Imposition of a health dictatorship - don't comply, lose assets

Archbishop Vigano wrote and open letter to President Trump the other day. It addresses the NWO so I didn't post this under religion - hope it's ok. I removed about a third of the text for fit - link to letter: Open Letter

This guy gets it

Here is the letter:

OPEN LETTER
to the President of the United States of America
Donald J. Trump

Mr. President,

Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity.

As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.
--
A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

Mod Note: Please review rules for posting work by others.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

This guy doesn't seem very trustworthy. Link.
Maybe he's trying to jockey for a position in DT's advisory if he gets reelected.

Just because this guy is an Archbishop doesn't mean he can't be a little paranoid and delusional.

But some of what he says is true, the Liberals are trying to crush the church. I know quite a few liberals and they hate the conservative practices of the church, and some are taking over some Christian churches and changing their small churches to what matches their beliefs. This takeover has been going on for many years.

I see a lot of truth in what this archbishop is saying though, the liberals these days are not truthful, they accept lies if it benefits their cause which seems to be change anything that does not bow down to your beliefs. They are getting way out of hand. I am a believer in being good stewards of our environment, but not through destroying the environment to accomplish it. Consumerism as the basis of our economy is wrong, people buying things they want to make their own life easy is destroying our environment. Focus on your needs, not your wants and desires. We waste so much in this country that it makes me sick. People buy new things that do not last, they will buy chopsticks to eat chinese food, you can eat it with a fork or spoon, why be using chopsticks then tossing them away. This green new deal is a joke, we need to reduce all pollution attributed to our wants, that would cut our environmental impact down to half of what it is now.

Of course, Green new deal supporters want to build all sorts of expensive technology at great environmental impact to our world just so they can keep destroying the environment by traveling in jets to other countries to look at an eclipse of the sun. I guess waiting till the eclipse comes to you in twenty years is not acceptable to them.

Can you tell I have a liberal daughter?

a reply to: BlissSeeker

I've come to learn that people who believe in ghost stories are not reliable sources of information.

The health dictatorship is a real threat and he is raising the concern crystal clear. We are seeing countries impose health passports so in fact ensuring that the population follows any dictates such as covid shots. Those that refuse will have the first of many rights denied, the ability to travel. This doesn't just impact travel for pleasure but also for business, research and emergencies. This is just the first step.
How many have seen the signs "We believe in science. Science Matters."signs? The indoctrination is real, very real.
As the political signs are being removed we are now seeing the subliminal message that has been blurred but is now coming sharply into focus.
If you object every person, every single person, will discredit you. How can you not believe in science?

We already live in a health dictatorship. In a for profit styled health care system it's the insurance companies that are the lord and master over the government with their lobbyist and accompanying corruption. I don't think corporate CEO will pay much attention to religious leaders. It's capitalism where profit and the bottom line are the Gods.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

I do not discount that we are in a literal fight of good against evil, and this fight crosses or blurs party lines. But none of us are completely innocent in getting to this point. We are our own worst enemies at times. Every time we deny that anyone has a right to healthcare, we are simultaneously declaring that no one has healthcare rights at all.

Practically speaking, this is why I insist that we do in fact have a right to healthcare and we need a Patients Bill of Rights. First and foremost, declaring our absolute inalienable right to say BOTH "yes" and "no." Government has no right to control our access to anything and everything that can nurture and nurse our bodies. Neither does government have any right to impose or force any medical treatment upon us -- and especially not for the benefit of others without regard or concern for the harm it causes us.

If we're smart... and I'm not holding my breath... we'll demand that healthcare reform going forward start with a Patient's Bill of Rights.

And yet you believe it is logical that Government impose its will upon pvt. medical doctors, pvt. hospitals, and pvt. insurance companies and force them to adhere to whatever this "right" entails, and work for some recompense as determined by the benevolent Government?
a reply to: Boadicea

a reply to: Zrtst

I wish the government would lift medical restrictions. I would like to open up a cancer clinic/cellphone repair shop, where I could apply my cure of
cucumber juice, green chili's, eye of newt and prayer to the horned God Moloch. Let's let the customer make the decision how they want to approach their health care. freedom of Choice is the operative term....

originally posted by: Zrtst
And yet you believe it is logical that Government impose its will upon pvt. medical doctors, pvt. hospitals, and pvt. insurance companies and force them to adhere to whatever this "right" entails, and work for some recompense as determined by the benevolent Government?
a reply to: Boadicea

Oh my dear lordy... thank you for exemplifying exactly how we are our own worst enemies. Although very poorly expressed, your initial presumption is that we must rely on and obtain all healthcare from others as authorized by government... that we cannot, do not, and will not use the bountiful fruits of this earth to nurture and nurse our own bodies and their health. Your second presumption, a (ahem) logical expansion of the first presumption, is that I therefore must be demanding that others provide that healthcare. I am not.

However, you perfectly demonstrate why we need our absolute inalienable right to say "yes" and "no" to be declared, protected, and defended. It is because of people like you that would make such presumptions, sanctioning government control of our access to healthcare, and preclude people like me from finding and obtaining my own healthcare needs either by myself and for myself, or with the consent and cooperation of others.

A Patients Bill of Rights would declare and establish that we are our own first and primary healthcare providers, and that absolute inalienable right shall not be infringed.

a reply to: BlissSeeker

Times are definitely changing around the world, and not for the better. Removing God from all society has lended a great helping hand in making people blind to what's going on all around us.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Zrtst

I wish the government would lift medical restrictions. I would like to open up a cancer clinic/cellphone repair shop, where I could apply my cure of
cucumber juice, green chili's, eye of newt and prayer to the horned God Moloch. Let's let the customer make the decision how they want to approach their health care.

Yup! You even have the right to be stupid. Even if a Patients Bill of Rights included both educating and informing everyone in the best ways to nurture and nurse our own bodies... Even if a Patients Bill of Rights guaranteed us all full availability and access to the medical literature, clinical studies and reviews... Even if a Patients Bill of Rights protects our right to seek our qualified professional help... you still have the right to be stupid.

freedom of Choice is the operative term....

Actually, the operative term is "absolute inalienable rights", of which freedom of choice is one part thereof.

From the article, the guy does sound like a crook.

My parents made me go to church as a kid. The teacher of the high school age kids had me take over the Sunday school lesson one Sunday morning in 1972. The lesson I was to teach was in Revelation. I saw it like a puzzle, and became interested, and wondered how long until the things described in Revelation happened. I have researched Bible prophecy on and off for all these years. I was shocked, and disappointed when the things I had read about began being fulfilled at a high rate of speed.

Just like ancient Israel, the U.S. turned against God. He warned them to straighten up. They did not comply, and rather sneered instead. So, after 19 years, they were conquered and taken slave. Most were carted off to another country.

2001 was a serious warning. He withdrew his protection, and stood by as we were attacked. This nations reply was the same as Israel's was. Its been 19 years folks. You can expect that we are under, or will come under invasion over the course of the next several days, weeks, or months. Notice I didnt mention years.

Property and rights will be stripped. Once the US falls, the rest of the world will follow suit. It will be a One world government. People will be required to carry an information chip (E bank account, and vaccine info) powered by Luciferase. Luciferase is the substance that provides bioluminescence in fireflies and glow worms. It produces a cold light that is missing ultraviolet and Infrared.

Do you know what happens to the people who accept the chip and likely antivirus combination? They begin to develop painful boils and sores all over their bodies.

It will be wise to go to prison rather then accept the mark

a reply to: Boadicea

Be careful when you say someone has a right to the services provided by another human being. We once lived in a society that thought that and fought a war to end that practice.

Like it or not health care is a service provided to you by other human beings. To say that it is your right to have that service means that you own the services of those other humans and can command them to your beck and call. In such a society, why would anyone choose to become a servant (a doctor)? You can see how many people leapt at the chance to be slaves.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Be careful when you say someone has a right to the services provided by another human being. We once lived in a society that thought that and fought a war to end that practice.

Like it or not health care is a service provided to you by other human beings. To say that it is your right to have that service means that you own the services of those other humans and can command them to your beck and call. In such a society, why would anyone choose to become a servant (a doctor)? You can see how many people leapt at the chance to be slaves.

You are kind of right but I love picking holes into thoughts, especially when it is someone whom I agree about 99.9999999% of the time. There is a snag with your theory that nobody has a right to health service.
Of course not but if you are part of a system you can't just suddenly get out. Because if you do, others can too. No more hairdressers, mechanics, plumbers, builders or grocery stores.
Simple, no services are ever a right but they become an unwritten one when we are all mutually dependent on each other. If I let doctors into my shop, I bloody well demand health care.

a reply to: Hecate666

But if they are beholden to give you what you want, then they are also entitled to sell those services on their terms, not yours. If you can dictate the terms of the exchange exclusively because their services are your right, then they no longer have agency in their own lives as far as the disposition of their services are concerned.

We say that people have the right to refuse service to someone. If someone comes into your shop and they are unkempt and abusive and demand services in ways that are frightening your other clientele, you can absolutely ask them to leave, but make health care a right ... and the doctor no longer has the ability to ask a similar patron to go, no matter what the circumstances may be. The doctor is always on call, no matter what his own life may be at that point in time.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Be careful when you say someone has a right to the services provided by another human being.

There's that presumption again that exemplifies my point...

I never thought that and never said that. Exactly the opposite. I want the government to get out of our way so we can do for ourselves and by ourselves before we need (or want) the aide of consenting adults and then seek professional help. No forcing anything on patients... no forcing anything on medical providers.

If the Coronapocalypse has taught us anything, it should be the fact that other people will -- through both incompetence, greed and politics -- force very poor decisions upon the rest of us in the name of "health." That should not even be possible. A Patients Bill of Rights can preclude this ever happening again. And worse.

Like it or not health care is a service provided to you by other human beings.

I'm very happy there are people with knowledge and training I don't have that are out there to help us when/if we need that help! But healthcare begins at home. Healthcare is not provided solely by professionals. We can do much for ourselves and by ourselves, and we have every right to do so. But even when we do want and seek out professional help, we still have every right to consent and/or decline treatments and procedures with informed consent.

To say that it is your right to have that service...

Never said that.

...means that you own the services of those other humans and can command them to your beck and call. In such a society, why would anyone choose to become a servant (a doctor)? You can see how many people leapt at the chance to be slaves.

Saying that we have no rights means they own us and our bodies and our health. It means that we are at their mercy. It means that we get what is in their best interests and not our best interests. It means that we are their slaves.

Like the title of the OP, it means that if we don't comply, we lose our assets... and everything else.

perhaps I stated my position poorly, if you think I believe govt should control my access to healthcare. I was positing that once a person declares his right to something, he imposes his right to be fulfilled by others. I recall when Obama said there weren't enough "positive rights" rather than the negative "the govt shall not..." and then he recited a litany of "rights" ...food, lodging, employment, etc. I propose much of this falls under "pursuit of happiness", not specific rights. Otherwise, when do you start and stop? Who determines the minimum level of health care, wage, and housing?
a reply to: Boadicea

a reply to: wheresthebody

I've come to learn that people who believe in ghost stories are not reliable sources of information.

That gives no credence to your statement being nothing more than a ghost in a shell yourself.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's what a right is -- it's something you have intrinsic to you regardless of anything else and does not depend on other humans in order for you to have it.

We have a right to our lives. They are ours and we don't need other humans to basically live.

We have a right to the things we provide for ourselves out of our own labor (property rights).

We have the right to self-defense or to defend ourselves (this is the right to keep and bear arms).

We have the right to our religious beliefs, to speak, to assemble with others as we choose.

All of these are things we freely may do simply because we exist as human beings. We don't need other humans to attempt them. We can even try to gather in assemblies although an assembly of one is sort of pathetic.

But something like health care gets complicated. Unless you are properly trained, you can't provide your own health care to yourself, and even if you are, there are going to be limits to how far you can treat yourself. It needs other humans, and when others enter into the equation, then it's a give and take. You no longer have an absolute right to what another person provides.

It's for this same reason that marriage isn't a right ... for anyone ... either. A marriage always takes the agreement of more than one person.