The more one looks into the U.S. federal government’s pandemic, biodefense, and national health security legal actions, strategies, and plans which were updated leading up to and during COVID-19, the more one may be convinced of the possibility of COVID-19 being a falsified pandemic.

Multiple approaches have been taken to support the claim that COVID-19 may be a falsified pandemic. One approach was to prove that COVID-19 death counts and case counts were falsely increased by government entities like the CDC to be used to scare and coerce citizens into actions desired by the government.

Another approach is to continually expose the hypocrisy of public health officials and politicians regarding the draconian COVID-19 restrictions they force onto citizens while they themselves clearly ignore such restrictions. This approach is based on the idea that high-ranking public health officials and politicians would probably know if (the emphasis is on if) COVID-19 is some sort of multi-year pandemic preparedness “operations exercise.”

Other politicians and/or public health officials might be informed of this through leaks by employees from powerful federal bureaus or departments who are aware of its potential falseness. And, in this scenario, those who would know that COVID-19 is a falsified pandemic would themselves ignore the draconian COVID-19 restrictions.

There have been several instances of such politicians and public health officials acting as if COVID-19 is not a big deal. One example is the numerous public health officials and politicians who supported large crowds rioting in May 2020 and thereafter. If COVID-19 was a real, dangerous pandemic, public health officials and politicians would not support such rioting.

Another approach is to study closely the legal actions and publications – the “paper trail” – of U.S. federal government politicians and public health officials leading up to and during COVID-19. This approach is extremely helpful, and in doing so, one discovers that not only is it possible that COVID-19 may be falsified, but one may begin to wonder if several other seemingly perfectly timed political and cultural events over the years may have been falsified local, regional, or national “drills” or “exercises.”

U.S. government may have planned ‘convening’ a national, multi-year ‘exercise’

Previous articles discussed multiple pandemic laws which were updated in 2019, only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19.

Such U.S. pandemic and “all hazards” preparedness laws and directives give authority to an individual known as the “Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response” (ASPR) to “carry out drills and operational exercises” in coordination with U.S. government departments like the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, the Department of Justice (which includes the FBI), and several others.

Previous articles also discussed the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022, which was released in early 2019. It is a document required by U.S. laws, including the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019. Thus, the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 is apparently a type of pandemic preparedness legal document.

Another previous article discussed some wording in the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 which may be interpreted to suggest that the U.S. government planned to “convene” a national pandemic response and recovery exercise. The segment of the document in question is as follows:

Convene a Unified, National Response and Recovery to Public Health Emergencies and Disasters

ASPR, in coordination with HHS and Federal partners, leads the nation’s public health and medical preparedness and response and its health and social services recovery effortsas delegated by Emergency Support Function #8, and the Health and Social Services Recovery Support Function. These efforts provide unified national leadership and guidance to public health and health care stakeholders before, during, and after disasters. We recognize that SLTT stakeholders are on the front line during response and may need timely and appropriate Federal support to augment their resources and capacity. Therefore, it is critical to improve situational awareness and coordination across the Federal interagency and with regional and SLTT partners.

In addition, we will continue work with international partners to make sure our preparedness and response efforts are aligned with those of the global community. We will sustain efforts to organize, train, equip, and exercise response capabilities. We will identify health care readiness standards to assess coalition readiness status and ensure exercises test system resilience against routine and catastrophic threats. (Page 10; emphasis added)

The articles described the U.S. government’s FEMA’s classified exercises which may be one attempt at a legal method (among multiple) which public health officials may use to falsify a pandemic and call it an “operations exercise” or something similar. (It is a bit of a tangent, but it has since been discovered that related documents, like the ASPR Strategic Plan for 2020-2023, use the word “convene” to describe the objective or plan to complete future actions; see pages 21 and 54.)

But there may be more significant information supporting the claim that the above-cited segment of the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 is subtly mentioning plans to “convene” a multi-year response and recovery pandemic exercise. Remember, the “Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response” (ASPR) has the authority to “carry out drills and operational exercises” with basically any government bureau or department necessary. The ASPR apparently last released a strategic plan in 2014 (page 2). It may be significant that the ASPR released an updated Strategic Plan, dated April 2020, which coincides with COVID-19.

But within the ASPR’s Strategic Plan for 2020-2023, one finds a very similar segment to that which is found in the above-cited National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 – except the ASPR’s strategy clearly says the plan is a “multi-year and multi-level exercise program.” Before getting to that segment, it should be mentioned that the ASPR’s Strategic Plan notes that it

is aligned to and is designed to support the implementation of a number of different higher-order statutes, executive orders, policies, strategies, and plans, including, but not limited to: the National Security Strategy (NSS)the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 (NHSS), the National Biodefense Strategy (NBS), the HHS Strategic Plan, FY2018-2022, and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act (PAHPAIA) of 2019. (Page 2)

In other words, the ASPR’s Strategic Plan appears to be stating that it is a type of legal document supporting the “implementation” of other pandemic laws and legal documents. This is significant because it is more of a “paper trail,” so to speak, of legal actions or documents leading up to and during COVID-19.

But the significant (slightly abridged) section of the ASPR’s Strategic Plan 2020-2023 is as follows:

Objective 2.3: Strengthen Response and Recovery Operations

ASPR continually strives to improve delivery of public health and medical assistance to communities impacted by disaster throughout the mission continuum. Successful preparedness for, response to, and recovery from PHEs [Public Health Emergencies] and other incidents requires accurately identifying gaps, and subsequent planning and preparedness activities to address them. (Page 30, emphasis added)

Within the same objective of strengthening “response and recovery operations,” the document states that

ASPR will pursue the following strategies to strengthen its disaster response capabilities:

Fully implement, test, and validate the various components of the ASPR Incident Response Framework, including development, implementation and ongoing exercising of all functional annexes (Information Management, Planning, Resource Coordination, and Finance & Administration) and other supporting annexes, operational doctrine, and SOPs [standard operating procedures]

[…]

Establish a financially sustainable, multi-year and multi-level exercise program designed to test policies, plans, and capabilities and achieve and sustain national preparedness to prevent, respond to, and recover from all-hazards disasters (Page 31, emphasis and hyperlink added)

Now, compare the emphasized segments from the ASPR Strategic Plan for 2020-2023 with the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022, beginning with a sub-objective and abridged as follows:

Convene a Unified, National Response and Recovery to Public Health Emergencies and Disasters

ASPR, in coordination with HHS and Federal partners, leads the nation’s public health and medical preparedness and response and its health and social services recovery efforts … We will sustain efforts to organize, train, equip, and exercise response capabilities. We will identify health care readiness standards to assess coalition readiness status and ensure exercises test system resilience against routine and catastrophic threats. (Page 10; emphasis added)

Again, the ASPR has the authority to carry out drills and exercises, some which may be “without notice.” The National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 has the sub-objective to “convene a unified, national response and recovery” while the ASPR Strategic Plan 2020-2023 has the plan to “fully implement, test, and validate the various components of the ASPR Incident Response Framework … including … ongoing exercising” of “operational doctrine” and “establish a … multi-year and multi-level exercise program designed to … achieve and sustain national preparedness to … respond to, and recover from all-hazards disasters,” which would include pandemics.

It appears as though both the ASPR Strategic Plan 2020-2023 and the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 may be using potentially deliberately over-wordy statements to provide in legal documents the same plan to falsify an “ongoing” “catastrophic threat” at the “national” level for “multiple years” and then legally attempt to label this as an “exercise,” “exercise program,” or something similar.

If COVID-19 is falsified, it would surely fit the description of an “ongoing” “catastrophic threat” at the “national” level for “multiple years.”

Falsified activities legal for ‘law enforcement’ or ‘intelligence’ reasons

Some may question why public health officials may, somewhat secretively and ambiguously, attempt to put plans for such a falsified pandemic in legal documents. One potential answer is that an illegal falsified pandemic may meet the definitions of international or domestic terrorism. “Hoaxes” would also be illegal, unless the hoax is

any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States (18 U.S. Code § 1038)

Now, in the FBI’s own words, “The FBI is a primary law enforcement agency for the U.S. government.” And the aforementioned law which apparently allows hoaxes to be performed by such law enforcement agencies may be one reason why, in 2016, President Obama ordered the FBI to link “public health and law enforcement, and coordinate with INTERPOL [The International Criminal Police Organization] on the GHSA [Global Health Security Agenda] and its successful implementation.”

It may also explain why the section describing the ASPR’s authority to “carry out drills and operational exercises” was amended in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 soon before COVID-19 to include a provision for the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate with the ASPR to “inform preparedness and response capabilities.” (S. 1379—38) “Hoaxes” or other similar falsified activities are claimed to be legal for “law enforcement,” “intelligence,” and “protective” reasons.

Mainly, though, if public health officials and politicians planned on convening a falsified, realistic “response and recovery” operations exercise, they would attempt to legalize the activity, exercise, program, or whatever they might call it. Otherwise, it would probably meet the definition of domestic terrorism, as described in federal laws:

the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; […] (18 U.S. Code § 2331, emphasis added)

The emphasized part exempts activities that are not a violation of criminal laws. So politicians, public health officials, and other federal bureaus and departments may first attempt to ensure that their planned falsified pandemic exercise would not be a violation of criminal laws. Either way, it would still be an act of terrorism (deaths due to unnecessary use of ventilators and “vaccines,” closure of Churches, schools, and businesses, draconian lockdowns, coerced vaccinations, etc.) but the attempt at legalizing the act may prevent future legal action.

While the Justice Department in the U.S. has shown itself to be corrupt, those employees may eventually get replaced, and future employees may not be as lenient with the establishment – even future liberal Justice Department employees might be perturbed by the terrorism caused by a falsified pandemic and the harm it may have caused. But legalizing a falsified pandemic may provide some legal coverage in the future for those involved.

That is, of course, if COVID-19 is a falsified pandemic. The aforementioned discussion would be a moot point if the COVID-19 pandemic is real.

But as one studies the paper trails leading up to COVID-19 and soon thereafter while keeping in mind several factors which are unlikely to be explained as merely coincidence, one may be increasingly convinced that COVID-19 may be a partially or completely falsified pandemic “operational exercise,” “exercise program,” or something similar.

And, believe it or not, there is still more information supporting that claim, but it will not be mentioned here.

No comments:

Post a Comment