New Anal Swab Tests Deployed to Fight COVID

A video said to have been filmed in Shijiazhuang, China, showed people walking with a waddle as they left a hospital, presumably after having received a new anal swab test for COVID-19. The Shijiazhuang Internet Report Centre said the video was fake, and it’s since been taken down, but not before millions of people viewed it.1

While the image of people waddling like penguins after an anal swab might be an exaggeration, what’s not fake is the anal swab test for COVID-19. Released in Beijing, the test is said to be a more accurate method for detecting the virus.

According to Forbes, Li Tongzeng, deputy director of the respiratory and infectious diseases department at Beijing You An Hospital, cited research that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, survives longer in the anus and feces than in the respiratory tract. Due to this, an anal swab may be able to more accurately detect mild or asymptomatic cases than a nose or throat test.2

While the tests are said to be only for “high-risk cases,” they’ve reportedly been given to unsuspecting individuals, including travelers arriving in Beijing, those in quarantine centers and even 1,000 children and teachers who were exposed to the virus.3

80% Surveyed Were Against the Invasive Testing Method

In a poll on Chinese social media site Weibo, 80% who responded said they “could not accept” anal swab testing for COVID-19.4 While the test can be performed from a stool sample submitted by the patient, if that’s not possible the test involves inserting a cotton-tipped swab one to two inches into the rectum.

“If we add anal swab testing, it can raise our rate of identifying infected patients,” Tongzeng was reported as saying on state-run news channel CCTV. “But of course, considering that collecting anal swabs is not as convenient as throat swabs, at the moment only key groups such as those in quarantine receive both.”5

One Chinese study published in Future Medicine in August 2020 reported that, in some patients, anal swabs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while the virus was not detected in throat swabs or sputum swabs. They concluded, “Anal swabs might be the optimal specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection to evaluate the hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients,”6 although the study was limited in that it involved only four patients.

Another study conducted by researchers at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may be shed through the gastrointestinal tract via feces. They analyzed literature to determine if the virus may persist in stool even after a negative nasopharyngeal test.7 In a review of 12 studies, they found 107 cases in which a positive rectal, anal or stool SARS-CoV-2 test was positive after a nasopharyngeal test was negative.8

“Therefore,” they noted, “there is some evidence of the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in the body secretion in convalescing COVID-19 patients. It is noteworthy that a significant proportion of these patients are within the pediatric age group.”9

In a BMJ rapid response article, Dr. Arturo Tozzi, a pediatrician with the University of North Texas, suggested fecal excretion of SARS-CoV-2 may persist for one to 11 days after excretion in sputum in 23% to 82% of adults. He suggested rectal swabs could be used to test patients with COVID-19 symptoms or known COVID-19 exposure who test negative via throat or sputum tests. He further stated:10

“Indeed, the available data suggest that some patients test positive on rectal swabs in the very first days of COVID-19 onset (Lescure et al., 2020).11

To make a few examples, in a review article, Tian et al. (2020)12 reported fecal PCR positivity 2?5 days after sputum in in 36%?53% of patients, while Xiao et al (2020)13 found that 39/73 hospitalized patients had viral RNA in their feces from 1 to 12 days. Therefore, the occurrence of oro-fecal route points towards the usefulness of rectal swabs at the very onset of the disease to confirm, or even diagnose, COVID-19.”

EU Plans to ‘Follow the Science’ for Anal COVID-19 Testing

Time will tell whether anal swabs become more popular for COVID-19 testing in China and around the world. For now, it’s still generating snickers among European Commission spokespeople, but when asked by a journalist whether anal swabs could be implemented for EU-wide COVID testing, a spokesperson said they would “follow the science.”14

European Commission spokesperson for health, food safety and transport Stefan De Keersmaecker said, “We will go where the science takes us. So, if science takes us to the butt, we will consider this. But of course I don’t think I can add a lot on this … We indeed rely heavily … on the input from scientists, and so we leave it to the scientific world to see what are the best approaches.”15

There are critics of the anal testing, as well. Forbes reported that Yang Zhanqiu, a pathology expert from Wuhan University, told China’s Global Times that nose and throat swabs were most efficient, adding, “There have been cases concerning the coronavirus testing positive in a patient’s excrement, but no evidence has suggested it had been transmitted through one’s digestive system.”16

Dr. Amesh A. Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Maryland, also raised concerns about the nature of the test, telling Health that not only is it unknown whether anal swabs are useful for detecting contagious cases but, “I also worry that such messages may discourage people from getting tested. For most purposes, including screening asymptomatic individuals, nasal or saliva samples are sufficient.”17

Submitting stool samples would be one way of getting around the unpleasantness of the test, as stool samples are already collected for a variety of other medical tests, according to Joanne Santini, professor of microbiology at University College London. She told Insider that anal swabs are “the obvious thing to do.” According to Insider:18

“Santini explained that the virus attaches to the human body using a receptor called ACE2, and there are many ACE2 receptors in the gut. The viral load — the amount of virus shedded — can also be higher in the feces, especially if someone is suffering with gastrointestinal problems caused by coronavirus. And viral shedding can last for longer in the feces than in sputum.

‘Even though a common way of being infected is through respiration, I think there must be some infection happening through the gut via the mouth,’ she said. ‘There is evidence that SARS-CoV-2 in feces is infectious, just like other viruses, such as norovirus and other coronaviruses.'”

Rampant Problems With PCR Tests

It remains to be seen whether anal COVID-19 tests will catch on, but as it stands positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems. The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.19

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 from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most, laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive” and being ordered to take off work and self-isolate for two weeks.

The higher the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. While any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,20,21 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 40.22

A test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.23,24,25 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”26,27 — an epidemic of false positives.

The WHO updated its testing guidance January 20, 2021, to admit that that a positive PCR test alone does not equal infection, and that the “PCR threshold (CT) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load.” Therefore, in cases where the patient’s symptoms do not correspond to the result of the test, i.e., they’re asymptomatic but test positive, they should be retested using the same or different test.

They also noted that the PCR test should only be used as an “aid” in diagnosis and not be relied upon by itself. Diagnosis must also include the observation of clinical symptoms. So, to get a diagnosis of COVID-19, you now need two positive tests if symptoms are absent, and a doctor’s judgment-call on whether symptoms appear consistent with a diagnosis of COVID-19.

However, it’s uncertain how many labs will adopt this advice to make their tests more accurate. The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by a November 20, 2020, study in Nature Communications,28 which found no viable virus in PCR-positive cases. 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.

It’s unknown whether an anal swab may prove to be any different, but it’s unlikely that most people will willingly submit to an anal swab over a nasal or throat test. Further, many are now questioning whether the faulty PCR test was rolled out on purpose in an effort to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what’s known as the Great Reset.

The New Normal Documentary

“The New Normal” documentary by investigates speculation that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned — or at least is being exploited — by a group of tech elite who are dictating policy to governments globally in order to push a totalitarian agenda.

There are many moving parts involved, from bad data that are inflating COVID-19 mortality rates to problems with PCR tests that are leading to very high false positive rates. A falsely inflated death rate drives more fear among the population, while a misleadingly high number of cases can be used as justification for more business closures and lockdowns.

All of this serves to further the ultimate agenda to “build back better” and “reset” the world to a “new normal.” At the root of the agenda, however, is a significant economic and power shift that only a minority of people are aware of, being driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Fourth Industrial Revolution Will Integrate AI With Humans

The First Industrial Revolution, which took place in the early to mid-1800s, brought in the use of steam power throughout the world. The Second Industrial Revolution took place from the late 19th to early 20th centuries, and involved progress in steel, electric and automobile industries. 1

The Third Industrial Revolution, according to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), “used electronics and information technology to automate production,” whereas the Fourth Industrial Revolution, he says, has already begun and “is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”2

It’s the further emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and integration with humans. In August 2020, for one example, Elon Musk revealed a company he founded called Neuralink, which involves a surgically implanted microchip that’s connected to your brain and synced with AI, with the goal of one day allowing humans to control artificial limbs or even engage in telepathy. Musk described it as “a Fitbit in your skull with tiny wires.”3

While some have heralded the innovation, others described it as a cyborg — the merging of a human and a machine. The video features Kai-Fu Lee, who wrote the book “AI Super-Powers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order.”

A former executive at Google China, he believes there will be a rapid displacement of jobs as robots replace workers, and in the next 10 years, so many jobs will be replaced that people will need to find happiness without working. Amazon has also stated that fully automated shipping warehouses, in which robots will replace humans fulfilling orders, may be just 10 years away.4

Half of Employees Will Need ‘Reskilling’ by 2025

As part of their Jobs Reset Summit, WEF also stated that 50% of all employees will require reskilling by 2025, “as the ‘double-disruption’ of the economic impacts of the pandemic and increasing automation transforming jobs takes hold.”5 WEF claims that 85 million jobs may be eliminated by 2025, while 97 million more may be created to address “the new division of labor between humans, machines and algorithms.”

But the reality is that only a fraction of people would likely find work in this AI-driven world, which would necessitate the introduction of a universal basic income.

This may initially sound like a good thing, but when your ability to earn an independent income is destroyed, you become dependent on, and at the mercy of, the elite that are in control of that income and the resources surrounding it. Universal debt forgiveness may also emerge — in return for the forfeiture of all rights to private ownership going forward. As for as its effects on people, Schwab wrote:6

“The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships.

It is already changing our health and leading to a ‘quantified’ self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation. The list is endless because it is bound only by our imagination.”

In June 2019, the U.K. released a white paper announcing it had established a partnership with WEF “to shape the global governance of technological innovation.” In their policy paper, “Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” it’s stated:7

“Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.”

The Great Reset

Politicians, business leaders and even the royal family are among those who have recently begun calling for society to “build back better.” This slogan is part of the larger “Great Reset” campaign, as Time magazine published on their cover in November 2020.8 Time’s owner and co-chair,9 Marc Benioff, is a member of WEF’s board of trustees as well as an inaugural chair of their Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The very purpose of “building back better” is to do away with what was once “normal” and replace it with something different. According to WEF, this entails “reinventing capitalism”10 and replacing it with a “stakeholder economy.”

Also known as stakeholder capitalism, Forbes described stakeholder economy as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”11

The idea of stakeholder capitalism has been around since at least 1932, and was also endorsed by nearly 200 CEOs of large corporations in August 2019.12 However, it is now being accelerated as part of The Great Reset. As the documentary noted, WEF made predictions about the world in 2030 via a social media post. Among them:

  • You’ll own nothing — and you’ll be happy about it.
  • Whatever you want, you’ll rent, and it’ll be delivered by drone.
  • Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.

U.K.’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new policies also fall in line with WEF objectives. This includes a ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2030, blocking vehicle access to side roads and new pay-per-mile taxes that could make driving very expensive. It’s almost as if the U.K. is attempting to remove ownership of cars.

Autonomous driving may be the next scenario, which again sounds like a good thing on the surface, but ultimately serves to take away autonomy. AI will be so much better at driving than people, the documentary explains, that eventually most people will be afraid to drive. Soon after that, humans won’t be allowed to drive at all.

The Creation of a ‘Useless Class’

Yuval Noah Harari, a professor in the department of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, warned of the dangers of AI, such that technology might disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways.13 Data colonialism and digital dictatorship are very real possibilities, as is the division of the world into wealthy elites and others, who end up as “exploited data colonies.”

Unprecedented inequality will emerge, as a “useless class is created”— “useless not from the viewpoint of their friends and family,” Harari says, “but useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system. And this useless class will be separated by an ever-growing gap from the ever more powerful elite.”

An AI arms race is already underway between the U.S. and China, and most other countries will be left behind, disrupting global balance. According to Harari:14

“Just think what will happen to developing economies once it is cheaper to produce textiles or cars in California than in Mexico?

And what will happen to politics in your country in twenty years, when somebody in San Francisco or Beijing knows the entire medical and personal history of every politician, every judge and every journalist in your country, including all their sexual escapades, all their mental weaknesses and all their corrupt dealings?

Will it still be an independent country or will it become a data-colony? When you have enough data you don’t need to send soldiers in order to control a country.”

Rockefeller Foundation Laid Out Pandemic Scenario in 2010

The Rockefeller Foundation and Bill Gates are also supporters of The Great Reset.15 In 2010, The Rockefeller Foundation released a report titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” which uses scenario planning to explore ways that technology and growth/development and government might play out over the coming decades. One of the scenarios they detailed was a pandemic with some eerie similarities to COVID-19:16

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly.

Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and of office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.”

As the pandemic continues, “national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.”

The increased authoritarian control and oversight of citizens continued even after the pandemic ended, and was welcomed at first in exchange for “greater safety and stability.”

In December 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation released “Taking Back Control: A Resetting of America’s Response to COVID-19.”17 Among its advice is ramping up COVID-19 testing, including in schoolchildren — a problematic scenario not only due to its exorbitant cost ($42.5 billion in the U.S. for February to June 2021) but also because of false positives that will arise from the flawed COVID-19 tests.

Could this be a way to intentionally boost infection rates in order to justify more lockdowns — and further economic destruction of the poor and middle class?

Why Now Might Be the ‘Perfect Time’ for a Reset

If there were a covert plan for a global takeover, the COVID-19 pandemic presents the perfect scenario for its success. First, a problem is created — coronavirus is released and a global pandemic is declared. Next, a reaction is created — namely, fear. This is ramped up and lockdowns ensue, forcing businesses to close and economies to be destroyed.

The final stage is when the “solution” is created — in this case, the masses of unemployed people could receive a universal basic income that’s credited onto digital IDs backed by Gates’ Microsoft and the Rockefellers, which are implanted into your hand. Smart cities ensue, along with 24/7 surveillance. This is made possible by the rollout of 5G networks, an essential “upgrade” in performance for digitizing society, surveillance and data harvesting.

There are signs of resistance throughout the world, however, including the Police for Freedom March, which took place in November 2020 in Spain to protest the violation of citizens’ freedoms and protect civil liberties.18 The World Freedom Alliance, formed in Stockholm, Sweden, in November 2020, also aims to promote worldwide freedom.19

In these times of uncertainty, some have compared it to living in a fog of war — a fog of COVID war. Yet, seeing through the fog is the first step to victory.

The Constitutionally Repugnant Reconstruction Acts Impose 14th Amendment via Martial Law Powers In Time of Peace.

 By Anna Von Reitz

See better formatting of this article here:

Everyone please read the above statement as many times as necessary to glean the grist of it.
Our two (2) foreign Federal Subcontractors have, for their own benefit and enrichment, continued to promote the idea that the Civil War never ended, and that we, the American people, are unknown persons “presumed to be” Enemy Combatants until proven otherwise.
As shill Psyops Officer Robert Horton recounts, they also persist in claiming that the Civil War, which was an undeclared commercial mercenary conflict and not a “war” at all — was a proper war, allowing them to claim immunity and right of conquest when it wasn’t, doesn’t, and never did.
This is all just bunko and legally convenient, as– if this deceit is accepted— it allows the Territorial U.S. Citizens to presume that we are Municipal citizens of the United States, subject to search and seizure, and it allows the Municipal United States Government (set up as the Municipal Corporation of the District of Columbia) to presume that we are subject to them and that we owe all their debts.
Neither thing happens to be true.
What is true is that we, the people of this country, and our legitimate government in international jurisdiction, The United States of America [Unincorporated] and our national governments vested in our State Assemblies, are still here, still operating, now in Session —and together with our members, due every jot of every “Federal” Constitution.
That is what is true and all the rest of this criminal bunk is just that— bunk.
I am publishing here for the edification of the entire world the stripped down historical research and timeline necessary to come to these same conclusions for yourselves and to explicitly detail how and why this country is still messing around with and suffering from “legal issues” created by an undeclared mercenary conflict that ended over a century and a half ago.
Our deepest thanks to Geoffrey Jacob Caputo and the State Nationals Association for this knock-down, drag-out, and absolutely correct step-by-step analysis of the history, legal actions, and results — which was completed many years ago, and which stands to inform everyone worldwide:
“I. Constitutionally Repugnant Reconstruction Acts Impose 14th Amendment via Martial Law Powers In Time of Peace 1861 The object of the Civil from 1861 to 1865 was not for the Southern States to be conquered or subjugated.1 1865 January 31 – 13th Amendment Proposed to the States May 10 – President Johnson Proclaimed the end of the Hostilities on land with the only duty left to arrest the former insurgency’s vessels at sea.2 STATES WHICH RATIFIED 13th AMENDMENT February 9 – Virginia ; February 17 – Louisiana, April 7 – Tennessee ; April 14 – Arkansas, November 13 – South Carolina , December 2 – Alabama, December 4 – North Carolina December 4 – Renegade members of the 39th Congress, at the inception of the 1st session on, 1865; suggested the denial of seats in the House and the Senate to the Southern States on the baseless allegation that they had no legal governments and were in rebellion. 3 December 6 – Georgia ratifies 13th Amdmt December 18 – 13th Amendment was declared ratified 4 December 28 – Florida (Florida again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution ) 1866 March 3 – 39th Congress resolves the denial of seats in the House and the Senate to the Southern States in the house on baseless allegations of rebellion.5 April 2 – President Johnson proclaimed the insurrection at an end in all the Southern States except It was further proclaimed that each State’s civil authority was to be restored and that they had shown sufficient evidence of loyalty to the Union by conforming to Johnson’s policies of incorporating the 13th amendment into legislation.6 June 16 – 14th Amendment (called Article XIV) was proposed by the 39th Congress Ist session by joint resolution 48 to “the legislatures of the several States” .7 August 20 – President Johnson further proclaimed Peace on and gave notice of the resumption of civil government in the States which had seceded. 8 October 1866 to 1867 – Southern and non-southern States reject 14th Amndmt. – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana Mississippi, and many non southern states. 1867 February 8 – One month before the first Reconstruction Act was colorably implemented, the 39th Congress introduced Bill 1143 entitled, “A Bill To establish an additional article of war for the more complete suppression of the insurrection against the United States”. 9 March 2 – First Reconstruction Act colorably “enacted”10 ; President Johnson Vetoes The Act11 March 23 – Second Reconstruction Act12 ; President Johnson Vetoes The Act13 July 19 – Third Reconstruction Act14 ; President Johnson Vetoes The Act15 1868 March 11 – Fourth Reconstruction Act16 June 25 – North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida are colorably “re-admitted” back into the Union as a new body politic of a 14th Amendment citizentry due to adopting the 14th Amendment. 17 July 9, 1868 – 14th Amendment COLORABLY IMPOSED due to 28 states’ alleged ratification. II. Constitutional Violations of the 39th & 40th Congresses in Imposing The Reconstruction Acts & Amend. XIV 1 House Journal – July 22, 1861. p.123 / Senate Journal – July 25, 1861.p.92 2 13 STAT 757 Presidential Proclamation 35 3 Senate Journal, starting @ p. 7 4 13 STAT. 774 5 House Journal, March 3, 1866. Page 353 6 14 STAT 811 – 813 7 14 STAT 358 8 14 STAT 814 9 Committee on Reconstruction Bill 1143 10 14 Stat. 428 11 House Journal March 2, 1867 – Page 563 12 15 Stat. 2 13 House Journal March 23, 1867 – Page 99 14 15 Stat. 14 15 House Journal July 19, 1867 – Page 171 16 15 STAT 41 17 15 STAT 73 1. Art. V § 5 of The Constitution of The United States of America (CFUSA) “and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Violation: The House Journal, March 3, 1866 – Page 353 1. Art. III § 3 CFUSA says, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” Violation: The Reconstruction Acts 1. The Reconstruction Acts were inconsistent with criteria for martial law provisions as required in The Constitution for the United States of America. See EX PARTE MILLIGAN 71 US 2 (1866) 39th Congress had no evidence of the states being in rebellion. Civil authority was restored in that the courts of the Southern States were open and the slaves were free pursuant to the 13th amendment. The only Martial Rule which can exist during times of peace according to the Constitution is the code of laws enacted by Congress for the government of the national forces in which martial law could only apply to the soldier and not to the citizen, then the Reconstruction acts were unconstitutional because it applied military law only to the citizen and not to the soldier. 1. Art. I §. 9 cl. 3 CFUSA: says “ No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Violation: Everyone in the southern states was, in a blanket fashion, declared guilty of rebellion and penalized via unlawful military rule. 1. Art. IV §. 4 CFUSA says “ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” Violation: The 39th Congress unlawfully denied the Southern States a republican form of government by acting contrary to Art. IV §. 4 1. Art. 1 §. 8 cl.17 CFUSA that the Congress is “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dockYards and other needful Buildings . . .” Violation: The 39th Congress exercised exclusive legislation (Reconstruction Acts) outside their District unlawfully. 1. Art IV § 3 says that, “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Violation: The 39th Congress formed a new unlawful, defacto state within each of the several dejure states without the consent of the Dejure state bodies politic. Additional Notes DE JURE. Rightfully; lawfully; by legal title. Contrasted with de facto 4 Bla. Com. 77 How a Dejure state, such as Florida, is formed: [5 Stat. 742.] Statute II. Chap. XLVII.– An Act for the admission of the states of Iowa and Florida into the Union . . . whereas, the people of the Territory of Florida did, in like manner, by their delegates, on the eleventh day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, form for themselves a constitution and State government [Act of March 3, 1845, ch. 75 and ch 76.], both of which said constitutions are republican; and said conventions having asked the admission of their respective Territories into the Union as States, on equal footing with the original States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled , That the States of Iowa and Florida be, and the same are hereby, declared to be States of the United States of America, and are hereby admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever. Florida’s original government could only be abolished by the consent of the people: Florida Constitution of 1838 Article I Section 2 : That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient. The Reconstruction Acts were constitutionally repugnant war powers which abolished The Southern States’ original governments against their consent and formed a new state/nation/body politic composed of “14th Amendment U.S. Citizens” 15 STAT 73 (June 25, 1868) says , “WHEREAS the people of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have, in pursuance of the provisions of an act entitled `An act for the more efficient government of the rebel States,’ passed March 2nd, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and the acts supplementary thereto [see note 4, post], framed constitutions of State government which are republican, and have adopted said constitutions by large majorities of the votes [363 U.S. 121, 136] cast at the elections held for the ratification or rejection of the same: Therefore, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as Article fourteen upon the following fundamental conditions . . .” De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145 As a result, NEW DEFACTO STATES were formed, because new constitutions and new legislatures were formed via the 14th amendment: Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972 says ,“The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.” The object of the Civil from 1861 to 1865 was not for the Southern States to be conquered or subjugated, and was not intended to impair the rights of the states: The House Journal – July 22, 1861. p.123 / Senate Journal – July 25, 1861.p.92 both read, “Mr. Crittenden submitted the following resolution, viz: . . .that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.” The 14th Amendment created a dual nationality status in which Federal Citizenship status was conjoined with an inseperable State “resident/citizen” status. This formed a new body politic which impaired the original body politic of those who possessed the singular state national and [citizen] status by disenfranchising them from voting. (see notes in III) III. Dejure vs. Defacto Status 1. Federal Citizenship Versus State Citizenship a. The term “citizen of the United States” never referred to a unified National form of citizenship, but that of a singular “state” citizenship status until the passage of the 14th Amendment. “ The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that “they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.” And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives.” POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR 1856-1886 § 61. The Reconstruction Problem- JAMES G. BLAINE. NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1887 b. Before the passage of Amend. XIV the United States, for citizenship and nationality purposes, was considered to be a plural collective of separate nations. 1. 2 STAT 153 , An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passéd on that subject, says “Be it enacted, &c, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them…” 2. Amendment XIII. §1. says “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” c. After the passage of Amend. XIV the United States, for citizenship and nationality purposes, was considered to be a singular entity. 1. 8 USC § 1483 (a) says , “Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of §1481 (a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions” d. The language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) set the premise for this aforementioned unified National Citizenship as decreed in Amend. XIV. 1. CONGRESS’S POWER TO ENFORCE AMEND. XIV RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM FEDERAL REMEDIES THE FRAMERS ENACTED by Robert J. Kaczorowski Copyright © 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College Harvard Journal on Legislation (JOL) – Volume 42, Number 1, Winter 2005 says that : “Because the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are central to the meaning and scope of the Amend. XIV , it is necessary to examine the statute’s provisions. In brief, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred U.S. citizenship on all Americans” e. There is evidence that the several Union states had power to confer their respective state citizenship before & around the time of the Civil Rights Act and the “citizen of the United States” status written in the Civil Rights Act was only a unified Federal citizenship. 1. March 27, 1866 – Johnson’s Veto of the Civil Rights Act – Senate Journal, p.279: says that, “By the first section of the bill ; ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States’. It does not purport to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than federal citizenship. It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of federal citizenship is with Congress.” 2. Ex Parte Knowles 5 Cal. 300 (1855) “A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as use in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States” 3. Sharon v. Hill, (1885) 26 F 337, 343.”Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only some one of them. Congress had the power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” but not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally provided that such persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti, rather than otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States”.
If you are living in the United States and NOT declared to be a state national or State Citizen and one of the people belonging to our nation-states, you are “ipsofacto” presumed to be a citizen of the United States, and, under the 14th Amendment, “citizens of the United States” are criminals and slaves by definition.
Now, this entire “set up” is conceived in fraud and is in violation of the Constitutions, but we have to individually and as an entire people, address this situation, expose it, and finish the Reconstruction before this Mess is put to bed.

Juan Q Savin Interview! Must Video

Who is Juan O Savin? 

Author, mystery man, special forces?, Q?, JFKjr?  INTERVIEW FRIDAY, FEB 12, 2021 @ 1pm PT. This is a cutting-edge, groundbreaking interview with someone very close to Trump and the team. IF THIS VIDEO DISAPPEARS IT WILL BE FOUND ON MY WEBSITE.

Biden is a joke it’s clear to see he has a ear piece in his ear telling him to salute the troops.???

Let the Military do their job! They swore an oath to protect us and they will! Their time table is not on our little clocks, they are on Gods time table!

Please watch the entire video before you comment. If you have not watched it all the way through your comments are not welcome here.

Sweden vaccine passports will ‘probably be required’ for shopping, eating out, travel, meeting loved ones

ER Editor: We remind readers of a piece we published by Lockdown Sceptics a few days ago, in which it was reported that under a recent Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution passed at the end of January, those who decide not to get vaccinated cannot be discriminated against. If vaccine passports are to provide access denied to the non-vaccinated, then this must surely constitute discrimination under their resolution:

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – the international body of which the European Court of Human Rights is a part (not to be confused with the EU, and of which Britain remains a member) – has passed a resolution that vaccines must not be mandatory and no one should suffer discrimination on account of not having been vaccinated. It reads:

7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake:

7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;

7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;

The European left and right hands don’t seem to be synchronized.


Sweden vaccine passports will ‘probably be required’ for shopping, eating out, travel, meeting loved ones

Swedes will need a certificate with proof of vaccination to participate in everyday activities, a government official said.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.?View it here

Swedes who have received the vaccine are already eligible for a vaccination certificate from the vaccine provider; the digital “passport” will allow those people to have a copy on their phones.

Anders Ygeman, Sweden’s minister for digital development, stated that the government’s “goal is for the work to go as quickly as possible, and that the digital infrastructure will be in place by the summer,” specifically June 1.

“When Sweden and the countries around us start to open up, it will probably be required to have a vaccination certificate to travel and take part in other activities,” he said, making mention of businesses, such as restaurants, establishing a requirement for proof of vaccination before permitting access to individuals.

Sweden’s announcement follows that of Denmark, which announced its own plans to establish a “vaccine passport” program to identify those who have been vaccinated, for the sake of travel.

Danish finance minister Morten Bodskov suggested that “in three, four months, a digital corona passport will be ready for use in, for example, business travel,” the Associated Press reported.

The minister remarked that the return of travel is “absolutely crucial” to restoring the country’s economic stability and getting businesses reopened. To this end, Danish citizens will be able to access a website by the end of this month detailing whether or not they have received a COVID-19 vaccine. On top of this, the digital “passport,” according to Bodskov, will be “the extra passport that you will be able to have on your mobile phone that documents that you have been vaccinated.”

Lars Sandahl Sørensen, CEO of the Confederation Danish Industry, suggested that “vaccine passports” will be a long-term arrangement, declaring that citizens “will benefit from the corona passport for many years” since they will “allow travel and participation in cultural life in Denmark.”

In the last few weeks, the president of the European Union Commission has thrown her support behind an EU-wide “vaccine passport” scheme. Speaking to Portuguese media, Ursula von der Leyen said it should be “a medical requirement to have a certificate proving that you have been vaccinated.”

The president welcomed the idea that vaccine “passports” might be utilized to control travel between member states of the EU stating, “Whatever is decided – whether it gives priority or access to certain goods – is a political and legal decision that should be discussed at a European level.”

The World Economic Forum (WEF), whose executive chairman Klaus Schwab famously proposed the Huxleyan “Great Reset,” already started work on vaccine “passports” some months ago.

In collaboration with Swiss foundation The Commons Project, the WEF is developing the CommonPass platform, a part of their Common Trust Network that allows passengers to “demonstrate that they meet the health entry requirements of their destination.”

The CommonPass website explains that the “platform assesses whether the individual’s lab test results or vaccination records (1) come from a trusted source, and (2) satisfy the health screening requirements of the country they want to enter.”

According to the WEF website, if passengers “meet the requirements, the platform generates a simple yes/no CommonPass Certificate that they can use to demonstrate their compliance without revealing any personal health information.”

The CommonPass framework is the WEF’s answer to “the challenge of how to reopen their (a nation’s) borders and allow travel and commerce to resume while protecting their populations’ health.”

“As they contemplate relaxing border restrictions, quarantine and lockdowns, governments and industry need a more trustworthy model for validating individuals’ health status.”

The WEF sees individual countries determining their own standards on entry requirements as “not practical,” and “an overwhelming burden” on governments.

According to the WEF website, the organization wishes to centralize the “passport” system in order to “empower individuals with digital access to their health information, make it easier for individuals to understand and comply with each destination’s requirements, and help ensure that only verifiable lab results and vaccination records from trusted sources are presented for the purposes of cross-border travel and commerce.”

Christoph Wolff, head of mobility at the WEF, emphasized the apparent necessity of an interlinked health screening process for international travel, saying “Individual national responses will not be sufficient to address this global crisis.”

“Bans, bubbles and quarantines may provide short-term protection, but developed and developing nations alike need a long-term, flexible and risk-based approach like CommonPass.”



Rigging the Election for China and Profit

(NWO Report) She’s referring to the most astonishing story of the week, Molly Ball’s article in Time: ”The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that saved the 2020 election,” a sordid tale of how Big Tech, BLM, organized labor and big business, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, colluded to defeat Donald J. Trump’s reelection. 

The post Rigging the Election for China and Profit appeared on Stillness in the Storm.