TheSovereigntyCoalition

“THIRD SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” TO EXPOSE CHALLENGES TO OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND FREEDOM Bid by Secretary-General for Emergency Powers Must be Rejected On August 29th, a majority of the nation’s governors declared in response to the World Health Organization’s recently adopted treaty amending its International Health Regulations and another pandemic-related one still under negotiation that “We will not comply.” [1] In so doing, these twenty-six state chief executives are standing up for powers they uniquely have under our Constitution – but ones the Biden-Harris administration is happy to surrender to global government. In fact, the administration is now supporting another, even more sweeping globalist power grab, this time by the United Nation’s Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He has in the works a “Pact for the Future” that will, if adopted on September 22-23 at the “Summit of the Future,” set in train “a process” that will create an “Emergency Platform.” According to a related policy brief, “Policy Brief #2: Our Common Agenda,” which he issued in March 2023, this platform would give the Secretary-General near-dictatorial powers to call emergencies in situations including climate change, economic disruptions, conflicts, cyberattacks, asteroids and other space phenomena and/or a catch-all dubbed “black swan events.” In furtherance of this agenda, the United Nations is feverishly trying to finalize the draft Pact for the Future, several elements of which are still being negotiated. In addition to the “Emergency Platform,” a second is dubbed the “Global Digital Compact.” The UN tried to obtain the approval of the then-current drafts of these documents by Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. (immediately after the long Labor Day weekend in the United States) through a cunning process known in UN-speak as the “Silence Procedure.” If no nation objects (or “breaks the silence”), the documents will be considered adopted and ready to be rubber-stamped at the Summit three weeks from now. In response to this latest example of international bureaucratic skullduggery – reminiscent of the literally dark-of-night diplomatic machinations that resulted on June 1st in the World Health Assembly’s acceptance of what amounts to a treaty amending the WHO’s International Health Regulations – the Sovereignty Coalition circulated an Open Letter urging one or more nations to break the silence in opposition to this further effort to advance “global governance.” It was endorsed by numerous influential and Constitution-loving Americans, including 20 organizations and 22 individuals. The good news is that several nations reportedly did break the silence. It is unclear at the moment, however, whether any of the objections were made by nations standing up for sovereignty and personal freedoms or whether some of the objections may have been made by those who want to concentrate even more power in the hands of the UN. What is clear is that America’s patriotic governors – and everybody else committed to our form of limited, accountable, representative and constitutional form of government – must establish that “We will not comply” with the United Nation’s efforts to impose instead a one world government. To that end, the Sovereignty Coalition will be convening its third virtual Sovereignty Summit from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Monday, September 16th. As with the previous two such summits (see here and here,) we will be inviting leading parliamentarians, subject matter experts, constitutional attorneys and other freedom fighters from around the world to express their opposition to the globalists’ efforts to subvert national sovereignty, whether they be underway at the World Health Organization, the United Nations or in any other forum. Register to attend here. The Coalition looks forward as well to the consideration of legislation this month by the U.S. House of Representatives designed to thwart such initiatives at the WHO by requiring that any agreements the WHO’s International Negotiating Body has or will produce must be subjected to the Senate for its formal advice and consent, requiring the approval of a two-thirds majority for such treaties to be binding on the American people. We urge that this bill, H.R. 1425, “The No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Consent,” be amended to ensure a similar treatment with respect to the UN’s parallel attempt to supplant the role of our own government to deal with non-health emergencies. For more information about these topics, the work of the Sovereignty Coalition and how you can help, join us at SovereigntyCoalition.org and on Substack. ------------- [1] Special thanks to Sovereignty Coalition members Joe Gebbia and State Shield for their support for the governors’ latest and penultimate actions on the WHO sponsored by the Republican Governors Association. MODERATOR: FRANK GAFFNEY, Co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy thanks and welcomes contributors and audience SPEAKERS: REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, ESQ, Co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition; Founder of Anti-Globalist International; and Co-Chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force; President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers Dr. ROBERT MALONE, M.D., M.S., Inventor of the mRNA technology, author of Lies My Government Told Me LUCIO MALAN, Italian Senator, Secretary of the Presidency of the Senate, member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Dr. JAMES LINDSAY, PhD, Author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody”; mathematician JOE GEBBIA, Founder of State Shield Dr. JIM GARLOW, Founder and CEO, Well Versed, a ministry for elected officials; author of many books Hon. ROBERT DESTRO, Professor of Law at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law; fmr Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL); fmr commissioner for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom MERYL NASS, MD, A medical doctor and founder, Door to Freedom, with expertise on anthrax and other aspects of biological warfare PHILIPP KRUSE, LL.M., Partner, Kruse Law headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland; Leading critic of the WHO ALEX NEWMAN, Contributor, The Epoch Times; award-winning journalist, educator, author, “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Gov’t Schools to Destroy America’s Children” KAT LINDLEY, D.O., Primary Care Physician; Co-founder, Global Health Project; contributor to the Global Covid Summit; President of the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association; Member of the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons BILL WALTON, Resolute Protector Foundation; Host, The Bill Walton Show; Vice Chair, Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC); Vice Chair, retired Financial Sector Senior Executive and Chief Executive Officer PAM PRYOR, Fmr Senior Bureau Official for International Organizational Affairs during the Trump administration, fmr Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Dr. ANDREA NAZARENKO, PhD, Founder and President of The Inspired Network ARIEL KELLNER, Member of Israel’s Knesset LARA LOGAN, 14 Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter; former CBS News Chief, Foreign Affairs Correspondent and host of “60 Minutes” Sen. RON JOHNSON, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Member of of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Budget and Finance committees MARGARET BYFIELD, Executive Director, American Stewards for Liberty

This video briefing, hosted by the Sovereignty Coalition, addresses the growing concerns surrounding the recent expansion of powers granted to international organizations and their leaders. The briefing highlights the urgency of the situation, particularly focusing on the actions of the World Health Organization’s Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus. He has been empowered through a treaty signed on June 1st in Geneva, allowing him not only to declare public health emergencies but also to dictate national responses to such crises. This development is seen as a significant step toward global governance, which could potentially undermine the sovereignty of individual nations. The briefing also discusses the broader implications of these developments, including the role of the United Nations and its Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, in furthering this agenda. The program, set against the backdrop of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September, aims to explore the potential impact of these power shifts on national autonomy. Featured speakers, Dr. James Lindsay and Alex Newman, provide expert analysis on the possible trajectory toward a centralized global authority and its consequences. This briefing serves as an important examination of the challenges posed by the increasing influence of international organizations over sovereign governments and the potential erosion of national independence.

This video briefing, hosted by the Sovereignty Coalition, addresses the growing concerns surrounding the recent expansion of powers granted to international organizations and their leaders. The briefing highlights the urgency of the situation, particularly focusing on the actions of the World Health Organization’s Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus. He has been empowered through a treaty signed on June 1st in Geneva, allowing him not only to declare public health emergencies but also to dictate national responses to such crises. This development is seen as a significant step toward global governance, which could potentially undermine the sovereignty of individual nations. The briefing also discusses the broader implications of these developments, including the role of the United Nations and its Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, in furthering this agenda. The program, set against the backdrop of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September, aims to explore the potential impact of these power shifts on national autonomy. Featured speakers, Dr. James Lindsay and Alex Newman, provide expert analysis on the possible trajectory toward a centralized global authority and its consequences. This briefing serves as an important examination of the challenges posed by the increasing influence of international organizations over sovereign governments and the potential erosion of national independence.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOOD (R-5-VA), Chairman, House Freedom Caucus; Serves On The Education And Labor Committee And The Budget Committee TRANSCRIPT: US Rep Bob Good: I'd like to thank my friend Frank Gaffney for hosting and moderating this additional summit on the sovereignty summit. And I've said many times, I think this is the most important issue that's getting the least amount of attention relative to its importance. It's appropriate that we're talking about this just a few weeks after we celebrated Independence Day in this country. We remember our founders who risked everything and, in some cases, gave everything to secure the independence and the freedom that we still enjoy to a large degree today, as they fought to free themselves, to free us from what was then the dominant world power. They didn't want to submit to the sovereignty of a king, and they fought for that freedom. Then, some 80 years or so later, our nation fought again. A war for freedom for everyone, freedom for everyone, irrespective of color and to eradicate the slave trade, the slavery in this country. But it also was a battle, whether over states' rights and for the sovereignty of states to not be totally subordinate to a dominant central government, a dominant federal government if you will. And here we are now. Some are considering, certainly the Biden administration, [is considering] surrendering our sovereignty to an international organization, the UN and the WHO, which we know is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party. We saw the harm done by the WHO during the COVID pandemic of just a few years ago and how we as a nation surrendered our most essential basic freedoms, in large part to influence from the WHO, who was all in on the shutdowns of lockdowns, the mandates, the forced masking, the force, vaccinations and so forth. And we just had, back in May, an agreement essentially to have an agreement where the Biden administration wants to agree with others around the world to submit to the control and the authority of the WHO and the UN. And we've got to reject that as a nation. I thank all of you for recognizing how important this is and for coming together to try to build awareness and resistance to this. We can't surrender our sovereignty as a nation to any other entity, let alone the WHO or the UN, to force upon us what they consider mitigation strategies for what they consider to be a crisis, whether it's the next health crisis, not a health crisis, or not if there's a health crisis, but the next health crisis, because we know there's another one on the horizon, whether it's the avian flu or whatever it might be or whatever else they might decide is a crisis, whether it's poverty or climate or immigration or so-called gun violence. And so, we've got to have congressional action. We need a resolution out of the House condemning any surrender or submission to an international organization such as WHO or the UN. We need to reject this action, this, reject, reject this, but at a minimum requires Senate ratification, recognizing it as a treaty. But in the meantime, we ought to be withdrawing again from the WHO, as President Trump appropriately did. And of course, Biden reversed that. But we can't count on a Trump administration. We've got to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, pray for the best, work for the best, but prepare for the worst. We should be pushing the Biden administration to withdraw from the WHO. We ought to have a congressional resolution to that effect, and we ought to defund the WHO, as President Trump appropriately did. So again, I want to thank everyone here for being part of this very important summit and trying to build awareness and resistance to what those in the Biden administration would do to weaken the United States, to threaten our citizens, and to strip away our most basic, essential freedoms, and to take another step towards essentially one world government globalism, which obviously is in direct violation to who we are as a nation, a government of the people, by the people, for the people, an independent sovereign state. This first true experiment in representative democracy, a constitutional republic. We've got to continue to fight for that freedom. And what you're doing today is an important step in that direction. So, thank you so much and God bless you.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ KRIS ULLMAN, ESQ., National President, Eagle Forum; Member, Sovereignty Coalition TRANSCRIPT: Kris Ullman: Thanks for having me on this very important sovereignty summit. And as Frank said, I am the president of Eagle Forum, which was founded by Phyllis Schlafly back in 1972. And I was just reading over some of the things that she wrote about sovereignty and about these international organizations, even back in the year 2000, she was railing against the UN millennial plans to take over our sovereignty. And in that election, she encouraged all voters to examine the record of each politician on their commitment to preserving US sovereignty, national sovereignty and the sovereignty of all individuals around the world. We should be asking our candidates for Congress and for president. And wherever you are in the world, what are these politicians’ positions on national sovereignty? Do they believe in ceding power in violation of the UN's own declaration of human rights, to ceding power over our life, our liberty, our security, our right to travel, our right to earn a living, our right to choose the education for our children? These are all the things that we saw happen during the COVID pandemic and the WHO response to it. We can put aside what caused the pandemic and the WHO’s responsibility in that, and we can look at the response and what they forced people around the world to do. And that is what we reject wholeheartedly as they talk about the pandemic X or the bird flu or these other things. But Eagle Forum, we are working with the Sovereignty Coalition and groups from across the political spectrum to educate voters on the important issues in this election, on electing people who will commit to rejecting any international agreement, especially with requiring a vote by the US Congress by the United States Senate to give advice and consent before our government signs on to any treaty or international agreement that has the effect of a treaty like the IHR amendments, which actually do affect US law. We are advocating both in Congress for a bill that will require that vote. We are also working with state attorneys general, state governors, and even local communities to pass resolutions that say that these international agreements will not have an effect if they counter US law that US law is supreme. That's what sovereignty means. We, the people, will elect the people who make laws regarding our health, our education, our employment, and any of these things; we have the ability to do it. We need to exercise this right. And I encourage all of those around the world, and especially in the United States, to join us at Eagle Forum and the Sovereignty Coalition to learn what you can do to hold your elected representatives responsible for protecting your individual sovereignty and our national sovereignty. Thank you so much, Frank. It's a pleasure to be with this esteemed group.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ ARIEL KELLNER, Member of the Israeli Knesset TRANSCRIPT: IL MK Ariel Kallner: Dear friends, I want to extend my greetings to you in the important struggle to protect our sovereignty sovereignties of our nations. About 2100 years ago, there lived a Jewish sage named Hillel. He had a saying in Hebrew, [in Hebrew then in English] “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now? When?” This saying is so relevant to the challenge we face if we do not take care of our own sovereignties, no one else will do it for us. However, we are also committed to cooperate and to help each other in the struggle for our sovereignties. And we need to act now and not delay. In Israel, we'll we have already started legislative processes to prevent international treaties from applying here without explicit legislation by the elected representatives of our democracy in our Parliament. I encourage you to act in this spirit so that we can protect the sovereignties of our nations and democracies. Good luck. Thank you.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ ROMANIAN DEPUTY SORIN T. MANCACIU, Member Of The Romanian Parliament TRANSCRIPT: RM DEP Sorin T. Mancaciu: Thank you very much, Mr. Gaffney. Unfortunately, what I can report is two failures. The failure, number one, after the Geneva session, the Romanian government signed a bilateral treaty with the WHO, and unfortunately, the secrecy around this treaty forbade me from finding out what it was all about. How come we are now signing bilateral treaties, although we belong to the European Union and, the modus operandi is through the European Union? Secondly, I also belong to an organization in Europe called Council of Europe, which is an organization started back in ’47 dealing with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Therefore, being a member in this parliamentarian organization, I try to push a motion with Lord Keen to find out exactly what is the risk we are taking when it comes to the treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations. Therefore, this motion I follow very closely. And it went nowhere, which means that this international organization are designed to block all our efforts to have a rapporteur going to the WHO and find out the inside information about their plans and their activities. So, this is what I was not happy about but unfortunately, this is what I can report. This concerns my efforts for the last year and maybe a year and a half. And, um, like I said, I was not able to crack the information inside the WHO using an international organization that is concerned primarily with human rights. But I'm not going to finish with this subject. And I mean, I'm going to finish with this subject because something else is really bothering me. I have seen, and that's a challenge for the other physicians, especially people who are, in clinical, like, doctor McCullough or, Doctor Rose. It bothers me to find out that there are some complications related to people who have already been vaccinated with 1 or 2 boosters, and then they take another vaccine, like a tetanus shot or HPV vaccine. And then they develop a grave complication, which is myelitis, the Guillain-Barre syndrome. And it starts being very, difficult to cope with this because there are different situations. Once we have people who are vaccinated, 1 or 2 or even three doses of vaccines, and then let's say young women, they take an HPV vaccine and boom, we're like this. Uh, it's a complication. So, I'm very concerned about that. That's why I brought it, to our colleagues. Because I believe that people who were vaccinated have this propensity of developing complications as grave as myelitis. Maybe we should warn them about this because it's a different type of vaccine. However, the complication looks more like a complication from the COVID vaccine. So that's my, intervention. Thank you very much.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ JESSICA ROSE, PHD, MSC, BSC., Bsc. In Applied Mathematics, An Msc. In Immunology, A Phd In Computational Biology And A Two Post Docs In Molecular Biology And Biochemistry TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD: I so much appreciate being here at the last minute. And, I am among some of my favorite people in the world. So I've heard everyone speak to date, and I, I think I can add to it and just, uh, and also boost what people have said. I think that the antidote to lies, like David said, is to tell the truth, which is what we're doing. And the antidote to fear is knowledge. So I'm going to tell everybody a little bit about, uh, two things today. One is something called the International Bird Flu Summit that's coming up in D.C. soon, and two is about a product that is in clinical trials right now, which has a very bad severe adverse event profile, according to the clinical trial. Before I talk more about this international bird flu summit, I just want to remind everyone that another thing that David said that really resonated with me is it's laid out really clearly for us, and some of the best sources of information that we can go to are from the globalists themselves. And we have to pay a lot of attention, like close attention to their language. From the 2006 National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Inflammation Implementation Strategy to the 2017 Spa's playbook to the 2024 International Bird Flu Summit that I'm going to talk about now. So very briefly, some of the topics include on their website mass fatality management, planning, surveillance and data management, medical countermeasures, delivery of vaccines, command and control. Now, that sounds kind of threatening to me. I don't know about everybody else here, and they have a series of concurrent breakout sessions that they lay out on their websites according to how this conference is going to play out. And in concurrent breakout session number two, under continuity of operations, co-op, and continuity of government planning, they have a few bullet points, and the first one they list is called strategies for operating with 50% or more absenteeism in the workforce. And this really struck me because my first thought was, well, where where's half of the workforce going to be? The second bullet point is dealing with successive waves of pandemic outbreaks. The third one is mitigating disruptions to essential functions of public and private sectors. I need everyone to go to this website. Um, it's also on my Substack, if you want a summary and just read this and, and learn for yourselves exactly what they're having, they're laying out for you that they're planning to do. Um, so go do that. And on the subject matter of, uh, what we just heard about from Kat, about the ability to use to authorize another brand new modified lipid nanoparticle-based or modified mRNA lipid nanoparticle-based product. There is a product called Ordens, which is a monovalent vaccine against the H1n1, bird flu, which is in clinical trials right now. Phase three. There are three studies, actually, and the latest one is NT 02839. Sorry, NCT 02839330 is a study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity, and lot-to-lot consistency of the H5n1 subunit influenza virus vaccine. States very clearly, well, you have to do is go there. Go to the PDF file under Serious Adverse Events. This is reported by them. We're still manning them here. Fatal essays, which is a serious adverse event, included 11, which was 0.5% audience recipients. That's the product and 1.1% placebo recipients. I'm going to leave you with that for now to think about. Because again, as Meryl pointed out, this product is made by a company called Seqirus. And they've also doled this product out to certain people in Finland. It's a different product that they produce called in Japan. But it goes to show you that this is all being done. It's premeditated. The foundation is being laid. I'm going to end with that and just remind everyone that the information is very clearly laid out. And we just have to take them at their word basically, and, and tell as many other people as we can so we can try and put a stop to this madness.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ KAT LINDLEY, DO, Primary Care Physician; Co-Founder, Global Health Project; Contributor To The Global Covid Summit; President Of The Texas Osteopathic Medical Association; Member Of The American Academy Of Physicians And Surgeons TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Kat Lindley, DO: Hi, I'm Doctor Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the FLCC International Fellowship Program. It's my honor today to be with you here to discuss Sovereignty Summit 2.0. With everything that's happening in the news, we are seeing the World Health Organization getting back together to negotiate the pandemic treaty. So most recently, we are getting information from the United States, from Colorado, from Texas, from Oklahoma, from all of these testing positive, from the poultry testing positive. And we had, according to the PCR testing, new cases of mild conjunctivitis in several dairy farm workers. But there was no human-to-human transmission. We are also seeing cases of this happening around the world. The reason I say it's important to watch the news is that the HHS, which is Health and Human Services, has given Moderna a $176 million contract to make a new mRNA vaccine for the bird flu. We also had as recently as July 24th, HHS Secretary Becerra expanded the definition of the emergency and included the bird flu, which would give the FDA administrator powers to include bird flu products under the EUA. Why is all this important? Because the World Health Organization is negotiating the pandemic treaty. We also have the United Nations meeting in September in New York for the pact for the future. This species needs to be put together to realize that we must continue doing our work. What we've done in Geneva with the fact that they were not able to find agreement on the pandemic. The [failure of the] treaty was good, but now we have a lot more work to do in the States. We continue. Doing the work in our individual states like Louisiana, Oklahoma. My home state of Texas is going into legislative session in January, but our legislators are currently writing bills. In a session. And some of them will include the World Health Organization language. I hope that for those of you who are watching around the world, your leaders are doing the same. Your organizations are doing the same. We need to remain vigilant and continue making sure that each and every one of our countries remains sovereign. Thank you very much.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ ANDREA NAZARENKO, PHD, A Community And Quantitative Psychologists Whose Work Focuses On Bridging The Gap Between Research And Practice, And Engaging In System-Level, Societal Change. She Is A Leading Expert In Implementation Science And Co-Founder Of The Inspired Network, A Coordinated Action Network For Healthcare System Improvement TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Andrea Nazarenko, PhD: The spread of information and how they use the information to propagate fear and use that as a control mechanism. My background, as Frank so nicely articulated, is in community psychology and quantitative psychology, and very specifically, the area of expertise that I work in is something called implementation science. Implementation science is the scientific study of the methods that we use to bring good ideas to action. It's not enough to just have a good idea. It takes a lot to actually create change and have an impact in the real world. And so, we could take that same idea of a good idea and use it for the concept of a bad idea, or for how most of us would describe the pandemic. And the question no longer becomes we know what they did to us. We know the actions they took. They we know what has happened in the implications that they've had on society. But if we zoom out, we could begin to say, so how did they accomplish it? Could we look back and understand the mechanisms and the tactics that they used to drive this message home, to get millions of people around the world, to take untested vaccines to social distance, to harm our children, and to create a societal impact that they did. And so that is the basis of the presentation of going to overview today, and certainly one of the main mechanisms that they used for control, and they have been using for control. And they will continue to use for control, is that of fear. Uh, a fearful society is just like a fearful individual. An individual who is in a state of fear, does not have proper decision-making capacities, does not have self-efficacy, has learned helplessness, and so on and so forth. It is a controllable individual. An animal that's in fear is more controllable than not. And the same is true at a societal level. Fear embedded in societal systems weakens the fabric of collective resilience. When they create fear, they create the context through which they are able to control. And this idea of using fear as a mechanism of societal control has been the topic of study in public health since World War two, and even beforehand. I mean, we have our ancient philosophers talking about fear as a mechanism for control, and they have moved this scientific study of fear for societal control forward, ethically and unethically throughout history, to the point where we do indeed have propaganda techniques that are well articulated, well described, a recipe, if you will, on how to use fear to control us. Uh, we have a scientific study within COVID-19 about how to use fear to maximize and optimize compliance. This looks very similar to that test anxiety. If you're familiar with the testing anxiety performance, the bell-shaped curve looks very similar. Those animals—and it was like too much sadness, and it inhibited action to sadness—you didn't do anything. But if you hit that sweet spot of sadness, you want to donate to the Humane Society. If you're following the PSA that I'm referring to. If you study, if you have this much test anxiety, you're not going to perform well, too much. You're going to be hindered in your performance. But that sweet spot, and they did the same sort of thing in COVID-19. They looked at how much fear they could push out to create this optimal zone where there was the highest level of vaccine compliance, the most degree of masking, social distancing, so on and so forth. They manipulated our behavior through our emotional response, using fear as a primal and basic emotion that is easily manipulated. And you could see here that they even looked at different situations of spread and how they described the virus to map onto our fear. This is a sophisticated approach they took to creating the type of behavior compliance that they wanted to see. And so, we know that they did this. This is not surprising. We know that fear has been the primary source, but how they were able to actually successfully infiltrate fear throughout the fabric of society on a global scale is one of sophistication and worth noting, because we know we all know better than anyone else that just putting a message out there is not enough to change the attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions of the masses. It takes more than just screaming louder or having a media source say it. How exactly did the globalists in rapid speed create an environment where people were not afraid, didn't even know COVID-19 existed, and then were able to be so afraid that they rolled up their sleeves and allowed an untested drug to be injected into their bodies? The basic answer comes down to a very classic framework within the developmental psychology and public health literature from Bronfenbrenner, originally put out back in 1979. And this is a very classic and well-known understanding of how human behavior is shaped by our environment. The gray circle in the center represents the individual. Typically, when we think about fear, we think about things like your genetic predisposition, your sex, your age, your health status, neurobiology, and temperament. These are all things that come into whether or not someone is prone to anxiety, panic and fear. But what we also know is that that individual is embedded within concentric circles, which each represents the systems of influence. The closest system towards the person in that lighter blue color is termed “the microsystem.” And this is the system that our movement has focused on most frequently. These are the people closest to the individual who have a direct influence on someone's behavior. We've intervened with the parents. We've woken the mama bears up. We've woken the warrior fathers up. We've intervened in schools. We've taken over school boards. We've worked towards teachers and wokeness. Right. We are intervening at the provider level, the health care level, trying to wake doctors up. This has been the focus of our movement in trying to push along our trajectory of creating a healthier society. The metro system I'm going to skip for depth and time. The exosystem is the system that our government works most strongly upon are the position within our government. I should say this is the system-level change. If they didn't just come out and go on the news, although mass media is part of it. The mass media was out there talking about the issues propagating fear. But then they also coordinated and aligned workplace policies. You can't work. You won't have financial resources if you do not comply. That is a very fear-based campaign, just as loud as mainstream media screaming about deaths. They worked within governmental systems and economic systems. Your small business will close if you do not comply. They worked at this exosystem level in order to create very authentic, real fear that affects the daily functioning of an individual's life, not just the fear of what may happen, but underscoring the fabric of our society and the way in which we live. They threatened the way in which we live by aligning the fear of COVID with these very basic fundamental systems. And then you zoom out one more level and you look at the macro system, and this is how culture plays a role. They created technology to underscore what we're doing. They passed laws and social policy. And we even saw things just like in the Olympic opening ceremonies the other day starts [with] attacks of religious and philosophical beliefs to really underscore and attack the attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs of the general populace. Now, this all sounds good and fine and dandy, but where do the globalists play a role? Since that is the focus of today's discussion. And I argue that we are in uncharted territory because as we begin to look at systems, never before have we had a system where the globalists are in direct lines of influence over our outermost macro level system. We now have a group of individuals who have the power to influence, directly and indirectly, economic ideology, religious and philosophical beliefs, our environment, our laws, our culture, our technology and our social policy. And this is unchartered and very dangerous territory.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ MAT STAVER, B.A., M.A., J.D., Chairman, Senior Pastor, Founder And Chairman Of Liberty Counsel; Chairman Of Liberty Counsel Action, Faith And Liberty, Freedom Federation, And Salt & Light Council TRANSCRIPT: Mat Staver, B.A., M.A., J.D.: [00:57:21] Thank you. Good to be with you, of course. And it was good to see you just recently, a few days ago, at the events in Orlando. And, thank you for all you're doing. Thank you for the Sovereignty Coalition. I just want to give a brief discussion about my concern. I think it's a concern that we all share. During COVID, Liberty Counsel was very involved beginning in 2020, representing places of worship that were subjects of the draconian, unconstitutional lockdowns and the governments just rubber stamp these not only here in America, but around the world. A distinction between essential and non-essential activities. They had a long list. We've seen all of those lists at various iterations, but places of worship are always on the non-essential list, whereas abortion clinics or big box centers or lots of other things so essential to buy potted plants and garden hoses at big box centers that they were considered essential. All of their activities in those big box stores were considered essential. But worship meeting in person, um, where you would actually be able to counsel people, give them comfort during a time where there was a lot of uncertainty, insecurity, fear, and all different things that surrounded them that were considered nonessential. You really understand what they think of people of faith globally, certainly here in the United States. We litigated those issues, and we went to the Supreme Court in December of 2020. We won 5 to 4 involving California churches. We represented about 100 and some different churches in California. In a case with Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministries, which actually has a global series of ministries around the world with different churches that are associated with that organization, and lots of them in California. And then we went back down to the lower court and lost again, lost again 2 to 1 at the Court of Appeals, and then went back up to the Supreme Court with the same case, and in February of 2021, we won 6 to 3 at that time. And that was the beginning of the end of all of these lockdowns around the country. Then, in 2021, when the Biden administration began to impose the mandates first on the T38 workers in the federal government, those individuals were the very first ones, then the military. And you had some of the airlines, United Airlines and others began leading the way. And then, the healthcare industry began pushing the mandates because the percentage of people that were going to get the COVID shots underestimated by the Biden administration wanted to have a certain percentage. And by the July 4th weekend, that percentage was far below what he wanted. And so, he mandated this. That resulted in litigation that's frankly still ongoing. We represented people in the United States military. We got a class-wide injunction against the Department of Defense on behalf of the United States Marines. We represented all branches of the military. We found people who had served for almost 20 years. They were a few months away from serving 20 years, and that was the magic number. To be able to get vested for all of your benefits just a few months away. We had some, frankly, that were only a few months away that were actually in the reserves at this point. So they only had maybe 1 or 2 more times to put on their uniform between the time of the mandate, which was August of 2021 and the end of the year of December 2021, and they would have been vested and nothing, they would have been fine, but they were threatened with termination. We not only saw them threatened with termination, but with dishonorable discharge. Fortunately, Congress got involved and they passed a rule, a law that said you could not be dishonorably discharged, but you could be discharged without honor, which is the second most severe discharge of someone serving in the services. Consequently, whether you're discharged dishonorably or without honor, consequences are pretty significant, both on your record, certainly on your morale, because you've served the country. Many of these people went to various wars. They came back without their friends and colleagues. Some of those were injured themselves. They still serve and they were subject to discipline and discharge. Not only that, but they would be also subject to paying back all of their educational benefits. Some of these individuals became doctors and other professions during the service. They would have to pay back all their educational benefits if they didn't get the shot, and in addition, they would have to pay back some of their training. So for some of the pilots, depending upon what aircraft you're trained on, that could be tens of millions of dollars of training costs. So all of these were threatened. We unfortunately did not represent these individuals, but we represented chaplains and others who knew these individuals that actually counseled with these individuals. We had people in December of 2021 that committed suicide because of the pressure that they were under, they felt betrayed. We had high-ranking military officers on our conference calls that wept, that said that they were prepared to fight the enemy, but they were never prepared to fight the enemy within. That they had given their lives for our country and now the country was turning against them. So we had so much heartache. We've had health care workers that were considered heroes and they were terminated. For example, in Maine, that litigation is still going on in New York. It's still going on. We still have some other litigation going on. Fortunately, all of the military cases we won, we got the first class-action lawsuit settlement in the entire country, the first and only one at $10.3 million against a health care industry up in Illinois. But we also are still, believe it or not, even to this day, we are still fighting for students to be able to finish their schooling, and we are still fighting for people who have been approved on organ transplant list to be a recipient of a particular organ, their donor, some of those donors are relatives or friends, have also been approved as a donor. And we're still fighting, although many of those battles have subsided, we've won most of them. To be able to get those individuals to have, um, to be back on the transplant list because they have been removed. We had one individual who was on the transplant list and was removed by the time they got back on, it was too late and the person died. So there are significant consequences. However, we have been able to win time and time again in the courts. We have seen firsthand the horror and the death and the emotional turmoil and the destruction and damage that these lockdowns in our own government with misinformation, fear and these um, executive orders, both from the current administration as well as a number of the different states have caused on people. So our concern is very significant, particularly with the ears and the pandemic proposed pandemic treaty to take what we have experienced in the United States and rid it large, expand it, blow it up large on an international scale. So now that we have one Marxist entity in a foreign jurisdiction, be able to issue these kinds of mandates globally and impose those on our country and on our individual states, and then the recourse won't be in our federal judicial system using our constitutional guarantees, but will be before an international body, consequences of which are enormous fines. We've seen before in the past with regards to the cool laws, the country of origin labeling laws where Congress passed laws regarding origin of meat. Mexico and Canada filed suit because we had signed on to an agreement regarding trade, and consequently we lost those. We would have had to pay billions of dollars in damages. So my concern is the concern of all of you is that indeed, uh, having this in an international body of the WHO is very significant to our freedom because we're not going to have the kind of redress in our courts or under our United States Constitution that we currently have. Now, almost all of these mandates have been struck down as unconstitutional in one form or another. All of that would change if this were under an international body. And I'll just conclude, Frank, with this, that, you know, right now, just recently the WHO is coming up with a meeting on Infodemic. And they wanted to press the Infodemic idea. I mean, think about that. We're not talking about just misinformation or disinformation. We're talking about accurate information that is too much of accurate information. So in other words, this disease of information needs to be stopped, like the spread of a virus. And it can include what they call misinformation and disinformation. But it can also include truth. As long as you're giving too much truth so that people can make a decision that is contrary to the narrative that the WHO wants to push. I mean, that's a startling situation.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ DAVID BELL, M.D., Former Medical Officer And Scientist At The World Health Organization (Who); Senior Scholar At Brownstone Institute; Public Health Physician And Biotech Consultant In Global Health TRANSCRIPT: Dr. David Bell: I think this is really timely to have this summit. We saw the World Health Assembly meet in May and June past. The amendments have been mentioned, and there's a delay, but they're going forward now negotiating further on the pandemic agreement. But there's a danger that we're, you know, messaging around that these are not as bad as we thought that there are great gains made in watering them down. I think this is a real misunderstanding of the issue, that this was never about WHO taking over the world. This was about WHO having been taken, taken over the last 20 years or so, and being used as a tool by a much wider movement. And that's what we've really got to face. And it's not the first time that public health has been used in this way. The eugenic era in the past was very similar. We saw public health used as a tool of national fascist regimes in Europe very widely in the past. And there's nothing really different about what's happening now to what happened then, except that this is beyond national boundaries. They're using international organizations to do this. So during the last few years during COVID, we saw the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the G20 high-level panel, and other international entities that we used to trust, essentially used by this movement, completely misrepresent the risk around pandemics, around COVID, for the enrichment and the increase in power of this relative few. And we're seeing it again in the wording around climate and health. So, with the UN Summit of the Future, this is going to become much, much broader. This goes beyond health into virtually all aspects of societal life. I think in response to this, we've got to be really careful. There are kernels of truth in all these issues around pandemics, climate, environment, gender issues, and population issues. There are kernels of truth, and we have to recognize those because these are being used and twisted for this authoritarian model. And the intent to do this is laid out very clearly. It's not a sort of a conspiracy theory. It's laid out in the wording of the World Economic Forum, the various UN documents, etc. and it's hard for many people to grasp this because they don't expect these organizations to be lying to us. But they need to understand that these organizations are doing this. They're being used to do this for a purpose by others. I think we have a very difficult and intense battle ahead of us. We need to very aggressively tell the truth and keep doing that, and support legislators and others who are standing up and doing this against a very strong tide. And, you know, in the end, there's an attempt to build a global regime based around lies. And the biggest enemy for this is truth. So that's where we have to be. And I think the Sovereignty Coalition is playing a really important role in pushing that. Thank you.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ STEFANO GENNARINI, JD, Vice President For Legal Studies At The Center For Family And Human Rights (C-Fam); C-Fam Representative at UN Headquarters In NYC TRANSCRIPT: STEFANO GENNARINI, JD: Thank you, Frank, and greetings to all the distinguished listeners and guests on this call. I just wanted to bring the attention to the Summit of the future. Essentially, it's going to be the main theme of the General Assembly plenary this September, and there's going to be three agreements that are going to be promulgated that are currently in negotiations, the first of which is something called the "Pact for the Future," which is generally an agreement that's sort of positioning the United Nations system for what will come after the expiry of the "2030 Agenda." You may or may not know what the 2030 agenda is. It's essentially a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 159 targets for action—international cooperation— and those expire in the year 2030. Here at the United Nations, we like to take the long view of things like all good bureaucrats, and the idea is to already start putting in motion the processes that will lead to the replacement of the 2030 agenda with something new or some form of continuation thereof. Many of you may have been familiar with the idea of the emergency platform, which is the most controversial proposal for the Summit of the Future. The idea, of course, of the Summit of the Future came from the Secretary General of the United Nations. And already this kind of modus operandi, where the secretary general essentially proposes themes and the way forward for the organization and simply seeks to rubber stamp his decision through the approval of the General Assembly, is very much a controversial development for the United Nations system, where the secretary general was never understood to be some kind of CEO, have some kind of presidential role, but more of a secretarial role. That's why he's called to lead the organ of the United Nations called the Secretariat. But we have this new system where the secretary general essentially proposes summits, proposes themes, proposes resolutions, proposes areas for action and concern, and the Member States approve it. We've seen this repeatedly since the early 2000s. This is a very negative development in international cooperation, which undermines sovereignty and undermines the functioning of the United Nations as a system for cooperation between member states. And it makes it more of an organ of global governance because you have a CEO or presidential-type role for the secretary general. And that's what we saw in the early proposals for the Summit of the Future. Essentially, the secretary general was proposing to establish outright an emergency platform or to have the ability to declare emergencies and organize the response to emergencies, very much as he did during the COVID pandemic, except this time with more power and more resources. The response from member states has been pretty good, in terms that it's very unlikely that there's going to be an emergency platform created through the agreement this year. There's been quite a lot of resistance to that idea, but there has been contemplation of the idea of an emergency platform down the line. And that's the normal way that UN negotiations proceed. Many times, you know, the Secretariat will propose in UN reports something very outlandish, knowing full well that they can't get it, but they'll get a few steps toward it. And that's what we're going to likely see at the Summit pf the Future. We're going to likely see the establishment of some kind of process to discuss an emergency platform for the United Nations. What that would look like is all completely still up for grabs. They're going to be negotiating for the next week. The proposal on the table now is that the secretary general will come up with a proposal for member states. We have told member states that they shouldn't give such a broad mandate to the secretary general and that they should rather lead the discussions themselves without having to follow the lead of the secretary general because the concept of emerging platforms is so rife for abuse it would concentrate so much power in the secretary general. It would literally be something unprecedented. That's with regard to the summit. The “Pact for the Future” is the principal concern. A part of the Pact for the Future will also be a "Declaration on Future Generations," essentially the purpose of which seems to be mostly to position future generations as somehow stakeholders in the multilateral system. And the way they want to do that is by increasing channels for participation for young people in UN decision making. This is a way that, you know, progressives want to capitalize on the demographic at youth advantage of a lot of developing countries. And then, finally, there's the "Global Digital Compact," which is, in some ways, the most concerning of the agreements that are being negotiated. Of course, the reason for that is because the idea is to promulgate international standards for the regulation of artificial intelligence and other information technologies so that they align with human rights as defined, of course, by UN human rights experts and the UN system, whose recommendations are quite controversial.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ HONORABLE U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RALPH NORMAN (R-SC-5TH), An American Real Estate Developer And Politician Who Has Served As The U.S. Representative For South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District Since 2017; House Committees: Financial Services, Rules, And Budget TRANSCRIPT: US Rep. Ralph Norman: First of all, Frank, thank you for having this summit, and I appreciate you've always been a staunch advocate for not getting in—or getting out of—the WHO and not ceding our power. First of all, let me just as a broad subject, we are going to have to as a country with all that Biden has done in his administration to flood the borders, to crime in the streets, to, you know, things that he's done intentionally, we're going to have to start taking, each state's going to have to take ownership in this. And as you look at this agreement, one, we've got to call attention to it. Another press conference, when we come back, it will be in order in Congress. Secondly, to cede our power and our sovereignty to an organization that totally floundered about the COVID-19 virus and totally lied about it is insane. To give 5% of our gross medical dollar spent for health care is insane. To give our intellectual properties to China; how they came up with China as a developing country is beyond me. All that to say, we've got to take action on this. The Senate is going to have to consider this, hopefully. I'm sure they will find out about it, but I hope they can get the necessary votes to make sure this doesn't take place. We simply cannot give money—which is money we don't have—or give our sovereignty away. And it looks like that's what this administration, or whoever is guiding this administration, wants to do. Yeah, we've got the support with that. The house is. I forget which committee it's in, but this has been, I think, reported out now, actually. I haven't seen it on the floor yet, but hopefully, it'll come up in September, and then it'll go to the Senate. And we've got to ring the bells on this, Frank. And we've also got to ring the bells on exactly the U.N. Summit, which I guess is in September, [where they] are due to meet and spell out some more terminology and more things that put handcuffs on this country. We've got to make sure that one, the Senate knows about it. Two, they've got two-thirds support for it, so they can pass it, or they can stop this. And then thirdly, just make sure the American people know how atrocious this is and how it'll affect this country. The Asian bird flu, I've already heard is lurking in the coming months. It's kind of strange just right around the election, too. If it happens, we just cannot cede, power to a man that's in the pocket of China. Nor can we give our basically our sovereignty and our whole country. Right? [Give] American rights to the 190 [or so] other countries.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ ITALIAN SENATOR CLAUDIO BORGHI,An Italian Businessman; Entered The Senate In October 2022; Former Member Of The Chamber Of Deputies From 2013-2022 TRANSCRIPT: IT Senator Claudio Borghi: Good evening to everyone. I'm Claudio Borghi, I'm a member of the Senate of Italy, a member of the ruling coalition. My party is The League. We are making some progress here in order to regain sovereignty. We are one of the countries that said no to the pandemic treaty. Nevertheless, I find it quite hard so far to bring this debate to Parliament. Part of this probably is because most of the ministry offices are still filled with the same people who were behind the pandemic period, the ones who imposed the lockdown, the ones who imposed the vaccination mandate. And so, they are refusing to take back to some of their position. So, it's quite difficult to bring these issues that are, of course, of paramount importance to the place where they should belong. I mean, to the Parliament, where they can be openly discussed and eventually voted on. Still, we are making small progress. For example, we for the bits and pieces that sometimes arrive in the Parliament, we are able to say no. For example, we say no to, uh, join the sort of pan-European vaccine standard certificate linked with the OMS. We say that we will do something on our own, that we don't want to be part of any kind of green card, euro certificate or world certificate whatsoever. Another thing is still to be done. For example, we are one of the few countries that has a vaccine mandate for children that they are forced to make ten vaccinations in order to be able to attend school. This is, in my opinion, wrong. Other things that should be. Instead, it's important, but I want this kind of debate to be brought in the Parliament so anyone is able to take responsibility for their act. At the moment, I didn't manage to bring the issue to the proper Parliament branch, but I'm still trying. Regarding the exchanges of the International Health Regiment, we are checking what is acceptable or not. And if there are things that are not acceptable, we are going to refuse them at the moment. To tell you the truth, it seems that everything is not so dangerous as I was fearing. Let's keep up the good work and let's keep on coordinating.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ PHILIPP KRUSE, LL.M., Partner, Kruse Law Headquartered In Zurich, Switzerland; Leading Critic Of The Who TRANSCRIPT: Philipp Kruse: What violations of the WHO's own constitution and the member states own constitution are we talking about? Let's start with the WHO's own procedural rules. They were always there, created to have and clear basis for democratic principles of informed consent. We have all been well aware of the breach and violation of the four-month rule of article 55, paragraph two, of the International Health Regulations, which meant that four months in advance of the World Health Assembly that took place on 1st of June, there should have been the final wording of the amendments. That was not the case. In fact, what we saw was that there was negotiation going on literally until the very last final moment of the voting at the World Health Assembly. And here we must say that there took place even an explicit vote ahead of the World Health Assembly by the Committee. Eight on the committee provided a clear no. That was on Thursday, 3rd of May. And this is worth taking note of with a total possible vote of 177. There were a number of votes in favor of the IHR amendments of just 26, whereas the number against was 67. So two-thirds. That's a clear no. Usually, such a business should have been turned down and never brought back in, particularly not to the final plenary session of the World Health Assembly. But exactly that is what took place. And so on the 1st of June, as we all know, at 9:00 pm local time, Geneva, the representatives, the delegates of the member states in the World Health Assembly in the plenary session were made believe that the previous negotiations for the amendments of the International Health Regulations were quite successful, and so that the vote on it would be just a mere formal decision. And so, they were asked, the representatives of the member states, “is the Assembly now ready to adopt of the resolution as read out?” “I see no objection,” said the chair. So, there is the resolution, including the amendments. They are now adopted. This is absolutely not the way how important amendments to such an important international legal basis, like the international obligations, can and should be adopted. So, this is a lot of food for the lawyers here. But also, regarding the content, we need to be aware that the content of the IHR amendments that were adopted on the 1st of June are really far-reaching, and they result in a significant threat to sovereignty, of course, resulting from an undue waiver of the member states on of their rights. What are we talking about here? Just a couple of brief notes here. Article 12 of the IHR amendments allows for a much wider discretion for the Director General to call out a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Then, in addition, we see that this one single person, the Director General, is allowed to declare such legal status with worldwide effect against all rules of common sense, even overruling the emergency committee and even overruling the relevant member state that is concerned. Then, in addition, of course, we see that the recommendations, the tool of recommendations, is extended in particular regarding health products. It was already mentioned, so health products in the future will as well include, experimental products resulting from emergency use listing authorizations. We see that explicitly also mentioned in the treaty, which is not yet adopted. Article 14 regulatory strengthening. Then very much varying is the influence, the factual influence that comes from the WHO's position as the leading number one organization in all health and pandemic matters. We have seen that, as Reggie Littlejohn has mentioned already in the past, whatever word was spread, whatever recommendation was done by WHO was considered ultimately the number one best practice without any alternative, and thus, as such, was followed. And we all know that this term “best practice” is important. Whenever there is any kind of emergency, then decision makers, doctors, and politicians recur, recur, and turn to what they perceive as best practice in order to avoid any liability or reputational problem. This is also acknowledged by courts in most jurisdictions, so that even in the past already, all information, including the declaration of PHEIC, a public health emergency of international concern, itself is considered legally binding or as the best practice, which is almost a rule of law. What else do we have? We shall not forget that there is in the original, pre-existing wording of the IHR article 42. There is already the obligation that all health measures taken pursuant to this IHR, International Health Regulations, shall be initiated and completed without delay. This sounds like an order to me, and as such it was already executed. The most notable and important and concerning new aspect is the concept of “infodemics.” Again, this is something that we have seen already in the past. It will be strengthened on the formal level in the IHR Amendments. Amendment or annex one, and in article 18 of the Pandemic treaty, which ultimately results in WHO's power to become the global Ministry of Truth in information regarding all pandemic matters. As I said, it is just formalized because we have seen this in the past already. All of this is taken together, and I have just taken out a couple of aspects. We must understand that the basis for good decision making, in particular in crisis, is the full range of information that shall be freely considered. So that also second opinions and other opinions have their fair share and can be considered without that, and with an obligation of the Member States to exclusively, exclusively provide WHO the exclusive power to define what is good, what is bad, what is dangerous, and what is healthy. Governments will lose their own authority and competence to protect their people. And this is actually what it is all about. And what it is all, what it all should be about. We are here in the public health sector. While the health of the people is the most important and most relevant aspect, it will be impossible to protect people with such a new regime. So, we need to resist it from the bottom up with the help of local politicians and to influence our governance. Thank you so much.

Comments made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ HONORABLE NIGEL FARAGE, Member Of The U.K. Parliament For Clacton And Leader Of Reform U.K. Party TRANSCRIPT: Nigel Farage, MP: Always a pleasure, Frank, to talk to you. And, uh, yeah, you've got your sovereignty summit. I mean, sovereignty ought to be my middle name, really? Because, well, you know, it's 30 years ago, over 30 years ago. And I was a businessman working for a Chicago-based brokerage company in financial and commodity products. And I could see that you know, we'd signed up to this European club. It was all very innocent. It was all about being friendly with our neighbors and trading. But I could see over 30 years ago that this was actually about the sovereign nation state becoming subordinate. So, you know, my fight has been for sovereignty for 30 years. Well, I did 20 years and seven months in the European Parliament, and over 10 years of that was as a group leader. So, you know, sitting on the front row. And they had to invite me to all the special meetings and all the visits from foreign heads of state and dignitaries. Very interesting. I mean, the analysis upon which all of these organizations have been set up and I'm talking United Nations, I'm talking European Union. The whole post-war construct was based on a mistaken idea. It was based on the thought that the very existence of a nation-state had led to two cataclysmic world wars that had affected everybody. You know, costs cost tens of millions of lives in both conflicts. And so, the thinking was, we'll set up a new form of government, basically leading to world government, where the clever people, the educated people, will decide what's good for all the rest of us. And if we eliminate the nation-state, we will eliminate war. We will eliminate poverty. And that was the thinking behind all of it. But of course, at no point was this explained to individual voters in our respective countries. So kind of what I learned during those 20 years and seven months is that the political classes had bought into this hook, line and sinker that anybody that put up a counterargument, a as I used to call it, “negationist argument,” was somehow a bad person that will lead us to war. Well, I did manage to win that battle, and we did get our sovereignty back. We did leave the European Union, which probably is the biggest historical constitutional change in these islands for 300 years. But now I'm in the British Parliament, and I've been there for just over three weeks, and the vast majority of those sitting in the British Parliament think regaining sovereignty was a mistake, and would love to hand some of that sovereignty back to globalist institutions like, the European Union, like the United Nations, and relevantly, the World Health Organization, because, you know, we all saw their baleful, baleful influence during the pandemic. And there they were at the end of May this year with their pandemic treaty, and they were all ready to take a whole host of powers away from voters, away from nation-states. And we were all cheering when the Geneva Conference ended with no agreement. Well, folks don't cheer too much. One thing I learned in Brussels about the globalist project is even if they don't get what they want, they're prepared to wait and wait and wait because every time they gain a bit of sovereignty, every time they gain a bit of power, they never, ever give it back. And so now we learn that actually, they're hoping to renegotiate this treaty, which would give them the right to tell us to lock down. I mean, think about it. You know, Florida would not be able to make the wise decisions that it did with Ron DeSantis as governor. And they're hoping to get this done and dusted before the US presidential election. Now, I don't think that time frame is workable, but believe you me, they are going to come back with this idea. Just a final word. That's why, Frank, you know, I was so worried about the WHO that I've helped co-found “Action on World Health.” We're established. We're up and running. We're a legal entity in both the UK and in America. We're there, we're ready. We were prepared for Geneva. It hasn't happened. But I will not be taking my eye off the ball in any way at all. You know, we're going to use action on world health, and we'll do it. Try and get together big petitions. We can even, you know, do it in America if necessary to try and get ballot measures, you know, perhaps on a state-by-state basis when relevant elections come along. So don't underestimate me. I'm very committed to this cause and the idea that we give up, you know, our ability to decide whether we have mask mandates to decide whether vaccines have to be compulsory, to decide whether we should be locked back into our houses again. I'm very serious that we have to continue with this fight.

Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, ESQ., Co-Founder Of The Sovereignty Coalition; Founder Of Anti-Globalist International; And Co-Chair Of The Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force; President Of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers TRANSCRIPT: Reggie Littlejohn, Esq.: Thanks, Frank. Yes, I am the co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition and the president of “Anti-globalist International.” We have seen some very troubling developments recently. [U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary] Xavier Becerra has recently declared an emergency regarding bird flu. This opens the way to emergency use authorizations for avian flu vaccines. And the American Medical Association has recently created building codes to administer these vaccines. It's all set up, and this is something that I have been really worried about. People who've been following me know that for years, I've been saying COVID-19 is just the dress rehearsal for the real trap that they're setting for us in the next pandemic, which appears to be the bird flu pandemic. And what has happened recently is that the World Health Organization passed international health regulations that while some of the worst language did not make it through, enough did make it through to establish a globalist totalitarian surveillance police state. So how does this work? Number one, these regulations passed illegally. They were supposed to have been circulated to the world four months in advance. I don't know if they were even circulated four hours in advance. That's a basis to reject them. But, article four of these new regulations require all nations to establish what I would call a national WHO czar. Okay, they have a fancy name, National International Health Regulations Authority or they have other names for it. But these entities shall. “Shall.” That's the word for coordinating the implementation of International Health regulations. So anybody who says that this is voluntary. No. We've got somebody in the United States, in every country, whose job is to implement it through legislation on the national, state and local level. So that is a direct violation of our sovereignty. Also, in annex A of these amendments, it requires nation states, such as the United States, to surveil their citizens and also to censor. They have a requirement that nations shall address misinformation and disinformation. Now what's that going to look like? I think we can look back to COVID-19 about what it's going to look like. It's going to mean censoring dissenting opinions of doctors and anyone else who disagrees. And regarding the surveillance, you know, it's not defined in the International Health Regulations, but in the pandemic treaty, which is still going forward in negotiation, they talk about One Health, which is the connection between human health, animal health, plant health and the environment. And so, what that means is they are going to be surveilling basically every aspect of life on Earth. Also, very troubling. They have, there is article 35, which establishes health documents, requires health documents that can be either paper or digital, and the country can decide. I have no doubt that the United States and other developed nations will create digital IDs, and these digital IDs are already being rolled out between the World Health Organization and the European Union. They've been rolling them out for about a year. And if you want to know what the digital IDs are going to do, they're not going to simply be tracking our health and our vaccine status. If you go on to the World Economic Forum website, you can see that the digital ID is going to be required to open a bank account, to own a communications device, to travel, to buy and sell, to vote, to collect government benefits. It's basically going to be required for every aspect of life on earth, of civilization. And if you step out of line by, for example, refusing to be vaccinated or boosted, or if you criticize the government and you are considered to be a promoter of misinformation or disinformation, they can cut you off from any of those aspects and basically paralyze you. It's also connected to your bank account and your credit card. So, this is why I'm saying that the International Health Regulations, even without the pandemic treaty, are enough to establish a global totalitarian police state. We also have the pandemic treaty that is coming down the line. It's got something in it called the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System, which is going to set up a worldwide network of labs, any of which could leak a pathogen with pandemic potential. And so, what this does is it makes it into a situation where we're going to have a constant flow of lab leaks, a constant flow of pandemics, which will greatly benefit the big Pharma and also keep us in a constant state of lockdown. So, it's very important to resist. I would urge everybody to go to sovereignty Coalition and sign our campaign to reject the International Health Regulation amendments. Thank you.

Comments made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ MERYL NASS, MD, A Medical Doctor and Founder, Door To Freedom, With Expertise On Anthrax And Other Aspects Of Biological Warfare TRANSCRIPT: DR. MERYL NASS, MD: There are many viruses in the world. We're aware of a few hundred of them. Uh, bird flu, H5n1, which is the one that people are concerned about now, was first isolated in birds in 1959, in humans in 1997, and in cattle this year. Um, the WHO actually tells us how many cases there have been every year for the last 20. And it turns out there have only been 901 cases in the world's history. And in the last four years, only eight deaths from H5n1 bird flu. It has now mutated in the United States. It is primarily causing pinkeye. Eye. These are episodes of bird flu infections noted in the UK since 1959. You can see that so-called high pathogenicity bird flu, which applies only to pathogenicity and chickens and not humans, occur all the time and then disappear. This New England Journal article reveals that 20 years ago, Jeremy Farrar, Peter Horby and the World Health Organization were raising alarms about bird flu while admitting there was no human to human transmission. 20 years later, Corby Farrar and the WHO conspired to overdose patients with hydroxychloroquine and spread lies about COVID. This is the enigma. Why are we treating it by culling chickens and, um, uh, getting rid of milk, etc., when no one has ever caught this virus from any kind of food? Uh, why have 500 chickens been culled around the world in a vain attempt to stop the virus, when it is rampant in the wild bird population and cannot be eradicated? Frank Gaffney: Sorry, you said.500. I think you meant 500 million. Dr. Meryl Nass, MD: Yes, thank you. How do you give experimental vaccines quickly to an entire population? The lawyers in our regulatory agencies have figured out two ways. One being the emergency use authorization and the other being something called a mockup or pre-pandemic vaccine. And this is how the pandemic vaccine was approved in 2009 for the swine flu pandemic that was less severe than an ordinary flu pandemic. This article tells you about the mockup vaccine program invented in 2003. Um, that allows rapid, uh, licensure of a new vaccine, grandfathering it in. This article also tells you how the mockup vaccine generates a regulatory dossier. It gets licensed. No one has any intention of using it. No one cares about it. And then a later vaccine is grandfathered in under this license. Um, this this, uh, process, however, does nothing to sort out how safe the later vaccine that will be used is. And in fact, Doctor Tom Jefferson, who led the Cochrane Collaboration vaccine group, pointed out that the whole concept of mock up vaccines was bankrupt and dangerous, according to the WHO, the EMA and US government advisers. But nobody listened to him. And in 2017, Jeremy Farrar, the same person who stoked fear of bird flu for 20 years, and Bill Gates brought the concept of vaccines developed in 100 days to Davos. With each pandemic, this organization can cash in again with new vaccines and how are they going to get them approved? By using the mock-up strategy and grandfathering them in without testing. However, in order for bird flu to become dangerous to humans, it would have to acquire two sets of mutations simultaneously the ability to spread between humans, which it has never had, and the ability to cause severe disease, which it lost a number of years ago. This, at this point, is only going to happen in a laboratory doing gain of function research. However, in Finland, they are already giving out a bird flu vaccine that was grandfathered in through a mockup process to 10,000 people. The EU purchased 665,000 doses of this vaccine, a Seqirus H5n8 vaccine that has never been tested in humans. Two phony rationales were used to justify this. First, the precautionary principle—as if they were being taken—precautions to maintain the fur industry. Although there have been no cases in the fur industry this year. The second concept is that humans are being vaccinated under the rubric of one-minute health to Enhance Planetary Health. It turns out that this whole year, Finland has only had one case of bird flu in a wild bird. Never mind conditioning the public. In April, the Guardian started talking about vaccinating for humans in the UK, and in April in the US, the head of FDA started talking about the same thing, vaccinating humans. It will take very little to pull the trigger. These are the three licensed vaccines in the US that could be used for mock ups, and these are three that I know of in development for bird flu right now. About ten days ago, the AMA announced that it was issuing codes for the use of the Seqirus H5n8 vaccine, similar to the one in Finland, so that doctors could bill for administering the vaccine. And also last week, the Federal Register in the US published an emergency declaration for bird flu, which is the first step in allowing tests and vaccinations for bird flu. It's a dangerous moment and we've got to stop this process before it goes any further. Thanks.

Comments made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024. https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/ PETER A. MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH, A Frontline Internist, Cardiologist, And Epidemiologist, Punished For His Truth-Telling About The Last Pandemic; Co-Author, “The Courage To Face Covid-19: Preventing Hospitalization And Death While Battling The Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex” TRANSCRIPT: Thank you Frank, and thanks to each and every one of you for attending. As introduced, I'm Doctor Peter McCullough. I'm a practicing internist, cardiologist, research epidemiologist in Dallas, Texas. I focused extensively on infectious disease and pandemic response. Now, over the last five years, and in the first Sovereignty Coalition summit, I pointed out that the World Health Organization was complicit in the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They worked to conceal the origins of the virus from the laboratory, and that they had misled the world on every pandemic response measure as we worked through the crisis. But the WHO didn't stop there. I want to make the point that the reason why, as a physician, I won't follow the World Health Organization, and I'm advising that member nations pull out and certainly not support the pandemic treaty alliance or national health regulations is that the WHO has greatly misled us on monkeypox and the worldwide monkeypox crisis, which never evolved into a crisis. WHO never fully informed us that it was so easily treated with an oral and IV drug, tecovirimat, that vaccination was never needed for monkeypox. Ultimately, it was never even evaluated for monkeypox after the onset of the outbreak. And now we are in an avian influenza H5n1 crisis declared by the World Health Organization and by review of its most recent July 26th, 2024 update from the WHO. The organization is misleading the world by quoting a 52% mortality in humans from bird flu, which is from legacy data in Southeast Asia, where there is a massive exposure of families sleeping with chickens, no health care, and the review of the x rays reported New England Journal of Medicine, 2005. It's my determination that these individuals died of secondary bacterial pneumonia and not Avian influenza. So we're in the middle of an outbreak of avian influenza since 2021. Who is failing to inform the world how it's spreading? And research indicates it's spreading by migratory waterfowl, mallard ducks, and other waterfowl. WHO fails to indicate that it's a result of gain of function research. Serial passage done in projects that are published in the research format by the USDA Poultry Research Center in Athens, Georgia, the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine and Erasmus University in the Netherlands, and the WHO is failing to inform the world about which cases are arising from vaccinated poultry, and it’s been poultry has been vaccinated against H5 families of influenza in Southeast Asia for decades. And the vaccination has grossly failed, obviously, because there are more cases. And finally, the WHO is not revealing that the current outbreak in both animals and humans is very mild. They report no information on the mortality rate from the infection in poultry or other animals, including mammalian species. [There is] no indication that there are humans who have died or even been hospitalized with the current strain of bird flu, and no information on the use of virucidal, nasal sprays, gargles, or even virucidal eyedrops. We have a situation here where the WHO is completely inadequate on pandemic crisis after pandemic crisis. In conclusion, I would make the case that the WHO, at this point in time, is disposable in that the world should look towards leaders in each and every country to take initiatives to help protect their populations against purported infectious disease threats as we move forward. WHO in no way should have any input over plants, animals, or humans from this point forward, and throughout the remainder of human history, they've greatly misled us. And this group is withdrawing all support for the World Health Organization. I'm Doctor Peter McCullough. Thank you so much for having me.

“SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” TO SHOWCASE FOUR CHALLENGES TO OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND FREEDOM Strategizing to Counter “Global Governance” Gambits Monday, July 29, 2024 Proponents of national sovereignty confront four imminent challenges of surpassing importance. Any one of these could greatly advance the efforts of globalists to institute international arrangements that advance collective totalitarianism and crush freedom. These four challenges are: - National actions on what amounts to a treaty amending the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHRs) - WHO Pandemic Treaty - UN “Summit for the Future” - An Avian Flu pandemic The Second Sovereignty Summit will take place via Zoom from 9 to 11 a.m. ET on Monday, July 29th. MODERATOR: - FRANK GAFFNEY, Co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition and Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy thanks and welcomes contributors and audience SPEAKERS: - PETER A. MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH, a frontline internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, punished for his truth-telling about the last pandemic; co-author, “The Courage to Face Covid-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex” Proposed Topic: “The Globalist’s Assault on Public Health and Sovereignty” - U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB GOOD (R-5-VA), Chairman, House Freedom Caucus; Serves on the Education and Labor Committee and the Budget Committee Proposed Topic: “Why Sovereignty Matters, It Must Not Be Compromised” - MERYL NASS, MD, A medical doctor and founder, Door to Freedom, with expertise on anthrax and other aspects of biological warfare Proposed Topic: “Avian Flu: COVID-19 2.0 Plandemic?” - NIGEL FARAGE, Member of the U.K. Parliament for Clacton and Leader of Reform U.K. Party Proposed Topic: “Defending Sovereignty: What’s at Stake?” - REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, ESQ., Co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition; Founder of Anti-Globalist International; and Co-Chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force; President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers Proposed Topic: “The IHR Treaty: A Dangerous ‘Bait-and-Switch’” - PHILIPP KRUSE, LL.M., Partner, Kruse Law headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland; Leading critic of the WHO Proposed Topic: “The IHR Amendments Violate the WHO’s Own Constitution, Among Others’” - SENATOR CLAUDIO BORGHI, an Italian businessman; entered the Senate in October 2022; former Member of the Chamber of Deputies from 2013-2022 Proposed Topic: “The Italian People Want Sovereignty and Freedom, Not ‘Global Governance’” - RALPH NORMAN (R-SC-5th), an American real estate developer and politician who has served as the U.S. representative for South Carolina’s 5th congressional district since 2017; House Committees: Financial Services, Rules, and Budget Proposed Topic: “We Insist on Limited, Constitutional and Representative Government – Not ‘Global Governance’” - HONORABLE SORIN T. MANCACIU, Romanian politician, member of the Chamber of Deputies, Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance Proposed Topic: Reject the UN’s Totalitarian “Pact for the Future” - DAVID BELL, M.D., Former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO); Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute; public health physician and biotech consultant in global health Proposed Topic: “The WHO Must Not Be the Arbiter of Global Health: Defeat the IHR and Pandemic Treaties” - STEFANO GENNARINI, JD, Vice President for Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam); C-Fam representative at UN Headquarters in NYC Proposed Topic: “The UN ‘Summit of the Future’: Don’t Give the Secretary General Dictatorial Powers” - PETER MCILVENNA, Chief of Staff to U.K. House of Lords Member Lord Malcolm Pearson of Rannoch; Co-founder; host of Heart of Oak Proposed Topic: “The Next Globalist Shoe to Drop: the UN ‘Summit of the Future’” - KAT LINDLEY, D.O., Primary Care Physician; Co-founder, Global Health Project; contributor to the Global Covid Summit; President of the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association; Member of the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons Proposed Topic: “The Truth about the Avian Bird Flu” - Dr. JESSICA ROSE, PhD, MSc, BSc, BSc. in Applied Mathematics, an MSc. in Immunology, a PhD in Computational Biology and a two Post Docs in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry - ANDREA NAZARENKO, a community and quantitative psychologists whose work focuses on bridging the gap between research and practice, and engaging in system-level, societal change. She is a leading expert in implementation science and co-founder of The Inspired Network, a coordinated action network for healthcare system improvement Proposed Topic: “Global Power Grabs and The Psychology of Fear” - MAT STAVER, B.A., M.A., J.D., Chairman, Senior Pastor, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel; Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, Faith and Liberty, Freedom Federation, and Salt & Light Council Proposed Topic: “The IHR Amendments Agreement is a Treaty and a Threat to Our Constitution” - ARIEL KELLNER, Member of Israel’s Knesset Proposed Topic: “Israel’s Hard Experience with ‘Global Governance’: Why the World Doesn’t Need More of It” - KRIS ULLMAN, ESQ., National President, Eagle Forum; Member, Sovereignty Coalition Proposed Topic: “Mobilizing the Masses to Counter Globalism and Solidify Sovereignty”