Blogs
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) – COVID-19 may not be what you think.

Over the last few years, a wealth of federal laws and other documents have suggested that the U.S. government conducts covert, nationwide public health “exercises” or “drills” – often without notice and possibly in collaboration with global authorities.

From multi-agency “full-scale exercises” led by FEMA to “emerging infectious disease” drills called for in federal plans, these apparent activities raise questions about how much of the COVID crisis is actually real.

This article provides more significant information supporting the claim that the COVID-19 pandemic may be a falsified national and international exercise, “emergency response and recovery” exercise, hoax, ruse, ploy, or something similar. For descriptive purposes extensive supporting references are provided within the article.

PART I: Introduction

How would the government plan a pandemic?

Before getting to the information, a few general points need to be made. First, if U.S. government public health, national security, law enforcement, intelligence community, and other officials (potentially due to anti-American foreign government officials influencing those American officials) wanted to legally protect themselves by strengthening U.S. federal laws to lawfully authorize a hoax coronavirus pandemic, they would not likely do so in an obvious manner.

For example, the following would probably not be wording in U.S. federal laws or amendments attempting to lawfully authorize a hoax pandemic:

Strengthening the Global Hoax Pandemic Agenda and Government Forced Monthly Injections Strategy and Implementation Plan

“Pursuant to Section 6702 of the “Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004” (18 U.S. Code § 1038) which authorizes the use of hoaxes and false information by any U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agency, the Presidential Executive Order directing the FBI to ‘link public health with law enforcement’ and enforce the successful implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda, including through the use of any lawfully authorized covert government enacted terrorist action such that the false reason given for such terrorism is to protect national security, as appropriate, and any other relevant statutes, orders, or directives, be it enacted that henceforth, the U.S. government, including the CDC, FBI, HHS, FDA, FEMA, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with other relevant Federal agencies and international agencies, including those national socialist and anti-American political organizations, as applicable, are lawfully authorized and directed to carry out a hoax coronavirus pandemic through the use of falsified data of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths due to a non-dangerous coronavirus which typically causes the common cold, beginning in 2020 and lasting until the successful implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda and the United Nations 2030 Climate Agenda, and until such United States is under submission and accustomed to technologically advanced invasive bodily biosurveillence and government mandated monthly injections of… [etc.]”

Instead, if such a dangerous (potentially directly or indirectly causing many deaths and terrorizing millions) hoax pandemic was planned and U.S. government officials needed laws to be strengthened in an attempt to legally protect those carrying out such an evil, U.S. government officials might use somewhat cunning wording in U.S. federal laws, like “national exercise” or “response and recovery” instead of “hoax” or “falsified pandemic” and “emerging infectious disease threats” instead of “common cold;” falsifying cases, hospitalizations, and deaths data and information might be labeled “non-statistical” or “law enforcement” use of words, while “biosurveillance” and “vaccine” might be used instead of…etc.

The approach taken in this and previous articles is to observe such wording in U.S. federal laws, amendments, and other documents and attempt to deduce whether such wording could imply that the U.S. federal government planned and was preparing for a falsified pandemic. Previous articles provided information suggesting that, indeed, several U.S. federal laws, amendments, plans, and strategies could be interpreted to suggest that the U.S federal government may have been preparing to carry out a falsified pandemic exercise. This article discusses new information again supporting that claim.

Federal laws, plans, and strategies

Some significant distinctions are necessary: first, there are U.S. federal laws governing or describing requirements for U.S. government entities’ plans and strategies and then there are the plans and strategies themselves which are apparently written and published by unelected U.S. government officials.

Next, the U.S. federal laws governing plans and strategies may apparently describe future actions to be carried out by the U.S. government that are directed to be written about in the plans and strategies.

Such actions may apparently be referred to in laws, strategies, and plans as “processes,” “goals,” “activities,” or a “capability (also page 68)” to be performed or carried out by certain U.S. government bureaus, departments, or other entities. Some actions discussed in U.S. federal laws may be broad but then may be identified or described more specifically in the plans and strategies. Understanding the potentially planned future actions by the U.S. federal government requires one to study both the U.S. laws and the plans and strategies themselves.

Finally, it is significant that multiple public health plans and strategies now approach public health as a form of “security” (health security, national security, biodefense, etc.) in their plans and strategies. Such wording may apparently imply law enforcement and intelligence community involvement in implementation or evaluation of the plans and strategies. Law enforcement (especially large, national and international, often covert agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and others which may operate more as political secret-police intimidators than law enforcers) and the intelligence community are apparently exempt from U.S. laws which prohibit false information and hoaxes.

This is also mentioned in part due to the Obama-Biden administration’s executive order directing the FBI to link “public health with law enforcement” and coordinate with INTERPOL to enforce the successful implementation of the “Global Health Security Agenda.” The executive order appears to imply that the FBI may be used as a sort of political secret police; coordinating with INTERPOL (which includes China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, etc.) to enforce the successful implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda could be labeled as political enforcement. Such foreign countries are known to use “law enforcement” as secret police political intimidators. The FBI or similar covert government entities may have a large number of non-uniformed personnel throughout communities to be given such a task by the Obama-Biden administration.

PART II: Government ‘exercises’ and pandemic planning?

2019 law implies planned gov’t action against ‘emerging disease threats’?

It is helpful to observe new U.S. federal laws and amendments made leading up to the reported COVID-19 pandemic. Previous articles suggested that some of those new laws and amendments may offer hints or tip-offs that U.S. government officials may have been attempting to lawfully authorize and preparing to carry out a “hoax” or falsified national and international pandemic exercise. More significant information is again found in the “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019,” the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022, and the National Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan 2019-2022.

First, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 makes an amendment to the U.S. federal laws which govern the National Health Security Strategy’s “preparedness and response for public health emergencies.” The 2019 amendment is titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy.”

It is helpful to read the law before and after the amendment. The following is the U.S. law before it was amended in 2019:

(1) Preparedness and response regarding public health emergencies

Beginning in 2014 and every four years thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the relevant committees of Congress a coordinated strategy (to be known as the National Health Security Strategy) and any revisions thereof, and an accompanying implementation plan for public health emergency preparedness and response. Such National Health Security Strategy shall identify the process for achieving the preparedness goals described in subsection (b) and shall be consistent with the National Preparedness Goal, the National Incident Management System, and the National Response Plan developed pursuant to section 314 (6) of title 6, or any successor plan. (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1, before 2019 amendment)

Again, the previous reference was before the 2019 amendment. The 2019 amendment, made only a few months before the reported outbreak of COVID-19, is titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” at 133 STAT. 906. After the 2019 amendment the U.S. federal law reads as follows:

(1) Preparedness and response regarding public health emergencies

Beginning in 2018 and every four years thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the relevant committees of Congress a coordinated strategy (to be known as the National Health Security Strategy) and any revisions thereof, and an accompanying implementation plan for public health emergency preparedness and response. Such National Health Security Strategy shall describe potential emergency health security threats and identify the process for achieving the preparedness goals described in subsection (b) to be prepared to identify and respond to such threats and shall be consistent with the national preparedness goal (as described in section 314(a)(19) of title 6), the National Incident Management System (as defined in section 311(7) of such title), and the National Response Plan developed pursuant to section 314 of such title, or any successor plan. (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1, significant wording of 2019 amendment is emphasized)

Now compare the wording of the law before and after the amendment. There is a significant difference which again suggests the possibility that U.S. federal government officials may have been attempting to lawfully authorize, at minimum, a national exercise for a potentially falsified “public health emergency” due to a “emergency health security threat.” Arriving at this potential conclusion requires some knowledge of the terminology used as well as the terminology which was already in use in the National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan 2015-2018.

The 2019 amendment specifies that the National Health Security Strategy “shall describe potential emergency health security threats.” This addition is significant in part because the National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan 2015-2018 already “described potential emergency health security threats.” Here are only a few examples of the “potential emergency health security threats” “described” in the 2015-2018 National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan:

Page 5 describes “efforts to prepare for enhanced chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats including pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases from a medical countermeasure (MCM) perspective.” (emphasis added)

Page 15 describes “emerging infectious disease threats” and specifically gives one type of coronavirus (MERS-CoV) as an example. (emphasis added)

Pages 29 and 59 describe “Today’s global health security threats which arise from many sources, both natural and human-created. These include emerging infectious diseases” (emphasis added)

Pages 30-31 describe that “In 2014, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) launched its new Emerging Pandemic Threats Program in 20 countries, which provides technical and operational support for preventing, detecting, and responding to new emerging zoonotic disease threats.” (emphasis added)

Overall, the 2015-2018 National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan directly “describe” “health threats” more than 20 times and “threats” with health security apparently implied more than 80 times. “Emergency” is implied throughout the document. (Notice, also, that the aforementioned strategy and implementation plan refer to “emerging infectious disease threats” and even “emerging zoonotic disease threats”; this is in part noteworthy because SARS-CoV-2, the virus which reportedly causes COVID-19, and all of its rebranded “variants” are reportedly “zoonotic” in origin.)

Now, refer again to the 2019 amendment titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 which is partially provided again for ease of reading:

Beginning in 2018 and every four years thereafter … Such National Health Security Strategy shall describe potential emergency health security threats and identify the process for achieving the preparedness goals described in subsection (b) to be prepared to identify and respond to such threats [etc.]

But the 2015-2018 National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan already “described potential emergency health security threats.” What, then, might be the purpose of U.S. government public health officials, national security officials, potentially the intelligence community and law enforcement officials, and politicians making sure that U.S. federal law governing the National Health Security Strategy is “strengthened” with wording that was already in the National Health Security Strategy for several years?

‘False information and hoaxes’

Well, again, the U.S. federal law apparently directly and indirectly describes actions directed to be included in the National Health Security Strategy that are to be performed by U.S. government public health, national security, and emergency management officials, and potentially even the intelligence community and some types of law enforcement.

And what specific wording did the 2019 amendment add? “Threats” and “emergency health security threats.” This legal language then is apparently similar to legal language used to defend the actions of law enforcement, intelligence community, and national security officials against “threats.”

If one has been following previous articles, this may be significant in part because law enforcement and intelligence community agencies are apparently exempt from U.S. federal laws prohibiting “false information and hoaxes.”

Thus, by adding law enforcement-type and national security-type language, what “actions” might the 2019 amendment titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” be attempting to legalize and/or “strengthen” legal language in attempt to lawfully authorize? Perhaps “false information and hoaxes?” A falsified or hoax pandemic due to a “health security threat?”

Because the language was already in the 2015-2018 National Health Security Strategy but not in the U.S. federal law governing the Strategy, making sure such language was specifically in federal law may suggest the possibility that U.S. government officials were preparing for a physically (and therefore, legally) dangerous falsified national exercise or hoax based on “emergency health security threats,” which might have resulted in legal problems for the officials if such language was not specifically in federal law.

National ‘exercise’ for falsified ‘disease threats’?

And, of course, several previous articles discussed another significant 2019 U.S. federal law which attempted to lawfully authorize the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) with other Federal agencies to use the National Exercise Program for “emerging” threats. (133 STAT. 1123) Coronaviruses are often referred to in U.S. government documents as “emerging infectious disease threats.” (Page 15)

The National Exercise Program is relevant to the 2019 amendment titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” above. The amendment says that the National Health Security Strategy “shall be consistent with the national preparedness goal (as described in section 314(a)(19) of title 6), the National Incident Management System (as defined in section 311(7) of such title), and the National Response Plan.” (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1, emphasis added)

Note the consistency between the “National Response Plan” and U.S. federal law governing the National Exercise Program:

the Administrator [of FEMA], in coordination with the heads of appropriate Federal agencies, the National Council on Disability, and the National Advisory Council, shall carry out a national exercise program to test and evaluate the national preparedness goal, National Incident Management System, National Response Plan, and other related plans and strategies. (6 U.S. Code § 748, emphasis added)

FEMA’s “National Exercise Program” is used to evaluate the “National Response Plan and other related plans and strategies.” The 2019 amendment says the National Health Security Strategy “shall be consistent with…the National Response Plan”; thus, to be “consistent” with the “National Response Plan” would apparently mean that the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 could be evaluated by FEMA and other Federal agencies with the National Exercise Program.

Among several other significant factors, National Level Exercises are authorized and potentially even required by U.S. federal law to

test and evaluate the readiness of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to respond and recover in a coordinated and unified manner to catastrophic incidents. (6 U.S. Code § 748, emphasis added)

The legal language may be significant: “test and evaluate readiness…to respond and recover in a coordinated and unified manner.” In other words, it seems that “response and recover” may be wording used in government documents to replace the words “exercise” or “national exercise.”

But for the National Health Security Strategy to be “consistent with” the National Response Plan and other U.S. federal plans and strategies mentioned, then the National Health Security Strategy may be tested and evaluated by National Level Exercises and the National Exercise Program to evaluate the readiness to “respond and recover in a coordinated and unified manner.”

And, those in U.S. government national security and other Federal agencies suggest that U.S. federal law “directs” them to carry out the National Exercise Program. (Page 2) This may suggest, then, that the 2019 amendment attempting to lawfully authorize exercises for “emerging threats” and the 2019 amendment titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” to describe “emergency health security threats,” along with the actual wording of the National Health Security Strategy may be interpreted by U.S. government public health, national security, law enforcement, and intelligence officials to think they are “directed” or obligated by U.S. federal law to perform exercises for “emerging threats,” which would apparently include “emerging infectious disease threats,” “emerging zoonotic disease threats,” and “emerging pandemic threats.”

Government ‘drills and exercises’ without notice

But there is even more significant information from the 2019 amendment titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” which may support the possibility that this specific 2019 amendment may be another tip-off that U.S. government officials were attempting to lawfully authorize, or make it look as if Congress was requiring, a falsified pandemic or something similar. The significant part of the 2019 amendment reads that the National Health Security Strategy shall

identify the process for achieving the preparedness goals described in subsection (b) to be prepared to identify and respond to such threats and shall be consistent with the national preparedness goal (as described in section 314(a)(19) of title 6), the National Incident Management System (as defined in section 311(7) of such title), and the National Response Plan developed pursuant to section 314 of such title, or any successor plan. (emphasis added)

The U.S. federal law reads that the National Health Security strategy shall “identify the process for achieving the preparedness goals described in subsection (b) to be prepared to identify and respond to such threats.”

“The preparedness goals described in subsection (b)” apparently refer to the preparedness goals described at 42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1(b). The first “preparedness goal described in subsection (b)” is in regards to evaluation of preparedness and response with “exercises”:

(b) Preparedness goals

The National Health Security Strategy shall include provisions in furtherance of the following:

(1) Integration

Integrating public health and public and private medical capabilities with other first responder systems, including through— 

(A) the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice; (42 U.S. Code § 300hh–1(b), emphasis added)

Thus, the 2019 amendment implies that the National Health Security Strategy “shall identify the process for achieving” the U.S. federal government’s “periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice” “to be prepared to identify and respond to such [emergency health security] threats.”

In other words, the 2019 amendment apparently implies that U.S. federal law requires the National Health Security Strategy to “identify the process for achieving” “drills and exercises” for “emergency public health security threats.”

Federal activities synched ‘with those of the global community’

And this is another important point that can be easily overlooked: “processes” are typically “a series of actions,” which means the 2019 amendment is implying that the National Health Security Strategy shall (apparently meaning, “is required by law to”) identify the actions that the U.S. federal government plans on doing to “achieve” “drills and exercises” for “emergency public health security threats.”

And how does the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 “identify the process” to achieve such “drills and exercises?” It is apparently first written as an “objective” as follows:

Prepare, mobilize, and coordinate the Whole-of-Government to bring the full spectrum of federal medical and public health capabilities to support SLTT authorities in the event of a public health emergency, disaster, or attack (Page 9, emphasis added)

Possibly the closest suggestion of wording which “identifies the process,” that is, identifies future planned actions by the U.S. federal government, for the “periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises” is from the following segment of the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022:

All relevant partners in the U.S. Government will continue to be at the forefront of these changes and provide the leadership, direction, and support to combat whatever threats arise. To provide strong leadership and mobilize a whole-of-government approach, we will target the following areas.

Convene a Unified, National Response and Recovery to Public Health

Emergencies and Disasters

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

In addition, we will continue work with international partners to make sure our preparedness and response efforts are aligned with those of the global community. We will sustain efforts to organize, train, equip, and exercise response capabilities. We will identify health care readiness standards to assess coalition readiness status and ensure exercises test system resilience against routine and catastrophic threats. (Pages 9-10, emphasis added)

The above segment from the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 using the wording “To provide strong leadership and mobilize a whole-of-government approach we will…Convene” may be used in a way to denote a future planned U.S. federal government action. (“Convene” was used in the 2015-2018 National Health Security Strategy and Implementation Plan to describe potential future actions by the U.S. government; see page 48.) “Response and recovery” may be a type of U.S. government exercise. The segment then goes on to discuss precisely that – “drills and exercises” – and it apparently implies that those “drills and exercises” will be aligned “with those of the global community.”

In other words, the “approach” apparently suggests the “process,” required in the previously mentioned 2019 amendment, and “Convene a Unified, National Response and Recovery to Public Health Emergencies” may identify one of the planned (“we will…convene”) U.S. government actions within the overall process.

FEMA’s multi-agency ‘full-scale exercises’

There is more to support this possibility. The National Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan 2019-2022 describes the U.S. government’s planned actions on health security drills and exercises in the following language:

Action: Assess current partnerships and increase engagement with traditional and nontraditional public health and health care stakeholders (including behavioral health and human services) to develop plans, guidance, best practices, training and exercises that engage the full-array of federal and SLTT health care assets. (Page 4, emphasis added)

The U.S. federal government identifies the planned future action of “exercises that engage the full-array of federal and SLTT health scare assets.” This language is close to the definition of “full-scale exercise” provided by FEMA:

Full-Scale Exercise (FSE): A multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional operations-based exercise involving actual deployment of resources in a coordinated response as if a real incident had occurredA full-scale exercise tests many components of one or more capabilities within emergency response and recovery, and is typically used to assess plans and procedures under crisis conditions, and assess coordinated response under crisis conditions.  Characteristics of an FSE include mobilized units, personnel, and equipment; a stressful, realistic environment; and scripted exercise scenarios. (emphasis added)

The definition implies that a full-scale exercise may be an “emergency response and recovery” exercise. Or, if it is abbreviated in a title, the exercise could theoretically be referred to as a plan to “convene a response and recovery.”

Thus, the National Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan 2019-2022 may “identify” a U.S. government action of a planned full-scale exercise as part of the “process to achieve the preparedness goals” of “the periodic evaluation of Federal, State, local, and tribal preparedness and response capabilities through drills and exercises, including drills and exercises to ensure medical surge capacity for events without notice.” And, as some or many suggested, much of the of the reported COVID-19 pandemic, especially the reported beginning in New York City, appeared scripted.

Both documents (the National Health Security Strategy 2019-2022 and the National Health Security Strategy Implementation Plan 2019-2022) in the context of the 2019 amendment requirement to “identify the process to achieve” “the periodic evaluation…through…exercises…” may suggest that a full-scale, U.S. government national exercise – or a “national response and recovery” – may have been planned to be “convened.”

Government bioterrorism?

Thus, the amendment in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 titled “Strengthening the National Health Security Strategy” may be an attempt at strengthening U.S. federal laws to protect public health, national security, intelligence community, and law enforcement officials who may have planned a dangerous, and potentially terroristic, full-scale response and recovery national exercise or hoax pandemic of “emerging infectious” or “emerging zoonotic disease threats.” (“The Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004,” Sec. 6701-6702, apparently suggests hoaxes could be terrorism, and then apparently implies law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the U.S. may use such terroristic hoaxes and false information.)

And there is still more information supporting this claim but it will not be mentioned here.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

6 Comments

    Loading...