prepareforchange--2020-05-12--New York to work with Gates Foundation to ‘reimagine’ schools: governor

( Reuters ) – New York will work with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to “ reimagine ” the state ’ s school system as part of broader reforms in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic , Governor Andrew Cuomo told a daily briefing on Tuesday .
Cuomo , who has emerged as a leading national voice on states ’ efforts to battle the crisis , said he believed people were starting to see the pandemic as a rare opportunity to make large-scale changes .
“ We have paid a very high price for what we are going through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn from it and that we are the better for it , ” Cuomo said , citing transportation , healthcare and schools as potential targets for reform .
“ We don ’ t want to go through all of this and replace what was there before , ” he said .
“ We want to build back better.
” Cuomo said hospitals needed to be made more resilient and noted that New York City ’ s subways would be shut for disinfection between 1 and 5 a.m. starting on Wednesday morning , likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s largest public transit system in the coming months .
He outlined plans to work with the foundation of Microsoft Corp co-founder Gates to improve New York ’ s education system , which includes the largest public system in the country in New York City , with more than one million students .
While he did not provide specifics , Cuomo suggested a fundamental rethink of the classroom was on the table .
“ The old model of everybody goes and sits in a classroom and the teacher is in front of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you do that all across the city , all across the state , all these buildings , all these physical classrooms – why with all the technology you have ?
” Cuomo asked .
Cuomo is making plans for reopening New York , the worst-hit state by far with more than a third of the country ’ s nearly 70,000 deaths , after a three-week decline in hospitalizations and a downtrend in the number of related deaths .
He said 230 New Yorkers died on Monday from COVID-19 , the disease caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Sunday but half the daily fatalities recorded two weeks ago .
Hospitalizations and intubations continued to fall , Cuomo said .
The governor also called for a frank discussion about the trade-offs inherent in lifting restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of the virus , noting that some models were revising national death counts upwards due to the decision to start re-opening in more than half of the 50 states .
“ The faster we reopen the lower the economic costs but the higher the human costs , because the more lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is the hard truth that we are all dealing with .
Let ’ s be honest about it.
” Cuomo criticized comments by U.S. President Donald Trump , who told the New York Post that giving federal funds to states financially crippled by the crisis would amount to bailing out Democratic governors who had mismanaged their states .
Calling on Trump to take a bipartisan approach , Cuomo said blocking funds to states hit hardest by the pandemic would prove to be “ self-defeating.
” “ If you starve the states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” their reopening , said Cuomo , who has estimated New York faces a $ 10 to $ 15 billion budget shortfall .
“ If you go down this path of division you will defeat all of us.
” Cuomo showed a slide of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington , displaying former President Abraham Lincoln ’ s famous line : “ A house divided against itself can not stand.
” The memorial was the backdrop for Trump ’ s virtual town hall on the pandemic broadcast by FOX News on Sunday night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

As published in Reuters:
(Reuters) – New York will work with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to “reimagine” the state’s school system as part of broader reforms in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, Governor Andrew Cuomo told a daily briefing on Tuesday.
Cuomo, who has emerged as a leading national voice on states’ efforts to battle the crisis, said he believed people were starting to see the pandemic as a rare opportunity to make large-scale changes.
“We have paid a very high price for what we are going through. But the hope is that we learn from it and that we are the better for it,” Cuomo said, citing transportation, healthcare and schools as potential targets for reform.
“We don’t want to go through all of this and replace what was there before,” he said. “We want to build back better.”
Cuomo said hospitals needed to be made more resilient and noted that New York City’s subways would be shut for disinfection between 1 and 5 a.m. starting on Wednesday morning, likely presaging bigger changes for the nation’s largest public transit system in the coming months.
He outlined plans to work with the foundation of Microsoft Corp co-founder Gates to improve New York’s education system, which includes the largest public system in the country in New York City, with more than one million students.
While he did not provide specifics, Cuomo suggested a fundamental rethink of the classroom was on the table.
“The old model of everybody goes and sits in a classroom and the teacher is in front of that classroom, and teaches that class, and you do that all across the city, all across the state, all these buildings, all these physical classrooms – why with all the technology you have?” Cuomo asked.
Cuomo is making plans for reopening New York, the worst-hit state by far with more than a third of the country’s nearly 70,000 deaths, after a three-week decline in hospitalizations and a downtrend in the number of related deaths.
He said 230 New Yorkers died on Monday from COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, a tick higher than Sunday but half the daily fatalities recorded two weeks ago. Hospitalizations and intubations continued to fall, Cuomo said.
The governor also called for a frank discussion about the trade-offs inherent in lifting restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of the virus, noting that some models were revising national death counts upwards due to the decision to start re-opening in more than half of the 50 states.
“The faster we reopen the lower the economic costs but the higher the human costs, because the more lives lost,” Cuomo said. “That is the hard truth that we are all dealing with. Let’s be honest about it.”
Cuomo criticized comments by U.S. President Donald Trump, who told the New York Post that giving federal funds to states financially crippled by the crisis would amount to bailing out Democratic governors who had mismanaged their states.
Calling on Trump to take a bipartisan approach, Cuomo said blocking funds to states hit hardest by the pandemic would prove to be “self-defeating.”
“If you starve the states, how do you expect states to fund” their reopening, said Cuomo, who has estimated New York faces a $10 to $15 billion budget shortfall. “If you go down this path of division you will defeat all of us.”
Cuomo showed a slide of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, displaying former President Abraham Lincoln’s famous line: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
The memorial was the backdrop for Trump’s virtual town hall on the pandemic broadcast by FOX News on Sunday night.
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-05-12--BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SHOCKINGLY SUGGESTS MICROCHIPPING CHILDREN WHO RETURN TO SCHOOL AFTER THE COVID-1

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SHOCKINGLY SUGGESTS MICROCHIPPING CHILDREN WHO RETURN TO SCHOOL AFTER THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN IN ISRAEL IS LIFTED

Cyber experts slammed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his proposal to ’ microchip children who return to schools and kindergartens as the coronavirus lockdown is lifted , Ynet reported on Friday .
I want to draw your attention to a really wacky thing he said these week about lifting the COVID-19 lockdown in Israel .
He said that all children returning to school should receive a microchip to serve as a coronavirus warning system .
That ’ s crazy , but he said it , and there it is .
Now let me tell you the really scary thing you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he causeth all , both small and great , rich and poor , free and bond , to receive a mark in their right hand , or in their foreheads : And that no man might buy or sell , save he that had the mark , or the name of the beast , or the number of his name .
Here is wisdom .
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast : for it is the number of a man ; and his number is Six hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KJB ) Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s suggestion may have been shot down in Israel , and rightly so , but that is exactly what Bill Gates and the ID2020 Alliance envision not just for school children , but for the entire global population .
Just as 9/11 was used as an excuse to deny American freedoms via the Patriot Act , so COVID-19 will be used as an excuse to give every , single person on earth a digital ID that will connect to a global database .
Bill Gates is so sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his entire fortune to make it happen .
Pray for Benjamin Netanyahu , he needs it .
FROM THE JERUSALEM POST : While speaking at a press conference on Monday , Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the Health Ministry use new technology to help Israel adjust to its new routine as the state is lifting the coronavirus lockdown .
“ That is , technology that has not been used before and is allowed under the legislation we shall enact , ” he clarified .
“ It will be hard to do it to more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational institutions in order to ensure one student sits at the distance of two meters from another .
It is fictional and dangerous , ” cyber resilience expert Einat Meron told Ynet .
“ Theoretically , I get the idea behind it , ” she said .
“ But although such distance-sensitive microchips exist in vehicles , it is different in humans.
” According to Meron , “ a beeping sound telling me I got close to someone is not enough .
Who says it will change anything ?
I would have gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the actual issue is the enforcement , and here everything changes.
” Meron told Ynet that “ microchipping children will not pass any test – both practically and legally.
” Similar to Meron ’ s notion that notifying citizens on their distance will not affect their actions , many fear the state would make use of the information available from the sensors .
The Prime Minister ’ s Office responded to the report , telling Ynet Netanyahu ’ s suggestion “ is not to be implemented through databases , but through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their distance .
It is a voluntary option that is designed to help children keep their distance , like Mobileye with vehicles.
” The office added that the prime minister ’ s suggestion is “ an idea that may help maintain social distancing , and there will not be any violation of privacy.
” On Wednesday , Walla reported the movements of all vehicles in Israel were tracked by police and stored in an unregulated database named Eagle Eye .
A source cited by the media site said the information “ may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Association for Civil Rights in Israel ( ACRI ) reportedly submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act that police disclose the extent of the operations of Eagle Eye , as well as the time the information on citizens ’ movements is stored in the system .
Israel Police responded to ACRI , saying the system ’ s activity was not standardized internally despite several years of operations .
“ Either way , once finalized , the procedure will not be disclosed to the public , ” police added .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified Shin Bet ( Israel Security Agency ) database stored information on all Israeli citizens and most Palestinians from the West Bank .
The data tracked by the security agency included movements , phone calls and text messages .
READ MORE Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By Geoffrey Grider,
Cyber experts slammed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his proposal to’microchip children who return to schools and kindergartens as the coronavirus lockdown is lifted, Ynet reported on Friday.
I want to draw your attention to a really wacky thing he said these week about lifting the COVID-19 lockdown in Israel. He said that all children returning to school should receive a microchip to serve as a coronavirus warning system. That’s crazy, but he said it, and there it is. Now let me tell you the really scary thing you need to know about that.
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Revelation 13:16-18 (KJB)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion may have been shot down in Israel, and rightly so, but that is exactly what Bill Gates and the ID2020 Alliance envision not just for school children, but for the entire global population. Just as 9/11 was used as an excuse to deny American freedoms via the Patriot Act, so COVID-19 will be used as an excuse to give every, single person on earth a digital ID that will connect to a global database. Bill Gates is so sure this is coming, he is betting his entire fortune to make it happen. Pray for Benjamin Netanyahu, he needs it.
Benjamin Netanyahu suggests microchipping kids, slammed by experts
FROM THE JERUSALEM POST: While speaking at a press conference on Monday, Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the Health Ministry use new technology to help Israel adjust to its new routine as the state is lifting the coronavirus lockdown. “That is, technology that has not been used before and is allowed under the legislation we shall enact,” he clarified.
“I SPOKE WITH OUR HEADS OF TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO FIND MEASURES ISRAEL IS GOOD AT, SUCH AS SENSORS. FOR INSTANCE, EVERY PERSON, EVERY KID – I WANT IT ON KIDS FIRST – WOULD HAVE A SENSOR THAT WOULD SOUND AN ALARM WHEN YOU GET TOO CLOSE, LIKE THE ONES ON CARS,” PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU SAID.
“It will be hard to do it to more than a million schoolchildren who return to their educational institutions in order to ensure one student sits at the distance of two meters from another. It is fictional and dangerous,” cyber resilience expert Einat Meron told Ynet.
“Theoretically, I get the idea behind it,” she said. “But although such distance-sensitive microchips exist in vehicles, it is different in humans.” According to Meron, “a beeping sound telling me I got close to someone is not enough. Who says it will change anything? I would have gotten closer either way.”
The expert added that “the actual issue is the enforcement, and here everything changes.” Meron told Ynet that “microchipping children will not pass any test – both practically and legally.” Similar to Meron’s notion that notifying citizens on their distance will not affect their actions, many fear the state would make use of the information available from the sensors.
“IF THE INFORMATION WITH THE KIDS’ LOCATION IS UPLOADED TO THE INTERNET, A PEDOPHILE WITH SOME CYBER KNOWLEDGE MAY INVADE THE SYSTEM AND STALK THEM OUTSIDE THEIR SCHOOLS, FOLLOW THEM AND DISTRIBUTE THE INFORMATION ON OTHER PLATFORMS,” MERON SAID. “CAN THE STATE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT?”
The Prime Minister’s Office responded to the report, telling Ynet Netanyahu’s suggestion “is not to be implemented through databases, but through simple technology notifying [the citizens] about their distance. It is a voluntary option that is designed to help children keep their distance, like Mobileye with vehicles.”
The office added that the prime minister’s suggestion is “an idea that may help maintain social distancing, and there will not be any violation of privacy.”
On Wednesday, Walla reported the movements of all vehicles in Israel were tracked by police and stored in an unregulated database named Eagle Eye. A source cited by the media site said the information “may be kept for years on end.”
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) reportedly submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act that police disclose the extent of the operations of Eagle Eye, as well as the time the information on citizens’ movements is stored in the system.
Israel Police responded to ACRI, saying the system’s activity was not standardized internally despite several years of operations. “Either way, once finalized, the procedure will not be disclosed to the public,” police added. In late March, Yediot Aharonot reported a classified Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) database stored information on all Israeli citizens and most Palestinians from the West Bank. The data tracked by the security agency included movements, phone calls and text messages. READ MORE
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-05-13--Mandatory Vaccinations: Your Rights, Articles, Forms and Petitions

The world is about to undergo an extreme test of our willingness to hand over our individual rights in many areas .
And so like many other theories from the past , this one now apparently is in fact about to be a proven conspiracy .
For those who want to protect themselves and their rights , it is therefore extremely critical that all valuable tools and resources be available and at their fingertips .
The intent of this initial post is thereby to create a permanent and easily accessible place on our website that provides you with information to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom of this article you will find several resources to links , articles , forms and petitions related to your right to informed consent when it comes to vaccines , implants or tracing .
Since this is the first of such articles , and admitting that we do not possess all knowledge regarding these issues , we encourage you to submit any other information or supporting documents that we can also post and share in this same article .
We hope that you can spread the word about this post such that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many people as possible .
Please be patient with us as we collect and post more information and resources .
We thank all those who have shared their work and material to date .
General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent https : //tinyurl.com/GeneralBrief Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination .
Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished .
The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Including Mandated Vaccination .
Government Agents and Those Acting Under Color of Law are Forbidden by Long-Standing National and International Law from Coercing Vaccination .
In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions , including vaccination , even during any declared local , national or international Health Emergency , the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected , whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical , medical , religious or no reasons at all .
Introduction Point One : The Legal Basis for Informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Point Four : The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected Point Five : The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions .
Point One : The Bill of Rights ’ Speech , Privacy and Association Rights are the Basis for Informed Consent .
Implementing the general law as applied to the protection of human life is mandated , in the instance of vaccination , by the United States Supreme Court , which held that the courts “ are not without power… ” regarding vaccination in the 1905 case of Jacobson vs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1914 , Judge ( later Supreme Court Justice ) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body , deeming even medical interventions with good intent but without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass : “ Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body ; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient ’ s consent commits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in damages.
” [ 2 ] Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board ( IRB – required for FDA approved medical experiments ) overseeing experimentation .
[ 3 ] The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “ final stage ” of experimentation on drugs ( including vaccines ) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation , “ …Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With regard to all communications about health care decisions , the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions , even if a decision may be considered a “ bad ” decision by the Government .
The Supreme Court indicated , in Thompson v Western States [ 5 ] : “ We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.
” Strong legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is provided by the Nuremberg Code .
[ 6 ] The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials ( which included the infamous Nazi Doctors Trial ) and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties , including the death penalty , for violating the universal right of Informed Consent .
The Geneva Conventions ( the international treaties that govern humanitarian requirements ) [ 7 ] require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles .
Thus the United States is treaty-bound to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency situation Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “ the intervention of any element of force , fraud , deceit , duress , over-reaching , or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion… ” [ 8 ] The public has a right to know , and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide , clear information regarding the Informed Consent , to the end that government approvals , requirements , mandates and recommendations are understood to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consent .
Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right .
Mandated consent to vaccination is coerced opinion speech , especially when mandated against the conscientious objection of the individual or guardian .
The First Amendment absolutely forbids any law that coerces the expression of an opinion an individual does not hold .
Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest in Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates in Violation of Informed Consent .
In the case of State v Biggs ( 46 SE Reporter 401 , 1903 ) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diet , and administering massage , baths and physical culture .
In the Biggs case , the defendant “ advertised himself as a ‘ nonmedical physician ’ … [ and ] held himself out to the public to cure disease by ‘ a system of drugless healing ’ … ” p.401 .
That Court held that there could be no “ state system of healing ” p.402 and while “ Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined… those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not included in the ‘ practice of medicine and surgery ’ as usually understood , had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated , if they chose , by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases… ” p.402 .
There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being .
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded , nearly a century ago in State v Biggs , supra.
, at p.405 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an exact science .
All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies , like the knife and drugs , but it can not forbid dispensing with them .
When the Master , who was himself called the Good Physician , was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases , he said , ‘ Forbid them not.
‘ ” ( p.405 ) .
FDA approved drugs , including vaccines , remain in an experimental state , which the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trials system .
[ 9 ] Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual ’ s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent , the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions , such as vaccines and other invasive techniques , may be ignored by the medical system under government directive .
Based on the ancient legal principle that “ silence is acquiescence ” [ 10 ] martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that a person consents to even experimental medical interventions , as was imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true of medical practice in “ ordinary times ” .
Expressing refusal to consent trumps presumptions of consent .
After the horrors of the Second World War , including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “ health care ” authorities of various warring parties , the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “ Never Again !
” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations , or subject them to medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today .
A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [ and therefore meaningfully willing ] consent .
This has been international law for millennia , starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “ I will take care that [ my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ Nor shall any man ’ s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone… ” [ 12 ] Point Three : International Law Protects the Right of Informed Consent Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights , Geneva Declaration [ 13 ] and the Nuremberg Code which state , concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel : “ Everyone has the right to life , liberty and security of person… No one shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal , in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy , family , home or correspondence… ” [ 14 ] “ I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties , even under threat… ” [ 15 ] “ The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential .
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice , without the intervention of any element of force , fraud , deceit , duress , over-reaching , or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion ; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved , as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
” [ 16 ] This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated , such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration [ 17 ] about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR , ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “ general principles of law ” under article 38 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice .
The reference to “ civilised nations ” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.
” “ Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Malaysia and Singapore , informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice ( the Bolam Test ) , that is , what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances ( see Loss of right in English law ) .
Arguably , this is “ sufficient consent ” rather than “ informed consent.
” … Medicine in the United States , Australia , and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “ ‘ informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks , as well as risks of particular importance to that patient .
This approach combines an objective ( the reasonable patient ) and subjective ( this particular patient ) approach.
” [ 19 ] Point Four : The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Preserved Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent , the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived .
International Humanitarian Law is clear : without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld .
The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely , where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “ refused to consent.
” Had McNeely remained silent , the blood test would have been allowed .
[ 20 ] Even a “ …diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions , this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant , constitutionally protected privacy interests… ” If the removal of blood “ implicates significant , constitutionally protected privacy interests… ” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “ unavoidably unsafe ” [ 21 ] will also give rise to such concerns .
The Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government .
Without clear respect for those Rights , the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society , including the Right to Informed Consent .
An earlier Supreme Court understood this , when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts , the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination .
While giving due deference to the State authorities , the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and life may be at stake : .
“ …if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination , by reason of his then condition , would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.
” [ 22 ] In a regime of verbal obfuscation of fundamental Right , only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “ by a thousand ( bureaucratic ) cuts… ” If McNeely had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not consent , the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed .
Point Five : Government Action Imposes an Unconstitutional Condition on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Informed Consent The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in the case before any Court wherein a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from public accommodations or the public benefit of public education , required by law for all children , and guaranteed by State Constitutional Law in nearly every State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation or policy imposing school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with denying his or her own expressed beliefs or preferences ( beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment ) or denying the child access to public education , is an action “ under color of law ” that forces coerced expression of consent .
The Fourteenth Amendment forbid such State action .
Banning children from public schools unless the parent or guardian expresses consent for a medical intervention ( vaccination ) to which the person chooses not to consent is precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nuremberg Code .
It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right .
The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees .
The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins .
Co. , 94 U.S. 535 , 543 ( 1876 ) ( Badley , J. , dissenting ) “ Though the State may have the [ police ] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions… ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. 583,594 ( 1925 ) the Court held it “ would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which , by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution , but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.
” More recently the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved .
In Speiser v Randall , 357 U.S. 513 , 526 ( 1958 ) “ In practical operation , therefore , this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly .
It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.
” And finally , of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann , 408 U.S. 593 , 597 ( 1972 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that even though a person has no ‘ right ’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons , there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely .
It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially , his interest in freedom of speech .
For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be penalized and inhibited .
This would allow the government to “ produce a result which ( it ) could not command directly.
” Government Agents and those “ Acting Under Color of Law ” are forbidden by long-standing United States and International Law from coercing vaccination .
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution also guaranteed that the “ privileges or immunities ” of Federal Citizens could not be invaded by state and local governments .
The First Amendment includes among those privileges and immunities the Right to Freedom of Expression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The original civil rights acts , enacted after the Civil War , protected those “ privileges or immunities ” from persons “ acting under color of law ” or acting without “ due process ” ( which means without a specific order signed by a Judge ) .
Those subject to the law must include , at least , persons employed by governments , or receiving funding from governments , or working for entities that receive funding from governments ( or that , like the drug companies that push vaccines , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from legal responsibility for their “ unavoidably unsafe ” vaccines ) .
It must also include persons , claiming lawful authority , intending to “ pierce the skin ” of someone not giving Informed Consent .
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty , Speech , Assembly and Petition Rights .
Rather , these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be , together , “ expressive association.
” We consider the Expressive Association Right to express meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law .
Truly , no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions .
If a State elects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical exemptions , the proper remedy is for the State to provide alternative educational opportunities for those who refuse Informed Consent .
No State has legal power to abrogate the Universal Right of Informed Consent , no matter what that State may do with exemptions the State previously enacted .
Informed Consent trumps legislative abrogation of statutory exemptions .
There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government , or persons acting under color of state law , as are those who act to abrogate conscientious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free and competent adult ( or a child under the protection of such adult ) to receive any medical treatment .
That the treatment may be vaccination , which is not merely experimental and ( sic ) preventative but uninsurable and , according to many courts , “ unavoidably unsafe ” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make .
Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person , rather than a slave .
No free society can tolerate any such imposition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what health is to every individual body .
Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man ; without liberty , no happiness can be enjoyed by society.
” – Thomas Jefferson [ 23 ] Ralph Fucetola JD Attorney at Law in New Jersey 1971 – 2006 [ 9 ] “ Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment ’ s long-term risks , benefits , and optimal use , or to test the product in different populations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 8 , 2015 : http : //www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm [ 10 ] “ qui tacet consentire videtur ” – “ Thus , silence gives consent.
” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ ubi loqui debuit ac potuit “ , that is , “ when he ought to have spoken and was able to ” .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_ % 28Q % 29 [ 13 ] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties , and three additional protocols , that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war .
The singular term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1949 , negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War ( 1939–45 ) , which updated the terms of the first three treaties ( 1864 , 1906 , 1929 ) , and added a fourth .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Article 6 – Consent – 1 .
Any preventive , diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior , free and informed consent of the person concerned , based on adequate information .
The consent should , where appropriate , be express and may be withdrawn by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice .
2 .
Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior , free , express and informed consent of the person concerned .
The information should be adequate , provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent .
Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice .
Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States , consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this Declaration , in particular in Article 27 , and international human rights law .
Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State , group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights , fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [ Emphasis added ] [ 20 ] Missouri vs McNeely , 569 US 141 ( 2013 ) http : //www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf –https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely – The recent June 27 , 2019 Supreme Court case of Mitchell vs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in holding that a warrant is not needed for a blood-draw from an unconscious arrested person further shows the important role of expressing one ’ s refusal to grant Informed Consent .
[ 21 ] See Justice Sotomayor ’ s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth , where she discusses the history of “ unavoidably unsafe.
” https : //www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html How to Decline a Vaccine ( with form and article ) Disclaimer : We at Prepare for Change ( PFC ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

The world is about to undergo an extreme test of our willingness to hand over our individual rights in many areas. And so like many other theories from the past, this one now apparently is in fact about to be a proven conspiracy. For those who want to protect themselves and their rights, it is therefore extremely critical that all valuable tools and resources be available and at their fingertips. The intent of this initial post is thereby to create a permanent and easily accessible place on our website that provides you with information to help you protect your rights.
At the bottom of this article you will find several resources to links, articles, forms and petitions related to your right to informed consent when it comes to vaccines, implants or tracing. Since this is the first of such articles, and admitting that we do not possess all knowledge regarding these issues, we encourage you to submit any other information or supporting documents that we can also post and share in this same article. We hope that you can spread the word about this post such that we have this material be available to as many people as possible.
Please be patient with us as we collect and post more information and resources. We thank all those who have shared their work and material to date.
Victory of the Light!
Original source:
General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent
https://tinyurl.com/GeneralBrief
Ralph Fucetola JD
INTRODUCTION
Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination. Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished.
The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Mandated Vaccination. Government Agents and Those Acting Under Color of Law are Forbidden by Long-Standing National and International Law from Coercing Vaccination.
In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.
Index:
Introduction
Point One: The Legal Basis for Informed Consent
Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation
Point Three: International Law Protects Informed Consent
Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected
Point Five: The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions
Conclusion
.
Point One: The Bill of Rights’ Speech, Privacy and Association Rights are the
Basis for Informed Consent.
Implementing the general law as applied to the protection of human life is mandated, in the instance of vaccination, by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the courts “are not without power…” regarding vaccination in the 1905 case of Jacobson vs Commonwealth of Massachusetts[1].
In 1914, Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of voluntary consent when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, deeming even medical interventions with good intent but without Informed Consent an unlawful trespass:
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”[2]
Federal Regulation acknowledges Informed Consent for formal Institutional Review Board (IRB – required for FDA approved medical experiments) overseeing experimentation.[3] The recognition of the application of Informed Consent during the less formal “final stage” of experimentation on drugs (including vaccines) released to the public is not adequately implemented by law or regulation, “…Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks…”[4]
With regard to all communications about health care decisions, the members of the public have the right to make informed consent decisions, even if a decision may be considered a “bad” decision by the Government. The Supreme Court indicated, in Thompson v Western States[5]:
“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”
Strong legal support for the doctrine of Informed Consent is provided by the Nuremberg Code. [6]
The United States is bound to observe the Nuremberg Code by virtue of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (which included the infamous Nazi Doctors Trial) and subsequent exacting of justice through penalties, including the death penalty, for violating the universal right of Informed Consent.
The Geneva Conventions (the international treaties that govern humanitarian requirements) [7] require that the United States be bound by these international humanitarian principles. Thus the United States is treaty-bound to implement fully Informed Consent.
Even in an emergency situation Government Agencies involved must take a pro-active role in the full implementation of Informed Consent without “the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion…” [8]
The public has a right to know, and the governments on the federal and state levels have an obligation to provide, clear information regarding the Informed Consent, to the end that government approvals, requirements, mandates and recommendations are understood to be subject to the Right of Informed Consent. Intervention by the courts must vindicate this Right.
Mandated consent to vaccination is coerced opinion speech, especially when mandated against the conscientious objection of the individual or guardian. The First Amendment absolutely forbids any law that coerces the expression of an opinion an individual does not hold.
Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation
Government Agencies have No Legitimate Interest in
Promoting FDA-Approved Vaccination Mandates in Violation of Informed Consent.
In the case of State v Biggs (46 SE Reporter 401, 1903) the North Carolina Supreme Court dealt with a person who was advising people as to diet, and administering massage, baths and physical culture. In the Biggs case, the defendant “advertised himself as a ‘nonmedical physician’… [and] held himself out to the public to cure disease by ‘a system of drugless healing’…” p.401.
That Court held that there could be no “state system of healing” p.402 and while
“Those who wish to be treated by practitioners of medicine and surgery had the guaranty that such practitioners had been duly examined… those who had faith in treatment by methods not included in the ‘practice of medicine and surgery’ as usually understood, had reserved to them the right to practice their faith and be treated, if they chose, by those who openly and avowedly did not use either surgery or drugs in the treatment of diseases…” p.402.
There is no compelling government interest in controlling people associating together for the improvement of their well-being.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, nearly a century ago in State v Biggs, supra., at p.405:
“Medicine is an experimental, not an exact science. All the law can do is to regulate and safeguard the use of powerful and dangerous remedies, like the knife and drugs, but it cannot forbid dispensing with them. When the Master, who was himself called the Good Physician, was told that other than his followers were casting out devils and curing diseases, he said, ‘Forbid them not.‘” (p.405).
FDA approved drugs, including vaccines, remain in an experimental state, which the FDA calls “Phase 4” of the clinical trials system. [9]
Unless affirmatively and effectively asserted an individual’s Fundamental Right to Informed Consent, the legal ability to resist unwanted medical interventions, such as vaccines and other invasive techniques, may be ignored by the medical system under government directive. Based on the ancient legal principle that “silence is acquiescence” [10] martial law or medical emergency authorities may presume that a person consents to even experimental medical interventions, as was imposed by WHO dictum during the 2014 Ebola Panic [11]. The same is true of medical practice in “ordinary times”. Expressing refusal to consent trumps presumptions of consent.
After the horrors of the Second World War, including the murder and abuse of millions with the complicity of the “health care” authorities of various warring parties, the international community developed conventions and declarations to the end that “Never Again!” would – or could – the health system or health professionals be used to harm either individuals or whole populations, or subject them to medical interventions or experiments without valid Informed Consent. Those prohibitions and protections remain binding today.
A key element in the international protections secured by the Allied Victory and subsequent codification of health-related international law was recognition that no person could be forced to accept any medical intervention that was contrary to conscience and that all medical interventions were to be carried out only with fully informed [and therefore meaningfully willing] consent.
This has been international law for millennia, starting with the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors swore “I will take care that [my patients] suffer no hurt or damage” and “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone…”[12]
Point Three: International Law Protects the Right of Informed Consent
Among the Post World War II protective codifications were the Universal Declaration of Rights, Geneva Declaration [13]and the Nuremberg Code which state, concerning the rights of all human beings and the obligation for ethical action by health personnel:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person… No one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment … Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights… No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” [14]
“I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”[15]
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” [16]
This salutary development of international law has continued with international standards promulgated, such as the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration [17] about which it has been said:
“Even apart from article 7 of the ICCPR, ethical requirements for informed consent before medical or scientific treatment probably constitute international law as involving “general principles of law” under article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The reference to “civilised nations” in this context could well introduce an ethical requirement to such evaluations that many contemporary developed nations may fail.” [18]
The literature further defines Informed Consent.
“Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person… In the United Kingdom and countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, informed consent in medical procedures requires proof as to the standard of care to expect as a recognized standard of acceptable professional practice (the Bolam Test), that is, what risks would a medical professional usually disclose in the circumstances (see Loss of right in English law). Arguably, this is “sufficient consent” rather than “informed consent.” … Medicine in the United States, Australia, and Canada take a more patient-centric approach to “‘informed consent.’” Informed consent in these jurisdictions requires doctors to disclose significant risks, as well as risks of particular importance to that patient. This approach combines an objective (the reasonable patient) and subjective (this particular patient) approach.” [19]
Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Preserved
Where there is no recognition of the legal duty to obtain informed consent, the individual or guardian must assert the Right or it may unlawfully assumed or deemed to have been waived. International Humanitarian Law is clear: without clear, affirmative, memorialized informed consent, it must be concluded that Informed Consent has been withheld.
The essential importance of asserting the Right to preserve it is shown by the 2013 US Supreme Court case of Missouri vs McNeely, where the warrantless extraction of blood was ruled illegal as the defendant “refused to consent.” Had McNeely remained silent, the blood test would have been allowed.[20]
The Court opined,
Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…”
If the removal of blood “implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” it is fair to assume that other invasive medical techniques including the introduction of vaccine toxins into the body that have been held to be “unavoidably unsafe”[21] will also give rise to such concerns.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes certain Rights held by people and delegates certain limited Powers to the government. Without clear respect for those Rights, the judicial system and the administration of government will fail to protect the truly fundamental interests of civil society, including the Right to Informed Consent.
An earlier Supreme Court understood this, when in 1905 in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court declared the judicial power to extend to protecting people from forced vaccination.
While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake:
.
“…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” [22]
In a regime of verbal obfuscation of fundamental Right, only the clear assertion of the Right will prevent degradation of the Right “by a thousand (bureaucratic) cuts…” If McNeely had not engaged in protected speech stating he did not consent, the taking of his blood would probably have been allowed.
Point Five: Government Action Imposes an Unconstitutional Condition
on the Constitutionally Protected Right to Informed Consent
The well-established law of Unconstitutional Conditions has particular relevance in the case before any Court wherein a party is faced with the harsh choice of vaccinating the child or having the child banned from public accommodations or the public benefit of public education, required by law for all children, and guaranteed by State Constitutional Law in nearly every State of the Union.
Any law, regulation or policy imposing school vaccine mandates where the parent is faced with denying his or her own expressed beliefs or preferences (beliefs thereby protected under the First Amendment) or denying the child access to public education, is an action “under color of law” that forces coerced expression of consent. The Fourteenth Amendment forbid such State action.
Banning children from public schools unless the parent or guardian expresses consent for a medical intervention (vaccination) to which the person chooses not to consent is precisely the type of duress condemned by the Nuremberg Code.
It is also clearly conditioning the acceptance of a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
The law of Unconstitutional Conditions is well-represented in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Courts it oversees.
The Supreme Court first mentions the phrase in Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 543 (1876) (Badley, J., dissenting) “Though the State may have the [police] power… it has no power to impose unconstitutional conditions…”
In Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583,594 (1925) the Court held it “would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold… it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights.”
More recently the Court applied the principle to First Amendment speech rights arising from expressive association issues directly in point here where First Amendment protected religious expressive association is involved. In Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526 (1958)
“In practical operation, therefore, this procedural device must necessarily produce a result the State could not command directly. It can only result in a deterrence of speech which the Constitution makes free.”
And finally, of particular note is the statement in Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972):
“…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.”
Government Agents and those “Acting Under Color of Law” are forbidden by long-standing United States and International Law from coercing vaccination. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution also guaranteed that the “privileges or immunities” of Federal Citizens could not be invaded by state and local governments. The First Amendment includes among those privileges and immunities the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association and Petition for Redress of Grievances.
The original civil rights acts, enacted after the Civil War, protected those “privileges or immunities” from persons “acting under color of law” or acting without “due process” (which means without a specific order signed by a Judge).
Those subject to the law must include, at least, persons employed by governments, or receiving funding from governments, or working for entities that receive funding from governments (or that, like the drug companies that push vaccines, are granted special privileges, such as protection from legal responsibility for their “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines). It must also include persons, claiming lawful authority, intending to “pierce the skin” of someone not giving Informed Consent.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment, Section 1.
CONCLUSION
It was not for no reason that the Founders grouped together in the First Amendment Religious Liberty, Speech, Assembly and Petition Rights. Rather, these stated Rights have been held by the Supreme Court to be, together, “expressive association.”
We consider the Expressive Association Right to express meaningful Informed Consent to be the sine qua non of humane health care required by International Humanitarian Law. Truly, no free person should be forced to consent to mandated medical interventions.
If a State elects to abrogate long-standing religious, philosophical and medical exemptions, the proper remedy is for the State to provide alternative educational opportunities for those who refuse Informed Consent. No State has legal power to abrogate the Universal Right of Informed Consent, no matter what that State may do with exemptions the State previously enacted. Informed Consent trumps legislative abrogation of statutory exemptions.
There can hardly be a more fundamental or central freedom issue than whether agents of government, or persons acting under color of state law, as are those who act to abrogate conscientious objections to mandated vaccines, can force a free and competent adult (or a child under the protection of such adult) to receive any medical treatment.
That the treatment may be vaccination, which is not merely experimental and (sic) preventative but uninsurable and, according to many courts, “unavoidably unsafe” gives greater emphasis to the unconscionable personal sacrifice the individual is mandated to make. Such a mandate is inconsistent with status as a free person, rather than a slave. No free society can tolerate any such imposition.
“Liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.” – Thomas Jefferson [23]
.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Attorney at Law in New Jersey
1971 – 2006
———————————————
[1] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
[2] Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
[3] http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126431.htm
[4] http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm
[5] Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357)
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
[8] http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
[9] “Phase 4 trials are conducted after a product is already approved and on the market to find out more about the treatment’s long-term risks, benefits, and optimal use, or to test the product in different populations of people, such as children.”
Downloaded July 8, 2015: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143531.htm
[10] “qui tacet consentire videtur” – “Thus, silence gives consent.” Sometimes accompanied by the proviso “ubi loqui debuit ac potuit“, that is, “when he ought to have spoken and was able to”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28Q%29
[11] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
[13] The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties,and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
[14] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[15] http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html
[16] http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
[17] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html which provides:
Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law. Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity… [Emphasis added]
[18] http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/3/173.full
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
[20] Missouri vs McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._McNeely – The recent June 27, 2019 Supreme Court case of Mitchell vs Wisconsin (No. 18-6210), in holding that a warrant is not needed for a blood-draw from an unconscious arrested person further shows the important role of expressing one’s refusal to grant Informed Consent.
[21] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
[22] Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
[23] http://www.successwallpapers.com/wallpapers/0068-liberty.php
RIGHTS/ARTICLES/FORMS/PETITIONS:
Vaccine Consent Form
Advance Vaccine Directive Card
How to Decline a Vaccine (with form and article)
Website to Articles and Vaccine Forms
Mandatory Vaccination Petition
Petition Against Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Oppose HR 6666 Petition
Europe Petition Website
Europe Petition Form
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-05-13--What It’s Like to Believe Everything the Media Tells You

Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage Disclaimer : We at Prepare for @ @ @ @ @ you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem @ @ @ @ @ views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , @ @ @ @ @ by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with @ @ @ @ @ read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
@ @ @ @ @ own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and Natural Laws to help @ @ @ @ @ and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our @ @ @ @ @ awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material @ @

This might be an excellent video to share with anyone you are trying to wake up or have a conversation with about today’s messy situation. If they don’t smile or scratch their heads a bit after listening to this, then you likely need to move on.
Victory of the Light!
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-05-13--5 Health Benefits of Intermittent Fasting & How to Practice It

With so many diet approaches out there to help you lose weight and get healthy , could a simple , and ancient approach actually be the best for you ?
Fasting is an age-old practice , but it ’ s intermittent fasting that may give you the best health benefits .
This type of fasting has also been helpful for weight loss and is being adopted by many .
This article will look beyond just the aesthetic advantages and uncover the health benefits of intermittent fasting .
Intermittent fasting is simply where you aren ’ t eating for a certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shorter feeding window .
All your calories for the day would be eaten in this shorter time frame .
As mentioned before , fasting has been around for centuries and plays a big role in many religions .
There is a cleansing component to fasting , and this is where some of the health benefits seem to lie .
But what are the best ways to follow intermittent fasting , and what should the different time periods look like ?
There is no set rule here and they are a few different protocols @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though is that any form of fasting should be addressed with your doctor just to make sure you have all your bases covered .
One popular way to do intermittent fasting is with time-restricted eating .
This is where you would eat nothing for 16 hours and eat all your calories over an 8-hour period .
An easy way to approach this is to not eat anything after dinner – around 7 pm – and then not having your first meal until around lunch the next day .
This may sound extreme or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re sleeping for 7-8 hours of that fasting period .
The 16/8 model is one of the most popular , but there is also the eat-stop-eat method .
This is where you pick one day out of the week to do a full 24-hour fast .
All you would do is fast from dinner one night until dinner the next night .
There is also 5:2 fasting .
This is where you eat as healthy as possible – but normally – for five days of the week and then fast for two non-consecutive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some general plans , but it ’ s important to remember that everyone is different .
There is also the difference between males and females , and females do better with shorter fasting periods because of hormonal variations .
Again , this is something to discuss with your doctor , but females can do well on a 12-hour fast , and 12-hour feeding window , or 14-hour fast , and 10-hour feeding window .
So that ’ s a quick look at how intermittent fasting works , but what is the positive impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here are 5 health benefits of intermittent fasting .
Fasting can improve your insulin sensitivity and lowering your insulin resistance .
This means that your body is better equipped to handle sugar .
Your pancreas will not have to secrete as much insulin to deal with the sugar , and this is great for keeping blood sugar levels stable and combatting type 2 diabetes .
Part of this may be because of point number one .
When you are eating a lot of sugar or refined carbohydrates , your insulin levels are always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely for those substances to be turned into body fat .
Poor glucose management also results in lowered blood sugar , which results in cravings for more simple sugars and starches , which also lead to weight gain .
Fasting also helps you burn body fat by using your stored energy aka body fat .
Your body will usually use sugar and carbs first to burn as energy but without any available during the fast , your body taps into its body fat stores to acquire energy .
If you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve noticed how red and inflamed that area becomes .
This is the inflammation that you can see and feel , but the same thing can happen inside you .
This time , you can ’ t see or feel it , but long term , chronic inflammation can lead to many serious conditions and issues such as : This list goes a lot longer , but you can see how serious this issue is .
One of the greatest health benefits of intermittent fasting is its ability to lower inflammation in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress and periods of fasting help to lower these levels .
Your body is now in a better position to fight free radicals and the inflammation caused by them .
Another of the health benefits of intermittent fasting involves decreasing certain contributors to heart disease .
When you are fasting , the body can experience autophagy – which is the way it cleans out damaged cells .
Fasting is like a power wash on your cells , which also eliminates inferior ones .
These damaged cells can cause cardiovascular disease , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The protection of the brain from intermittent fasting seems to come from that anti-inflammatory effect .
Fasting can help slow the development of neurodegenerative diseases .
This means intermittent fasting is a great way to combat things like Alzheimer ’ s disease and dementia .
It can also have the day-to-day benefit of improving your memory .
The health benefits of intermittent fasting are truly remarkable .
This age-old practice is not only simple , but it ’ s also free to do !
You want to consult with your doctor before beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a good idea to ease into it .
If you ’ ve never done any form of fast , you don ’ t want to jump into a 16/8 or 24-hour fast .
Start slow with an 8 to 10 hour fast ( and remember , most of this is when you are sleeping ) and gradually add another hour on to it .
Intermittent fasting has had a lot of studies devoted to it and shows much promise to take back control of your health .
Disclaimer : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news , and therefore may seem controversial .
The opinions , views , statements , and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted , endorsed , espoused , or agreed to by Prepare for Change , its leadership Council , members , those who work with PFC , or those who read its content .
However , they are hopefully provocative .
Please use discernment !
Use logical thinking , your own intuition and your own connection with Source , Spirit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true and what is not .
By sharing information and seeding dialogue , it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm .

By Jamie Logie,
With so many diet approaches out there to help you lose weight and get healthy, could a simple, and ancient approach actually be the best for you? Fasting is an age-old practice, but it’s intermittent fasting that may give you the best health benefits.
This type of fasting has also been helpful for weight loss and is being adopted by many. This article will look beyond just the aesthetic advantages and uncover the health benefits of intermittent fasting.
What Is Intermittent Fasting?
Intermittent fasting is simply where you aren’t eating for a certain amount of time, followed by a shorter feeding window. All your calories for the day would be eaten in this shorter time frame. As mentioned before, fasting has been around for centuries and plays a big role in many religions.
There is a cleansing component to fasting, and this is where some of the health benefits seem to lie. But what are the best ways to follow intermittent fasting, and what should the different time periods look like?
There is no set rule here and they are a few different protocols you can follow: the first thing though is that any form of fasting should be addressed with your doctor just to make sure you have all your bases covered.
One popular way to do intermittent fasting is with time-restricted eating. This is where you would eat nothing for 16 hours and eat all your calories over an 8-hour period. An easy way to approach this is to not eat anything after dinner – around 7 pm – and then not having your first meal until around lunch the next day.
This may sound extreme or overwhelming, but remember, you’re sleeping for 7-8 hours of that fasting period.
Other Intermittent Fasting Methods
The 16/8 model is one of the most popular, but there is also the eat-stop-eat method. This is where you pick one day out of the week to do a full 24-hour fast. All you would do is fast from dinner one night until dinner the next night.
There is also 5:2 fasting. This is where you eat as healthy as possible – but normally – for five days of the week and then fast for two non-consecutive days during the week. These are some general plans, but it’s important to remember that everyone is different.
There is also the difference between males and females, and females do better with shorter fasting periods because of hormonal variations. Again, this is something to discuss with your doctor, but females can do well on a 12-hour fast, and 12-hour feeding window, or 14-hour fast, and 10-hour feeding window.
So that’s a quick look at how intermittent fasting works, but what is the positive impact this can have on your body?
Here are 5 health benefits of intermittent fasting.
1. Improved Glucose Levels
Fasting can improve your insulin sensitivity and lowering your insulin resistance. This means that your body is better equipped to handle sugar. Your pancreas will not have to secrete as much insulin to deal with the sugar, and this is great for keeping blood sugar levels stable and combatting type 2 diabetes.
2. Decreased Body fat Levels
Part of this may be because of point number one. When you are eating a lot of sugar or refined carbohydrates, your insulin levels are always elevated, and this makes it much more likely for those substances to be turned into body fat.
Poor glucose management also results in lowered blood sugar, which results in cravings for more simple sugars and starches, which also lead to weight gain.
Fasting also helps you burn body fat by using your stored energy aka body fat. Your body will usually use sugar and carbs first to burn as energy but without any available during the fast, your body taps into its body fat stores to acquire energy.
3. Decreased Inflammation
If you’ve ever gotten a splinter, you’ve noticed how red and inflamed that area becomes. This is the inflammation that you can see and feel, but the same thing can happen inside you. This time, you can’t see or feel it, but long term, chronic inflammation can lead to many serious conditions and issues such as:
heart disease
stroke
lupus
rheumatoid arthritis
certain cancers
This list goes a lot longer, but you can see how serious this issue is. One of the greatest health benefits of intermittent fasting is its ability to lower inflammation in the body. Inflammation can happen from oxidative stress and periods of fasting help to lower these levels.
Your body is now in a better position to fight free radicals and the inflammation caused by them.
4. Heart Protection
Another of the health benefits of intermittent fasting involves decreasing certain contributors to heart disease. When you are fasting, the body can experience autophagy – which is the way it cleans out damaged cells. Fasting is like a power wash on your cells, which also eliminates inferior ones.
These damaged cells can cause cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death worldwide.
5. Brain Protection
The protection of the brain from intermittent fasting seems to come from that anti-inflammatory effect. Fasting can help slow the development of neurodegenerative diseases. This means intermittent fasting is a great way to combat things like Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. It can also have the day-to-day benefit of improving your memory.
Final Thoughts
The health benefits of intermittent fasting are truly remarkable. This age-old practice is not only simple, but it’s also free to do! You want to consult with your doctor before beginning something like this and if you do, it’s a good idea to ease into it.
If you’ve never done any form of fast, you don’t want to jump into a 16/8 or 24-hour fast. Start slow with an 8 to 10 hour fast (and remember, most of this is when you are sleeping) and gradually add another hour on to it. Intermittent fasting has had a lot of studies devoted to it and shows much promise to take back control of your health.
References:
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage


prepareforchange--2020-05-13--The End of the US-China Relationship

The End of the US-China Relationship

A nationalistic American public is fed up with China .
According to a by the Pew Research Center , 66 % of US citizens now view China in an unfavorable light – six points worse than last summer and the highest negative reading since Pew introduced this question some 15 years ago .
While this shift was more evident for Republicans , those older than 50 , and college graduates , unfavorable sentiment among Democrats , younger cohorts , and the less educated also hit record highs .
An equally nationalistic Chinese public is also irate at the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump insisted on dubbing a global pandemic the “ Chinese virus.
” It is also because whispers turned into shouts linking the outbreak of COVID-19 to alleged suspicious activities at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory .
Just as most children are taught that two wrongs don ’ t make a right , tit-for-tat blame does not justify severing the world ’ s most important bilateral relationship .
But the time for dispassionate logic is over .
We must , instead , contemplate the harsh consequences of this rupture .
Both economies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be hurt .
China stands to lose its largest source of foreign demand , at a time when exports still account for 20 % of its GDP .
It will also lose access to US technology components required to advance indigenous innovation .
And the loss of a currency anchor to the US dollar could lead to greater financial instability .
But the consequences will similarly be problematic for the US , which will lose a major source of low-cost goods that income-constrained consumers have long counted on to make ends meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose a major source of external demand , because China has become America ’ s third-largest and fastest-growing export market .
And the US will lose its largest source of foreign demand for Treasury securities , all the more worrisome in light of the looming funding requirements of the biggest government deficits in history .
This rupture does not come as a great surprise .
As is the case in interpersonal relationships , geopolitical codependency can lead to conflict , especially if one partner starts to go its own way .
And China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from exports and investment to consumer-led growth , from manufacturing to services , from surplus saving to saving absorption , and from imported to indigenous innovation – did indeed put it on a very different path .
This turned out to be an increasingly uncomfortable development for a China-dependent US .
Left behind , America felt scorned , and that scorn led first to blame , and now to open conflict .
The consequences of the US-China rupture go far beyond economics .
A decisive shift in the balance of global power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could well be at hand .
Under Trump ’ s “ America First ” administration , the US has turned inward , heaping scorn on its once-loyal allies , withdrawing support for key multilateral institutions ( including the World Trade Organization and , in the midst of a pandemic , the World Health Organization ) , and embracing trade protectionism .
Meanwhile , China is filling the void , partly by design ( through its Belt and Road Initiative , the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank , and airlifts of medical supplies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also by default , as the US retreats .
Although these tectonic shifts will leave most Americans worse off , the US seems to be shrugging its collective shoulders .
America First has resonated with widespread wariness of globalization ( now reinforced by concerns over supply-chain vulnerability ) .
Many Americans are angry over allegedly unfair trade deals and practices , indignant at seemingly disproportionate US funding for institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank , and suspicious that the US security umbrella in Europe , Asia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not paying their fair share .
Paradoxically , this inward turn comes at precisely the moment when America ’ s already depressed domestic saving is likely to come under enormous pressure from an explosion of pandemic-related government deficits .
Not only does that imply deepening current-account and trade deficits ( the nemesis of the America First agenda ) , but it also poses a major challenge to longer-term economic growth .

A nationalistic American public is fed up with China. According to a
by the Pew Research Center, 66% of US citizens now view China in an unfavorable light – six points worse than last summer and the highest negative reading since Pew introduced this question some 15 years ago. While this shift was more evident for Republicans, those older than 50, and college graduates, unfavorable sentiment among Democrats, younger cohorts, and the less educated also hit record highs.
An equally nationalistic Chinese public is also irate at the United States. That is not just because President Donald Trump insisted on dubbing a global pandemic the “Chinese virus.” It is also because whispers turned into shouts linking the outbreak of COVID-19 to alleged suspicious activities at the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory.
Just as most children are taught that two wrongs don’t make a right, tit-for-tat blame does not justify severing the world’s most important bilateral relationship. But the time for dispassionate logic is over. We must, instead, contemplate the harsh consequences of this rupture.
Both economies, entwined in a deeply embedded codependency, will be hurt. China stands to lose its largest source of foreign demand, at a time when exports still account for 20% of its GDP. It will also lose access to US technology components required to advance indigenous innovation. And the loss of a currency anchor to the US dollar could lead to greater financial instability.
But the consequences will similarly be problematic for the US, which will lose a major source of low-cost goods that income-constrained consumers have long counted on to make ends meet. A growth-starved US economy will also lose a major source of external demand, because China has become America’s third-largest and fastest-growing export market. And the US will lose its largest source of foreign demand for Treasury securities, all the more worrisome in light of the looming funding requirements of the biggest government deficits in history.
This rupture does not come as a great surprise. As is the case in interpersonal relationships, geopolitical codependency can lead to conflict, especially if one partner starts to go its own way. And China’s decade of rebalancing – shifting away from exports and investment to consumer-led growth, from manufacturing to services, from surplus saving to saving absorption, and from imported to indigenous innovation – did indeed put it on a very different path.
This turned out to be an increasingly uncomfortable development for a China-dependent US. Left behind, America felt scorned, and that scorn led first to blame, and now to open conflict.
The consequences of the US-China rupture go far beyond economics. A decisive shift in the balance of global power, ushering in a new cold war, could well be at hand. Under Trump’s “America First” administration, the US has turned inward, heaping scorn on its once-loyal allies, withdrawing support for key multilateral institutions (including the World Trade Organization and, in the midst of a pandemic, the World Health Organization), and embracing trade protectionism. Meanwhile, China is filling the void, partly by design (through its Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and airlifts of medical supplies to pandemic-ravaged countries in Europe and elsewhere), but also by default, as the US retreats.
Although these tectonic shifts will leave most Americans worse off, the US seems to be shrugging its collective shoulders. America First has resonated with widespread wariness of globalization (now reinforced by concerns over supply-chain vulnerability). Many Americans are angry over allegedly unfair trade deals and practices, indignant at seemingly disproportionate US funding for institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and suspicious that the US security umbrella in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere encourages free riders and others not paying their fair share.
Paradoxically, this inward turn comes at precisely the moment when America’s already depressed domestic saving is likely to come under enormous pressure from an explosion of pandemic-related government deficits. Not only does that imply deepening current-account and trade deficits (the nemesis of the America First agenda), but it also poses a major challenge to longer-term economic growth.