R.F.I.D Bracelet Once You Have Had the Swine Flu Vaccination?

[enemyofNWO]

Originally Posted by Kulapops

I was thinking about this the other night...

Surely the only way out of this is some foolery ??

We need to find sympathetic doctors who are prepared to give us a shot in the sink

and then some paperwork , or a bracelet...

But how to broach the subject ?

could be a good idea though, for any avaloners who personally know doctors very well to broach the subject with them ... ?

I am afraid thatwhat you are suggesting is not going to work .
The tagging and the compulsory vaccinations are declarations of war on the citizens .
The choice is very simple : comply to the dictates of the NWO and die becasue the vaccine will kill your immune system or go to the Fema camps and die .
It is estermination time folks .
Either the people esterminate the ruling class , the zionist scums , the banksters and the corrupt government or you the people will be esterminated ! Very simple really . I am glad I do not live in the US .

[Swanny]

The doctors know the vaccine is bad, so if they can be paid to give it then they can be paid to pretend they gave it

[Christo888]

Originally Posted by dolphin

christo, you're a moran.

Well I hope its no reflection on you????

That's it? ... nothing more to say?

[Christo888]

I have another moronic question...

Why is there only one christian man that stood on a stage in church and said that semi trucks of bracelets were unloaded to a hospital, but no one else in the world has proof, not even a picture of this so called shackle that will be pegged through your wrist for ever and ever?????

And someone else took a picture of a light beacon, which for many years has been used for various purposes in law enforcement, but it is just a light beacon... so how is this light beacon associated with RFID and vaccines????

Does anybody in the world have something a little more specific that is relevant and not storytelling fearmongering christians regarding RFID bracelets?

[Jnana]

Ear tags make more sense. Heck, a lot of the population already has the necessary hole in their body - less chance of lawsuits because of infections. The technology has a long history in the jewelry and livestock industries.

RFID Ear Tags for Cattle

Buy yours here

They might even figure out a way to make them reasonably attractive - a status symbol for good patriots.

Yes, I'm just making this up (the human aspect, anyway). You wouldn't want me on the dark side.

[Christo888]

Originally Posted by Jnana

Ear tags make more sense. Heck, a lot of the population already has the necessary hole in their body - less chance of lawsuits because of infections. The technology has a long history in the jewelry and livestock industries.

RFID Ear Tags for Cattle

They might even figure out a way to make them reasonably attractive - a status symbol for good patriots.

Yes, I'm just making this up - you wouldn't want me on the dark side.

And they thought they thought of everything!

[Jnana]

Here you go, rfid wrist bands for people:

RFID wristbands help kids play safe in fun city

More here, including pictures of the wrist bands:

https://www.rfidtrakker.com/store/fi...case_study.pdf

Company web page here (inaccessible last time I looked - maybe the market for these things wasn't big enough to sustain them?):

http://www.safetzone.com

Notice the repetitive use of the word "safe".

Here's the technology that is more likely to be used if they really get serious about "chipping" the population:

Microsoft links up with human embedded RFID chips

Human chipping on its way with verichip

Human chips more than skin deep

California outlaws forced rfid tagging of humans



I don't think this will involve a forced operation. TPTB are really cowards and don't want a revolution on their hands. Any good farmer knows better than to stampede the cattle. They will try to figure out a way for most people to want to have it through fear and/or safety/convenience arguments. A bait and switch. At some point, those who have refused so far will have no access to banking. That's just my guess when I put on my "evil overlord" thinking cap. Watch how they are doing things now: SLOWWWWLY, a very gradual loss of liberties.

[Christo888]

OK, Jnana, thanks for your research, of course you already found out not really anything out there about actual or real shackles, bracelets, and RFID chips associated with vaccines, right!!!!!!

But, what you did provide is something awesome!!!

California does not allow the RFID chipping of humans

Can any lawyers verify this as complete (nevermind found one)?
http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/bulletins/13034.html

And damages can be sought of $1,000.00 a day against the violator until the chip, or even nanotech device is removed from the body!!!! Wow, so if anyone has an implant device of any kind in their body then you can recover damages ... I wonder if we can consider all of our bodies as the term 'body,' just in case someone has an ET implant or device somewhere within all of their bodies.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...ed_asm_v95.pdf

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 27, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 24, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 2007
SENATE BILL No. 362
Introduced by Senator Simitian
February 20, 2007
An act to add Section 52.7 to the Civil Code, relating to identification
devices.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 362, as amended, Simitian. Identification devices: subcutaneous
implanting.
Existing law accords every person the right of protection from bodily
restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury
to his or her personal relations, subject to the qualifications and
restrictions provided by law.
This bill would prohibit a person from requiring, coercing, or
compelling any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting
of an identification device, as defined. The bill would provide for the
assessment of civil penalties for a violation thereof, as specified, and
would allow an aggrieved party to bring an action against a violator for
damages and injunctive relief, subject to a 3-year statute of limitation,
or as otherwise provided. The bill would also allow an interested party
to petition the court on behalf of an incompetent or minor upon specified
circumstances.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
95
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 52.7 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
52.7. (a) A Except as provided in subdivision (g), a person
shall not require, coerce, or compel any other individual to undergo
the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device.
(b) (1) Any person who violates subdivision (a) may be assessed
an initial civil penalty of no more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000), and no more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for
each day the violation continues until the deficiency is corrected.
That civil penalty may be assessed and recovered in a civil action
brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may also
grant a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
costs, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and
expenses as part of the costs.
(2) A person who is implanted with a subcutaneous identification
device in violation of subdivision (a) may bring a civil action for
actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate
relief.
(3) Additionally, punitive damages may also be awarded upon
proof of the defendant’s malice, oppression, fraud, or duress in
requiring, coercing, or compelling the plaintiff to undergo the
subcutaneous implanting of an identification device.
(c) (1) An action brought pursuant to this section shall be
commenced within three years of the date upon which the
identification device was implanted.
(2) If the victim was an incompetent a dependent adult or minor
when the implantation occurred, actions brought pursuant to this
section shall be commenced within three years after the date the
plaintiff, or his or her guardian or parent, discovered or reasonably
should have discovered the implant, or within eight years after the
plaintiff attains the age of majority, whichever date occurs later.
(3) The statute of limitations shall not run against an incompetent
a dependent adult or minor plaintiff simply because a guardian ad
litem has been appointed. A guardian ad litem’s failure to bring a
plaintiff’s action within the applicable limitation period will not
prejudice the plaintiff’s right to do so.
(4) A defendant is stopped estopped to assert a defense of the
statute of limitations when the expiration of the statute is due to

conduct by the defendant inducing the plaintiff to delay the filing
of the action, or due to threats made by the defendant causing
duress upon the plaintiff.
(d) (1) For purposes of implantation only, any interested person
may file a petition for an order or judgment declaring an
incompetent or minor free from the control of a parent or guardian
who is requiring or preventing implantation of an identification
device.
(2) The court shall consider that petition in light of applicable
law with respect to the best interests of the incompetent or minor.
(e)
(d) Any restitution paid by the defendant to the victim shall be
credited against any judgment, award, or settlement obtained
pursuant to this section. Any judgment, award, or settlement
obtained pursuant to an action under this section shall be subject
to the provisions of Section 13963 of the Government Code.
(f)
(e) The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed
so as to protect privacy and bodily integrity.
(g)
(f) Actions brought pursuant to this section are independent of
any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available
to an aggrieved party pursuant to any other law.
(g) This section shall not in any way modify existing statutory
or case law regarding the rights of parents or guardians, the rights
of children or minors, or the rights of dependent adults.
(h) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Identification device” means any item, application, or
product that is passively or actively capable of transmitting
personal information, including, but not limited to, devices using
radio frequency technology.
(2) “Person” means an individual, business association,
partnership, limited partnership, corporation, limited liability
company, trust, estate, cooperative association, or other entity.
(3) “Personal information” includes any of the following data
elements to the extent they are used alone or in conjunction with
any other information used to identify an individual:
(A) First or last name.
(B) Address.
(C) Telephone number.

(D) E-mail, Internet Protocol, or Web site address.
(E) Date of birth.
(F) Driver’s license number or California identification card
number.
(G) Any unique personal identifier number contained or encoded
on a driver’s license or identification card issued pursuant to
Section 13000 of the Vehicle Code.
(H) Bank, credit card, or other financial institution account
number.
(I) Any unique personal identifier contained or encoded on a
health insurance, health benefit, or benefit card or record issued
in conjunction with any government-supported aid program.
(J) Religion.
(K) Ethnicity or nationality.
(L) Photograph.
(M) Fingerprint or other biometric identifier.
(N) Social security number.
(O) Any unique personal identifier.
(4) “Require, coerce, or compel” includes physical violence,
threat, intimidation, retaliation, the conditioning of any private or
public benefit or care on consent to implantation, including
employment, promotion, or other employment benefit, or by any
means that causes a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities
to acquiesce to implantation when he or she otherwise would not,
but does not include legitimate medical uses for which the patient
or his or her guardian or parent has consented..
(5) “Subcutaneous” means existing, performed, or introduced
under or on the skin.


And here is another verifying article!!!!!!

http://www.govtech.com/gt/139441?topic=117671




Calif. State Senate Passes Bill Banning Forced Human RFID Tagging
Bookmark and Share
Comment
You May Also Like

* European Data Protection Supervisor Issues Opinion on RFID
* California Bans Forced RFID Tagging of Humans


Related Links
Improve global collaboration with our inter/intra-agency communication solutions : Polycom
Tools Sponsored By

Aug 31, 2007, News Report

Found in: Security

California Senate Bill 362, which would prohibit any person from forcing any other person to undergo an implant in their body of a radio frequency identification (RFID) device, passed the Senate Floor on a 28-9 vote Thursday, and will now go to Governor Schwarzenegger.

RFID "tags" are tiny chips with miniature antennae that can be embedded in almost anything. Using radio waves, RFID can help identify and track people, animals, or objects. Devices known as "readers" access the information on the tags.

"RFID technology is not in and of itself the issue. RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," said the bill sponsor Senator Joe Simitian. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy."

Despite wide-ranging support, the RFID industry has declined to support SB 362. In response, Simitian said, "I think it's unfortunate and regrettable that the industry hasn't come out in support of SB 362. I understand why we're having a robust debate about the privacy concerns related to RFID, but at the very least, we should be able to agree that the forced implanting of under-the-skin technology into human beings is just plain wrong. I'm deeply concerned that this isn't a given for the industry."

"Passage of SB 362 ensures that no Californian is compelled to have electronic identifiers of any type embedded in their body. This provides Californians with the personal agency to make such decisions should they have a reason to, as well as another means of protecting their personal information," said Jennifer King, Research Specialist at the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at U.C. Berkeley School of Law.

If the governor signs SB 362, California would join Wisconsin and North Dakota, which have already banned forced RFID implantation.

In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an RFID tag for human implantation called VeriChip, which would allow medical professionals to access a person's medical history in the event that the person couldn't communicate. The chip's parent company, VeriChip Corporation, reports that 2,000 people have already had tags implanted. The company also has clients around the world that want to use human implantation as a source of identity. For example, the attorney general of Mexico and 18 of his staff members were implanted with chips to allow them to get into high-security areas.

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA), which develops ethics policies for the American Medical Association, recently issued a report raising concerns about the human implantation of RFID tags. The report stresses that RFID devices may compromise a person's privacy and security because it is not yet clear if the information contained in the tags can be properly protected. Further, CEJA finds that RFID tagging may present physical risks because the tags may migrate under the skin, making them hard to remove at a later time.


And this link is to the actual bill being signed by the Governor.

"California Law Bans Forced Human RFID Tagging"

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_d...p?q=1241205284

[Ancient Alien]

Why RFID wristbands when they can just put the RFID chips in the vaccines?

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/1...s-rfid-powder/

“They need a chip that will self-perpetuate, that will spread like a virus, that people can pass to each other, to everyone … “

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwt2hk3CgXE

[Christo888]

Originally Posted by Ancient Alien

Why RFID wristbands when they can just put the RFID chips in the vaccines?

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/1...s-rfid-powder/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwt2hk3CgXE

Right ... that makes much more sense because it isn't really traceable by us but not a whole lot of fear factor in that, like wearing a bracelet... the mark.

And if they do then in California you can sue civilly and recover $1,000.00 a day in damages until the chip or nano's are removed.

[Jnana]

Originally Posted by Ancient Alien

Why RFID wristbands when they can just put the RFID chips in the vaccines? http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/1...s-rfid-powder/

I would think that a grain of sand is still too big for a small hypodermic needle. Also, please note the following line from another story about the same chip:

It is attached to a separately-provided external antenna when used, and communicates with the RFID tag reader via the 2.45 GHz band. Maximum communication range is 300 mm.

Hitach Achieves 0.05-mm Sq RFID

A weakness of RFID is the RF (radio frequency) bit. To communicate at radio frequencies efficiently, you need an antenna of a certain size. No matter how small the chip is, you will still need the antenna. Also note that this tiny chip has a very small range - not much more than an inch. Embedded in the body it would likely not be able to communicate with the receiver at all.

Originally Posted by Ancient Alien

“They need a chip that will self-perpetuate, that will spread like a virus, that people can pass to each other, to everyone … “ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwt2hk3CgXE

If the chip is meant to identify an individual, then your records must be tied to a number built into the chip. I don't see how a chip that spreads like a virus will achieve that. Am I missing something?

[Ancient Alien]

Hey Christo,

I wouldn't put too much faith in the legal system. In 2008 mercury was made illegal here in Norway. One of the main reasons: Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences. Now all of a sudden it's ok to add a little thimerosal in the vaccines, and they've even made pregnant women one of the primary targets for the swine flu campaign.

[Christo888]

Originally Posted by Ancient Alien

Hey Christo,

I wouldn't put too much faith in the legal system. In 2008 mercury was made illegal here in Norway. One of the main reasons: Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences. Now all of a sudden it's ok to add a little thimerosal in the vaccines, and they've even made pregnant women one of the primary targets for the swine flu campaign.

Ya, I know what you mean, the wheels of justice are slow aren't they. However, the legal wrangling has many advantages... and you don't have to wait for a final result, the legal system has several purposes!!!! There are battle hardened proponents out there waking up!

[Kulapops]

Way to go California !

So are we saying that Ah-nuld saves the day again ?

As he utters the immortal words...

"To be or not to be : Not to be"

K

[Ancient Alien]

The Chip is at the Tip of the Needle

By Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer (New GermanMedicine)

Yesterday, 27 August 2009, I was giving an introductory talk about German New Medicine (GNM) near Vienna, Austria. My wife was with me and about 40 listeners. At the end as part of the discussion the swine flu was mentioned and a lady got up and declared the following:

A friend of hers works for a pharmaceutical company in Vienna and told her that the swine flu injection needles indeed contain nano particles in their very tip, which cannot be detected with the naked eye but are clearly visible with as little as a 12 times magnifying microscope like children’s toy microscopes. The staff of the pharmaceutical company was advised that these nano particles work in the human body like a motherboard in the computer and lots of data can be stored on it, which will make cash cards obsolete. This measure was also intended to do an accurate census and to protect babies, as many mothers would simply “discard” their newborn, without knowledge of the authorities.

This lady further disclosed that she was working in the medical field. She had asked a lawyer who came to her as a patient, how it was possible to avoid being chipped. He told her that he was aware of the planned chipping of the population; in fact most upper class members of society were aware of this plan. For this year no forced vaccinations were planned but to rather encourage people through the media to volunteer for the jab.

In case too few would come forward, forced vaccination was planned for next year. Exempt from those were certain professional groups like the
police, medical personal, politicians etc. Being a lawyer, he knew ways for himself to avoid the jab, but for the majority of the population there was no escape.

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/6854

[Christo888]

http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/bulletins/13034.html

Just as a reminder, absolutely no RFID or any "Identification device" can be tagged on or into a human in the state of California... nothing, zilch, nadda... not even nano-technology at the tip of a needle!

Check with the law firm below for more information, begin taking steps to pass similar laws and legislation in your own state or country ASAP!!!!!

From the Law firm of Morrison & Foerster:
California Bans Mandatory Implanting of Identification Devices
November 2007
by Christine E. Lyon

Privacy Bulletin

Effective January 1, 2008, a new California law will regulate the implantation of RFIDs and other identification devices in humans. California Senate Bill 362 (“SB 362”) prohibits any person from requiring, coercing, or compelling another individual to undergo the implanting of an “identification device” on or under the skin.[1] It specifically prohibits conditioning employment, promotion, or other employment benefits on an individual’s consent to the implantation of an identification device.[2]

Under SB 362, an “identification device” is any item, application or product that is passively or actively capable of transmitting personal information, including but not limited to devices using radio frequency technology.[3] An implantation of an identification device is considered to be “subcutaneous” if the device is “existing, performed, or introduced under or onthe skin.”[4] SB 362 provides that it “shall be liberally construed so as to protect privacy and bodily integrity.”[5]

SB 362 creates a private right of action for an individual who is implanted with a subcutaneous identification device in violation of this new law.[6] Such an individual may bring a civil action for actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief.[7] Actions brought under SB 362 are independent of any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available to the plaintiff.[8] In addition, a person who violates SB 362 may be assessed an initial civil penalty of up to $10,000, and up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues until it is corrected.[9] This civil penalty may be recovered in a civil action, and the court may also grant reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to a prevailing plaintiff.[10] Any restitution paid by the defendant is credited against its liability under SB 362.[11] Claims under SB 362 generally must be filed within three years after the identification device is implanted.[12]

California is not the first state to prohibit the mandatory implantation of an RFID or other identification device in a human. Wisconsin and North Dakota have already implemented similar laws.



[1] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(a). The “persons” covered by SB 362 include individuals, business associations, partnerships, limited partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, estates, cooperative associations, or other entities. SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(h)(2).

[2] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(h)(4). SB 362 also defines “require, coerce, or compel” to include physical violence, threat, intimidation, retaliation, the conditioning of any private or public benefit or care on consent to implantation, or “other means that causes a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to acquiesce to implementation when he or she otherwise would not.” Id.

[3] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(h)(1). For purposes of SB 362, “personal information” includes an individual’s first or last name; address; telephone number; email, internet protocol or web site address; date of birth; driver’s license number or California identification number; any unique personal identification number contained or encoded on a driver’s license or identification card issued pursuant to Section 13000 of the Vehicle Code; bank, credit card, or other financial institution account number; any unique personal identifier contained or encoded on a health insurance, health benefit, or benefit card or record issued in conjunction with any government-supported aid program; religion; ethnicity or nationality; photograph; fingerprint or other biometric identifier; Social Security number; or any unique personal identifier. SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(h)(3).

[4] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(h)(5).

[5] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(e).

[6] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(b)(2).

[7] Id.

[8] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(e).

[9] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(b)(1). The recoverable litigation costs include expert witness fees and expenses. Id.

[10] Id.

[11] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(d).

[12] SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(c)(1). If the individual was a dependent adult or minor when the implantation occurred, the action may be brought within three years after the date the plaintiff or his or her guardian or parent discovered or reasonably should have discovered the implant, or within eight years after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority, whichever is later. SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code 52.7(c)(2). SB 362 provides that it does not “in any way modify existing statutory or case law regarding the rights of parents or guardians, the rights of children or minors, or the rights of dependent adults.” SB 362, Cal. Civ. Code Section 52.7(g).

[dolphin]

christo fyo, california statutes are null and void when the federal govt declares "a national emergency" ... that will supercede any state legislation. executive orders are already in place. they've already thought of that.

exchanger's already posted the actual rfid bracelet from a guy in the military on youtube and there are plenty of other videos. no point in going into this. if you don't believe it, your choice. why am i waisting my energy

hahaha, btw.... your posts speak for themselves!

[Kulapops]

Originally Posted by Ancient Alien

The Chip is at the Tip of the Needle

The staff of the pharmaceutical company was advised that these nano particles work in the human body like a motherboard in the computer and lots of data can be stored on it, which will make cash cards obsolete.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, or this speaker is mixing two themes in one sentence, but the job of a motherboard is not to store data. That would be the internal memory and the hard drive...

I'm always wary of stories where the grasp of the technological terms used to describe it sounds futuristic to the speaker (lots of big words to them) but don't make sense to people familiar with those words.

Yes, the technology exists (apparently, but what can I know, I'm just sat in front of this screen...?) to place chips into syringes, albeit with larger than normal bore. Yes, nanotechnology will be the next wave in computer science (but when will that become reality is anyone's guess)

But take a moment to grab a handrail again. Most of these stories rely on paranoia as their backdrop. So if it is a story that describes a 'hopeless' situation, I am now more skeptical. (Don't forget last October, peeps). I like the idea that it will go away, some will have vaccines alright, and it will come back next year... and probably the year after.

In the real world, as far as I can see, the removal of our freedoms seems to be gradual, not apocalyptic.

K

[Northern Boy]

Originally Posted by dolphin

christo fyo, california statutes are null and void when the federal govt declares "a national emergency" ... that will supercede any state legislation. executive orders are already in place. they've already thought of that.

exchanger's already posted the actual rfid bracelet from a guy in the military on youtube and there are plenty of other videos. no point in going into this. if you don't believe it, your choice. why am i waisting my energy

hahaha, btw.... your posts speak for themselves!

What makes FEDERAL STATUTES ANY DIFFERENT THAN STATE ONES? NEITHER APPLY TO YOU UNLESS YOU CONSENT TO THEM

[Christo888]

Originally Posted by dolphin

christo fyo, california statutes are null and void when the federal govt declares "a national emergency" ... that will supercede any state legislation. executive orders are already in place. they've already thought of that.

exchanger's already posted the actual rfid bracelet from a guy in the military on youtube and there are plenty of other videos. no point in going into this. if you don't believe it, your choice. why am i waisting my energy

hahaha, btw.... your posts speak for themselves!

Dolphin, you seem to be stuck in a net. The topic of executive orders has been covered for years, and the reach of WHO on top of that also has been covered.

The videos you speak of that Exchanger is continuing to spread are psyops videos, the two videos are showing up on as many NWO websites and fearmongering christian sites as far as searches will take you... they went viral as planned.

The disinfo of the video posted here in the beginning is of a christian x trooper fearmongering attention to his own website and storytelling to a church crowd about rumors he claims to have been privy too. And enjoyed telling the crowd that the State of Oklahoma, of which is not under executive orders, martial law, the UN, or the WHO, but can enact its own laws for the people that live in that state independently of the federal government... blah blah blah, has passed its own state law that every state resident is to be forced vaccinated. This has since been recanted by Greg Evenson on his own website http://www.theheartlandusa.com/ as Oklahoma has no such law. Greg Evenson sells products, dvd's, and other material for a living... if he does not get you rallied up and to his site he will not make any money and go out of buisness... clear enough!

Each state dictates the will of the people (yes that is arguable but not right now) of that state not the federal government. If you want to live in a state that passes a law to force vaccinate its people than go ahead, executive orders are not needed. if all 50 states pass legislation that forces vaccinations from swine flu then you certainly do not need executive orders and the WHO to take over right.

So over the course of time the more states that pass legislation such as California has then tptw will have to create an event in order to activate the executive orders etc. If such an event cannot be pulled off then there are no executive orders and there is no FEMA and there is no WHO to exercise power.

In order to pull off such an event (like 911) you have to have psyops programs in operation throughout the country (America) in order to create a catalyst for reaction to upset the apple cart so that executive orders, UN charters, and the WHO can have the opportunity to take over.

Christians are the current psyops target in America in order to tip the balance towards unrest so that the jurisdiction of the states can be taken away, and martial law, or pandemic, or whatever can take its place in power.

But one more time... if there is no event and no group to blame it on then the state you live in is the law of the land.

Does that make sense dolphin?

Today we do not have an event that activates executive orders, and the like, but we do have a law that prevents forced vaccination and chipping the population of California.

It would be great if all 50 states and every country on the planet pass such similar legislation then we have some more time to wake more people up, the more people that wake up the harder it is for tptw to create an event with a group to blame it on because they don't want to get caught!!!

There are not enough vaccines produced to put in place a mass vaccination program nationwide... you cannot have a mass vaccination program unless you have a vaccine... therefore state law dictates what you are subjected to in the meantime whether you voluntarily get a vaccine or wait until it possibly is forced upon you by unfolding events that we as a population are responsible in... our reactions and choices of what we continue to spread or discuss either helps their agenda to further the NWO or we can change the momentum from escalating out of our hands!!!

Go back and read the thread again dolphin especially about the light beacon thought to be an RFID device!!!

You can call me as many names as you want, because you really are only wasting your time, but we are not under martial law, we are currently under state law and we may or may not ever be in that position of martial law because it totally depends on the awareness and empowerment of all of us to create the understanding of the group mind as opportunity arises in order to have an input in order to do a part.

It is either Active Participation or passive permission.

So dolphin what is it you are selling???