Pentagon Funded Nonprofit Covering Up SARS-CoV-2 Origin

In a December 16, 2020, Independent Science News article,1 journalist Sam Husseini reveals new evidence tying the EcoHealth Alliance to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) — links that add a new dimension to analyses of the underlying purpose of the group’s research activities into coronaviruses and, potentially, the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic itself.

The New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention, has played a central role in the current pandemic. As noted by Husseini:2

  1. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was providing funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.
  2. EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak has been the primary expert chosen by the mainstream media to explain the origin of the pandemic.
  3. Daszak is also intimately involved in the two major international committees tasked with investigating the origin of the virus. He’s both a member of the World Health Organization’s committee3 and the head of The Lancet’s COVID-19 commission,4 even though he has openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.5

As noted by Husseini, the fact that EcoHealth Alliance has received nearly $39 million — one-third of the organization’s total budget — from the U.S. DOD has never been mentioned in any of Daszak’s media appearances. It’s also never been mentioned during any of the discussions of the EcoHealth Alliance’s role before or during the pandemic.

Daszak Responsible for Obscuring SARS-CoV-2 Origin

In a November 18, 2020, article,6,7 U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, reported that emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests prove that Daszak played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by issuing a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory”:

“Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a statement8 in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance …

The emails … show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to ‘not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person’9 but rather to be seen as ‘simply a letter from leading scientists.’10 Daszak wrote that he wanted ‘to avoid the appearance of a political statement.’11

The scientists’ letter appeared in The Lancet on February 18, just one week after the World Health Organization announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19.

The 27 authors ‘strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,’ and reported that scientists from multiple countries ‘overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.’ The letter included no scientific references to refute a lab-origin theory of the virus.”

USRTK also pointed out that several of the authors of that Lancet statement have direct ties to the EcoHealth Alliance that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest:12

“Rita Colwell and James Hughes are members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, William Karesh is the group’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor.”

Five other members of The Lancet Commission also signed the February 18, 2020, statement in The Lancet,13 which puts their credibility in question as well. All of this suggests The Lancet Commission’s investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is little more than a cover-up operation.

Money Trail Leads to Pentagon

While all of that is bad enough, we now have Husseini’s report, showing that EcoHealth Alliance has been receiving substantial funding from the DOD. In fact, the organization gets more money from the DOD than the National Institutes of Health. What’s more, it appears EcoHealth Alliance has gone to some length to obscure this funding. As reported by Husseini:14

“For much of this year, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance garnered a great deal of sympathetic media coverage after its $3.7 million five-year NIH grant was prematurely cut when the Trump administration learned that EcoHealth Alliance funded bat coronavirus research at the WIV.

The temporary cut was widely depicted in major media as Trump undermining the EcoHealth Alliance’s noble fight against pandemics. The termination was reversed by NIH in late August, and even upped to $7.5 million. But entirely overlooked amid the claims and counter-claims was that far more funding for the EcoHealth Alliance comes from the Pentagon than the NIH.

To be strictly fair to the media, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance obscures its Pentagon funding … Only buried under their ‘Privacy Policy,’ under a section titled ‘EcoHealth Alliance Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest in Research,’ does the EcoHealth Alliance concede it is the ‘recipient of various grant awards from federal agencies including the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense.’

Even this listing is deceptive. It obscures that its two largest funders are the Pentagon and the State Department (USAID); whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which accounts for a minuscule $74,487, comes before either.

Meticulous investigation15 of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to ‘counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.'”

Other Military Connections

Husseini also uncovered another military connection to the EcoHealth Alliance. One of its policy advisers is David Franz, a former Fort Detrick commander. Fort Detrick is the principal government biowarfare/biodefense facility in the U.S. Franz was one of the people who promoted the story that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — a false claim that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“Four significant insights emerge from all this,” Husseini writes.16 “First, although it is called the EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak and his non-profit work closely with the military. Second, the EcoHealth Alliance attempts to conceal these military connections.

Third, through militaristic language and analogies Daszak and his colleagues promote what is often referred to as, and even then somewhat euphemistically, an ongoing agenda known as ‘securitization.’ In this case it is the securitization of infectious diseases and of global public health.

That is, they argue that pandemics constitute a vast and existential threat. They minimize the very real risks associated with their work, and sell it as a billion-dollar solution. The fourth insight is that Daszak himself, as the Godfather of the Global Virome Project, stands to benefit from the likely outlay of public funds.”

The Role of Shi Zhengli

Other key figures in the COVID-19 pandemic are Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., and Ralph Baric, Ph.D. The two were part of a joint research program into bat coronaviruses, conducted at the University of North Carolina and WIV. When U.S.-based gain-of-function research was placed under moratorium in 2014, money was funneled to the WIV where Shi continued the work.17

Shi and Baric were two of the co-authors named on a 2015 study18 published in Nature Medicine, in which they discussed the possibility of bat coronaviruses affecting humans. As reported by The Gateway Pundit back in April 2020:19

“After the work stopped in the US, the Chinese moved forward with the project and ran research and development in Wuhan at the Wuhan Virology Center. From Shi Zhengli’s papers and resume, it is clear that they successfully isolated the virus in the lab and were actively experimenting with species to species transmission.

It’s also important to note that back in 2017 we had solid intelligence about a viral leak in a high security Chinese virology R&D center that resulted in the SARS virus getting out and killing people. This information provides a basis that contradicts the theory that [SARS-CoV-2] is a variant that just magically mutated in a bat in the wild and then jumped to a human when they ate bat soup.”

The Gateway Pundit went on to quote Shi from a Chinese interview published in December 2017, in which she stated that bat coronaviruses collected from a cave in Kunming, Yunnan between 2011 and 2015 had the genetic components of the SARS strain responsible for human outbreaks. Interestingly, she also stated that both diagnostic techniques and vaccines for the coronaviruses capable of easily infecting humans had already been developed.

Spotlight on Ralph Baric

Emails obtained by USRTK also shed light on the role Baric and others have played in the creation of the natural origin narrative. As reported by USRTK, December 14, 2020:20

“The emails of coronavirus expert Professor Ralph Baric … show conversations between National Academy of Sciences (NAS) representatives, and experts in biosecurity and infectious diseases from U.S. universities and the EcoHealth Alliance.

On Feb. 3, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to ‘convene meeting of experts… to assess what data, information and samples are needed to address the unknowns, in order to understand the evolutionary origins of 2019-nCoV, and more effectively respond to both the outbreak and any resulting misinformation.’

Baric and other infectious disease experts were involved in drafting the response. The emails show the experts’ internal discussions and an early draft dated Feb. 4. The early draft described ‘initial views of the experts’ that ‘the available genomic data are consistent with natural evolution and that there is currently no evidence that the virus was engineered to spread more quickly among humans.’

This draft sentence posed a question, in parentheses: ‘[ask experts to add specifics re binding sites?]’ It also included a footnote in parentheses: ‘[possibly add brief explanation that this does not preclude an unintentional release from a laboratory studying the evolution of related coronaviruses].'”

In a February 4, 2020, email response, infectious disease expert Trevor Bedford recommended skipping any mention of binding sites, because weighing evidence would provide support for both the natural origin and lab origin scenarios. USRTK points out that the issue of binding sites is an important one, as the distinctive binding sites of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein “confer ‘near-optimal’ binding and entry of the virus into human cells.”

Scientists have argued that the SARS-CoV-2’s unique binding sites may be the result of either natural spillover in the wild, or deliberate recombination of an unidentified viral ancestor. As such, there’s no reason to dismiss the lab-creation theory. Still, despite wide-open questions, Daszak, Baric and the rest of the group appear to have been intent on shutting down discussions about this possibility. USRTK writes:21

“Kristian Andersen, lead author of an influential Nature Medicine paper asserting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, said the early draft was ‘great, but I do wonder if we need to be more firm on the question of engineering.’ He continued, ‘If one of the main purposes of this document is to counter those fringe theories, I think it’s very important that we do so strongly and in plain language …’

In his response, Baric aimed at conveying a scientific basis for SARS-CoV-2’s natural origin. ‘I do think we need to say that the closest relative to this virus (96%) was identified from bats circulating in a cave in Yunnan, China. This makes a strong statement for animal origin.'”

In a series of December 2020 Twitter posts,22 Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, also points out other details in the released emails suggesting the group were intentionally trying to squelch discussions about a lab origin.

Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All

December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,23 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, published an editorial24 in the Journal of Human Security in which he reviews the history of pandemics from antiquity through COVID-19, along with evidence supporting the natural origin and lab escape theories respectively. As noted by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris may well be at the heart of our current problem. Why are certain scientists so reluctant to admit there’s evidence of human interference? Why do they try to shut down discussion? Could it be because they’re trying to ensure the continuation of gain-of-function research, despite the risks?

We’re often told that this kind of research is “necessary” in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses, and that the risks associated with such research are minimal due to stringent safety protocols.

Yet the evidence shows a very different picture. For the past decade, red flags have repeatedly been raised within the scientific community as biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency.25,26,27,28,29

As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.30 Asia Times31 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,32 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine33 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.34

The Medium article,35 written by Gilles Demaneuf, reviews SARS lab escapes specifically. No less than three out of four reappearances of SARS have been attributed to safety breaches. Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. And, as noted by National Review:36

“In a strange way, the ‘lab accident’ scenario is one of the most reassuring explanations. It means that if we want to ensure we never experience this again, we simply need to get every lab in the world working on contagious viruses to ensure 100 percent compliance with safety protocols, all the time.”

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.37,38,39,40

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity. Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of millions.

WSJ: Hospitals Return to Basics for COVID Treatment

At the start of the pandemic, doctors were placing COVID-19 patients on ventilators for more reasons than saving lives. The Wall Street Journal reports some physicians are now reverting to the basics of treatment with better survival rates and better patient outcomes. How much of this story will reach mainstream media?

In the 1950s, the CIA ran a cover campaign called “Operation Mockingbird,” in which they recruited journalists as assets to spread propaganda.1 The campaign officially ended in the 1970s, but when you read the uniform media reports over the past 10 months, the evidence suggests the project never really stopped.

Many of the current media stories may make you long for the days of Woodward and Bernstein when uncovering information and breaking a story appeared more important than repeating the “company” line.

It appears there are few who write balanced pieces about what COVID-19 testing really shows, the science behind hydroxychloroquine, zinc, remdesivir or ivermectin, or the role high-dose vitamin C may play as an antiviral.

What does appear to be happening is a grassroots movement away from the initial treatment protocols for hospitalized COVID-19 patients and a reversion to prepandemic guidelines for ventilator use. Dr. Eduardo Oliveira from Advent Health Central Florida described the movement to a Wall Street Journal reporter: “Let’s go back to the basics. The less you deviate from it, the better.”2

Returning to Basics Raises Survival Rates

The point made by the journalist was that in the early stages of the disease, doctors were preemptively using powerful sedatives and ventilators for two reasons — “to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from COVID-19.”3

In other words, the critically ill, and often elderly, were placed on sedatives that had largely been abandoned because of side effects, and put on ventilators that lowered the chance of survival, “partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.”4

While early reports showed high flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may support breathing and does not require risky sedation, doctors were unsure if the patients would continue to release the virus into the air and raise the risk for health care workers.

Dr. Theodore Iwashyna is a critical care doctor at the University of Michigan, who also spoke with the reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying,5 “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients. That felt awful.”

In addition to ventilation, patients were also given heavy doses of sedation so nurses and doctors could limit their exposure. However, these heavy doses of sedation increase the risk for delirium, long-term confusion and potentially death.6

Over time, doctors learned that while the disease is different from other viruses, it does respond to basic treatment protocols and prepandemic guidelines for ventilator use. Survival for patients in one hospital system rose 28% from April to September 2020 as doctors adjusted the treatment protocols using computerized guides to determine oxygen delivery and rate of flow.7

The Wall Street Journal reported on a study of three New York City hospitals in which the death rate from March to August 2020 dropped from 25.6% to 7.6%, which researchers attributed to less crowding of hospital facilities and new medications and improved treatment. Contact with a person’s family also improves their recovery, which is a common finding when people are ill.8,9,10

Over 50% of Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients Die

It wasn’t long before doctors discovered that ventilators were causing more damage to COVID-19 patients’ lungs than they were helping. Ventilators push air into a person’s lungs after a tube is inserted through the mouth and down the trachea.

Even in the best circumstances, ventilators can injure a person’s lungs by placing too much pressure against the tissue as the machine pushes air in. Typically, with low oxygen saturation, people are given breathing support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

This is also used to treat severe sleep apnea as it helps regulate the pressure and level of oxygen using mild pressure gradients to keep the airways open. However, mechanical ventilation became widespread and remained that way even after published reports demonstrated that ventilation did not lower mortality rates, but may have in fact raised them.

Several studies have indicated the fatality rate once patients are on ventilators is more than 50%.11 In a case series of 1,300 critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in Lombardy, Italy, 88% were on ventilation and the mortality rate was 26%.12

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association included 5,700 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area from March 1, 2020, to April 4, 2020.13 They found the mortality rates for those who were on mechanical ventilation ranged from 76.4% to 97.2%, depending on the age bracket.

Another study of 24 patients admitted to Seattle area intensive care units showed 75% were placed on mechanical ventilation and half the 24 patients died between Day 1 and Day 18 after being admitted.14

There are inherent risks to ventilation, including lung damage to the air sacs from high levels of oxygen and from high pressure used by the machines. Another risk is long-term sedation, which is difficult for some patients to bounce back from.

MATH+ at First Sign of Breathing Problem Prevents Ventilator

Information about natural therapeutics continues to be suppressed by the media and is not received by those who need it most: critical care doctors. The Alliance for Natural Health has asked why is “success in critical care being ignored?” and goes on to question:15

“We all need to be asking why. After all, people are dying. How would it make relatives feel if it was found that their loved one had died needlessly just because the doctors who were having greatest success were not being listened to and their innovative protocols had been systematically ignored?”

In other words, it’s time to go back to the basics when treating this virus. One of those protocols they are referring to is the MATH+ protocol. At the time of the article, doctors had treated 100 patients with a 98% survival rate and no ventilation. The two people who died were both over 80 and had advanced chronic conditions.16

The protocol was first developed by a group of leading critical care physicians who formed the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC).17 The protocol gets the name from the medications used, which include intravenous methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), thiamine and full dose low-molecular-weight heparin.18

The protocol uses methylprednisolone and vitamin C intravenously in high doses to help mitigate the inflammatory response caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).19 They work synergistically and improve survival rates, particularly when given early in the disease. Thiamine helps optimize oxygen utilization and helps protect the heart, brain and immune system.

Heparin is used as a preventive and to help dissolve any blood clots that are known to appear with high frequency in this disease. The FLCCC writes that “Timing is a critical factor in the efficacy of MATH+ and to achieving successful outcomes in patients ill with COVID-19.”20

The protocol should be started soon after patients require oxygen supplementation for maximum benefit. Delaying therapy can lead to complications. The medications used in the protocol are all “FDA-approved, safe, inexpensive and readily available drugs.”21

Since the initiation of the protocol, doctors have found the addition of ivermectin beneficial to their patients. As such, it’s considered a core medication that’s administered on admission and repeated on Day 6 and 8 if the person has not recovered. Further, vitamin D, melatonin and zinc can be added, with therapeutic plasma exchange for patients whose disease is refractory.22,23

At High Doses, Vitamin C Has Antiviral Properties

A second treatment protocol being silenced for COVID-19 is high dose vitamin C. Dr. Andrew Saul is the editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. He presents valuable information on the importance of vitamin C for disease treatment, including COVID-19, which you can see in “Vitamin C Treatment for COVID-19 Being Silenced.”

At extremely high doses, vitamin C acts like an antiviral drug and kills viruses. When using this treatment at home to help prevent the need for hospitalization, use liposomal vitamin C as it is more bioavailable and doesn’t have the side effect of diarrhea at high doses.

Vitamin C is best known for its antioxidant properties. Even in small quantities, it protects proteins, lipids and DNA and RNA from reactive oxygen species that are generated during normal metabolism.

Vitamin C is also involved in the biosynthesis of collagen, carnitine and catecholamines. According to Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., as such it “participates in immune function, wound healing, fatty acid metabolism, neurotransmitter production and blood vessel formation, as well as other key processes and pathways.”24

In the early months of the pandemic, a commentary published in The Lancet states “rescue therapy with high dose vitamin C can also be considered” for patients with ARDS caused by COVID-19.25

A study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Harri Hemila, Ph.D., who is considered to be an authority on vitamin C, stated that patients with pneumonia can tolerate up to 100 grams of vitamin C each day without developing diarrhea, “possibly because of the changes in vitamin C metabolism caused by the severe infection.”26

Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc Are a Powerful Combo Treatment

A hydroxychloroquine and zinc combination is yet another treatment that has been maligned in favor of remdesivir, an expensive drug with little documented evidence. In this short news video, reporter Sharyl Attkisson delves into the politics and finances of the two drugs in the treatment of COVID-19.

While remdesivir must be given in the hospital over five days, your doctor can prescribe hydroxychloroquine for use at home to help prevent hospitalization. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug that was introduced in 1955.27 It has a long history of use outside a hospital setting, including for the treatment of arthritis and lupus, for which it was approved in 1956.28

According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ home-based guide to treating COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are antiviral agents that29 “must be started quickly at STAGE I (Days 1 to 5)” and “These medicines stop the virus from (1) entering the cells and (2) from multiplying once inside the cells, and they reduce bacterial invasion in the sinuses and lung.”

They recommend the addition of azithromycin or doxycycline with either of the drugs. However, the guideline also stresses the necessity of using zinc and supplemental vitamins D and C:30

“Either combination above must also include zinc sulfate or gluconate, plus supplemental vitamin D, and vitamin C. Some doctors also recommend adding a B complex vitamin. Zinc is critical. It helps block the virus from multiplying. Hydroxychloroquine is the carrier taking zinc INTO the cells to do its job.”

There are several reasons why certain individuals and companies may not want an inexpensive generic drug to work against COVID-19, including eliminating the need for vaccination or the development of other antiviral drugs that are more costly than a two-week supply of hydroxychloroquine that can retail for as little as $20.31

You’ll find more about hydroxychloroquine and how one doctor calls those who are denying patients hydroxychloroquine “guilty of mass murder,” in “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created.”

About Names — The Real Estate, Franchise, and Title System

 By Anna Von Reitz

In ancient times, all proper names were descriptions: Hector of Troy, Jeremiah the Prophet, Illius of Alexandria, Merlin the Magician.

In Celtic lands, names could take on many descriptive forms, and could denote the name of the Clan which itself includes many family names –just take a look at the families attached to the Clan MacDonald– each one of all those people could claim to be a “MacDonald”, but only one, the Clan Chieftain, could claim to be “the” MacDonald.

A certain superstition was common about “giving away your name” similar to the resistance of American Indians to being photographed. Many groups felt that a name was too precious and intimate to be shared with the public, so they adopted “Totem Names” — Queen Guinnivere means “Queen Snow Owl” and King Arthur means “King Bear”.

Still, all in all, these names are all descriptions, and not names used in the modern way.

The Roman Empire had a vast and well-orchestrated system of nomenclature designed to not only identify individuals but also locate their origins and social status, but it gradually fell into disuse, until in most places in Europe it was a distant memory.

In the Scandinavian countries other conventions based on descriptive family relationships arose, as in, Olaf, Sven’s Son, becoming Olaf Svenson.

Wherever the Roman Catholic Church established beach heads, the names of church members were recorded as part of the church’s responsibilities for keeping track of baptisms, marriages, death rites and so on. Their location did not have to be part of the name in most cases, because the Church Parish described the location of most of the names being recorded. Exceptions were bridegrooms, brides, and other visitors or immigrants from other Parishes who occasionally were born or died outside their home parish.

Additionally, the ancient custom of adopting Christian names was practiced, by which someone given the name “Marjorie Brown” was transformed into “Sister Plotsidia”, or a man named “Raymond Stuckbuilder” felt a particular closeness to Saint Peter and changed his name to “Peter Stuckbuilder” with the blessings and recordkeeping of the Church. These sorts of Christian name changes are still an accepted part of Church tradition.

Beginning with the Norman Conquest governments again began serious cataloguing and recording the identities and location of “subjects” whether nobles, free men, or serfs— for administrative purposes — the names were still descriptive in nature, but additional effort was made to nail down the individual identity of each bit of “property” belonging to the Monarch for purposes of conscription, tax allotments, census records, and so on.

Six hundred years later, naming conventions had taken on distinctly more secular purposes. Not only did the Monarchs of Europe need to keep track of their subjects in terms of name and location for administrative purposes, they needed to catalogue the work and wares of their able subjects.

By the early 1700’s circuit riders were sent into every town and village to assign names to the inhabitants. It is from this era that many occupation-related names arose: John, the Blacksmith became John Black or John Smith, Adam, the Bookey who gave odds on horse races, became Adam Horseman or Adam Bookey, and so on. Names like Baker, Forester, Ploughman, Carpenter, and Hunter derive from this era. Still later, these Trade Names would be recognized as Trademarks.

The ownership of names has always been problematic. The Monarchs, in their infinite megalomania, claimed that they owned their subjects and the names of their subjects, and when the Trade Names were assigned, they also assumed ownership of the “Trademarks”, meaning the Surnames and Signatures of their Subjects.

So, for example, if a man named Simon Kingman, a British Subject, signed his own name to a Promissory Note, the King or Queen of England technically became liable for his debt—- which meant that he became liable for his every enterprise to the Monarch and all his business enterprises belonged to the Monarch—who held his name and all his property assets in trust and under his name, of course, and the Monarch could, at any time, require him to pay his debts in full.

Thus began the incursion of the “royal estate” — otherwise known as “real estate” into the realms of private identity and private business and private enterprise in Europe.

In America these practices and assumptions were foisted off onto the Colonists, too, but once independence was secured, ownership of our own given names and/or any Trade Names or Pen Names or Performer Names vested fully in each one of us, and the only ones who continued to be part of the “real estate” system were British Territorial Citizens.

The British claim of custodial interest in every British Subject regardless of where they live also means that Brits living in America can’t own land, because all interest in land or other property vests in their Queen, acting as their “Trustee”, whether they like it or not, and everything they own or create is also the Queen’s.

To make this theft of a man’s name, trademarks, and other property “legal” though it can never be “lawful”, the Queen agrees to protect his property interests from threat offered by anyone other than herself and her many, many agents and bill collectors. She also agrees to provide certain social benefits in exchange for his donation of himself and all his property to serve as collateral backing the Queen’s debts.

Sound familiar? It should.

This is how a British Subject’s Surname, like Black or Beecham, is converted first into a Tradename/Trademark and then “invested” as part of the Real Estate, and the individual name, like Simon or Mark or Mildred, is interpreted as the name of an individual “franchise” exercising the Trademark. Additionally, if a Brit accepts any form of government service, he or she is given a title, typically, “Mister” or “Miss” or “Missus” or “Doctor” or “Captain” that further identifies them as a servant or slave or otherwise a debtor of Her Royal Majesty.

And now you see how incredibly profitable it has been for the Brits to come over here and pretend, accidentally-on-purpose, that all these American babies were poor waifs, “abandoned” on the Civil War Battlefield, of unknown origin, given up by their purportedly unwed Mothers or turned in like lost baggage by passing strangers acting as “Informants” —ripe for their taking and inclusion as part of the Real Estate, Franchise, and Title System.

Most Brits were victimized in this same way and never told a word about it, and they are just as confused by all the semantic deceit and commercial claims as we have been, but now that all this Bushwah is delved out and spread squirming on the ground for all to see, it’s apparent that: (1) the Queen has not kept her Coronation Vows to the People of the Great Britain, but has instead willfully digressed into a very different and predatory role; and (2) millions upon millions of Americans have been grossly mischaracterized, deliberately misidentified, and defrauded in Breach of Trust.

Most of us aren’t Brits and never were and never want to be — plus, we already had this argument. Twice. What force of arms could not deliver, guile cannot provide. Possession by pirates does not change ownership.

Now some poor scared and confused people have come to me, concerned that they might be “fooled again” and wondering about the use of “Middle Names”.

Middle names were not generally used until the later half of the 19th century, when the Government’s administrative endeavors were becoming bogged down with too many people having the same or very similar names. The Middle Name convention was adopted to help sort things out between Robert Joe Black, Robert John Black, Robert Jason Black….. and so on.

Most United States Presidents, oddly including “Ulysses S” Grant, didn’t have Middle Names or Middle Initials. Grant’s actual name was simply Hiram Grant. He lived his entire career from Westpoint onward through the war and the Presidency and everything else under an “assumed name” — and in his case, a nom de guerre. In Truth, Grant didn’t have a Middle Name, either, simply an “S” that didn’t stand for anything more than an “S”.

Perhaps someone relished the joke of having a President called “US Grant” — as in, “grant of the United States”.

Anyway, old Hiram Grant was the Golden Boy and the Fall Guy for all that went on during his Administration and ever since, and having or not having a Middle Name was not the crux of it.

The crux (appropriate, the cross) of it is — do you own and control your own name and Trademarks as an American, or do you “voluntarily” adopt the status of a British Territorial “Subject” living and working in this country as a U.S. Citizen?

Now that you know how the Queen actually operates this spider web of deceit and false claims and overbearing ruthless opportunism against her own people, do you want to be part of that? Never able to own your own home and land, always under the thumb of the Queen and the Crown? Hounded by British thugs akin to the Raj in India? Helpless to control your own government?

Think about it, but don’t think too long.

Claim back your Good Name and standing as a birthright American; correct the falsified record that your misdirected public employees created “for” you, claiming that you were “abandoned” property, and latching you as a baby in the name of the British Monarch — at the same time these jackals were receiving our aid against the Nazis and everything from shoelaces to firebricks needed to rebuild their own country and economy.

The ink wasn’t dry on the Nazi surrender and the gallows hadn’t creaked under the feet of the prisoners at Nuremberg before the Brits were planning our economic and diplomatic defeat. This is the treachery that Britain and its leadership, in league with the Roman Pontiff, are famous for, and a “right ruddy example” of the criminality which has infested the British Islands and the Monarchy ever since the days of “King” John.

Britain is indeed “Great” but only because of the greatness of her common people, the toughness, veracity, work ethic, enterprise and wit of average people living throughout these haunted Islands—- and that is a greatness that has been heartlessly preyed upon by six generations of German Supplanters under the control of the House of Wettin.

Just as these same Supplanters substituted their “State of State” organizations for our American State of State organizations after the Civil War, just as they substituted their version of “the” United States for The United States, just as they substituted their version of “the” United States of America and even “the” United States of America, Incorporated, for our Federation of States, they have done the same thing every place they have ever taken root and all to the same end— to act as deceivers and parasites and then move on, killing their hosts or leaving them debilitated as they go.

They set up Germany, they set up France, they set up Britain — twice; now they have set up America and pretended that we are “the US” —and are trying their best to sink us with their Bunko, while they move onto China and sink their fangs into a billion Chinese backs.

This all deserves to end, not with more lies and war planes, but with determined men and women devoted to the cause of justice and life, finally seeing the Perpetrators of all the misery, all the lies — and arresting them as the criminals they are.

We need to finally cut to the chase, see through and beyond all the stooges and storefronts set up to be the Fall Guys and Scapegoats— straight through to the ancient evil that these criminals have cherished. And give them nowhere to hide.

See this article and over 2900 others on Anna’s website here:
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

About "Firearms"

 By Anna Von Reitz

Everyone please pay attention so I don’t have to go over all this again and again and again?

Here’s the facts, folks.

Firearms are never described in the actual law pertaining to Americans — as opposed to the Municipal Code which some people are mistaking for our Public Law — which does describe “firearms”, and the Territorial Federal Code, which also describes “firearms” in a slightly different context.

What Americans have is the right to keep and bear arms. Our law doesn’t say anything about “firearms” at all.

On our own turf, we have the unabridged right to have, keep, bear, and use any kind of armament at all. Rifles, Howitzers, Sling slots, tanks, airplanes, rockets, knives, nail guns, self-propelled grenades, bombs, Molotov cocktails, drones, bb guns, machine guns, throwing axes, whatever. Period.

The Municipal Code, which is foreign law with respect to Americans, defines “firearms”. The Territorial Federal Code, which is foreign law with respect to Americans, also defines “firearms”.

This is yet another semantic deceit and red-herring that has its roots in the post-Civil War Era when the Capitol City was afraid that US Army Units would use “artillery and small firearms” to stage a take-over. This was later amended in 1933 — after the glory days of Al Capone — to “firearms” in the vein of rifles and tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns used by gangsters, and none of it pertains to us at all.

Municipal Code is a separate body of purely “Federal” law that pertains solely to the administration of the Municipality of Washington, DC. Last time I looked, it is about 2800 pages long including definitions and addendums, and costs about $1800 per copy, with the result that most Americans have never even seen a copy of the Municipal Code.

My point is that the Municipal Code was originally intended to prevent artillery and cannons from being brought into Washington, DC, and didn’t impact our right to keep and bear “arms” outside the city limits— a separate topic — at all. That is why the Municipal Code was allowed to stand, and the reason it still stands.

They get the right to dictate to their own citizenry and to control their own premises, but they can in no way pass legislation affecting our rights on our turf.

Rod Class made the mistake and I told him it was a mistake, to try to go into their set-apart little enclave and claim his “guarantees” as an American— doing that makes as much sense as going to Ireland, violating Irish law, and then claiming it doesn’t apply to you because you are an American.

If you are an American in America, your law applies. If you are an American in Ireland, their law applies. Rod Class was an American in the Municipality of Washington, DC, which is an independent international city-state. Their law applied and their law defines “firearms”.

This is all part of the patriots being confused about the nature of their Federal Subcontractors and also being confused about where and when their constitutional guarantees apply.

If you go onto a US Air Force Base anywhere on Earth, I trust that you know that you can’t swagger in with a weapon? And if you do, you may be mistaken for an enemy combatant? That’s an example of Territorial Codes applying within the perimeter of arsenals and is also a foreign law, simply a better-known foreign law generally called “Federal Code”.

The Territorial Federal Code has grown to more than fifty separate sections called “Titles” covering different topics and it does discuss “firearms” particularly in Title 27 which covers the BATF and the nuts and bolts administration of the regulatory power that the Federal Subcontractors were granted by The Constitution of the United States of America to “regulate” the “interstate” sale, transport, and manufacture of tobacco, alcohol, and firearms— as a source of revenue to support the Federal Government.

It was an early “sin tax”.

Firearms in the 1780’s meant guns with firing pans, what we would call “black powder” guns. The Federal Government was supposed to eke its earnings out of whatever it could raise as revenue from the interstate manufacture, sale, or transport (across state lines) of such firearms. They have more or less sensibly extrapolated that right to regulate “firearms” to include modern small arms and profited themselves from licensing them– not their owners.

But once again, “firearms” is a topic that never finds reference to Americans standing on their own turf. The definition of “firearms” only appears — in either Municipal or Territorial terms — in foreign law and with respect to foreign jurisdictions.

The Municipality of Washington DC is a foreign, independent, international city state operating in the global jurisdiction of the Air. The Territorial Government is a separate, foreign, British Commonwealth entity operating in the international jurisdiction of the Sea.

Both are foreign. Both operate under foreign law. And neither one can dictate jack diddly squat to an American standing on the land and soil of his own State of the Union, or exercising any “reserved right” not explicitly addressed by their respective Constitutions—- so long as he is “standing in his own right” and operating on his own turf.

The Municipality of Washington, DC, as I have pointed out with monotonous regularity, is a separate international city-state, completely independent of the rest of this country, ruled over by the members of “the” United States (Municipal) Congress, acting as a plenary oligarchy, and it is set apart and allowed to function in this manner by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

The Capitol City does not belong to us, Americans—and it never has. It was set up this way on purpose, both to invite foreign investment to bear the cost of building it, and to provide a meeting place where members of all fifty States could gather on neutral ground.

The Municipal Code of Washington, DC, applies to all corporations formed in Washington, DC, which is the only reason that this topic bears much discussion at all, with respect to “firearms” or anything else.

Rod Class made the mistake of bringing “firearms” — according to their Municipal Code definition — into their foreign enclave, and thinking that their law didn’t apply on their turf. He apparently thought that his Constitutional Guarantees were owed to him everywhere on Earth, but a little thought will prove that this is not true, nor is it reasonable to assume.

Do you have any sacred right to keep and bear arms on the Island of Bali? Don’t you grant that the Balinese would have something to say about that? And if they didn’t want you to have a .357 tucked under your arm during your vacation stay, for fear you might use it against their people, wouldn’t they as a foreign government have a right to impound your weapon?

If you snuck your weapon past their border guards and customs agents in spite of their efforts to clearly post and give notice of their restrictions, wouldn’t they have a right to charge you with such crimes as willful criminal mischief, even if you left your gun locked up in a gun case the whole time?

Of course, they would. And it is the same with Washington, DC.

The Municipal officials threw the book at Rod Class and they had every right to. I warned him before he did it and told him why, but he was a bonehead and he went shashaying into Washington, DC, with a couple deer rifles and God-knows-what in his truck.

He’s lucky he got out alive, and though I love him dearly, he’s still a bonehead and hasn’t learned any of the lessons I have tried to teach him — complete with evidentiary proof. How hard is it, after all, to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 when someone points it out to you, and take in the meaning of “plenary oligarchy”?

Until people stop screwing around and learn to drive on their own side of the road, a lot of good men are going to be needlessly hurt and a great deal of brain power and effort is going to be wasted.

Every American needs to learn and needs to know, for certain, that the “Federal Government” is being run by foreign Subcontractors and when I say “foreign” I mean foreign in the same sense that Spain is foreign to Denmark.

They operate under foreign laws called “Codes and Statutes and Regulations” and they operate in foreign international and global jurisdictions that most Americans have no reason to visit, except perhaps as tourists.

The Territorials were granted a right to regulate and profit from the interstate manufacture, sale or transport of “firearms” and so, they will, within reason, update the meaning of “firearms” into the modern world, and they will regulate away with gusto every time there is manufacture, sale, or transport of small arms across state borders.

They can also “license” federally regulated goods, and they can also license their own citizenry with or without that specific regulatory authority, but it is severely doubtful that their regulatory authority extends to licensing Americans when those Americans are standing on their own soil.

So far as I know, the question of Federal regulatory authority to license Americans to do anything at all, and I do mean anything, on their own turf —has never been breached in the Supreme Court of the United States—- but it certainly should be, because the Federales of both stripes have been trespassing against us and usurping against our people by registering and licensing activities of common right without authority to do so.

That is a topic worthy of fighting over.

The right of the Municipality of Washington, DC, to ban firearms within their own city boundaries, is not a worthy topic to even debate. The right of the Territorial Government to regulate “interstate” manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol, tobacco, and “firearms” is another don’t-bother-me-with-it topic. Read your Constitutions and you can see for yourselves exactly what they are allowed and not allowed.

Stand aside and let them do what they are clearly allowed to do, and stomp on them if they cross the line and trespass. It really is as simple and as difficult as that.

The Municipal denizens were gifted with a plenary oligarchy on our Eastern Seaboard, and until we get angry enough with their shenanigans to boot them into the sea and reclaim the ground under the city — which still belongs to Maryland and Virginia, by the way — that’s their turf.

The Territorial Federales can regulate and profit from the interstate sale, manufacture or transport of exactly three commodities. If they try to extend their paws to include other commodities or include activities taking place in “non-interstate” environments, like your backyard, tell them where to get off and do it in no uncertain terms.

Most of all, make it crystal clear that you are an American, and not any species of Municipal or Territorial “person” at all.

Go to:

and record your political status as an American who is owed every jot of the Constitutions— and then learn when and where the Constitutional Guarantees apply, so that you don’t wind up in jail or worse.

See this article and over 2900 others on Anna’s website here:
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.



Robert David Steele presents a 15 page document created by an unknown author that details the election fraud. He calls it the single best summary and most compelling indictment of the election fraud that he has seen. Steele suggests that US citizens read the document and send to their representatives demanding that they read this document before the meeting on the 6th of January.

Click on the following link to read about the document:
Robert David Steele’s page

For document PDF download:

Best-Total-Summary-of-Election-2020-Fraud-Obstruction-of-Justice.pdf (9 downloads)



Raffensperger sent armed thugs to Coffee County, Ga., to intimidate recount officials

(Natural News) During a recent hearing of the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Elections, Coffee County GOP Chair Cathy Latham revealed that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office sent armed thugs to intimidate and harass election officials as they attempted to perform a ballot recount. Coffee County had experienced numerous problems with its Dominion…

Here’s how Trump could flip the script and win on Jan. 6

(Natural News) Depending on the source, President Donald Trump’s rightful tally in the state of Pennsylvania is somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 votes higher than what was certified and is now being reported. In either case, though, Trump won Pennsylvania – and if he plays his cards right, Trump could also win the election. Because…