We’ve seen the unbelievable microscopy images of the experimental jabs from other investigators around the world, but we wanted to see it for ourselves! There are now 4 teams working on this in New Zealand and Dr Robin Wakeling has agreed to go public with his findings.
In the Australian state of New South Wales ‘The new commemorative birth certificates issued in NSW are missing one thing – and one NSW MP is not happy.
A new “genderless” commemorative birth certificate issued by the NSW Births Deaths and Marriages Registry — which removes information about the sex of a baby — has been slammed as “woke nonsense”.
The colourful certificate — featuring specially designed “genderless” cartoon animals — was launched to help “empower” LGBQIA people, the agency says.
NSW Registrar Amanda Ianna said the rainbow certificate was: a “special way for people to celebrate the birth a new family member”.
Anyone can apply for the certificate, which depicts “genderless native animals” to give “rainbow families the freedom to be seen as they wish to be”.
It comes amid a growing push by the transgender community to remove information about the sex of babies on official certificates, with the Tasmanian parliament recently passing a bill to make gender optional.
But One Nation MP Mark Latham — who asked questions about the new $41 NSW certificate in state parliament — says only 12 people have bothered to apply for one and questions why public servants are “wasting time” on “gender politics”.
The agency spent $9257 on commissioning the artwork, producing it and launching the certificates. The agency already has a number of commemorative birth certificates celebrating football teams but they can’t be used as official proof of identity.
“All this virtue signalling in the public sector ends up being a waste of time, a waste of money and for what?” Mr Latham said.
“Twelve people out of 7.5 million people in the state?
“We just want the public sector to do its day job.
“It defies what most people would regard as the point of a birth certificate, to identify the individual, their date of birth and gender.”
Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith raised concerns about harms to children over time with gender being erased.
“This is another step in the appropriation of sex and it will cause harm and confusion for our children,” she said.
“Gender ideology is being imposed in all areas of society and ultimately activists want birth certificates, official documents of identity that rely on facts, to be documents that express feelings rather than fact.
“Gender the way activists use the term, is more like personality expression. It has nothing to do with biological reality, it is grounded in a political ideology.”
‘The Qatari government has set up a multimillion-dollar plan to influence American public opinion by training a new generation of journalists who will legitimize antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American positions.
To achieve their goal, the Qatari government partnered with one of the United States’ top-ranking schools, Northwestern University, to establish a satellite campus in the Qatari capital, Doha. Northwestern University Qatar (NU-Q), is completely funded by the Qatari government through two state-run organizations, the Qatar Foundation and the Al Jazeera Media Network.’https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=97f5dcf7e199dea4dc3139b76&id=7cd8cdbe60&e=ada4677f66
‘The Online Safety Bill, the most far-reaching online censorship law to ever be proposed in the UK, has been presented to Parliament.
UK Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State Nadine Dorries, said her aim with the bill was to “make the internet, in the UK, the safest place in the world for children and vulnerable young people to go online.”
However, as with many bills that are positioned as a way to keep children safe, this Online Safety Bill contains sweeping speech restrictions that will affect all UK internet users.
The bill requires Big Tech companies to take action against “priority legal but harmful” content which will be decided by the government. The DCMS Secretary of State has the power to add more categories of priority legal but harmful content via secondary legislation in the future.
According to the Financial Times, this secondary legislation “requires less scrutiny from MPs [Members of Parliament] than the original bill.”
Companies are also required to report “emerging harms” to the UK’s communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom).
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill outlaws sending “knowingly false” communications that are sent “with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm,” requires large social media companies to introduce identity verification tools, gives Ofcom the power to force companies to use “better and more effective” proactive content moderation technology, tasks Big Tech with determining which of its advertisers are pushing scams, mandates that any website hosting pornography put “robust checks in place to ensure that users are 18 years old or over,” and more.
UK citizens who are found guilty of offenses under the Online Safety Bill can be imprisoned or fined.
Not only does the Online Safety Bill contain numerous provisions that can be used to silence UK citizens and punish them for their online speech but powerful “recognised media outlets” are exempt from any regulation in the bill. Some of the outlets that will be getting special carveouts under this bill have even been praised by politicians for pushing for stronger “online safety” laws.
The punishments for companies that fail to censor enough under the Online Safety Bill include having their sites blocked and being hit with multi-billion dollar fines worth up to 10% of their annual turnover. Tech company executives can also be jailed if they fail to cooperate with Ofcom’s information requests.
Despite introducing strong punishments for tech companies that don’t remove enough harmful content, the Online Safety Bill has yet to reveal the categories of legal the harmful content that tech companies will have to target under this bill.
Earlier this week, Dorries said large platforms will be required to remove legal but harmful content “if it is already banned in their own terms and conditions.”
Yet today’s UK government press release for the Online Safety Bill says that the categories of legal but harmful content will be “set by the government and approved by Parliament.” The press release also lists “exposure to self-harm, harassment and eating disorders” as examples of harmful content that online platforms will be required to remove.
The introduction of the Online Safety Bill to Parliament is the first stage of its legislative journey.
Numerous UK rights groups have blasted the Online Safety Bill and warned that it will restrict free speech.
“The Online Safety Bill is set to rip up the rule book as far as traditional British free speech standards are concerned,” Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said. “This is a censor’s charter that will give state backing to big tech censorship on a scale that we have never seen before.”
Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the bill will have a “chilling effect on free speech.”
“We are particularly concerned that the government has said it will force social media platforms to remove ‘legal but harmful’ content, including ‘harassment,’” Young added. “That will enable political activists and interest groups claiming to speak on behalf of disadvantaged groups to silence their opponents by branding any views they disagree with as ‘harassment.’”
Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the think tank Institute of Economic Affairs said: “The UK threatening tech executives with jail time is eerily similar to how Russia and other authoritarian countries are currently behaving. It is an attack on free speech and entrepreneurialism.”
Before the bill was presented to Parliament, the UK’s main opposition party, the Labour Party, suggested that it would offer little obstruction to the Online Safety Bill and complained that it hadn’t been introduced fast enough.
Last October, Labour Leader Keir Starmer lamented that it has been “three years since the government promised an Online Safety Bill. Starmer also claimed that “the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever” and promised to support the bill if its second reading was brought forward to the end of 2021.
More recently, Labour Member of Parliament (MP) and Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell said that Labour supports “the principles of the bill that is finally being published” and claimed that “delay up to this point has come with significant cost.”’https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-censorship-parliament/
‘“To prevent World War III and an attack on Russia with nuclear weapons, the Russian government decided to neutralize the threat and restore order in Ukraine” – former Ukrainian P.M. Azarov
A former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Nikolai Azarov, released a message on Facebook claiming that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was planning a nuclear attack on Russia. In response to their potential attack, Russia decided to stop the situation and restore order in Ukraine.
“NATO wanted to unleash a third world war by using nuclear weapons against Russia,” Azarov stated. “Since December 2021, Russia has been receiving information about NATO plans to deploy four military brigades (2 land, one navy, one air) on the territory of Ukraine.” One of those brigades could carry nuclear warheads.
Personally, it is very hard to believe the leaders in the West anymore. Putin is bad, no doubt, but is Biden and Australia’s Morrison trust worthy? Psalm 20:7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
I have severe stomach issues and lost a lot of weight with continuous vomiting and diarrhoea. Everything tastes like chemicals so I can’t eat. I have a headache every day
‘Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law ‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
We, a group of international lawyers and a judge, hereby are conducting criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings. This Grand Jury Investigation serves as a model legal proceeding to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices” who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic. Crimes to be investigated include all acts performed or omitted by a person in pursuance of a common design to commit Crimes Against Humanity, and all such criminal acts condemned in the various communities of jurors around the world.
This investigation is of the people, by the people and for the people and shall be referred to as the ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion. Having been unable to find a court to hear the actual evidence in the current system´s courts of law, we are undertaking this proceeding outside of the current system and based on natural law. This, in turn is founded on the firm belief that every person can easily distinguish between good and evil, and between right and wrong.
The allegation is that the world’s governments have come under the controlling influence of corrupt and criminal power structures. They colluded to stage a pandemic that they had been planning for years. To this end they deliberately created mass panic through false statements of fact and a socially engineered psychological operation whose messages they conveyed through the corporate media.
The purpose of this mass panic was to persuade the population to agree to the so-called “vaccinations” which have in the meantime be proven to be neither effective, nor safe, but extremely dangerous, even lethal.
The economic, social, and health damage that these Crimes Against Humanity have caused to the world’s population can be measured in quadrillions of dollars.
The lawyers listed below, with the assistance of a number of highly respected scientists and experts from around the globe and under the auspices of a judge from Portugal, will conduct this Grand Jury Investigation and thereby provide the jury (the citizens of the world) with a complete picture of these Crimes Against Humanity.
The ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion´s investigation´s purpose is twofold: On the one hand it is to serve as a model proceeding and get indictments against some of the criminally and civilly responsible figure heads of these Crimes against Humanity. And on the other hand it is – through showing a complete picture of what we are facing, including the geopolitical and historical backdrop – to create awareness about
the factual collapse of the current, hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and the necessity to first stop this plandemic´s measures by refusing to comply, and the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.
Now they are going to try and kill the babies! ‘On Feb. 15, members of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee — each and every one of them riddled with conflicts of interest — will decide whether to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot for infants and toddlers.
A “yes” vote — which media propagandists are positioning as a foregone conclusion — would permit use of the jab in children 6 months through 4 years of age on an “emergency” basis — despite the demonstrable absence of any COVID emergency whatsoever in children, and conversely, considerable potential for both short- and long-term vaccine-related harm.
Political economist Toby Rogers, Ph.D. described Pfizer’s and FDA’s zeal to jab the very youngest as a plan to “shoot up kids first, get the data later” — a crime against humanity that would violate the Nuremberg Code’s prohibitions against illegal medical experiments.
When there is so patently no health rationale for giving children under 5 — or, for that matter, children of any age — the inordinately risky shots, why are government agencies trying to steamroll this next authorization?
whatyareckon 