaccines,” Gates said during a recent interview with CBS News. He added that vaccine makers are the only entities “that can really get things back on track where we’re not worried about large public gatherings.”

Gates said that “there’s a lot of dialogue between our foundation experts and the government” about how to get the world back to normal using his vaccines.

“Which activities, like schools, have such benefit and can be done in a way that the risk of transmission is very low? And which activities, like mass gatherings, may be – in a certain sense – more optional? And so until you’re widely vaccinated, those may not come back at all,” he said.

This all comes back to Gates’ primary goal with his foundation and its funding: depopulation.

“Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that [the population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent,” he said in a 2010 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

by

Does the Constitution allow for a delayed presidential election? | National Constitution Center

votingboothgenericEditor’s Note: Due to the Democrats call for mail-in voting systems for the November 2020 election, there may be a significant delay in some states reporting verified results in a timely fashion. Here is what the U.S. constitution says about delays in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections and what would happen if there was a tie in the Electoral College on or before January 20, 2020. 

As America battles the COVID-19 virus, speculation has started that a prolonged public health crisis could delay or even postpone this year’s presidential election. So how would the Constitution deal with such an unusual situation?

In general, a combination of state or congressional actions could delay elections but not postpone the selection of a president and vice president. The only hard deadline spelled out in the Constitution is the end of a president’s term and a vice president’s term on January 20 of the year following a general election. (That same deadline applies regardless of term limits imposed on the president under the 22nd Amendment.)

The Constitution’s text requires that a group of electors, commonly called the Electoral College, chooses the next president. If a majority of electors fails to agree on a winner, Congress picks the winner in continent elections held within Congress under the terms of the 12th Amendment.

In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution requires two steps in the general election and Electoral College process.

First, the states (and the District of Columbia) are required to appoint members of the Electoral College. “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Then, Article II, Section 1 delegates the Electoral College deadlines to Congress: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [original spelling] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The Constitution’s 20th Amendment also requires the president and vice president to end their terms of office on January 20 at noon in the year following the general election.

In addition to those basic constitutional requirements, Congress by statute controls when electoral votes are counted at the states and at Congress. The current statute reads that “the electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.” This year, that day is December 14, 2020.

Another part of the election law requires the states to send in their electoral votes to Congress by December 23, 2020. If electoral votes are not received by the fourth Wednesday in December, then the President of the Senate or the Archivist of the United States can use “the most expeditious method available” to get the votes sent to Congress. The electoral votes received by Congress are counted in a joint session at 1 p.m. on January 6. If a presidential or vice presidential candidate does not receive a majority of the electoral votes, the House selects the next president and the Senate selects the next vice president.

In the modern era, the states have used public elections to pick the winners of electoral votes in presidential elections. With the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska (which divide their electoral votes among districts), each state conducts winner-take-all contests, where the winner of the popular vote gets his or her slate of electors designated as their Electoral College representative. Each state legislature has a process for selecting the slate of electors that represents a candidate. The states and political parties work together on the presidential primary process. In some cases, disputes about that process are settled by the courts, with the most notable example being the Bush v. Gore ruling by the Supreme Court in December 2000.

Three opinions from the Congressional Research Service explain scenarios about the possible delays in the presidential election process. One report, released last month, indicates a state under its own laws could postpone the general election date that results in the selection of electors; in the election this year that date is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. At least 45 states have statutes that deal with election day emergencies, the CRS says.

What remains clear is that only the states and Congress have the power to delay that part of the election process. “Unlike the practice of some states that allow the Governor to postpone an election during emergencies, neither the Constitution nor Congress provides any similar power to the President or other federal officials to change this date outside of Congress’s regular legislative process,” the report says.

Congress also would have the power, by changing the appropriate statutes, to change the general election date and as well the dates electoral votes are received in Washington and counted in Congress. Such changes would require the consent of the House and the Senate and would be extraordinary since “the presidential election date has never been changed in response to an emergency,” the CRS concluded.

In 2004, the CRS also looked at the various scenarios of a delayed presidential election in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It determined Congress could by statute delegate some of its electoral process powers to the Executive Branch in emergency situations. “While the Executive Branch has significant delegated authority regarding some aspects of election law, this authority does not currently extend to setting or changing the times of elections,” the CRS said.

But Congress does not have the power to delay elections without a deadline, the CRS reasoned. “Congress could not postpone elections indefinitely, as the Constitution requires that Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen ‘every second year’ (under Article I, Section 2) and Senators shall be chosen for terms of ‘six years’ (under the 17th Amendment).

A separate CRS study from October 2004 evaluated scenarios of election delays for the Presidency and Congress due to catastrophic events such as “peril to life and extensive damage to infrastructure.” While a delay could be needed, the requirement to elect a president and vice president still existed: “Congress would tend to accept the delay, so long as the rescheduled elections were held before the date in December when the Electoral College casts its ballots, and the beginning of the next Congress, respectively.”

And, in conjunction with the presidential election, a new Congress also needs to be in place on January 3 following the general election under the 20th Amendment. That new Congress would select a president and a vice president if the Electoral College voters do not agree on a majority winner for each office.

Absent a clear winner of the presidential election on January 20, the Speaker of the House would serve as Acting President under the current succession law. The 20th Amendment requires that the duly elected president and vice president assume their positions at some point. “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Source: National Constitution Center

by

Apple, Google Bring Covid-19 Contact-Tracing to 3 Billion People | Bloomberg

By Mark Gurman

Apple Inc. and Google unveiled a rare partnership to add technology to their smartphone platforms that will alert users if they have come into contact with a person with Covid-19. People must opt in to the system, but it has the potential to monitor about a third of the world’s population.

The technology, known as contact-tracing, is designed to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus by telling users they should quarantine or isolate themselves after contact with an infected individual.

The Silicon Valley rivals said on Friday that they are building the technology into their iOS and Android operating systems in two steps. In mid-May, the companies will add the ability for iPhones and Android phones to wirelessly exchange anonymous information via apps run by public health authorities. The companies will also release frameworks for public health apps to manage the functionality.

This means that if a user tests positive for Covid-19, and adds that data to their public health app, users who they came into close proximity with over the previous several days will be notified of their contact. This period could be 14 days, but health agencies can set the time range.

The second step takes longer. In the coming months, both companies will add the technology directly into their operating systems so this contact-tracing software works without having to download an app. Users must opt in, but this approach means many more people can be included. Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android have about 3 billion users between them, over a third of the world’s population.

The pandemic has killed more than 100,000 and infected 1.63 million people. Governments have ordered millions to stay home, sending the global economy into a vicious tailspin. Pressure is building to relax these measures and get the world back to work. Contact-tracing is a key part of this because it can help authorities contain a potential resurgence of the virus as people resume regular activities.

Still, this technology is controversial because it involves sharing sensitive health information from billions of people via mobile devices that are constantly broadcasting their location. Some politicians and regulators have been warning that citizens’ privacy should be protected.

“We caution that actions taken to contain spreading of coronavirus must also preserve the right to privacy held by each and every American,” members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, wrote in a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump. “Google’s colossal stores of data on daily movements of Americans, coupled with the might of local, state, and federal governments is an alarming prospect.”

Apple and Google stressed on Friday that their system preserves users’ privacy. Consent is required and location data is not collected. The technology also won’t notify users who they came into contact with, or where that happened. The companies said they can’t see this data either, and noted that the whole system can be shut down when needed.

Aside from privacy and trust concerns, challenges include the availability of widespread and free testing to complement the app, as well as access to mobile phones and other wireless devices, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

“We must be realistic that such contact tracing methods are likely to exclude many vulnerable members of society who lack access to technology and are already being disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,” Jennifer Granick, ACLU’s surveillance and cybersecurity counsel, said in a statement.

For Apple and Google, such a close partnership between these longtime rivals is extremely rare. The technology giants have competed in smartphone operating systems, app stores, media services, and voice-recognition technology for years — while trading barbs over the privacy of each others’ platforms. However, both companies have been under pressure to use their prodigious resources to help fight the pandemic.

“All of us at Apple and Google believe there has never been a more important moment to work together to solve one of the world’s most pressing problems,” the companies said in a joint statement.

Their system uses Bluetooth, a standard way for most mobile devices to communicate with each other. Apple and Google shared a theoretical example to explain how it works.

Two people meet to chat for a few minutes, and in the background via Bluetooth their smartphones exchange anonymous identifiers to register that they have been in contact. These digital keys change every 15 minutes or so and remain on these people’s devices to preserve privacy.

Several days later, one of these individuals is diagnosed with Covid-19. The person enters the results into a health-agency app on their phone. The system then asks for this user’s consent. If granted, the person’s smartphone sends a record of the other mobile devices that have been in close proximity during the previous days. This information is temporarily stored in a remote computer server for about 14 days.

Meanwhile, the other person’s phone checks the server periodically to see if any identifier keys have been associated with a positive Covid-19 diagnosis. The phone downloads all positive keys and matches it anonymously to the key belonging to the individual from the original meeting days earlier. This sends a notification to the other person’s phone with information from health agencies about how to quarantine or self-isolate.

The contact-tracing technology isn’t the first step against Covid-19 for either company. Google launched an information website in March, while Apple has released its own screening tools for iPhone users. Apple has also donated over 20 million masks to health-care workers and has designed face shields, and Verily, a unit of Google parent Alphabet Inc., is running virus-testing sites in some parts of California.

Other organizations are also working on contact-tracing. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology earlier this week announcedplans for a similar system. Some countries and third-party developers have also tried implementing contact-tracing on phones, but they have faced privacy and connectivity issues that the new system is designed to avoid.

Source: Bloomberg

by

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination | Children’s Health Defense

04-09-20_Gates-and-Fauci_Featured_ImageBy Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously\

The most frightening [polio] epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

South African newspapers complained, ‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas.  They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.

Source: Children’s Health Defense

by

The Coronavirus Conspiracy: How COVID-19 will Seize Your Rights & Destroy Our Economy | London Real

PlannedDemic

By Brian Rose & David Icke

As one of the world’s pre-eminent professional conspiracy theorists, David Icke has been a regular guest on London Real, discussing topics as diverse as 5G, 9/11 and censorship.

Often described as a maverick or a renegade, David is a unique voice in the space, propounding a number of predictions around his post-Orwellian vision of society and the future.

An introduction to David Icke

“Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday’s nut that held its ground.”

Since his spiritual awakening in 1990, David enjoys a sizable global following, regularly speaking for up to 10 hours at venues such as Wembley Arena to audiences of thousands of people.

As well as public speaking, David is an acclaimed author having written over 21 books including The Robots’ Rebellion (1994), And The Truth Shall Set You Free (1995), The Biggest Secret (1999) and Children of the Matrix (2001), in which he developed his worldview of New Age thinking.

With a mission to wake up society and free our minds from what governments and mainstream media are trying to make us do, his credentials make him one of the most influential thinkers and catalysts for change.

The episode they didn’t want you to see

We knew the world would be watching when David returned to the studio, but it seems some very powerful people indeed were also watching…

…and they didn’t like what they saw…

…and they didn’t want you to see it either!

In this interview which was reported heavily by the BBC and others and subsequently BANNED, David joined us to talk about the CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, the worldwide COVID-19 LOCKDOWN, how governments have manipulated their citizens and the wider agenda behind social control and a Surveillance Society.

We go deeper into the global crisis, the looming economic recession and the impact of 5G technology and the violation of our rights and freedom of speech.

While we don’t always agree with everything David says, London Real will defend his right to be able to say it. So with that in mind sit back and enjoy this incredible and informative episode with David Icke.

Join us as we discuss:

  • George Orwell, the U.S. First Amendment, and the RT-PCR test
  • Dr. Andrew Kaufman, 5G technology, and the COVID-19 hoax
  • The WHO, Eddie Large, and Lombardy air pollution
  • Wuhan reporting, Dr. Neil Ferguson, and Imperial College
  • Boris Johnson, the climate change scam, and Bill Gates
  • The Freemasons, global fascism and Trump
  • The Rockefeller family, Bill Gates and Elon Musk

Offering more than meets the eye on first glance, David Icke is a man with serious credentials and a challenging perspective on our species and planet.

See London Real host and founder Brian Rose’s interview with Alex Jones on Infowars discussing this controversially BANNED interview.

Source: London Real

by

Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We? | Children’s Health Defense

Upset sad woman talking on mobile phone. Cellular mobile radiationBy A. Naran

Conclusion: Wireless devices are harmful to human health. For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible.

“People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiation limits determined by medical bodies. According to the current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. New and innovative wired solutions which provide the same level of user-friendliness should be encouraged.”

Note: This is a review article about the science on this issue. It is important because it was published in the IEEE journal. The IEEE is the international organization of engineers. The current FCC obsolete guidelines are based on the IEEE recommended guidelines which are thermally based i.e., they are based on the false assumption that unless the radiation changes the temperature in tissue, it is not harmful.

That may be good physics but it is bad biology. When the FCC wanted to adopt the IEEE guidelines, all the health agencies wrote letters objecting the guidelines. Some of them criticized the use of engineers’ recommendations for biological effects when they didn’t even have one medical professional on the committee that developed the guidelines.

by

US Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Open Potential Lawsuits Against Chinese Regime Over Pandemic | The Epoch Times

CHINA-HEALTH-VIRUSBy Cathy He

A Republican congressman introduced a bill on April 3 that would make it easier for Americans to bring legal action against the Chinese regime for its role in causing the global pandemic.

The Chinese regime currently enjoys protection from lawsuits filed in U.S. courts under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a legal rule that insulates countries from being sued in other countries’ courts. There are, however, exceptions to this rule found in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

Stop COVID Act, introduced by Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), would amend FSIA to provide another exception to immunity, for any state that is found to have “intentionally or unintentionally, to have discharged a biological weapon … in the United States or such discharge results in the bodily injury of [a] United States citizen.”

The move comes amid growing calls by U.S. lawmakers to hold the Chinese regime accountable for its initial coverup of the CCP virus outbreak in Wuhan, which has since morphed into a global pandemic claiming tens of thousands of lives and devastating the world economy.

The Stop COVID Act will give our legal system the power to investigate the origin of the virus and, if found guilty hold accountable those responsible for creating and releasing it,”  Gooden said in a press release.

The legislation would pave the way for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the source of the virus, and file claims against the Chinese regime in the United States, the statement said.

The origin of the virus is still unknown. While Chinese authorities initially suggested that a live animal market in Wuhan was the source of the outbreak, officials have since steered away from this narrative. The first documented patient, a bedridden man in his 70s in Wuhan who showed symptoms on Dec. 1, did not have any contact with the market.

Meanwhile, Beijing has launched a global disinformation campaign to push the unfounded theory that the virus originated from outside China, in a bid to deflect blame over its mismanagement of the outbreak. One Chinese official has claimed, without providing evidence, that the virus was introduced to Wuhan by U.S. Army personnel.

US Lawsuits

Despite the potential barrier of sovereign immunity, several lawsuits were recently launched in domestic courts against the Chinese regime, seeking to hold it liable for the damage the CCP virus has caused to Americans.

One of them is a class action filed by Florida law firm The Berman Law Group in March. The firm, in a joint statement issued on April 3 with Lucas Compton, a Washington-based lobbying firm hired to do PR for the lawsuit, welcomed Gooden’s bill, saying it would “provide additional firepower to our legal position.”

But the firm maintained that the “lawsuit is not only enforceable in its current state, but addresses key legal components that are exceptions to the Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act’s (FSIA) jurisdiction.”

The complaint says the action falls under two exceptions to FSIA: the “commercial activity” exception—that is, acts in connection with a commercial activity conducted outside the United States that cause a direct effect on the United States—and the exemption for death or harm caused by negligence or other tortious acts or omissions by a foreign state.

But Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter argued in a recent Bloomberg opinion piece that these exceptions are unlikely to be made out.

“The Florida class action suit asserts that the exception for commercial activities applies, but it’s not easy to see how,” Carter wrote.

With regards to the second exemption, “that section specifically bars any claim ‘based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused.’ It’s hard to find a way around this restriction,” Carter wrote.

Matthew Moore, Berman Law’s class action attorney, told The Epoch Times that the restriction Carter mentions does not apply here because the regime acted “completely egregiously against humanity.”

“If they’ve hidden something of danger, then they don’t get to say that that was a discretionary act,” Moore said.

Though the first cluster of infections appeared in early to mid-December, Chinese authorities did not confirm the outbreak until Dec. 31, 2019. It was not until Jan. 20 that it confirmed human-to-human transmission of the virus. Prior to that, officials had described the outbreak as “preventable and controllable,” and said the risk of human-to-human transmission was low. Yet a January study of the first 425 cases of the disease in Wuhan found “there is evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred among close contacts since the middle of December 2019.”

At the same time, authorities also silenced Wuhan doctors who sought to warn their peers about the outbreak in late December. They were reprimanded by local police for “spreading rumors.”

Berman Law also plans on adding another FSIA exception to their lawsuit—the exemption for “terrorism,” Jeremy Alters, the chief strategist and non-attorney spokesperson of the firm’s lawsuit, told The Epoch Times.

“We have a virus that is well known to the Chinese government. They’re aware of its propensity to spread human-to-human rapidly. They’re aware of its propensity to harm people and to kill. They’re aware that it originated in the city,” Alters said. “They hid the information from us.”

He added that by the time the Chinese regime alerted the United States and other countries about the severity of the outbreak and initiated lockdown measures, it was already too late—5 million people had already left Wuhan, spreading the virus to other parts of China and overseas.

“How is that not … an act of intentional terror?” Alters said. “This is an act of bioterrorism.”

Source: The Epoch Times

by

China Starts Mass Quarantines Again After Failing to Stop COVID-19: real death toll from the coronavirus in Wuhan, China may be over 40,000, more than 16 times the amount of deaths currently reported by China | Trending Politics

5e87b504daa4b7133According to a new breaking news report from Politico, China is once again implementing mass quarantines to combat the coronavirus outbreak after their initial quarantine failed.

“Henan province in central China has taken the drastic measure of putting a mid-sized county in total lockdown as authorities try to fend off a second coronavirus wave in the midst of a push to revive the economy,” Politico reported. “Curfew-like measures came into effect on Tuesday in Jia county, near the city of Pingdingshan, with the area’s roughly 600,000 residents told to stay home, according to a notice on the country’s official microblog account.”

This breaking news comes at the same time as a new report from Washington Post Beijing bureau chief Anna Fifield stated that the real death toll from the coronavirus in Wuhan, China may be over 40,000, more than 16 times the amount of deaths currently reported by China.

Check out what the The Washington Post reported:

The coronavirus pandemic ravaging the globe officially claimed 2,563 lives in Wuhan, where it began in a market that sold exotic animals for consumption. But evidence emerging from the city as it stirs from its two-month hibernation suggests the real death toll is exponentially higher. …

Using photos posted online, social media sleuths have estimated that Wuhan funeral homes had returned 3,500 urns a day since March 23. That would imply a death toll in Wuhan of about 42,000 — or 16 times the official number. Another widely shared calculation, based on Wuhan’s 84 furnaces running nonstop and each cremation taking an hour, put the death toll at 46,800.

This bombshell report comes not much after Bloomberg News reported that U.S. intelligence officials shared a classified report with President Donald Trump stating that China had lied about how bad the coronavirus was in their country.

“China’s public reporting on cases and deaths is intentionally incomplete,” Bloomberg News reported. “Two of the officials said the report concludes that China’s numbers are fake.”

Vice President Mike Pence also spoke out on the matter: “The reality is that we could have been better off if China had been more forthcoming. What appears evident now is that long before the world learned in December that China was dealing with this, and maybe as much as a month earlier than that, that the outbreak was real in China.”

Dr Deborah Birx, the head of the White House Coronavirus Response also spoke out, indicating that China may have lied about their coronavirus numbers.

“When you talk about could we have known something different, you know, I think all of us, I was overseas when this happened in Africa and I think when you look at the China data originally, and you said, there’s 80 million people, or 20 million people in Wuhan and 80 million people in Hubei, and they come up with the number of 50,000, you start thinking of this more like SARS than you do this kind of global pandemic,” Birx said.

Based on the information that China provided, Birx stated that she did not think that the coronavirus would escalate into a global pandemic.

“So, I think the medical community interpreted the Chinese data as this was serious, but smaller than anyone expected because I think probably we were missing a significant amount of the data” from China, Birx said.

Source: Trending Politics, Politico, Bloomberg & Washington Post

by

United Nations Wants 10 Percent of World’s Income to Fight COVID-19| New American

ab563e769655099b8192dbba50c1de59_M

By James Murphy

Avowed socialist and United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has announced the creation of a global fund meant to address the coronavirus pandemic. He is asking for all nations to contribute the equivalent of 10 percent of all global GDP to fund a gigantic “human-centered, innovative and coordinated stimulus package,” which would be administered by a global authority, presumably the UN itself.

“A large-scale, coordinated and comprehensive multilateral response amounting to at least 10 per cent of global GDP is needed now more than ever. This crisis is truly global. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that developing countries have the best chance of managing this crisis, or COVID-19 will risk becoming a long-lasting brake on economic recovery,” the UN report states.

“The new coronavirus disease is attacking societies at their core, claiming lives and people’s livelihoods,” Guterres said.

The plan — entitled Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 — would entrust the UN (or another globalist entity yet to be named) with approximately $8.7 trillion, which it would supposedly use to fight and eradicate the coronavirus and address other problems that have resulted from the virus.

The UN’s current budget is approximately $3 billion. The $8.7 trillion would be 2,900 times greater than its current budget.

The plan calls for a massive global stimulus in order to “restore confidence in the future.”

“The global nature of the economic shock we are facing, with simultaneous collapses in both supply and demand, calls for the first truly global fiscal stimulus in history,” the plan states.

Needless to say, it also calls for a massive redistribution of the planet’s wealth.

“To be effective, the stimulus package will need to focus on direct and targeted transfer of resources to the most vulnerable households and scaling up health emergency preparedness, social protection, tax abatement, low interest rates, access to credit, insurance and wage support schemes. Support must be provided to countries that lack capacity to implement these measures.”

Among the measures in the plan is to give approximately $100 billion to the World Health Organization, whose director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was complicit in the spread of the virus by continually repeating Communist Chinese talking points, including the farcical claim in January that COVID-19 was not transmissible to humans.

Money from the fund will also be used to pay specific “attention to continued delivery of sexual reproductive health services, such as access to contraceptives without prescription during the crisis.” As “reproductive health services” is a globalist euphemism for abortion, the folks at Planned Parenthood should be happy.

To Guterres, the Chinese virus represents a turning point in human history and a chance to truly implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda and also put some teeth in the Paris Climate Accord of 2015.

“And when we get past this crisis, we will face a choice — go back to the world we knew before or deal decisively with those issues that make us all unnecessarily vulnerable to this and future crises. Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal and inclusive societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other challenges we face,” the plan states.

“We already know what we need to do. It is laid out in the global road map for the future — the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

The UN is not the only entity to take an interest in a globalist response to the coronavirus. The World Economic Forum has presented a strategic intelligence overview of the COVID-19 that is so layered, so intricate, and so complex that it is hard to believe it could have been created in the scant weeks since the pandemic was declared.

An interactive graph details COVID-19’s impact on financial markets, travel, trade, global workforces, and the various healthcare issues such as vaccinations and halting the spread of the disease.

It’s almost as if these plans preexisted the Chinese virus — as if the plans were waiting for the just the right crisis in order to be unveiled.

Guterres and the UN are asking for the entire solar system, perhaps in hopes of being granted the moon. We have to be vigilant and make certain that they are not granted that moon or even a small asteroid to rule over.

The best way to remove the criminal influence of the UN is to remove the United States from its membership roll.

Source: New American