fox files

THIS ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTELY AND UNEQUIVICABLY 100% TRUE.
FOR THE PAST YEAR I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS POINT.
THE ONLY THING THAT EVER CAME OUT OF WUHAN WAS THE DISCOVERY OF THREE GENETIC MARKERS THAT A SUM TOTAL OF PEOPLE HAVE, BUT NOT ALL.

IN ORDER TO TEST A VIRUS FOR COVID, THE ONLY, AND I DO MEAN ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS BY TESTING IT ON A LIVE HOST, AND TO DATE, NO ONE, AND I DO MEAN NO ONE ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET HAS DONE THAT.

SO NOW I ASK, IF NO ONE TO DATE HAS TESTED THIS VIRUS ON A LIVE HOST, HOW IS IT THEY CAN EVEN CALL IT COVID, LET ALONE CREATE A VACCINE FOR IT? WAKE UP PEOPLE. WAKE THE HELL UP ALREADY!

On Thursday’s The Sons of Liberty morning show, I pointed out that according to our Constitution, the Center for Disease Control has zero authority to mandate the wearing of facemasks, let alone criminally charging people who don’t since there is no law they are violating.  I also pointed out that both the American CDC, as well as the Chinese CDC never isolated what they are calling the SARS-CoV-2 virus and therefore all of the conclusions they are drawing, including the formulation of a vaccine, can’t actually be tied to it.  It doesn’t even meat Koch’s Postulates for goodness sakes!  However, this would also lead to the question:  For what are they actually using the PCR test?

• Where’s The Constitutional Authority For The CDC Mask Mandates?
• Koch’s Postulates, Rivers Postulates, Coronavirus & The Vaccine Development Process
• CDC Documents: “No Quantified Virus Isolates Of The 2019-nCoV are Currently Available”
• CDC Admits After The Fact COVID-19 Antibody Tests Are Wrong Half The Time & Virus Isn’t That Deadly

As I’ve pointed out, the developer of the PCR test clearly said that it was not to be used for things like diagnosing someone has COVID-19.

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/2d4f2b32-a417-4f17-94d2-a58a0e2e4744

Former CBS Healthwatch reporter and author of The Matrix Revealed Jon Rappoport writes:

Trending: Bill Gates: We Need “Pandemic Fire Squads” To Control You In The Post COVID-19 World

As my readers know, I’ve been demonstrating that no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Therefore, what is the PCR test testing for?

There are two piles of information here. By assuming SARS-CoV-2 DOES exist, you discover multiple internal flaws in the PCR. I’ve explored all of them in detail. If you back out of that exploration and realize the existence of virus is unproven to begin with, you’re driven to the conclusion that the test results—positive or negative—are completely meaningless.

Performing the test would be on the order of building an outpost at the North Pole to count the population of passing nomadic desert tribes.

Or creating an auto safety bureaucracy that will examine deep-sea divers’ oxygen tanks.

The PCR test looks for a piece of RNA in the swab sample taken from a person. That piece of RNA is PRESUMED to be part of the virus. But since you don’t have an isolated purified specimen of the virus itself, all assumptions about that piece of RNA are null and void.

Therefore, the COVID case numbers, which are based on the test results, are meaningless. So are the death numbers.

The masks, the distancing, the lockdowns—which are based on case numbers—are absurd and destructive.

(For readers who are encountering my work for the first time in this article, I suggest you read my recent piece, “If there is no virus, why are people dying?” From there, read my articles demonstrating that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is unproven.)

This is certainly not the first time a medical diagnostic test has been revealed as meaningless. As I’ve detailed, the existence of HIV is also unproven. The various antibody tests designed to register the presence of HIV are absurd.

Here is how the medical magic trick works. Arbitrarily take a group of symptoms, lump them together, claim they add up to a specific disease with a label; assert, without evidence, that the cause is a germ; devise a test for the germ that will register positive and negative; claim the test is detecting the germ whose very existence is unproven.

Analogy: you claim you’re the CEO of, and the major stockholder in, X254, a corporation that doesn’t exist. You say you’re worth a few billion dollars. All major media outlets and national governments back your claim. You’re in. Out of nowhere, you’ve become “official.”

Consider the example of pellagra, a horrible skin disease that was plaguing the American South a hundred years ago. It affected several million people.

Medical authorities insisted a germ was the cause. Effort after effort was mounted to find the germ. Zero results. Finally, after decades, a small band of independent researchers won the day. Their contention that pellagra was actually a niacin deficiency was shown to be correct. There was no germ.

Sometimes, the very test which medical authorities devise to detect “the germ causing a disease” backfires on them. Such was the case with Swine Flu.

In the summer of 2009, while the CDC was claiming there were thousands of cases of Swine Flu in America, the overwhelming percentage of test samples taken from patients were coming back, from labs, with no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

The lab tests were contradicting the CDC’s assertion that there was a pandemic. Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) broke this story. Then CBS shut it down.

Tests are terrific propaganda tools. That’s all some of them are. “Well, the doctor ran my tests and he gave me a diagnosis of X. The treatment involves taking three [toxic] drugs. So I’ve started on the regimen.”

“Are you sure you want to take those drugs?”

“Of course. The tests showed I need them.”

“One of those drugs stops all cells in the body from replicating.”

“Doesn’t matter. The tests say I need the drug.”

Sometimes, there is no test, but doctors use a blizzard of arcane labels to pretend their diagnoses are real.

Such is the case with psychiatry, one of the great cons loosed upon the population. The official bible of the profession, the DSM, lists some 300 distinct and separate and named “mental disorders.”

THERE IS NO DEFINING LAB TEST FOR ANY OF THESE “DISORDERS.”

It’s up to the psychiatrist to make his diagnosis seem legitimate to the patient.

If the hidden history of medicine were taught in schools and colleges, it would come as no surprise that the COVID test is a complete hustle and con.

But schools wouldn’t touch that history with a hundred-foot pole.

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The subject was her July 26, 2000, review, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”

Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. 106,000 from the effects of FDA approved medicines, and 119,000 from mistreatment and errors in hospitals.

As you read an excerpt from this email interview, keep in mind that most of these deaths were preceded by a diagnostic test of some kind—which speaks volumes about how the tests are interpreted and used.

• If You Believe The PCR Test Detects An Actual Virus, You’re Wrong
• COVID-19 Pt. 4: The “Test” That Changed The World is Deeply Flawed
• PCR Testing & The Mysterious Death Of A Vaccine Safety Advocate
• PCR Testing Is The REAL Pandemic – You Can Do Something About It!

Rappoport: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

Starfield: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

A: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Q: Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

A: They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Q: Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

A: Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.)

Q: Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?

A: Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a day asking for a reprint—ten years later! The problem is that its message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US health care system.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: What was your personal reaction when you reached the conclusion that the US medical system was the third leading cause of death in the US?

A: I had previously done studies on international comparisons and knew that there were serious deficits in the US health care system, most notably in lack of universal coverage and a very poor primary care infrastructure. So I wasn’t surprised.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

• Austria: MP Tests Cola For COVID In Front Of Parliament – Guess What The Results Were (Video)
• Bombshell Cambridge Documents: Of All Positive COVID Tests Of 9,000+ Students, 100% Were FALSE POSITIVES
• As Florida Raids Home Of COVID Data Scientist Who Refused To Manipulate Data, They’re Also Forcing Labs To Report Number Of PCR Test Cycles
• COVID Corrupted Test Data Exposed

And just like that, you can learn the truth!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-impeachment-brief-against-trump-threatens-freedom-of-speech-of-all-americans-dershowitz_3685022.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-04-2

Former president Donald Trump has been impeached for “incitement to insurrection.” The House Democrats’ claim is that Trump made an inflammatory speech which—a week later—led to the Capitol riot of January 6.

The Senate is now considering whether or not to convict Trump of this “crime.”

I put “crime” in scare quotes for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the impeachment proceedings aren’t a criminal trial, so even conviction wouldn’t establish guilt the way an actual criminal court might. Contrary to what much of the public thinks, and what the media is happy to imply, impeachment is properly understood as strictly a political process that does nothing more than remove a person from office. 

Moreover, it’s already clear that if Trump were being tried in an actual criminal court, it is extremely unlikely a prosecutor could get a conviction. Trump’s alleged incitement doesn’t meet the legal requirements for such a charge as set out by the US Supreme Court back in 1969. An incitement conviction would require prosecutors to show there was an imminent threat of violence from the inflammatory remarks. Clearly, the Capitol riot, occurring a week later, was not “imminent,” and in a criminal case, it would be nearly impossible to prove this was directly connected to a political speech made days earlier.

The second reason “crime” needs to be in scare quotes is because incitement isn’t a real crime at all. It assumes that the person committing the “incitement” is simply passing down orders to blank-slate automatons who then turn around and do whatever their “leader” says.

In fact, the only people guilty of rioting are the rioters.

Rothbard spelled this out several times.

For instance, in an essay written for a small newspaper in the late 1960s, Rothbard explains the problem with claiming incitement is a real crime:

Suppose that Mr. A tells Mr. B: “Go out and shoot the mayor.” Suppose, then, that Mr. B, pondering this suggestion, decides it’s a darn good idea and goes out and shoots the mayor. Now obviously B is responsible for the shooting. But in what sense can A be held responsible? A did not do the shooting, and didn’t take part, we will assume, in any of the planning or executing of the act itself. The very fact that he made that suggestion cannot really mean that A should be held responsible. For does not B have free will? Is he not a free agent? And if he is, then B and B alone is responsible for the shooting.

If we attribute any responsibility at all to A, we have fallen into the trap of determinism. We are then assuming that B has no will of his own, that he is then only a tool in some way manipulated by A.

Now, if Person A participated in the planning of a riot or a murder, then Person A is guilty of conspiracy, not incitement. But Person A is not guilty of anything for have merely suggested to Person B that he shoot the mayor. Person B, after all, is responsible for his own actions.

Rothbard continues:

[I]f the will is free, then no man is determined by another; then just because somebody shouts “burn, baby, burn,” no one hearing this advice is thereby compelled or determined to go and carry the suggestion out. Anybody who does carry out the advice is responsible for his own actions, and solely responsible. Therefore, the “inciter” cannot be held in any way responsible. In the nature of man and morality, there is no such crime as “incitement to riot,” and therefore the very concept of such a “crime” should be stricken from the statute books.

Finally, Rothbard notes that incitement laws are also damaging because they are a direct attack on the natural right to free speech:

Cracking down on “incitement to riot,” then, is simply and purely cracking down on one’s natural and crucial right to freedom of speech. Speech is not a crime. And hence the injustice, not only of the crime of incitement, but also of such other “crimes” as “criminal sedition” (sharp criticism of the government), or “conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government”—in other words, planning someday to exercise one’s basic and natural right to freedom of speech and advocacy.

A decade later, Rothbard emphasized the importance of rejecting the notion of incitement as a crime in his book For a New Liberty. Under the section titled “Freedom of Speech,” he writes:

What, for example, of “incitement to riot,” in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against person and property? In our view, “incitement” can only be considered a crime if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act. But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot, that this is strictly in the realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty.

Later, in his book The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard again makes very similar remarks:

Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: “Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!” and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. “Inciting to riot,” therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others—more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut—there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly, to be charged simply with “incitement.”

This problem is related to a similar problem: making noncrimes like slander (i.e., defamation) into prosecutable offenses. A “slanderer” can say all sorts of things. And, indeed, a respect for freedom of speech dictates that we allow him to do so. After all, the people who hear what he has to say remain completely free to come to their own conclusions about what to do with that information. Just because some person says “your sister is a whore,” doesn’t mean we are required to believe him or act on those words in any particular way. 

[Read More: “The Dangers of Defamation Laws” by Ryan McMaken]

In practice, laws against incitement and defamation are very dangerous to basic human rights, and both place nonviolent people in legal jeopardy merely for the “crime” of expressing opinions. These laws are direct attacks on the right to free speech. In the case of Trump and “incitement,” he expressed an opinion about the election and encouraged people to “fight like hell” in a vague, nonspecific way. If this sort of thing is “criminal” then anyone who expresses an opinion that people should “resist” or “fight” against the regime—or even suggest that the regime is illegitimate or worthy of contempt—is likely to find himself on trial any time one of his social media “friends” decides to deface a government building or throw a rock at a cop. 

https://populist.press/nbc-loses-it-after-supermarket-is-fully-normal-this-should-be-a-crime/

https://populist.press/maxine-wants-trump-charged-with-premeditated-murder/

Not only is this senile supposed potus a monster ….out to destroy AMERICA…there is a very good chance that he will stumble us into a Nuclear War with cHINA and Russia.

cHINA has unleashed BIOLOGICAL WAR on the world…killed hundreds of thousands and laughs at us to do something about it. cHINA should be CENSURED before an INTERNATIONAL Committed and then Publicly condemned.

NOW they act with Impunity. THEY seem ready to move on TAIWAN after gutting S. Korea and not at all fearing this asshole puppet in the White House.

china jOE will have to do SOMETHING to prove his shriveled Ball-Sack will come back…and this guy is so stupid he will have to have his wife….”DR.” J. Biden show him WHERE the Nuclear Football is ….among the other china luggage parked in his closet…

This COMPLETE IDIOT IMBECILE is presiding over the DESTRUCTION of AMERICA with NATION STATES that will refuse to be bullied by this putz. If he thinks he can take on Nuclear Russia, with their Strategic Forces 75% modernized… and then go pick a fight with them in SYRIA and CLAIM it is OUR OIL…out of the side of his crooked mouth…….GUESS AGAIN –

SO he FORCES us to pay again for FOREIGN Oil…uses our constitution for his personal toilet paper to wipe his rancid ass …and tell us all to wear masks, hunt anyone down who was a Trump Supporter…and take our guns and ammo, leaving us completely defenseless against the likes of ANTIFA and BLM, and then puts his worthless ass into office.

HE let our cities BURN so HE could gain the White House for HIMSELF and his criminal family. Most odious of all, is his PERVERT SON …whose exploits will be RENOWNED in the KINGDOM OF hELL where his ENTIRE FAMILY of CATHOLIC HYPOCRITES will BURN forever.

WHAT a PIG. WHAT a CRIMINAL and what an ASSHOLE.

ROT in hell.

Man-made Climate Change is being used as the catalyst for tall tales of melting ice caps, drowning polar bears, and flooded islands. It’s even being blamed for a rise in wars and poverty. In the name of Climate Change there is a drive to destroy Free markets and the very concepts of limited Government, private property, and individual liberty.

We’re told that we must all sacrifice and give up our “selfish” lifestyle as we are required to “live on less” – to save the planet. And above all, we are warned not to question any of this because the science is settled. The debate is over. Stop talking about it – We must act NOW!

But what are the facts? What is the basis of the Climate Change charges, and why is there no room for a difference of opinion, no matter what new facts may be discovered? In short, what is the true “end game?”

Climate Change alarmists claim that about 2700 scientists agree with them and that these represent about 97% of all scientists. And so, they claim, it is an indisputable fact. But the fact is, there is no consensus in the scientific community over Climate Change. A U.S. Senate minority report says more than 650 scientists express dissent over man-made global warming claims. In addition, over 30,000 scientists have signed on to a petition that says there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses causes or will … cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

I’m not a scientist, but neither is Al Gore. However, I know that true science is rarely settled. Consensus means nothing. Science isn’t a democracy in which the one idea with the most votes wins. Science is based on fact – provable fact. It doesn’t matter how many agree or disagree. TRUTH IN SCIENCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS. BUT IF YOU CUT OFF ANYONE’S ABILITY TO EVEN QUESTION SOMEONE’S FINDINGS, THEN YOU HAVE FALLEN PREY TO A SPECIFIC POLITICAL AGENDA AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHAT WE ARE FACING. PERIOD.

You can obviously run down a lot of rabbit holes in trying to discuss man-made Climate Change. But the real question is this – is climate change caused by man or is temperature change really just from natural causes? That is the debate – the ONLY debate. The answer to that question is mandatory before we allow Climate Change forces to begin to impose massive regulations that will control, perhaps even destroy human existence.

Those pushing the Climate Change position insist that it is not of natural causes. They declare that the warming is purely man-made from pollution – specifically emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. They say that is creating what has been called a Green House effect as the CO2 becomes trapped, forcing a warming of the Earth.

It’s absolutely vital that they win that argument because IF climate change is actually proven to be from natural causes and not man-made, then their entire argument would fail and their entire political agenda will collapse along with their influence over government policy and their access to massive amounts of money. Is it any wonder that they are very nervous about those they call climate skeptics – those scientists and spokesmen who dispute their dire findings about the climate?

That’s why, to maintain control, radical environmental forces, such as the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund, have used their power and influence over scientific journals to block the publication of any reports to the contrary. They have moved to block research grants to anyone who doesn’t toe the party line. Al Gore has called for Nuremberg-style public trials for anyone publicly questioning or disputing the claims of global warming. No discouraging word is to be heard.

IF GLOBAL WARMING IS SO REAL – NON-DEBATABLE – THEN WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? WHY SUCH DIRE EFFORST TO STOP ANYONE FROM EXPRESSING DOUBTS? THE FACT IS – AND THEY ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS – THAT THERE SIMPLY IS NO EVIDENCE OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

According to scientist Joanne Nova, a former climate change alarmists – turned skeptic, if greenhouse gases are warming the earth, then, by now, we are supposed to see the first signs of it in a patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this hot spot just isn’t there.

MIT scientist Willie Soon, wrote that the warming during the past 30 year period was basically caused by storm activity on the Sun. He titled his report, “It’s the Sun, Stupid!”

In 1985, Ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years. The original data seemed to indicate that temperatures and CO2 were locked together, thus giving birth to both the theory of the “greenhouse effect” and the climate change movement. But in 1999, scientists began to find that carbon levels actually rose and fell “AFTER” the temperatures did. And by 2003 scientists had much better data to show that the lag between temperatures rising and rising carbon levels was a lag of as much as 800 years.

Skeptic scientists who question the validity of the man-made Climate Change argument say that, if CO2 was a major driver of temperature change then they would rise indefinitely in a “runaway” greenhouse effect. That hasn’t happened in 500 million years. Their conclusion is that CO2 is obviously trivial in determining what causes temperature changes. Something else is causing global warming.

What we have experienced is a tsunami of data from computer models and government warming data collection thermometers screaming about massive warming taking place. The models are man-made and THEY are wrong. These are the facts: There has been no warming – at all – in the past 18 years.  If anything, we are seeing a cooling period beginning. That is completely natural. It gets cold. It gets hot. The North and South Poles are not melting. The ice is actually growing thicker. Global sea ice is at a record high.

So the sea levels are not rising and islands are not about to drown. And neither are polar bears. Their population is actually increasing by large numbers. Tropical rain forests are growing faster than scientists thought, due to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 is actually good for nature.

What, then, is the true end game? Why are they so desperate to hang on to the Climate Change argument, no matter how many times it is disproved?

Christine Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Timothy Wirth, formally of the Clinton Administration, and now the President of the UN Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”  In other words, the end justifies the means!

What do these two quotes tell you? They hint that there is a bigger agenda than environmental protection in the Climate Change enforcement drive. They talk about economics and justice. Can it be that the environment serves simply as the excuse to disguise a larger plan?

Can such a diabolical plan exist? Or is that just a conspiracy theory from paranoid right wing fringe fanatics. The Club of Rome, one of the premier power forces working under the UN tent said in one of its reports, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

National sovereignty, free enterprise, and private property ownership were all targeted as an evil oppressor that must be eliminated in the name of peace, health and happiness. As this process moved forward there were public statements that hinted of what was to come.

Paul Ehrlich, now a Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University said, “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means brining our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

And then in 1992, the United Nation’s Earth Summit in Rio introduced the master plan – what they called a “Comprehensive Blue Print” for reorganizing human society. It was called Agenda 21.

The UN explained Agenda 21 like this, “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. A major shift n the priorities of both government and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Maurice Strong, Chairman of the Earth Summit, summed it all up in his official address to the Summit when he said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”    

And isn’t that exactly what we see happening in the United States and in industrial nations around the world? Always the same three words were used to describe the all-encompassing reach of this new Comprehensive Blue Print. Those words are, Economy, Equity, and Environment. Better known as the Three Es. It started as Agenda 21, then became Agenda 2030, now it’s the Green New Deal, and its racing into policy across the nation from city council, to county commission to state legislature.

Social Equity

Social Equity is based on a demand for “social justice.” Social Equity and Social Justice require that the world’s wealth be redistributed according to government dictates. No private property. No private industry. Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA are demonstrating how Social Justice will work for you. Pay attention.

Economic Prosperity

At the root of Agenda 21 economics are Public/Private Partnerships – pulled together into a government-driven economy called “corporatism.” The partnerships allow for special tax breaks; access to certain  lands for some developers, but not others; non-compete clauses in government projects that guarantee profits for some, access to grants and lucrative special government projects, and much more.

Corporations that play ball get the power of government and Government gets to hide behind the independence of private business. Nearly every state is now working on legislation to make this official government policy. It’s called Benefit Corporations. You’re seeing it right this very moment with big tech giants fakebook, twatter and googberl

This is the new way business is being run in America under Sustainable Development. The business plan of the day – lobby for regulations. Destroy your competition with regulations and gather the goodies for yourself. Watch how many millions of dollars these global corporations are donating to BLM to achieve more power.

It’s not free enterprise. The true description is government-sanctioned monopolies, right out of the Mussolini fascist play book.

Ecological Integrity

That’s just the excuse for it all. To understand the power of this transformation of society under sustainable development, consider this quote from the UN’s Biodiversity treaty which was also introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit:

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. And only a strong, central, all-powerful government can protect the environment. Individuals and limited government can’t be trusted because man is nothing more than a swarm of locusts which swoops down on nature and sucks it clean until there is nothing left. Nothing good comes from man, according to Sustainablist doctrine.

Agenda 21 is a threat to our nation, to your local community, to you – because it IS a comprehensive blueprint specifically designed to change our way of life and our form of government. Al Gore, in his book, Earth in the Balance, said we would have to go through a “wrenching transformation” to rid us of the horrors of the Twentieth Centuries’ Industrial Revolution.

Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), the woman in charge of the drive to impose global warming policy, said just  couple of months ago, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution…”  Can their goals be any clearer? 

But, how do you take such radical, obviously Socialist ideas and enforce them in the number one free market nation on Earth? Answer: impose it on the local level in every community in the nation.

The American Planning Association is the largest planning group in the nation. They are operating in almost every community. The APA is part of the Planners Network which promotes a statement of principles that reads, “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in society…because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”  That is what every planner in every community believes and that is what is incorporated in every planning program they create.

Author Ted Trainer, explains how and why to impose the local process as he described it in his book, “Transition to a Sustainable and Just World.” “Consumer society cannot be reformed to make it sustainable or just; it must be largely replaced by a society with fundamentally different structures. Local planning focuses on curtailing energy and natural resource and land use.” Says Trainer, “The essential aim is not to fight against consumer- capitalist society, but to build the alternative to it.” And that’s exactly what Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are designed to do – build an alternative to our American Republic of elected, representative, limited government.

There are three main targets of attack:

1. Destroy private property ownership and control.
2. Impose regional councils and government, taking government further away from the people.
3. Feed the plan with federal grant money.

From the 1992 UN Earth Summit, the process moved forward rapidly.  President Bill Clinton created by Executive Order, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Through the Council, the same Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) which had helped to create Agenda 21, now fanned out into the federal bureaucracy. They helped to write the grant programs through nearly every federal agency. These grants, touted as voluntary, came armed with specific dictates to any community that took the grant – detailing specific programs and guidelines that must be followed. Those guidelines were the specifics of the implementation of Agenda 21.

Armed with such regulations and the federal grants, the same NGO’s then descended on state legislatures to pressure for passage of regulations to force every community to prepare a comprehensive development plan. Then those same NGO’s headed to the local communities to “help” them write and implement those master plans. And of course, they came loaded down with the necessary money to pay for it – the federal grants. The grants, through HUD, the EPA and nearly every other agency in the Federal Government are the kool-aid used to spread the policy into your community.

The rules impose guidelines created on the international level for building materials, building, plumbing, and electric codes; installing bike lanes; building apartment buildings with no parking lots, and establishment of public transportation, including light rail trains to discourage the use of private transportation. Not to mention restrictions on water and energy use.

If a community takes the grant, they accept the restrictions. In short, they must implement the guidelines of Agenda 21. In the back rooms of city hall and the state legislature, your government officials work hand-in-hand to write policy with the very NGOs which created Agenda 21.

And what are the results of this internationally-created, federally-funded, and state-enforced assault on your local community and your own home? Private property rights are disappearing; energy is being tightly controlled; jobs are disappearing; community development means pack and stack high rise housing; and bike paths are jamming roads as taxes are skyrocketing.

The function of legitimate elected government within the Sustainablist system is fast becoming little more than the rubber stamp to create and enforce the dictates of something called Stakeholder Councils – run by – you guessed it – the same NGO organizations that wrote Agenda 21 in the first place. It’s the demise of representative government.

The UN Commission on Global Governance said: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through the United Nations itself.” Is it then a coincidence that regionalism is becoming the fastest growing change in how our government is operating?

Why does it seem so difficult today to deal with government – to get them to listen to you? Because you don’t count. Local control is gone. They make their plans in the back rooms, out of sight and out of reach of the people.  These non-elected regional councils should never have the power to legislate. That must only be done by actual elected bodies directly representing and answerable to you. This is how government is spiraling out of control under Sustainable Development. The main change from all of this growth in the power of government is corruption and loss of control by the people.

The economics of so-called Sustainable Smart Growth are sobering and hit few harder than the poor and young families just starting out. A recent report by the real estate data firm Zillow says that developers are no longer planning to build starter homes for young or low income buyers. The only homes they plan to build are those for the rich or federally-subsidized low-income apartments.

To get you out of your cars, the State of Washington’s legislature has set a target of reducing per capita driving of cars by 50% by 2050. Oregon is the first state to implement plans to measure how many miles you drive per year and tax it. Oregon is also the first state to ban zoning protections for single-family homes.  There are plans now to install devises that will allow the government to shut off your car if your drive too much.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, thousands of low income families are being uprooted from their homes and relocated, often against their will, into “Preferred Development Areas.”

Yet, as Americans are being forced to live this way, all under the excuse of environmental protection – here is the kicker – the little known fact- that none of it is necessary – because it doesn’t work.

A few years ago, the American Planning Association did a study to see if all of their efforts to enforce Smart Growth worked. Would you be shocked to learn that the APA’s own study reported that Smart Growth does not work?!

Here is the final concluding paragraph of that APA-sponsored study:

“The current planning policy strategies for land use and transportation have virtually no impact on the major long term increases in resource and energy consumption. They generally tend to increase costs and reduce economic competitiveness…In many cases, the socioeconomic consequences of less housing choices, crowding, and congestion may outweigh the very modest co2 reduction benefits.” 

The fact is,  Smart Growth really means the end of private property rights and single family homes, to force us to live in stack and pack high rises where residents are over-taxed, over-regulated, rents are high and individual thoughts and actions are viewed as a threat to the “well-ordered society.”

THIS is what your local officials are telling you is a LOCAL plan. Yet, every plan is the same – across the nation.  And every single one of these programs is now being enforced in your local planning boards.

This top down control is the perfect description of a “Soviet.” And THAT is what Sustainable Development is. THAT is what this comprehensive blue print in action is! THAT is what regional planning really is. it is Agenda 21 And THAT is the root of the Biden Administration’s ‘Great Reset’ policy. PERIOD.

Pretended Authority: It Is Now A Criminal Offense In Not Complying With Mask Mandates While Traveling. One Question, What Law?

http://patriotpowerednews.com/sick-actress-regrets-not-attacking-senator-in-restaurant/

New Mexico Democrat’s bill could criminalize parents teaching kids how to shoot, according to gun group

https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-mexico-criminalize-teaching-kids-to-shoot?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20210203Trending-GunEducationIllegal&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News

ESPECIALLY WATCH STARTING AT 6:50 !