The reasons why Americans should rebel against COVID mask laws, lockdowns and vaccines
By Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Alerts
With the presidential election highly contested and the mainstream media hyping the rising infection numbers, the public is now facing important questions regarding the future and lockdowns. Some states have decided to unilaterally introduce "executive orders" to restrict citizen movements, businesses and activities.
Anthony Fauci is on the news constantly calling for Americans to cancel Thanksgiving and Christmas and generally trying to drum up fear in the minds of the populace. If Biden does actually end up in the White House, a federalized and national high-level lockdown is on the table starting in January.
In April of this year, I published an article that outlined a social engineering model put forward by globalists at MIT and the Imperial College of London which I called "wave theory." The model essentially works like this:
Governments must use the pandemic as a rationale for "waves" of restrictive lockdowns, followed by controlled re-openings of the economy and of normal human activity. Globalists claim that this will "slow" the spread of the coronavirus and save lives. However, they also openly admit that these cycles of closures and openings have other uses.
Over time, the citizenry becomes acclimated to governmental intrusion in their everyday lives, and they get used to the idea of bureaucracy telling them what they are not allowed to do when it comes to the simplest activities. The system thus bottlenecks all human interactions to the point that we are constantly asking for permission. We become slaves to the COVID-19 response.
As (((globalist))) Gideon Lichfield from MIT stated in his article "We're not going back to normal":
"Ultimately, however, I predict that we'll restore the ability to socialize safely by developing more sophisticated ways to identify who is a disease risk and who isn't, and discriminating — legally — against those who are.
...one can imagine a world in which, to get on a flight, perhaps you'll have to be signed up to a service that tracks your movements via your phone. The airline wouldn't be able to see where you'd gone, but it would get an alert if you'd been close to known infected people or disease hot spots. There'd be similar requirements at the entrance to large venues, government buildings, or public transport hubs. There would be temperature scanners everywhere, and your workplace might demand you wear a monitor that tracks your temperature or other vital signs. Where nightclubs ask for proof of age, in future they might ask for proof of immunity — an identity card or some kind of digital verification via your phone, showing you've already recovered from or been vaccinated against the latest virus strains."
Note that Lichfield suggested that in order to participate in the normal economy you might need to show verification that you have been "vaccinated against the latest virus strains."
In other words, the elites expect (because they them selves are planning to engineer them) there to be many more viral events or mutations after COVID-19 has run its course, and the restrictions and controls we see today are meant to continue forever.
In the real world, viruses only mutate every 2-300 years, not every 2-3 months!
So the reality is that the wave model is a method of conditioning people to submit to a high level of control over their personal lives that they never would have accepted otherwise. The COVID-19 response has also been heralded by elites at the World Economic Forum as a perfect "opportunity" to initiate what they call the "Great Reset," a plan to deconstruct what's left of the free market capitalist system, introduce carbon controls in the name of the global warming fraud, institute a global cashless monetary system, and finally, move humanity into what they call a "shared economy" in which the average person is no longer allowed to own private property of any kind and is completely dependent.
Of course, such a complex system of "solutions" (dominance) over every individual would need to be managed in a highly centralized way. Meaning, global governance by the elitist establishment would be the end result. Naturally... the globalists would reluctantly take the reins of power for "the greater good."
This is the bigger picture, the problem at the core of lockdowns and COVID-19 laws. That said, there are also numerous reasons based on logic and evidence as to why there is no reason for people to submit to such restrictions. Let's outline them in a simple list:
The coronavirus kills less than 1 percent of the people it infects
Medical studies in the U.S. indicate that the coronavirus death rate for citizens not living in nursing homes has been holding well below 1 percent on average. The largest percentage of deaths by far in the U.S. has been in nursing homes among elderly people with preexisting conditions. People in long-term care facilities make up 8 percent of COVID-19 infection cases but they are 45 percent of all COVID-19 deaths.
Pneumonia alone kills around 50,000 Americans each year according to the CDC, and that's with vaccinations, yet, we are supposed to panic and hand over all our freedoms in the name of stopping a disease which affects a tiny percentage of the population? This is why the media and governments have decided to hyperfocus on infection numbers rather than deaths. The death numbers do not warrant the amount of panic the establishment is trying to foment.
Lockdowns destroy the economy
It's basic math and finance; the small business sector of the U.S. economy is dying. Small businesses make up around 50 percent of U.S. employment. The COVID-19 bailout money, handled by international banks like JP Morgan, did not get to the vast majority of small businesses that were supposed to receive it. Those businesses that did get bailouts are still on the verge of closure of bankruptcy. Any further lockdowns will be the final nail in the coffin for the U.S. economy, except for major corporations that are enjoying the lion's share of stimulus cash.
How many lives will be damaged or lost due to poverty and economic collapse if the current trend continues? I suspect far more than any lives lost because of COVID-19.
Why is no one in the mainstream talking about the most practical solution to the pandemic? The small percentage of people who are most at risk can stay home, while the rest of us get on with our lives.
Why are we being ordered to do the exact opposite just to make less than 1 percent of the population feel safer? How is this logical, reasonable or scientific? The only answer that makes sense is that the lockdown response is about control, not saving lives.
State governors have no authority to take away your civil liberties, and neither does the president
Restrictions based on executive order have no legal authority under the Constitution. They are color of law, not law. Laws are discussed and passed by state legislatures, not by state governors. Executive orders only apply to state employees and have no bearing on the citizenry.
Leftists and statists argue that during a national crisis the governor has emergency powers and states can do whatever they want. This is false. Under the constitution and the Bill of Rights, state governors do not get to proclaim a national emergency based on their personal opinion and then declare themselves dictators in response. Any "laws" exerted because of such a process are therefore null and void; they are meaningless.
If the states have the ability to do whatever they want without oversight, then they would be able to bring back Jim Crow laws (among other things). Do leftists support that idea as well? If the federal government and the president have the power to violate the Bill of Rights during a national emergency, then Donald Trump has the authority to bring in martial law across the country because of leftist riots. Do leftists agree with that outcome?
But don't try to expect consistency from professional hypocrites.
It is interesting to me that the political left, in particular, is so keen on defending the idea of states and governors having the power to unilaterally enforce pandemic restrictions without oversight or checks and balances, yet, they have been aggressively opposed to state powers in the past when they had a Democratic president in office.
The left has also been staunchly opposed to executive orders applied by Donald Trump, but they applaud the idea of executive orders on lockdowns being instituted by Biden. So, leftists support unilateral state power only when it works in favor of their agenda, and they support unilateral federal and presidential power only when it works in favor of their agenda.
The bottom line is this: State government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. Federal government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. No one has the legal power to take away your inherent liberties. Those that claim otherwise have something to gain from your enslavement.
Mask laws are unscientific
The majority of masks being used by the public today are cloth masks. Not even the CDC recommends the use of cloth masks for their own employees or medical workers. They only recommend N95 masks. They also admit that cloth masks are much less effective at preventing contact with the virus. Yet, the CDC supports the enforcement of cloth masks for the public.
On top of that, some states and countries with the most stringent mask laws continue to see huge spikes in coronavirus infections. For example, New York has been one of the most tyrannical enforcers of mask laws in the U.S., but in November the state has witnessed extensive infection increases. California and Illinois have also seen infection spikes this month despite hard enforcement of masks. So, where is the science? It would appear that masks are a placebo; if they worked then the states with the most aggressive enforcement should be seeing a dramatic downturn in cases, not exponential increases.
Furthermore, why are many states and countries trying to force citizens to wear masks outside in open air and sunlight when viruses cannot survive in such conditions? UV light from the sun is nature's sterilizer, but no one in the mainstream or in government acknowledges this scientific fact. Again, this shows that mask laws are about control, not about science or saving lives.
Vaccination is unnecessary and potentially dangerous
Why should people get vaccinated for a virus that over 99 percent of them will easily survive anyway?
Why not simply attain "herd immunity" through natural infection spread and antibodies? The mainstream will continue to ignore these questions because they are inconvenient to the wider agenda.
Also, why should anyone trust a vaccine that was rushed out in less than a year's time? China and the rest of the world spent over a decade trying to develop a vaccine for SARS, but we are supposed to believe that they created a vaccine for SARS related COVID-19 within months?
The last time the government rushed out a vaccine for a viral epidemic was the 1976 swine flu scare, and that ended with numerous permanently damaged or dead individuals due to faulty vaccines.
As I noted in May, there are numerous examples of vaccine tests and implementation going very wrong, from Bill Gates and the World Health Organization giving people polio in various countries through vaccines, to Novartis and their deadly testing of a Bird Flu vaccine on homeless people in Poland, to GlaxoSmithCline and the deaths of children due to their pneumonia vaccine.
It is not necessarily the inactive virus elements within the vaccines that are a threat, but the many other active elements often found within vaccines (including other diseases and cancers) that can cause illness and death. This has been especially true in vaccines that have had limited testing and trials.
Again, it's simply not worth the risk over a virus that over 99 percent of people will survive.
Rebellion is needed to put a stop to the fear machine
In closing, there are endless reasons why we must end the pandemic lockdown agenda once and for all. Most importantly, the lockdowns, mask orders and vaccine plans are a stepping stone to something much worse — medical tyranny and centralization on an unprecedented scale. I will not personally follow such rules because they are not scientifically or morally sound. They are nonsense designed to frighten the public into complacency and consent.
A rebellion against such measures would be very easy to win. All we have to do is refuse to follow their mandates. What are they going to do? Lock up millions of people? Maybe shoot us? That would sort of defeat the supposed purpose of the very measures they demand we follow.
And, if it comes to
violence, so be it. I have no problem fighting to defend my freedoms and
the freedoms of future generations. Perhaps it is time for
conservatives and moderates that stand against the lockdowns to organize
for this possible future.
To truth and knowledge,
Brandon Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment