The Plandemic False Flag

The Corona virus is a false flag plandemic, Covid (Certificate of vaccination digital Identification) is  to bring in your digital id, high tech 24/7 surveillance in the form of the 5#G powergrid, ultimate control over each one of you, no human rights, cashless society, government owned children, a one world government.... the NEW WORLD ORDER, (documented and planned for decades!!!!). To bring in a state of Totalitarian despotism. A tyrannical dictatorship of the proletariat to control and enslave the goyim.

The Chinese were all given mandatory vaccines last fall. The vaccine contained replicating, DIGITIZED (controllable) RNA which were activated by 60Ghz mm 5G waves that were just turned on in Wuhan (as well as all other Countries using 60Ghz 5G ) with the “smart dust” that everyone on the globe has been inhaling through chemtrails. That’s why when they say someone is “cured”, the “virus” can be “digitally” reactivated at any time and the person can literally drop dead. The Diamond Princess Cruise ship was SPECIFICALLY equipped with 60Ghz 5G. It’s basically remote assassination. Americans are currently breathing in this “smart” dust through chemtrails. Think of it like this..... add the combination of vaccines, chemtrails (smart dust) and 5G and your body becomes internally digitized and can be remotely controlled. A person’s organ/ lung functions can be stopped remotely if one is deemed non-compliant. Wuhan was a test run for ID2020. ... 

The Plot Thickens

 The Plot thickens...

You cant make this stuff up people.

In response to an earlier post about Quantas airlines and their protocols for mandatory vaccination in order to fly.

Upon doing some research, here is some very interesting information. Surprise, surprise. Oh how the plot thickens. Follow along now boys and girls ๐Ÿ˜

Quantas airlines was privatized in March 1993

British airways buys a majority stake of Quantas airways, 25% at the time worth 665 million.

British airways is owned by International Airlines group

International Airlines Group is one of the largest in the world, it has 598 air craft and carries 118 million people anually

Qatar Airways owns International Airlines Group

After purchasing an additional $600 million in shares, in February 2020, ( coincidence๐Ÿค”๐Ÿค”๐Ÿค” I think not) the Qatari Government is now 50% share holder of Qatar Airways.

Qatar is off the coast of Saudi Arabia and is the richest nation in the world, or it was

Qatar is governed by the Emir

The Emir are the ruling class, long family histories of leaderships and extreme wealth.

The government is a de facto " Absolute Monarchy"

Absolute Monarchy - holds a supreme autocratic authority over its people. They are not restricted or bound by conventional authority. They are not bound by written law, legislation or customs. They pretty much do what ever they want and they have the money to do it. Their wealth originates from oil production and sales

Qatar Investment Authority, takes stake in Vaccine manufacturer Cure Vac. CureVac is making a covid vaccine

Cure vac is designing the mrna covid 19 vaccine that will change our genetic make up turning us all into genetically modified organisms. Aka GMO BEINGS, no longer human beings.

Bill Gates is primary stake holder and investor in CureVac.๐Ÿ˜ฎ๐Ÿ˜ฎ๐Ÿ˜ฎ
Gates is Freinds with Tamin Bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar.

Its amazing what a little resesrch will reveal.

Now going full circle do you see and understand why Quantis will require vaccines??? There is a much larger picture. You must ask questions. You must ask why things are the way they are. You can not just blindly follow along.

Gates and CureVac (biomed vaccine)

IAG owns British airways (and others):

Qatar Air, shareholder in IAG

Qatar Airways owned by Gov’t

Qatar takes stake in CureVac and Gates vaccine

Airline now requiring Covid vaccine to travel: (

Actual Freedom

 The Constitution offers no restraints on religious beliefs. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The NC Declaration of Rights regarding religious freedom says no human authority, in any case whatever, shall violate or interfere with the freedom of conscience.
If you are told to come to court over a “crime” in which no one is harmed, you can simply say your religion doesn’t allow you to accept jurisdiction when no one is harmed, and there is no witness to claim damage.
You have freedom to live before God as you wish, yet religious leaders come forward and convince you that you must vote. In that teaching, they hijack your freedom. You become convinced that you can only be free if you can get others to believe as you.
2Peter 2:19: “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved”.
The freedom you already have in the world is taken away by convincing you that you can only work through government. Walk into court and listen to the bailiff declare that the courts are under God, and let them convince you that you must obey. While promising us liberty, we are enslaved.

The United States Gov-earn-ment is a Joke at best

  The legitimacy of the US government is questionable at best. First, it rebels against the mother country, but having no recognized authority to do so.

Certainly no Biblical authority, since scripture itself tells us always be obedient to higher powers. The only Biblical model it has is the example of Lucifer, who rebelled to replace God.
Second, the existence of the government is directly based on the self evident truth that God has created all men equal, with the right to abolish governments that violate that equality.
Third, while the government declares God's authority in the courts for the government itself, it allows no right of the individual to challenge that government in the name of the same God.
God is not allowed as evidence.
The Bible says there will be an anti-Christ who magnifies himself above all that is God.
The US fits the bill. It magnifies itself above all authority granted, and claims the authority of God while prohibiting all education about God within either government or the schools. It is a government ordained by the people, in which discussion of the source of that authority is not allowed.











Please be open minded and do your own research.


Click this link and read first


Click this video and watch next


Click this link and read next



Click this link and read next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this link and read next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this link and read next


Luciferase is a generic term for the class of oxidative enzymes that produce bioluminescence, and is usually distinguished from a photoprotein. The name was first used by Raphaรซl Dubois who invented the words luciferin and luciferase, for the substrate and enzyme, respectively. Both words are derived from the Latin word lucifer – meaning lightbringer.


Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next



Click this video and watch next


Revelation 13:16-18 King James Version (KJV)

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

2 Peter 3:9

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance



Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

In Child CustodyChildrens RightsCivil RightsDivorceDomestic RelationsFamily Court ReformFamily RightsParental Alienation SyndromeParents rights on July 28, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).

In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided.  This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end.  Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power.  It is recognized that:  ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government.  And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’  Mercein v. People, 25 Wend.  (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406.  But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization.  Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control.  Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child.  While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)

Render Unto Caesar

 “Render to Caesar”. I actually hear professing christians tell me I’m supposed to pay taxes because Jesus said to render unto Caesar. For the hundredth time, Jesus was NOT telling us to pay taxes. Just the opposite, in fact.

  The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. They asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. Not by Caesar’s law, which was a no brainer, but by God’s law.
 In the crowd were Sanhedrin priests and Roman soldiers. If Jesus answered yes, he would be in trouble with the Sanhedrin. If he said no, the Roman soldiers had him.
 Jesus used the Jewish technique of meeting a question with a question.
 He asked for a coin and showed it to the crowd. Then he asked the Pharisees, “whose image is on this coin?”.
 The Pharisees answered “Caesar’s”.
 With that answer, the Roman soldiers began to lose interest. They knew nothing of God’s law, and didn’t care. Jesus’s next answer satisfied them “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s “. 
  The Roman soldiers may have walked away. Jesus had satisfied their curiosity. 
  But the Pharisees knew better. When Jesus referred to “image”, they knew he was referring to the second commandment, which said they were NOT to bow down or serve any image of any kind for any reason”.
 Jesus had answered them correctly, and they knew it. No, they were NOT to pay taxes to Caesar. It was NOT lawful. 
 They didn’t disagree, because any disagreement would put them in the same hot water they tried to boil for Jesus. They held their silence as he walked away.
 By that same token today, we bow and serve Federal Reserve notes, which are nothing more than images on paper. We create the value because we bow down and seve images that are designed to make the rich even richer. 
  We even fight and die for these worthless images because they say “In God we trust”.
  SCOTUS has ruled that this statement means nothing. It’s a kind of ritual decoration. We don’t really trust in God. We trust in worthless pieces of paper with images of dead presidents, controlled by a banking cartel designed for the rich.
 Christianity bows and serves this bullcrap๐Ÿ˜ก

How to Contact A Medical Provider

How To Contact A Medical Provider

Have you been denied access to medical care due to not wearing a facemask?  This is a violation of your rights and is illegal and wrong.  In this video, I show you how to bravely stand up for your rights.  Do not allow anyone to bully you.  You are brave.  You are strong.

Covid Vaccine. Do Not Take It

The COVID 19 vaccine will change your DNA and connect your body to the internet and be able to control your thoughts. Links to  scientific evidence below !! 

Injecting this sensor under your skin could prevent future pandemics

A Military-Funded Biosensor Could Be the Future of Pandemic Detection

FDA approves implantable chip to access medical records

Injectable Biochip for SARS-CoV-2 Detection Near FDA Approval

Trust Stamp integrating biometric hash solution with Mastercard on children’s vaccine record system

We Need to Get Digital ID Right


DNA-based nanocomposite hydrogel as a potent injectable drug delivery platform

Human 2.0 A Wakeup Call to the World 

Genetically by Modified Crops: An Overview

INOVIO's COVID-19 DNA Vaccine INO-4800 Demonstrates Robust Neutralizing Antibody and T Cell Immune Responses in Preclinical Models

Gene-editing, Moderna, and transhumanism

A nanomaterial path forward for COVID-19 vaccine development

RNA virus vectors: Where are we and where do we need to go?

Nanorobot Hardware Architecture for Medical Defense

Quantum Dots Deliver Vaccines and Invisibly Encode Vaccination History in Skin

Venomous snake fangs inspire new microneedle drug-delivery system

Scientists Propose ‘Tattoos’ To Solve Vaccination Issues

Introduction to Transfection

Injectable Body Sensors Take Personal Chemistry to a Cell Phone Closer to Reality
MARCH 19, 2018

Transhumanism And The Future Of Humanity: 7 Ways The World Will Change By 2030

A nanomaterial path forward for COVID-19 vaccine development

Invisible Ink Could Reveal whether Kids Have Been Vaccinated

DNA-based nanocomposite hydrogel as a potent injectable drug delivery platform

Storing medical information below the skin’s surface


New Brain Computer Interface Technology