Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought us many harsh lessons. Importantly, it has shown us how easy it is to manufacture panic and control entire populations through deceptive means. Topping the list of deceptive strategies is the use of a test that falsely labels healthy individuals as sick and infectious. This allows mass testing to drive the narrative that we’re in a lethal pandemic.

Of course, I’m talking about the now infamous reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.1

This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others. Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.”

The Crucial Detail That Nullifies Most PCR Test Results

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. Due to its tiny size, it must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold (CT).

The higher the CT, the greater the risk that insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

Many scientists have noted that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible.2,3,4 A September 28, 2020, study5 in Clinical Infectious Diseases revealed that when you run a PCR test at a CT of 35 or higher, the accuracy drops to 3%, resulting in a 97% false positive rate.

Yet, a test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles,6,7,8 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend running PCR tests at a CT of 40.9

The question is why, considering the consensus is that CTs over 35 render the test useless. When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you clearly end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic”10,11 — an epidemic of false positives.

Many are now questioning whether this was done on purpose to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what’s known as the Great Reset, which is nothing less than a global totalitarian takeover by unelected technocrats who seek to gobble up all the world’s assets.

Indeed, it seems quite clear we’re not dealing with a lethal pandemic in any real sense. Mortality statistics further prove this is the case, as overall mortality statistics have remained stable in 2020 and in line with previous years.12,13,14

In other words, people are dying from COVID-19, yes, but the illness is not killing an excess number of people. The same number of people would have died anyway, from something. Indeed, CDC data15 released August 26, 2020, showed only 6% of so-called COVID-19 deaths had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause on the death certificate.

“For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC stated, and any one of those comorbidities could have killed those people even if COVID-19 was nonexistent.

For Accuracy, Much Lower CTs Must Be Used

Now, if CTs above 35 are scientifically unjustified, just how low of a CT should be used? Quite a few studies have investigated this, so there’s no shortage of data at this point. The fact that the WHO, FDA and CDC still have not changed their CTs downward in light of all these data tells us they’re not interested in getting an accurate picture of the infection rate.

For example, an April 2020 study16 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases showed that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

More recently, a December 3, 2020, systematic review17 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases assessed the findings of 29 different studies — all of which were published in 2020 — comparing evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the CTs used in testing.

As reported by the authors, “12 studies reported that CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What’s more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.

So, to summarize, if you have symptoms of COVID-19 and test positive using a PCR test that was run at 35 amplification cycles or higher, then you are likely to be infected and infectious.

However, if you do not have symptoms, yet test positive using a PCR test run at 35 CTs or higher, then it is likely a false positive and you pose no risk to others as you’re unlikely to carry any live virus. In fact, provided you’re asymptomatic, you’re unlikely to be infectious even if you test positive with a test run at 24 CTs or higher.

Fearmongering Success Hinges on Incorrect Use of PCR Test

The video above includes several interviews with experts who have openly criticized the use of PCR testing to diagnose infections such as COVID-19. These include:

The inventor of the PCR test, the late Kary Mullis (he has spoken about the test for other infections, such as HIV, but died in August 2019, a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out)

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Oxford University Center for Evidence-Based Medicine

Emeritus professor of immunology Beda M. Stadler, former head of the Bern Institute of Immunology

Clare Craig, a consultant pathologist

Stephen A. Bustin, professor of molecular medicine and a world-renowned expert on the PCR test

In 1993, Mullis spoke about the use of the PCR test to diagnose HIV. He explained that all the test does is amplify molecules into something you can detect, but it cannot tell you whether those particles actually pose a risk to your health.

He also points out that, using PCR, you can essentially find just about anything in anyone because most of us are walking around with pathogens of all sorts, but the load is either too low to be of concern or the particles are just dead debris that pose no risk.

Bustin points out that when you get a positive result using a CT of 35 or higher, you’re looking at the equivalent of a single copy of viral DNA. The likelihood of that causing a health problem is minuscule. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that using a PCR test with a CT above 35 renders it more or less useless because at that point, you’re just detecting dead nucelotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.

Fatal Errors Found in Paper on Which PCR Testing Is Based

November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review18 challenging the scientific paper19 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman. The Corman-Drosten paper was quickly accepted by the WHO and the workflow described therein was adopted as the standard across the world.

According to Reiner Fuellmich,20 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,21 or ACU),22,23 Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”24 one of which is the fact that it was written (and the test itself developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.

The fact that the paper was published a mere 24 hours after it was submitted also suggests it didn’t even undergo peer review. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:25

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test.

When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.

In the fish market, it’s like giving you a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish.’ It could be any fish … Listen, the Corman-Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up.

They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So, its ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in … This is basically a computer virus.

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …

There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.

The conclusion of the review reads, in part:26

“A decision to recognize the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimize human cost and suffering going forward. Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.”

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by a November 20, 2020, study27 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in PCR-positive cases at all. The study evaluated data from 9,865,404 residents of Wuhan, China, who had undergone PCR testing between May 14 and June 1, 2020.

A total of 300 tested positive but had no symptoms. Of the 34,424 people with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive a second time. Yet, when they did virus cultures on these 407 individuals who had tested positive (either for the first or second time), no live virus was found in any of them!

Antibody Tests Are Equally Unreliable

Antibody tests are also turning out to have their share of quality problems. If you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, that would be evidence that your immune system successfully overcame the virus at some point in the past. However, the COVID-19 antibody test may also turn out positive if you have antibodies against common cold viruses.

June 30, 2020, the CDC admitted that prior exposure to coronaviruses responsible for the common cold can result in a positive COVID-19 antibody test, even if you’ve never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 specifically.28

The saving grace is that studies29,30,31 suggest antibodies produced following exposure to coronaviruses that cause the common cold also appear to provide some general and long-lasting resistance against SARS-CoV-2.

One such study,32,33 published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 70% of samples from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level, as did 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.” In other words, if you’ve recovered from a common cold caused by a particular coronavirus, your humoral immune system may activate when you encounter SARS-CoV-2, thus rendering you resistant to COVID-19.

Another study34 discovered SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are only found in the most severe cases — about 1 in 5. So, a negative antibody test doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that you’ve been infected and didn’t get sick. In fact, this finding suggests COVID-19 may actually be five times more prevalent than suspected — and five times less deadly than predicted.

In a letter to the editor35 published in the July 1, 2020, issue of American Family Physician, Drs. Mark Ebell, deputy editor for evidence-based medicine for the journal, and Henry Barry, reviewed some of the available data, noting that:

“When assessing whether patients had a previous infection and may be immune, it is important to avoid false-positives so that patients do not think they are immune when they are not.

Table 1 summarizes the false-positive rates at various population prevalence for the Cellex test and for a hypothetical test that is 90% sensitive and 99% specific. At relatively low population prevalences, which likely reflect current conditions in the United States and elsewhere, we would argue that false-positive rates are unacceptably high with the Cellex test.”

antibody testing for covid-19

Ebell and Barry pointed out that many of the antibody tests that have provisional approval from the FDA still have not even been evaluated for accuracy. They also recommended that labs report test results “in a way that reflects the local population prevalence based on widespread testing and include the false-positive rate,” as this information “is needed to help family physicians better inform shared decision-making regarding previous infection and return to work or school.”

At present, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone including that data in their reporting, and the way things are going, I wouldn’t hold my breath in anticipation of such helpful numbers being included in the future either.

High Time to End Mass Testing Scam

If the vast majority of people who test positive for COVID-19 infection have no symptoms, don’t feel sick and don’t look sick, is COVID-19 really a “deadly” disease? Or, is it more like HPV — a viral infection that most people have without knowing it, and which 90% are able to eliminate without treatment?

The primary justification for the tyrannical governmental interventions of COVID-19 was to slow the spread of the infection so that hospital resources would not be overwhelmed, causing people to die due to lack of medical care.

These interventions were not about stopping the spread altogether or even reducing the number of people that would eventually get infected. They certainly were never meant to prevent all death. Any rational analysis would rapidly conclude that this simply isn’t possible, under any circumstance.

Short-term stay-at-home orders and business closings were only intended to slow down the spread so that, eventually, naturally-acquired herd immunity — the best kind — would prevent it from reemerging. Yet the goal posts keep shifting as we go along.

Two-week lockdowns turned into months in some areas. Eventually, we were told everything would go back to normal as soon as a vaccine became available. But once the vaccines started rolling out, the narrative changed again, and we were told we’d still need masks, social distancing and lockdowns well into 2021 or even 2022 even with a vaccine. What, exactly, is going on?

The only rational reason for why government interventions continue is because they’re meant to erode our personal freedoms and civil liberties and transfer wealth to unelected technocrats who are controlling the pandemic narrative. It’s all fearmongering based on a combination of wildly manipulated data and flawed tests.

Aside from PCR testing data, there’s no evidence of a lethal pandemic at all. As mentioned, while there is such a thing as COVID-19, and people have and do die from it, there are no excess deaths due to it.36,37,38 The total mortality for 2020 is normal.

So, unless we think we should shut down the world and stop living because people die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, the flu or anything else, then there’s no reason to shut down the world because some people happen to die from COVID-19.

What You Can Do

The good news is the hoax is starting to be exposed. In November 2020, a Portuguese appeals court ruled39,40 that the PCR test is “not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2” and that “a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.” Therefore, “any enforced quarantine based on the results is unlawful.”41 The court also noted that forcing healthy people to self-isolate could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.

As detailed in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation,” additional legal cases are also to be expected, all of which will help expose the fraud perpetrated. As for what you can do in the meantime, consider:

  • Turning off mainstream media news and turning to independent experts — do the research. Read through the science.
  • Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions — arm yourself with mortality statistics and the facts on PCR testing, so you can explain how and why this pandemic simply isn’t a pandemic anymore.
  • If you are a medical professional, especially if you’re a member of a professional society, write an open letter to your government, urging them to speak to and heed recommendations from independent experts.
  • Sign The Great Barrington Declaration,42 which calls for an end to lockdowns.
  • Join a group so that you can have support — Examples of groups formed to fight against government overreach include Us for Them, a group campaigning for reopening schools and protecting children’s rights in the U.K., and the Freedom to Breathe Agency, a U.S. team of attorneys, doctors, business owners and parents who are fighting to protect freedom and liberty.

LA Rolls Out Digital Vaccine Verification

Los Angeles has started to use digital receipts for people who have gotten a COVID-19 vaccination. Although this may feel like just one more step integrating digital record-keeping, it goes well beyond and ultimately has a much larger goal.

Digital health passports and vaccine verifications are just the beginning of data collection and social engineering designed to change your behavior and control your movements. The maneuver has been called the Great Reset and “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” referring to the merging of digital, physical and biological systems.

At the center of this data collection and social engineering is artificial intelligence, which is a key component to effective surveillance. You might have thought the current state of artificial intelligence is not prepared to handle the vast amount of data that health passports can collect, but you would be wrong.

Likewise, just one year ago it might have been difficult to imagine widespread acceptance of cellphone apps to collect your vaccination status and convert it into a health passport, yet, under the context of a pandemic, it is suddenly perceived as necessary for public health.

The development and delivery of health passports as the new normal has been part of the plan for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data long before the COVID-19 pandemic.1

First Step in Data Collection: Digital Vaccine Verification

The first steps for data collection begin with your health passport, which is not about disease transmission but, rather, surveillance and control. LA is taking this step with their digital vaccine verifications, which on the surface appear innocuous, and maybe even reasonable.

NBC News calls it an “intuitive idea.”2 The Los Angeles digital iPhone receipt is being launched with tech firm Healthvana using an app that can be stored in an Apple wallet or the Android equivalent. The initial aim is ostensibly to document people who get the first shot, so they also get the required booster. However, as Daily Mail writes and quotes Healthvana CEO:3

“But the digital receipt could also be used ‘to prove to airlines, to prove to schools, to prove to whoever needs it,’ that a person has been vaccinated, Healthvana CEO Ramin Bastani told Bloomberg.”

As technology groups hail the emergence of these digital verifications as a hope to streamline the two-step vaccination process, privacy groups continue to warn of the potential future invasions of privacy from government and private companies who can harvest data and medical information from health passports. In a statement, the advocacy group Privacy International warns:4

“This great moment of hope must not be seen opportunistically as yet another data grab. The deployment of vaccines, and in particular any “immunity passport” or certificate linked to the vaccination, must respect human rights.

As we’ve had to remind governments repeatedly over the last 10 months, and 30 years, such stealth opportunism by governments and companies will undermine trust and confidence, particularly at this time when they’re needed more than ever.”

Early in the pandemic in May 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned:5

“It is one thing for an employee to voluntarily disclose their COVID-19 status to an employer on a one-off basis. But it is another for that information to be collected and retained, either by the government or by private companies offering immunity certifications, depending on how any immunity passport system in the U.S. is implemented.

The existing legal framework may not be sufficient to prevent this information from being shared, especially if it is held by private entities.

Once an immunity surveillance infrastructure is created for one purpose, there may be mission creep and moves to expand it into other contexts … As a result, immunity status may be stored with other personal details, such as travel, employment, or housing information, heightening the intrusiveness of an immunity passport system.

As tempting as immunity passports may be for policymakers who want a quick fix to restart economic activity in the face of widespread suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, they present both public health and civil rights concerns that cannot be overlooked.”

No Proof Vaccination Prevents Viral Transmission

Businesses that are desperate to regain financial footing have suggested passports may be a stopgap measure. For instance, Ticketmaster announced it would offer an option to “allow event organizers to require proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test.”6

However, the company was forced to reverse its decision after public outcry. They issued a statement clarifying their position, “there is absolutely no requirement from Ticketmaster mandating vaccines/testing for future events.”7

Business Insider reports the World Health Organization is continuing to urge people to self-quarantine when they travel since there isn’t enough evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine can prevent transmission of the virus.8 Their chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan spoke in a virtual briefing, saying:9

“At the moment I don’t believe we have enough evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident it will prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on. I think until we know more we need to assume that people who have been vaccinated need to take the same precautions till there is a certain level of herd immunity.”

The question is whether the vaccine can prevent asymptomatic transmissions, helping to protect more than the people who take the vaccine. One virologist is planning such a study but still needs funding and cooperation from the pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Larry Corey, virologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, proposes to sign up college students to receive one of two vaccines or a placebo injection.10 Corey pitched the idea to a public-private partnership and received enthusiastic support. However, the plan can’t be finalized until it receives buy-in from the pharmaceutical industry and he finds a funding partner.

Although the study would be expensive, Corey’s top concern is convincing Moderna or Pfizer to participate. Moderna’s chief medical officer believes their vaccine will reduce transmission, absent any scientific proof, saying:11

“Our results show that this vaccine can prevent you from being sick. It can prevent you from being severely sick. They do not show that they prevent you from potentially carrying this virus and transiently infecting others. When we start the deployment of this vaccine we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.

Do I believe it reduces transmission? Absolutely yes … but, absent proof, I think it’s important that we don’t change behaviors solely on the basis of vaccination.”

Next Step in the Great Reset Is Your Health Passport

In this disturbing short video, the World Economic Forum’s “charismatic German leader” Klaus Schwab describes the Great Reset in terms of finding “social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality” through Marxist principles.

In other words, it’s a massive public relations and propaganda campaign to destroy capitalism and move control out of your hands and into the hands of those seeking power and control. November 10, 2016, the World Economic Forum published an article in Forbes titled, “Welcome to 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better.”12

In it they describe living in a world where you will own nothing, have no privacy and be grateful that your humanity has been stripped away. Most telling is a short paragraph near the end of this ominous picture of life under the control of Marxist leaders:

“Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.”

This is the focus of the “Great Reset,” “Fourth Industrial Revolution” or “Build Back Better,” each of which are terms used to tell the story of how you should want your life to change so that others can control what you think, want, buy and how you live. Only in this way will you experience “social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality.”

However, as one commenter wrote, “He says a reset but I can bet you his wealth and position won’t get reset.” And another points out, “The great reset while sounding like a good way to go, a fairer society with equal opportunity for all, but it’ll be run by the same people … how fair do you think it will really be?”13

As with most social change there must be a catalyst, and those pushing for the Great Reset are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a way of encouraging the public to change their behavior and accept control “for the greater good.” The frame of reference is that if you don’t change your behavior then you don’t care about your neighbor, family, friends and relatives.

This means because, if you did care, then you would want everyone to wear masks, get the vaccine and use a health passport so the spread of a ubiquitous virus can be “controlled” and life can be reset to the “new normal.” On the face of it, using digital health verifications may seem harmless and even sensible, but make no mistake, it is the next step in shaping your behavior.

This Is Not About Disease Transmission

As journalist James Corbett illustrates, the Great Reset is “working as some sort of marketing tool for the very old ideas of centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.”14 It is not about reducing disease transmission, lowering death rates or ensuring public health.

Tied to gaining control of your health and finances is also the desire to read your thoughts to control behavior. At a World Economic Forum meeting in 2016, panelists discussed brain scanning and brain mapping to be used by the legal system, a process that has been used in India where a brain scan was used to criminally convict someone.15 J. Peter Rosenfeld, psychologist and neuroscientist at Northwestern University, calls this “incredible.”16

“Technologies which are neither seriously peer-reviewed nor independently replicated are not, in my opinion, credible. The fact that an advanced and sophisticated democratic society such as India would actually convict persons based on an unproven technology is even more incredible.”

Jack Gallant, head of The Gallant Lab at UC Berkeley, believes it’s just a matter of time before there will be portable brain decoding technology that “decodes language as fast as you can text on your cellphone”: “Everyone will wear them, because people have shown that they’re quite willing to give up privacy for convenience.”17

The process through which this is all being funneled was developed by Robert Cialdini, Ph.D., a psychologist who studied and perfected sales techniques.18 His theory revolves around getting people to say “yes.” The more you say “yes,” the more likely it is you’ll say yes to the next request. He postulated and proved it’s easier to get someone to agree with you if you start small. Colin Shaw, founder and CEO of Beyond Philosophy LLC, describes the process this way:19

“Suppose I want you to give me $100. If I ask you for $100, you are probably going to say no. You likely have a rule about not giving people $100 when they ask for it. However, if I ask for $1, you would probably say yes. I get more than $1 you give me, though; I get you used to the idea of giving me money when I ask for it.

Then, once we have established that you would give me money, I ask for more the next time, like $20. Since you had already given me $1, you might think, “Well, what’s a little bit more?” Bit by bit, I work my way up to $100, starting with gaining your commitment early at a lower amount.”

Each small step seems reasonable and may be an action you could support. But, ultimately, the goal is greater than getting $1, wearing a mask or downloading a health passport. Ultimately, the goal is to get the public to agree to give up their basic human rights, to live under Marxist rule where you have no control and artificial intelligence knows you better than you know yourself.

Make no mistake, when it comes to vaccinations, this is a likely scenario, which may create legal prejudice and segregation, isolating those who do not choose to vaccinate — a far cry from Schwab’s description of “social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality.”

How to Resist the Great Reset

If this seems too much like Star Wars and not possible in your lifetime, you need only listen to Klaus Schwab describe how “we can build a new social contract particularly integrating the next generation”20 or understand that the technology to create such a world already exists and “people have shown that they’re quite willing to give up privacy for convenience.”21

In this short video above, Corbett interviews Howard Lichtman from who succinctly outlines how citizens can engage with the police to exercise their rights. As Lichtman points out, “A right not exercised is a right lost.” It is the responsibility of every citizen to decide for themselves and then act responsibly on that decision.

His focus is on ending police enforcement of victimless crimes, such as mask wearing and lockdowns, while fixing attention on proper policing of crimes involving victims, such as theft, murder and rape.22

“The biggest problem with policing isn’t the police. It’s the politicians and bureaucrats that use legislation and executive orders, forcing the police to raise revenue on their friends and neighbors, to arrest peaceful people for victimless crimes, and steal money, vehicles and property using civil asset forfeiture.”

In his interview with Corbett, Lichtman points out it isn’t the police departments who are responsible for much of the poor relations with the public but, rather, politicians whose social engineering intent is speeding society toward the World Economic Forum’s ideal world of 2030.23

“It really is the politicians that are trying to force the police to use violence and be immoral to either raise revenue, or social engineering or what I would call economic warfare based on disease models that are already proven to be flawed and incorrect.”

I encourage you to also watch one of the most powerful videos I’ve seen with Barbara Loe Fisher, who inspires you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence. For more information about how you can participate, see “Global Vaccine Passport Will Be Required for Travel.”

Why the Military Can’t Afford to Wait

 By Anna Von Reitz

Quite simply, they are being lied to and mis-advised by the very attorneys that are at the heart of this horrific, scandalous, criminal empire which functions under color of law— not law.

The theory that the military has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker is that they can’t arrest Joe Biden for treason until he takes a military Oath of Office and so, subjects himself to military law.

That is Bushwah with a capital “B”. All Municipal citizens of the United States are residents of the District of Columbia and are subject to its law. No need to wait and no excuses accepted.

Once Biden takes the Oath of Office, he becomes the President and Commander-in-Chief, and instead of being able to arrest the rat, the military’s hands will be neatly tied and they will have the “excuse” — again, that they can’t act against their Commander-in-Chief.

But they are acting against their Commander-in-Chief right now and spinning a lot of Bull-Pucky trying to excuse their inexcusable inaction, just as they have done for the last 81 years, when the indecent collusion between the US, INC. and the USA, Inc. began back in 1937.

Wiping their hands of their duty to the States and People of this country and covering their own rumps is what this “plan” to let Joe Biden take the Oath of Office is all about.

If the Joint Chiefs knew anything at all about law, constitutional, military or otherwise, if they were being honestly and properly advised, they would know that treason and High Crimes committed by any Municipal citizen of the United States at any time is cause for that citizen’s immediate arrest. Allowing Joe Biden or anyone else “elected” via fraud is a crime. Allowing Joe Biden to sell his office to China is a crime. Allowing Joe Biden to extort money from anyone, including foreign governments, is a crime.

These are all crimes that the Joint Chiefs will be guilty of as accomplices and they will be guilty of a great deal more if they sit on their flat little rumps and promote any such scheme to allow Biden to take any Oath of Office pertaining to this country, our people, our purloined assets, or any position of trust, ever.

All that allowing Biden near the podium will do is provide the perpetrator with the protection of official immunity except by impeachment by the endlessly corrupt “Congress” — which amounts to utter dereliction of duty and madness on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You don’t throw Brer Rabbit into the Briar Patch and you don’t let crooks take Oaths of Presidential Offices subject only to impeachment by members of a criminal “Congress”.

You don’t tip-toe around and make excuses and try to dodge your absolute and sworn obligation to protect this country and its people from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Joe Biden is a domestic criminal called a “denizen of Washington, DC” inhabiting the District of Columbia. He is self-admittedly guilty and his confession is on video tape.

Joe Biden has broken international law dozens of times, betrayed the Constitution innumerable times, and done nothing but play the “nice guy” without actually being one for forty years in a Congress that is misrepresenting its nature and authority and is guilty of all the same crimes that he has indulged in.

The most glaring crime being committed by all these “persons” is Breach of Trust and criminal violation of their commercial contracts.

If the Joint Chiefs and their “plan” is any indication of what the American States and People are depending upon, it’s best to fact the facts right now: the military is as corrupt as the Congress and they are continuing to work hand-in-glove to evade their obligations to the Constitutions and to the American States and People, to the Military Code of Justice, to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and to decency itself.

They are doing nothing whatsoever but to cover their own butts, make excuses, and lie through their teeth— and they all deserve to be court-martialed.

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.

Santa Surfing 1-12-21 VIDEO… “GESARA – Constitutional Everything! 1/11 – What happened?” (and two more)

Very uplifting video here, and I agree with what one of her followers said, that she brings a positive Spirit into what is currently going on with this planet.

Her Twitter (and Parler) account has been suspended, but she does have a GAB account. She also has a few videos (including this one) on her Rumble page.

All of her videos, plus links to related items, may be found at her website.
Link to related Santa Surfing article

Link to related Santa Surfing article
Link to related Santa Surfing article

PARLER: PARLER @santasurfing

AIRBORNE THOUGHT POLICE: Delta kicks two women off flight for having private conservation about Trump

(Natural News) For the “crime” of speaking privately about their support for President Donald Trump while aboard a commercial aircraft, two women were kicked off a Delta Airlines flight, shocking new video footage shows. The women were apparently having the conversation following the “insurrection” incident in Washington, D.C., when other passengers heard them speaking positively…

Mozilla, Firefox planning to censor conservatives at the browser level; deplatforming isn’t enough

(Natural News) Banning President Donald Trump from social media while silencing his supporters who dare to object is simply not enough to stop “violence and hate” from spreading on the internet, according to Mozilla, the company behind the Firefox browser. In an announcement, Mozilla expressed urgent plans to start filtering out “disinformation” at the browser…

Leftist Democrats claims that Trump “incited violence” when they are the ones who enabled and cheered deadly mobs throughout 2020

(Natural News) For the majority of 2020, left-wing Democrats and their sycophantic supporters in the ‘mainstream’ media and the entertainment industry bashed police officers and praised the ‘peaceful’ protesters who were burning cities, looting businesses, destroying lives and killing people. Now, after a small group of apparent supporters of President Donald Trump broke into the…

Trump urges Pompeo to designate Antifa a “terrorist group”

(Natural News) President Donald Trump has exhorted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization. In a letter addressed to Pompeo, the president said he wanted to restrict the movements of any migrants associated with the organization. Trump also claimed that Antifa has been responsible for “recent lawlessness” and has “exploited…