A newspaper article published after Nixon’s resignation detailed the CIA Watergate cover-up, sourced from the Watergate prosecutor’s office, the FBI, and CIA staff. The Watergate investigation obstruction of justice began in the White House when it was revealed some of the five Watergate burglars had a CIA background. “This gave the White House conspirators an idea. They might be able to use the CIA to cover up their own connection with the crime,” using CIA resources.

Members of Congress claimed Watergate evils came from the misuse of presidential power, including use of the spy agency for unauthorized citizen surveillance from the White House. One solution to limit increased unauthorized surveillance of US citizens was to enact a law to limit the president and federal personnel from authorizing surveillance of US citizens. This response led naturally to expanded centralized surveillance power which was the opposite of their stated intention.

Beginning on January 27, 1975, a special 11-member Congressional investigative body looked into abuses of power by the nation’s intelligence agencies. Chaired by Idaho Democratic Senator Frank Church, the Church committee called more than 800 witnesses over nine months, including several former officials from the FBI and CIA.

The Church Committee findings resulted in Congress creating permanent intelligence oversight committees in the Senate and House. They proposed creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bipartisan bill passed the House 246-128 and the Senate 95-1, and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. The FISA was designed to prevent secret surveillance by the president and others in the federal government after Watergate. History shows how federal government surveillance grew over time when governing personnel were granted a new power by law.

The act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) as a tribunal tasked with reviewing requests from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies like the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) who sought permission to begin wiretap surveillance on any “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” within the US The FISC was comprised of seven federal district court judges (expanded to 11 judges in 2001). Each one is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and each judge serves staggered, non-renewable terms of seven years.

Details of warrant requests are not publicly disclosed, except the number of approved or denied requests. More than 34,000 requests were made and only a dozen rejected (although the government has withdrawn some requests) as of 2013. The FISC faces criticism by many, including civil liberty advocates, who see it as a rubber stamp of government surveillance requests. After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks the newly-signed USA Patriot Act expanded FISA surveillance orders duration, allowed authorities to share information placed before a grand jury with other federal agencies, and permitted authorities to gather foreign intelligence information on US citizens and non-citizens.

Federal surveillance powers expanded through the 2007 Protect America Act, passed after revelations of widespread warrantless wiretapping during the George W. Bush administration. The 2007 law amended FISA by removing warrant requirements for federal surveillance of foreign intelligence targets outside the US and anyone in the US (including US citizens) that communicated with them. The 2007 law granted immunity to telecommunications companies who provided access to data to federal law enforcement agencies without a federal search warrant.

Surveillance powers metastasized by the 2015 USA Freedom Act, passed after the scandal of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that aimed to end the NSA’s bulk collection of US telephone records and provide greater transparency in the FISA court system operations.

What started out after Watergate to prevent secret unauthorized surveillance of US citizens by the president and others in the federal government resulted with an abundance of secret and warrantless surveillance of US citizens and non-US citizens by the federal government. The executive branch surveillance power has grown in the past fifty years through use of the FISA courts. One lesson of supposed “reform” in Washington was really more centralization and expansion of federal surveillance power.

In the shadows of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), a web of secrecy and control has begun to tighten its grip not just around the convention centers, but across the city of Chicago, hinting at a much larger, more sinister operation at play.

Overnight, the city transformed into a fortress, with security measures that seem to extend far beyond what would be necessary for a mere political gathering. At the Dirksen Federal Building, security gates materialized like specters in the early morning mist, a clear sign to those in the know that something more than vandalism prevention was afoot.

The Magnificent Mile and Gold Coast, areas not traditionally associated with political events, have been barricaded with an intensity that suggests they are preparing for a siege rather than a convention. Residents like Chris McClendon were caught off guard, “They did it under the wraps,” he noted, hinting at a clandestine operation where even the locals are kept in the dark.

The sudden road closures, unexpected security checks, and the marking of manhole covers with tamper-evident seals scream of a preparation for something beyond the public’s comprehension. Could these be the first signs of a lockdown or even a trial run for martial law?

David Woulard’s comment on the necessity of secrecy for “complete level of safety and security” might be the closest we get to an admission. But safety from what? The presence of diplomats, as he suggests, could indeed require high security, but why the extensive measures in residential areas?

The sealing of manhole covers, a detail not lost on conspiracy theorists, points to fears of subterranean threats, perhaps a nod to the urban legends of underground tunnels used for secretive government operations or even as escape routes for the elite in times of crisis.

The excessive security, as McClendon felt, akin to entering a “jail,” might not be just about keeping threats out, but also about keeping something—or someone—in. Could this be a setup for an event where control over the populace is paramount, possibly to quell any dissent or uprising during the convention?

The Public Safety Joint Information Center’s vague announcements about road closures only fuel the fire. Why the need for such widespread and sudden security if not to prepare for an eventuality that they’re not telling us about?

This isn’t just about protecting a political event; it’s about setting a precedent for how control can be exerted over a city, under the guise of security. The real question remains: What are they truly preparing for, and who benefits from this level of control and secrecy? The DNC might just be the cover for something much larger, a test run for future scenarios where such measures could become the norm, not the exception.

Published on July 12, the updated plan arrived just one week after the Bill Gates-bankrolled World Health Organization (WHO) sent Dr. Peter Hotez to tell the world that both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) should be allowed to punish “anti-vaxxers” in the United States. Hotez also mentioned deploying NATO as a weapon against domestic populations that refuse to get jabbed.

A modified version of the Civil Defense Emergency Management Act of 2002, the updated plan grants special powers to government officials to override the law during an “epidemic” or “emergency” to keep the public “safe” from harm.

The updated plan specifies three special powers that are allowed during a “threat:”

1. The power to detain, isolate, or quarantine persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, and animals
2. The power to prescribe preventive treatment like pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines to people – those who refuse will fall into the first special power category
3. The power to allow police forces to “do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71”

That third bullet point is especially threatening in that it allows weapons-brandishing state agents to harm people who refuse to submit to the enforcement of these special powers.

(Related: New Zealand is leading the way in depopulating the world through mass vaccination.)

Get ready for medical martial law, coming soon to a town or city near you

New Zealand initially decided to make these changes on March 19, 2020, right before the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) was declared to be a global “pandemic.” At the time, The New Zealand Herald published an entire article about the need for an updated pandemic plan, which has now arrived.

The first pandemic plan in New Zealand was introduced in 2006. It was then updated in 2017 to reflect the passage of new legislation as well as changes in population and demographics. Now, version three of the plan has been unleashed, and it is a real doozy.

Imperial College London created a model that New Zealand used to assess how to recreate its pandemic plan. British physicist Neil “Professor Lockdown” Ferguson is credited with masterminding it, though there is much controversy surrounding his lack of accuracy.

“Ferguson is one of a small group of global ‘scientists’ whose job is to control the narrative,” reports The Exposé about who Ferguson really is. “The real driving force behind updating pandemic preparedness is WHO.”

No longer is the word “influenza” included in the title of New Zealand’s pandemic plan, thanks to Ferguson’s input. This means the range of what can be considered a “pandemic” has expanded to include pretty much anything.

According to The Exposé, the first time “special powers” were actually used in New Zealand was for covid, also known as “the dummy run.” The next time around will be a hell unlike anything the people of this world have ever seen or could ever comprehend.

“The updated pandemic plan covers the health system response,” the Ministry of Health ominously said in a statement about the changes. “It does not cover the all-of-government or wider societal response to a pandemic. It is also only one tool for developing the health system’s preparedness.”

The latest news about the globalist effort to unleash a second fake pandemic can be found at Plague.info.

Sources for this article include:

• Expose-News.com
• NaturalNews.com

Some suspect the former White House chief strategist will be housed in protective custody of the Sentencing Handling Unit, or SHU, of the Danbury prison as have been other high-profile celebrity inmates.

But FCI Danbury, which houses over 1,000 inmates, most of whom are sex offenders, doesn’t have individual cells. Instead, inmates are housed in open pods.

A Jan. 6 political prisoner, who has been transferred to 26 correctional facilities while in pretrial detention, described what life will look like for Bannon behind the gates of the Connecticut prison.

“If Bannon were to be sent to a U.S. penitentiary, he would be killed, but the low security prison in Danbury is where most prisoners would prefer to do their time,” political prisoner Ryan Samsel told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview on a surveilled call from MDC Brooklyn, a prison where inmates are regularly stabbed to death.

“Danbury and Fort Dix are the two best places to do your time. Bannon will be in the best of the best facilities, besides a camp.”

Bannon’s pending criminal case in New York over the border-wall campaign makes him ineligible from serving his sentence at a minimum-security prison camp, where many nonviolent offenders serve their time.

“His day is going to consist of waking up at 5:30 am, he will live in a big dormitory. There will be about 50 bunk beds. He will share the room with about 50 other inmates. He will have his own personal space, a locker and commissary,” he explained. “He will also be able to walk around outside on the yard for an hour a day.”

When the “War Room” host walks into the prison on Monday, he will be walking into a racial group and will be forced to adapt to the prison culture in which prisoners segregate themselves by race or gang affiliation.

“Steve is going to be considered a member of the ‘independent white group’ in the prison. He is what’s called ‘a good standing white boy’ now in prison,” Samsel explained.

“So if he needs something he will have to ask the head of the independent white group for permission, regardless of what his status is on the street. Because he is a celebrity, people are going to be very happy to help him.”

Bannon, Samsel and former Trump aide Peter Navarro, who is serving a 4-month prison bid for refusing to comply with the House Select Committee’s subpoena, all retained prison consultant Sam Mangel to help them have the best setup inside prison.

J6ers have put the word out across the Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, to make sure Bannon is taken care of when he arrives in the prison.

“He is going to be set. A couple of good people will check on him when he gets there to give him extra sweats and clothes,” Samsel said.

Samsel offered Bannon a few safety tips heading into prison as a celebrity, and offered the conservative firebrand a few words of encouragement.

“Steve cannot walk up to a cop by himself and speak,” he said. “When he approaches a cop, bring a witness so that he avoids being accused of being a snitch or telling on another person.”

“When you take a shower, have somebody that you trust standing outside the shower for protection. He is going to have to make friends with somebody and should do these things because he is a public figure.”

“If he observes shady activity amongst other inmates smoking paper, using drugs, using cell phones in the prison, he better not talk about it on the jail phone, or he will be in danger and considered a rat.”

With conservative leadership under attack and the election of our lifetime months away, Bannon contends he is serving his country during the prison bid and if it will institute reform its for the best, saying:

“It’s not going to stop until you make it stop … The only way you stop it is reciprocity. You have to go on offense.”

Bannon with one of his last addresses to the WarRoom Posse before he reports to prison on Monday.

The message is clear: TOTAL FOCUS ON VICTORY pic.twitter.com/mV6Pp0QAkh

— VISH BURRA (@VishBurra) June 29, 2024

Samsel agrees there’s a silver lining amid the unprecedented lawfare.

“I am glad this is happening because this is how we are going to usher in prison reform. All the black men in here support Trump, they support Bannon and they support the January 6ers. With Bannon in prison, more people will see what we’ve been going through, what I’ve been going through. Many of our lives have been destroyed, years taken from our lives over misdemeanors. Because of Bannon, Congress and people with power are coming to these places and seeing these conditions – the rats and roaches, people getting killed, the getting killed – this is how we are going to change things and reform.”

The prison at which Bannon will be housed may be safer than other Bureau of Prison facilities, but FCI Dansbury is also known as “Klansbury” over racial conflicts between the prison’s management and staff.

According to a report assessing “overall operational climate at FCI Danbury” by BOP investigators, minority staffers in the prison regularly face racial threats, are targeted with in discipline cases, discriminated against and racial slurs are written on their lockers as the prison is grapples a critical staffing shortage.

In 2020, Bannon was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud connected to the “We Build the Wall” campaign to construct a wall along the southern border.

Trump pardoned Bannon on his last day in office, but he was later charged in New York State with fraud, money laundering and conspiracy in another case still pending.

Then, the politically weaponized Justice Department indicted Bannon on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena to testify before with the partisan, illegal Hollywood-produced January 6 House Select Committee.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

“In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence

(Rutherford)—Like the proverbial boiling frogs, the government has been gradually acclimating us to the specter of a police state for years now: Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that only a militarized government can alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.

It’s happening already.

Yet we’re not just being acclimated to the trappings of a police state. We’re also being bullied into silence and subservience in the face of outright injustice and heavy-handed political correctness, while simultaneously being groomed into accepting government tyranny, corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude as societal norms.

What exactly is going on?

Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

Certainly, it’s not leading to more freedom.

This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.

It must be said: the various protests from both the Right and the Left in recent years have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.

We may be worse off now than we were before.

Suddenly, no one seems to be talking about any of the egregious governmental abuses that are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms: police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-endowed people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

It works the same way every time.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence, illegal immigration, and so-called domestic extremism have been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized.

Strangely enough, in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government headed up by their particular brand of political savior can solve the problems that plague us.

We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.

Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore. Indeed, the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to milk “we the people” of our hard-earned money (by way of taxes, fines and fees) and remain in control and in power.

Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically. (The characteristics of a psychopath include a “lack of remorse and empathy, a sense of grandiosity, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, and refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions, among others.”)

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

So where does that leave us?

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what it has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.

Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2024 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.

Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”

Be warned, however: the Establishment—the Deep State and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—is not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.

Voting sustains the illusion that we have a democratic republic, but it is merely a dictatorship in disguise, or what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately refer to as an “economic élite domination.”

In such an environment, the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dictate national policy. As the Princeton University oligarchy study indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government.

We have been saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.

We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government run by a corporate elite, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.

What they don’t want us talking about is the fact that the government is corrupt, the system is rigged, the politicians don’t represent us, the electoral college is a joke, most of the candidates are frauds, and we as a nation are repeating the mistakes of history—namely, allowing a totalitarian state to reign over us.

“We the people” have a decision to make: do we simply participate in the collapse of the American republic as it degenerates toward a totalitarian regime, or do we take a stand and reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us?

Never forget, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

About the Author

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

You could be at risk of being pilfered by officialdom anytime you sit behind a steering wheel. Between 2001 and 2014, lawmen seized more than $2.5 billion in cash from sixty thousand travelers on the nation’s highways—with no criminal charges in most cases, according to the Washington Post. Federal, state, and local law enforcement have institutionalized shakedowns on the nation’s highways to the point that “forfeiture corridors are the new speed traps,” as Mother Jones observed.

Police can almost always find an excuse to pull someone over. Gerald Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me in a 1996 interview, “We have so damn many laws, you can’t drive the streets without breaking the law.” The Washington Post reported that police set up “rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling,” and “looked for supposed ‘indicators’ of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, or abundant energy drinks.”

In Tenaha, Texas, authorities confiscated $3 million from motorists passing through East Texas. The names of the court filings capture Tenaha’s rapacity, such as State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix. “The police had confiscated a simple gold cross that a woman wore around her neck after pulling her over for a minor traffic violation. No contraband was reported, no criminal charges were filed, and no traffic ticket was issued,” the New Yorker noted. If drivers “refused to part with their money, officers threatened to arrest them on false money laundering charges and other serious felonies,” an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charged. Tenaha police stopped a twenty-seven-year-old black man who worked as a chicken slicer in an Arkansas Tyson plant and fleeced him of $3,900 after accusing him of “driving too close to the white line.” After the police warned Jennifer Boatright that they would take custody of her children if she refused to surrender the thousands of dollars she carried to buy a used car, she burst into tears and thought: “Where are we? Is this some kind of foreign country, where they’re selling people’s kids off?” The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and the Texas legislature compelled the town to cease the abusive seizures in 2012. However, most victims never got their property back.

In 2016, Muskogee County, Oklahoma, deputy sheriffs hit the sirens and pulled over a forty-year-old Burmese refugee driving down Highway 69 for a broken taillight. Eh Wah, a naturalized US citizen living in Dallas, was the manager for a Christian rock band that had been on tour raising more than $50,000 for a Thai orphanage and a Christian college in Burma. Police found the money and a drug dog alerted, so the money was seized—even though Wah had papers documenting his mission and the source of the income. No drugs were found on Wah’s vehicle, but a Muskogee deputy later insisted, “The fact that in this particular case we didn’t find drugs doesn’t mean it was a false hit” by the dog. Wah was interrogated and threatened for six hours; he was told, “You are going to jail tonight.” It was a terrifying experience for someone whose English was shaky and who fled a nation where the police were tyrannical. The sheriff’s department kept the money but let Wah travel on. Five weeks after he left Oklahoma, Wah was charged with “acquiring proceeds from a drug activity, a felony.” The primary “evidence” was the dog’s alert. The Oklahoma perfidy was torpedoed by Dan Alban, an Institute for Justice attorney who has thwarted many outrageous cash seizures. Alban took Wah’s case and told the Muskogee Phoenix that the timing of the charge suggests, “They were trying to strong-arm Eh Wah so that he would give up the money in the civil forfeiture case in exchange for a plea deal in the criminal case.” On the same day the Washington Post published an article on the case, Muskogee County dropped the charge and promised to send a full refund.

Perverse incentives propel plunder. Police in many states use confiscated property to pay their own salaries, bonuses, and vacations. A Missouri police chief said that forfeiture money was “like pennies from heaven . . . that get you a toy.” Federal agencies partner with local and state law enforcement to enable them to evade state laws limiting seizures of private property. Under a program euphemistically called “equitable sharing” (which sounds better than “shared plunder”), local and state law enforcement agencies retain most of the property they seize when they team up with the feds.

In South Carolina, police keep 95 percent of the assets they commandeer. Drivers’ cash is routinely seized after they are stopped for picayune offenses. As the Greenville News reported,

Ramando Moore was cited for having an open container [of alcohol] in Richland County in 2015; he lost $604. Plexton Denard Hunter was pulled over for a seatbelt violation in 2015 in Richland County and had $541 seized. Tesla Carter, another seatbelt violation, this time in Anderson in 2015. She lost $1,361.

Most police seizures of cash involved less than a thousand dollars—a trivial amount for serious drug traffickers. “Black men . . . represent 13 percent of the state’s population. Yet 65 percent of all citizens targeted for civil forfeiture in the state are black males,” according to a 2019 investigation by South Carolinian newspapers.

In Phelps County, Missouri, police have seized millions of dollars in cash and property from people traveling on Interstate 44. Two-thirds of Phelps County forfeiture victims have Hispanic names. Phelps County deputies justify seizures simply by asserting that the owners are shady characters—with evidence such as “driving a rental vehicle . . . bloodshot eyes, nervousness or even air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror.” Drivers were commonly stopped for failing to signal before changing lanes, another tell-tale sign of drug trafficking. Phelps County police “almost never file state criminal charges against those whose cash they seize, nor does it make big drug seizures during these stops targeting cash,” reported a 2020 investigation by St. Louis Public Radio.

In 2021, the feds partnered with local police to commence robbing armored cars. Though thirty-six states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use, federal law continues to prohibit engaging in cannabis transactions. Local police in California and Kansas began stopping and searching armored cars owned by Empyreal Logistics, which transported cash from licensed marijuana dispensaries. More than a million dollars was taken and split between local and federal lawmen. The Federal Bureau of Investigation justified the seizures because the proceeds were derived from narcotics crimes or money laundering—even though state law in California explicitly permits the transport of money from legal cannabis operations. In May 2022, the feds and California police departments agreed to return the seized money after Empyreal signed a settlement declaring, “San Bernardino deputies are not highway robbers as previously reported in the media.” Alas, the official statement did not deter a local paper, the Riverside Press-Enterprise, from summarizing the resolution: “The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to stop operating like highway robbers.”

Forfeiture is a rigged game in which low-income Americans suffer worst. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2017, “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.” Similarly, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett declared in a 2014 dissent, “Civil forfeiture . . . now disproportionately ensnares those least capable of protecting themselves, poor Texans who usually capitulate without a fight because mounting a defense is too costly.” “Due process” in forfeiture cases often depends solely on the media coverage an abuse receives. Sporadic government defeats are no consolation to forfeiture victims who cannot afford a lawyer to fight for their rights.

Almost two hundred and fifty years ago, Arthur Lee of Virginia aptly proclaimed, “The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is to deprive them of their liberty.” But increasingly, private property is something that officialdom merely tolerates until they concoct some pretext to seize it.

If police can detain and plunder Americans as they please whenever people drive down the road, all the other rights and liberties in the Constitution are of scant consolation. And if politicians and the Supreme Court don’t care enough to end the forfeiture travesty, all their other claims of devotion to freedom are not worth a tinker’s damn.

The latest version of the government takeover of food is happening in Pennsylvania where Amos Miller is being attacked for supplying his friends and neighbors with fresh food. According to famed attorney Robert Barnes:

Let me explain what the #AmosMiller case is about after a court conference. The @PAAgriculture claims ALL food is “illegal” — as illegal as illegal drugs — unless it was made by a government-approved facility, and they can destroy it at will.

Let me explain what the #AmosMiller case is about after a court conference. The @PAAgriculture claims ALL food is "illegal" — as illegal as illegal drugs — unless it was made by a government-approved facility, and they can destroy it at will. See brief:https://t.co/FXvjc1yJmP

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) February 26, 2024

Miller is the Amish farmer who sells products like raw milk. This is a threat to the monopoly on what we digest that government and their cronies are trying to establish, so they’ve gone full-blown police state on him.

According to left-leaning Newsweek:

Representative Thomas Massie, who called the raid “shameful” last month, told Newsweek in a Wednesday statement, “It’s a shame that small farmers have been pushed into these situations by overbearing government regulatory agencies and lawmakers captured by corporations and monopolies.”

The Kentucky Republican continued: “I support all small farmers and consumers who wish to engage in voluntary transactions. It’s imperative that Congress take up my PRIME Act to ameliorate the plight of small farmers like Amos.” Massie’s bill seeks to exempt meat products from federal inspection after slaughter and preparation at a custom facility.

Donald Trump Jr. also weighed in on last month’s raid, writing in a post on X (formerly Twitter), “Imagine what law enforcement could accomplish if they went after oh I don’t know, say, members of elite pedophile rings rather than farmers selling to their neighbors??? Can I be the only person sick of this s***?”

He is scheduled to appear in court on February 29th. A GiveSendGo has raised over $240,000 so far.

Editor’s Note: It has never been more important for Americans to take control of their food security. It isn’t just the attacks by governments and multinational corporations. It’s all of that plus a multitude of attacks against farmers, ranchers, and anyone who believes in the food God has provided us.

Grow your own food if you can. Stock up on long-term storage food. We encourage working with companies like Prepper All-Naturals to stock up on as much as possible. They are an America First company that helps people secure premium beef that is shelf-stable for up to 25 years. Take advantage of promo code “veterans25” to get 25% off at checkout.

Sound off about this story on The Liberty Daily Substack.

After endless months of being mired in political gloom and doom, we could all use a little Christmas cheer right now.

Unfortunately, Christmas has become embattled in recent years, co-opted by rampant commercialism, straight-jacketed by political correctness, and denuded of so much of its loveliness, holiness, and mystery.

Indeed, the season for giving has turned into the season for getting…and for getting offended. To a nation of snowflakes, Christmas has become yet another trigger word.

When I was a child in the 1950s, the magic of Christmas was promoted in the schools. We sang Christmas carols in the classroom. There were cutouts of the Nativity scene on the bulletin board, along with the smiling, chubby face of Santa and Rudolph. We were all acutely aware that Christmas was magic.

Fast forward to the present day, and Christmas has become fodder for the politically correct culture wars.

Over the years, Christmas casualties in the campaign to create one large national safe space have ranged from the beloved animated classic Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (denounced for promoting bullying and homophobia) to the Oscar-winning tune “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” (accused of being a date rape anthem) crooned by everyone from Dean Martin to Will Ferrell and Zooey Deschanel in the movie Elf.

Also on the endangered species Christmas list are such songs as “Deck the Halls,” “Santa Baby,” and “White Christmas.”

One publishing company even re-issued their own redacted version of Clement Clarke Moore’s famous poem “Twas the night before Christmas” in order to be more health conscious: the company edited out Moore’s mention of Santa smoking a pipe (“The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, / And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath.”)

In the politically correct quest to avoid causing offense, Christmas keeps getting axed. Examples abound.

Schools across the country now avoid anything that alludes to the true meaning of Christmas such as angels, the baby Jesus, stables, and shepherds.

In many of the nation’s schools, Christmas carols, Christmas trees, wreaths, and candy canes have also been banned as part of the effort to avoid any reference to Christmas, Christ or God. One school even outlawed the colors red and green, saying they were Christmas colors and, thus, illegal.
Students asked to send seasonal cards to military troops have been told to make them “holiday cards” and instructed not to use the words “Merry Christmas” on their cards.

Many schools have redubbed their Christmas concerts as “winter holiday programs” and refer to Christmas as a “winter festival.” Some schools have canceled holiday celebrations altogether to avoid offending those who do not celebrate the various holidays.

In Minnesota, a charter school banned the display of a poster prepared to promote the school’s yearbook as a holiday gift because the poster included Jack Skellington from Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas and other secular Christmas icons, not to mention the word “Christmas.”

In New Jersey, one school district banned traditional Christmas songs such as “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night” from its holiday concerts.  A New Jersey middle school canceled a field trip to attend a performance of a play based on Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” because some might have found it “offensive.”

In Texas, a teacher in Texas who decorated her door with a scene from “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” including a scrawny tree and Linus, was forced to take it down lest students be offended or feel uncomfortable.

In Connecticut, teachers were instructed to change the wording of the classic poem “Twas the Night Before Christmas” to “Twas the Night Before a Holiday.”

In Virginia, a high school principal debated about whether he could mention Santa or distribute candy canes given that they were symbols of Christmas.

In Massachusetts, a fourth-grade class was asked to list 25 things that reminded them of Christmas. When one young student asked if she could include “Jesus,” her teacher replied that she could get fired if Christmas’ namesake appeared on the list.

Things have not been much better outside the schools, muddled by those who subscribe to the misguided notion that the Constitution requires that anything religious in nature be banned from public places.

In one West Virginia town, although the manger scene (one of 350 light exhibits in the town’s annual Festival of Lights) included shepherds, camels and a guiding star, the main attractions—Jesus, Mary, and Joseph—were nowhere to be found due to concerns about the separation of church and state.

In Chicago, organizers of a German Christkindlmarket were informed that the public Christmas festival was no place for the Christmas story. Officials were concerned that clips of the film “The Nativity Story,” which were to be played at the festival, might cause offense.

In Delaware, a Girl Scout troop was prohibited from carrying signs reading “Merry Christmas” in their town’s annual holiday parade.

Clearly, Christmas has become one of many casualties in the misguided dispute over the so-called “separation of church and state,” a controversy that has given rise to a disconcerting and unconstitutional attempt to sanitize public places of any reference to God or religion.

Yet there’s a really simple solution to this annual angst of whether students and teachers can display Christmas-related posters, wear Christmas colors of red and green or sing Christmas songs, and that is for government officials to stop being such Humbugs and create a vibrant, open environment where all expression can flourish.

While the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing religion on people or endorsing one particular religion over another, there is no legitimate legal reason why people should not be able to celebrate the season freely or wish each other a Merry Christmas or even mention the word Christmas.

After all, the First Amendment affirms the right to freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.

Hoping to clear up the legal misunderstanding over the do’s and don’ts of celebrating Christmas, The Rutherford Institute’s Constitutional Q&A on “Twelve Rules of Christmas” provides basic guidelines for lawfully celebrating Christmas in schools, workplaces, and elsewhere.

Yet while Christmas may be the “trigger” for purging Christmas from public places, government forums and speech—except when it profits Corporate America—it is part and parcel of the greater trend in recent years to whittle away at free speech and trample the First Amendment underfoot.

Anything that might raise the specter of controversy is avoided at all costs.

We are witnessing the emergence of an unstated yet court-sanctioned right, one that makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet seems to trump the First Amendment at every turn: the right to not be offended.

In this way, emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” free speech has been confined to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalized when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shamed when it butts up against politically correct ideals and muzzled when it appears dangerous.

At the slightest hint of trouble, government officials (and corporations) are inclined to chuck anything that might be objectionable.

Yet when all is said and done, what the police state really wants is a nation of snowflakes, snitches, and book burners: a legalistic, intolerant, elitist, squealing bystander nation willing to turn on each other and turn each other in for the slightest offense, while being incapable of presenting a united front against the threats posed by the government and its cabal of Constitution-destroying agencies and corporate partners.

You want to know why this country is in the state it’s in?

The answer is the same no matter what the problem might be, whether it’s the economy, government corruption, police brutality, endless wars, censorship, falling literacy rates, etc.: every one of these problems can be sourced back to the fact that “we the people” have stopped thinking for ourselves and relinquished responsibility for our lives and well-being to a government entity that sees us only as useful idiots.

The Greek philosopher Socrates believed in teaching people to think for themselves and in the free exchange of ideas. For his efforts, he was accused of corrupting the youth and was put to death. However, his legacy lived on in the Socratic method of teaching: posing questions that help young and old discover the answers by learning to think for themselves.

Now even the ability to think for oneself is in danger of extinction.

As Rod Serling, creator of the classic sci-fi series Twilight Zone and one of the most insightful commentators on human nature, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry. One that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

We face an immense threat in our society from this drive to obliterate our history and traditions in order to erect a saccharine view of reality. In the process, we are creating a schizophrenic world for our children to grow up in, and it is neither healthy nor will it produce the kind of people who will be able to face the challenges of a future ruled by a totalitarian regime.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, you can’t sanitize reality. You can’t scrub out of existence every unpleasant thought or idea. You can’t legislate tolerance. You can’t create enough safe spaces to avoid the ugliness that lurks in the hearts of men and women. You can’t fight ignorance with the weapons of a police state.

What you can do, however, is step up your game.

Opt for kindness over curtness, and civility over censorship. Choose peace over politics, and freedom over fascism. Find common ground with those whose politics or opinions or lifestyles may not jive with your own.

Do your part to make the world a little brighter and a little lighter, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll have a chance of digging our way out of this hole.

About the Author

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

(Mercola)—At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government, where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic ideals.

In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,^1,2 independent journalists Iain Davis and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a “centrally controlled global system of digital identity³ (digital ID) upon humanity.”

As explained in Part 1,⁴ the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P:

“The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered ‘solutions.’

The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations, governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including SDG16.”

The following chart, sourced from IanDavis.com,⁵ illustrates how the G3P operates.

What SDG16 Is Really About

The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of “a legal identity for all” (SDG16.9), is the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and Webb:⁶

“Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name of sustainable development …

SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID … Otherwise we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’”

Understanding Digital Identity

The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it “digital ID” is that people misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and identification.⁷

Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.

Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.

Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.

Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.

If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.

Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together

As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount. The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb:⁸

“This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems that the official issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.

Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’”

You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order

You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:⁹

“… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’

After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’

Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, or God’s Law.

No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.

Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication — a lie.

Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.

Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’

Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets … to alert readers that these documents are NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound appealing, the underlying implications are not.

Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence those rights may not be asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to assert their ‘human rights’ …

Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’ subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human rights’ are … government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior is controlled.”

COVID Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field

Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its “COVID-19 and Human Rights” document,¹⁰ published in April 2020, the UN presents human rights as policy tools and openly admits that “securing compliance” with health measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on “building trust,” and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in authorities.

Censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is also required under the proposed International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:¹¹

“The current proposed amendments¹² to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations — through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful set of tools.’

Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.’

It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.’

This proposed amendment signifies that the UN and its partners wish to completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identifies a new ‘international threat.’ This exemplifies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis.”

The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It

Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.

For example, in its “UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda” document,¹³ published in 2013, it states that “A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.”

The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.

As noted by Davis and Webb:¹⁴

“The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’ declaration — and by fulfilling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.

Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy. Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.

As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms — global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.

Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights.

The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against ‘freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ All of the UN’s ‘sustainable development’ projects should be understood in this context …

You may wonder what Sustainable Development Goal 16 … has to do with protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the predicted ‘climate disaster.’ The answer is: nothing at all. But then, ‘climate change’ is merely the proffered rationale that purportedly legitimizes and lends urgency to sustainable development.

Establishing firm global governance — in effect, a world dictatorship — through the implementation of SDGs is the United Nations’ real objective. ‘Climate change’ is just the excuse.”

‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything

The pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, once enacted, will form the foundation for the WHO’s legal authority to act as a global governing body. Both are broadly focused on pandemic preparedness, planning and response, but there are built in loopholes that can easily be invoked by the WHO to turn it into a de facto global dictatorship.

The central instrument that will allow for the vast expansion of the WHO’s power is something called the One Health Joint Plan of Action, officially launched in October 2022 by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).

This initiative amounts to multiple globalist organizations synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power.

The “One Health”^15,16 agenda recognizes that a broad range of human and environmental aspects can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. For example, this is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.

The graphic¹⁷ below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life.

On paper, the One Health Joint Plan of Action “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”¹⁸ Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six key areas, including health care systems, the environment and food safety.

The plan includes a technical document that covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. As reported by the WHO:¹⁹

“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions.”

In other words, the goal is to create health, environmental and food safety rules to be followed on a global scale.

The Endgame and How to Stop It

In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,²⁰ Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tried to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”

To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. The plan has worked well so far, but cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.

The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.

It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — who are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,²¹ which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.

Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.

The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And the UN’s SDGs are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”

As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”

By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.

“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH.”

Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms

Other ways to prevent the WHO’s power grab, include the following:

Surveillance drones are being deployed by the New York City Police Department over Labor Day weekend to monitor “large gatherings” of people in their own backyards. That statement alone should send chills down all of our spines but I imagine most will just shake our head because news like this is no longer shocking. But our complacency is misplaced; they are normalizing the police state before our eyes.

This goes far beyond crime prevention, especially in a city that ignores actual crimes and releases violent criminals incessantly. If this was happening in Provo, Utah, or Great Falls, Montana, I’d mark it down as an overzealous police force forgetting our right to privacy. After all, drone technology offers benefits for fighting real crime when applied right. But this is New York City where crimes go unpunished. That tells us this is a move to do two very important things for the Globalist Elite Cabal’s agenda.

First, this is part of the aforementioned normalization of the police state. They want us to expect Big Brother to be there, just barely out of reach, so even the most freedom-loving among us start to accept that we’re always being watched. Just as many patriotic Americans masked up on their way to get jabbed even though they didn’t really want to do either, so too will many Americans reluctantly accept this type of surveillance if they’re exposed to it enough.

In other words, this move and similar ones like it are shifting the Overton Window so things that were anathema in the recent past will be expected and even accepted in the near future.

The second thing this does for the Globalist Elite Cabal is act as a test run for totalitarian measures. We are experiencing creeping tyranny in the United States, but soon it will no longer be creeping. They are accelerating their plans and imposing more dystopian policies on us every day. Some of it makes the news. Most of it does not. This is why I put so much effort into managing news aggregators like The Liberty Daily and Discern Report. I can’t write every story, but thankfully there are others out there writing about important topics already.

Here is the article from Reclaim The Net with some of the details. Let’s get this information out to our friends and family. The news about the drones is bad enough, but the bigger story to me is that so few are speaking out against it. Sound off about it on my Substack.

New York Police To Deploy Drones To Monitor Labor Day Weekend Parties

The NYPD’s announcement to deploy drones as uninvited guests at private backyard gatherings this weekend continues to ignite a heated debate over personal freedom and privacy, a treacherous line that government authorities seem keen to cross as much as possible.

Responding to complaints about large gatherings over the upcoming Labor Day celebrations, Assistant NYPD Commissioner Kaz Daughtry stated drones will come into play if “a large crowd, a large party in a backyard” gets reported.

This shocking move showcases a worrying amount of overreach from the authorities, prompting criticism from privacy advocates and citizens who know the value of freedoms.

Indeed, it does feel as though we are living a dystopian Sci-Fi narrative with these police surveillance revelations. Is Mayor Eric Adams endorsing an eerie future where our every movement is monitored from the sky?

Alarmingly, the NYPD seems to be coy about disclosing their drone policies. A request for comment from Mayor Adams only received links to laid-back guidelines for private drone operations in the city. Is this preparation for when these silent observers become more commonplace in the urban skies?

Join the conversation about this on my America First Report Substack.