All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2023 - Stew Peters Show
46:45
Uncensored: James Roguski - International Lawyers Rise Up Against the WHO!!!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
That's because the globalists are hell-bent on destroying it.
And for the most part, they've done a pretty good job.
But the fact of the matter is that people around the world are waking up.
We now have a group of international lawyers coming out in an official press release against the WHO and their insane plans for global enslavement.
We also have the European Citizens Initiative coming together against the WHO So the point is that people are rising up.
And the other point is that they're not giving up.
And that to me is very, very encouraging.
We've got James Rogoski joining us today to talk about all of that and some more good news coming out of there, as well as a reality check, which you'll always get on this broadcast.
But first, Heaven's Harvest.
If you haven't ordered, if you're in the United States and you haven't prepared right now, please head to heavensharvest.com.
They've got very, very high quality emergency survival food.
And these people are amazing.
Let me tell you, It's because of them and partners like them that independent media is able to continue getting the truth out to you because I guarantee you, you'll never hear anything about this in the legacy media and that's exactly what it is, legacy, because no one pays attention to it anymore.
So we're very, very grateful for the businesses that support us.
Very high quality food, heirloom seeds, water filtration and storage and gardening and survival resources to get you started on becoming self-sufficient.
So here's James now.
We're joined now by James Roguski.
James, can I just say, you've been screaming about this issue for more than two years now and finally the world is starting to pay attention and we've now got this action of these international lawyers coming together.
I recently had a lawyer friend of mine say, You know, you've been screaming about this for a really long time, and when I first looked into it, I thought, oh no, she's got a point here.
And that's not in any way, you know, patting ourselves on the back, but this is a testament of your tenacity, your hard work, that is now starting to flower and bloom.
So, well done, James.
That's just amazing.
But we have a number of things to talk about, so thank you for joining us.
Well, you know, I appreciate that.
I'll take that as a compliment.
I actually don't think I've been screaming.
I've been, you know, Paul Revere, you know, the dangers are coming.
But I'm going to start screaming because, you know, people seem to not take action until it's just about almost too late.
And, you know, quite frankly, people, it was too late when I started talking about this.
So let's get a move along.
There have been some good things, you know.
Lawyers coming to the same conclusion that we have had on various members of Parliament and Congress and so forth and so on.
So there's quite a number of things that are good for a very simple reason.
If the WHO and all of the powers that associate themselves around the WHO were to have had their way Nobody would be saying a word about any of this because ideally they would prefer it just to be nice and quiet and they get to do whatever they want in their own little smoke-filled rooms.
Maybe they're not smoke-filled anymore.
People don't smoke that much.
But they would love to have this all be done in secret.
And there are still aspects of the secrecy, but I'll let you lead with some of the many topics that are beneficial.
Yeah, sure.
Well, first and foremost, I mean, I just brought this up while you were speaking, the international lawyers versus the WHO. So this is a group of lawyers now coming together and saying, yes, we have reached this conclusion.
Everything basically that you've been saying for two years, James, that I and many others have been talking about, is coming out into, I guess, almost the mainstream at this point.
So talk to us about what's going on with these lawyers, please, if you will.
Well, you know, I have one bit of sadness about that.
I published that article, you know, International Lawyers versus the WHO, and then one of my friends said, oh, you should have called it the International Lawyers versus the International Liars, okay?
And so I'm like, oh, darn, I wish I'd thought of that.
But, you know, There's an aspect of this that still remains in the background that I talked about.
And quite frankly, this is something that nobody talks about.
There's a difference between authority and power.
There's a difference between authority and law.
And so authority comes from your creator, your God, to you as a human being, as an individual, and maybe you give up some of that authority to a government in the form of a constitution, and you go, okay, you know, the federal government can do various things, but that's it.
And so somewhere along the line, back in 1948 for the United States, Against their authority, in exceeding their authority, our Congress accepted the WHO's constitution.
And so did Australia, and so did every other member nation.
And you just go, well, wait a minute, I don't remember giving my authority to my government, wherever you may be, to pass on authority for healthcare over to the WHO. And so what's going on with the WHO, at the very least with the amendments to the international health regulations, most people, you know, raise your hand everybody, how many of you have read The WHO Constitution.
Most people are unaware.
So, you know, once you start getting lawyers involved, they're supposed to pay attention to, well, does the government even have the authority to be crafting regulations?
Well, if you read Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, there's only five authorities that they have been given that they should be able to craft regulations in regards to.
And four of them, they have failed miserably.
You know, things like the safety and purity of biological products.
The WHO has fallen down horribly on that.
Naming conventions, things like, how do you define something like COVID-19?
Well, my God, that's so vague in many ways.
How do you define death certificates and things like that?
So I encourage lawyers around the world To look at not the law, not the regulation, not all these details that everybody gets lost in, go back to fundamental, you know, lawyerly basics and go, does the WHO even have The authority vested in their constitution, which I think was accepted illegitimately, to even be writing regulations about the things they want to write regulations about.
It's fundamental, people.
You question authority, which is different than the law.
You can't write laws if you don't have the authority on the topic at hand.
That's a very good point.
People get that all mixed up with power.
If you've got a gun, if you have a lot of people, if you have a lot of money, a lot of influence, you have power, that doesn't mean you have authority.
And so getting lawyers to start thinking on a much deeper level is a hard task, but it's a step in a good direction.
Well, let's talk about this press release.
So are you saying that their thinking around this as a whole is sort of in error because they're looking at it as though the WHO has authority?
Is that what you mean?
Well, you know, in addition to all of that, a lot of people don't realize how all of this stuff really got started.
This isn't actually a WHO issue.
It's really a trade dispute.
If you think back to 2020, 2021, When the jabs came out and they were going to save everybody, the relatively poorer nations felt like they were not being treated equitably, and that means money, right?
Many of the larger groups, the European Union, the United States, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, they bought up ten times what they needed.
They signed contracts, and so a lot of the smaller nations Turnabout being interesting how it all works out actually in the end.
They were upset back at the end of 2021.
That's when this all started.
That's when they started the process of these negotiations saying, well, this is not a fair trade practice.
The wealthy nations are hoarding all of these wonderful poisonous jabs and poisonous chemicals.
They're lucky.
But they haven't changed their mindset.
And so what we are really dealing with here, that it's interesting how the obvious has just escaped everybody.
They're arguing essentially a trade dispute about intellectual property and pathogen access and benefits sharing, right?
Well, when South Africa and Botswana Identified what they said was Omicron and they shared the genetic sequences that were purported to be some new variant.
Well, who got to make money off of that?
Not South Africa and Botswana.
It went to Pfizer and Moderna.
They come out with new jobs.
And so what we're dealing with here is not anything really to do with health.
It's a trade dispute.
The fundamental purpose, the guiding principle behind all of this very clear front and center is equity.
Well, equity means money.
And so, you know, my argument is this doesn't even belong in the WHO. They're not talking about the best way to care for a person who has a respiratory ailment.
They don't even care about any of the things that any natural, normal human being would be thinking about.
People were harmed and they were not allowed to get things that they thought would help them, or the lockdowns and the social issues that changed their life dramatically and caused all kinds of mental stress and emotional pain and all that.
No, no, no.
They're not talking about any of that sort of stuff.
They're talking about a logistics network.
They're talking about intellectual property.
They're talking about 20% of all of the pandemic response products going to the WHO. And the whole kit and caboodle really reads to me like a venture capital prospectus to funnel tens of billions of dollars into the pharmaceutical hospital emergency industrial complex.
If you do a search in the document which It goes by many, many names, but the latest one is the Bureau's Text of the WHO Convention Agreement Plus.
Most everybody calls it the Pandemic Treaty, but that confuses everybody, because it's a framework convention.
And what that means is they want to get donations from the parties, the nations, the corporations.
It literally says this in Article 19.
They want to get money from the corporations that manufacture pandemic response products and all of the UN organizations and all of the foundations like Bill and Moon, Gates and Gavi and all that sort of thing.
Well, those same people Would be either voting members or observers in the conference of the parties.
And so what that means is that they want to set up a whole new bureaucracy where the people who put the money in get to call the shots.
And what they want to do, if you do a search of the document, they have over 15 places where they mentioned how they want to build a WHO laboratory network.
What's a laboratory network for other than to find new genomic sequences that they can use to fearmonger everybody?
And so what they're really doing is not actually improving people's health.
They're improving.
If you read the documents very carefully, they talk about prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery of healthcare systems.
Right.
Not of people.
Miss a couple of words, it changes the whole dynamic.
This is an investment game to set up a cartel with a cabal of insiders that clearly have conflicts of interest to be able to create protocols off into the future reminiscent of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
When you're being asked to agree to a framework convention where you just agree to agree to let somebody else handle the details later.
Oh, man, are you asking for trouble?
Well, the Paris Agreement is a perfect example of that.
It literally just says we're going to reduce the Earth's temperature by X amount, and it has absolutely no guidelines as to how that will happen.
And now every single climate emergency or climate action that's taken may reference back to, oh, as per our agreement, you know, the Paris Agreement.
Hang on.
The Paris Agreement doesn't say anything.
And so, you know, it talks about women's inequality because of the climate crisis and things like that.
I mean, it's the most bizarre document.
But it's purposely bizarre because that means that they can just...
Create any sort of lofty regulations and whatever they please based on the Paris Agreement.
And that's what you're saying.
Although I think both the amendments to the IHR and the CA +, both of these paths that they're taking and some of the wording that they've used are far more damning than what's in the Paris Agreement.
This really allows for essentially torturing people We're talking about, you know, ignoring human rights.
We're talking about Demanding which medications, medications people have to take to prevent pandemics.
It's really, really sinister.
But I want to go back to the lawyers, James.
I've got it up on the screen right now.
Press release of the Lawyers for Enlightenment in Cologne on July the 3rd.
So it says that the main result of the meeting was that the lawyers reject the plan to draft a pandemic treaty of the World Health Organization and to amend the health regulations, IHR.
In particular, they call on the states of Europe not to participate in the plans to give WHO far-reaching rights in the future to declare future pandemics, as well as to establish regulations to combat such pandemics, which the member states would then have to comply with mandatorily and without any further possibility of national intervention which the member states would then have to comply with mandatorily and So this is, I mean, this is a huge deal, James.
We've got lawyers now saying, well, hang on, as lawyers, we're looking at this and we're saying absolutely not.
So do we know whether this has made a difference thus far, James?
Well, it's made a difference in the fact that step number one is raising awareness.
And so let me take that language and put it into English because it's going to actually tie into something very important that people should be aware of in Australia and elsewhere.
What is going on is that people in general just simply are unaware that the system by which these changes are made is not what people think it is.
Most people think, oh, delegates are going to go, they're going to negotiate a document, and then it's going to come back, and then we're going to get a chance to talk about it.
Well, I got news for you.
That's how maybe it should be.
I haven't been screaming, but I have been saying for a year, that's just not how it works.
I say screaming.
I do the screaming, you do the reasonable talking.
Okay.
And so all you have to do is realize that last year, amendments were adopted to the International Health Regulations.
In Australia, I got a hold of some paperwork, I'll be publishing it shortly, that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has still not published their final report about the amendments that were adopted last year.
And so in Australia, all of the members of Parliament who have responded to constituents, they're, oh, don't worry, don't worry, don't worry, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, you know, will be brought into play on that.
Well, you know, they have been alerted about it primarily because people in Australia put forth a petition in May and June and got over 55,000 signatures, which drove the petition committee to forward it.
And if you think about what they're doing, it's been almost 14 months that nobody has said a word.
It took a citizen's petition to get them to pay attention.
They only have until December 1st.
We finally got an actual concrete date in the document.
It says that the deadline for every nation on the planet To reject the amendments that were adopted last year is December 1st, 2023.
If you don't do it by then, it's too late.
Now, that's just one aspect of it because all of the amendments that maybe people know a little bit about, these 300-plus amendments that have all kinds of egregious changes, You're not going to get an opportunity to hear that debated in Parliament.
That's not how it works.
If the unelected delegates that go to Geneva decide to adopt it next May, You'll have only 10 months to get your prime minister or foreign minister or maybe an ambassador to just write a letter to the WHO and reject it.
Well, you know, they keep saying that, oh, the committee will look over it and parliament will...
Well, hold on just a moment.
You're only going to have 10 months next time because they want to shorten.
Yes, and the problem is, James, the problem is also once the WHO has that power, they're not letting it go.
So I would not put it past them to trigger a biological problem.
Warfare threat against the population in order to maintain that power.
You know, potentially even throughout that 10 months have some sort of a fake public health emergency as they did with Monkeypox when they declared a public health emergency of international concern when it was not.
And Tedros went ahead and did that despite the counsel that he had around him saying, no, it's not really that.
There's nothing putting it...
Sorry.
There's nothing stopping them.
In fact, I wouldn't put it past them to either release a biological threat or create a fake one to make sure that within that 10 months, everyone's distracted and the WHO maintains their power.
By that point, it'll be too late.
And we already know that the country's leaders all over the world are, for the most part, very compromised.
So I highly doubt they're going to write a nice little letter saying, oh, now we don't want to be part of this.
That'll get you shot, okay?
And so the core of what we've been allowed to see in the proposed amendments to the regulations and in the WHOCA plus slash pandemic treaty is really all about investing in the infrastructure that would facilitate that fear-mongering.
Go check everything for some fake genetic sequence that you can say is a new variant or a new pathogen and then scare everybody.
Let me bring up a little bit more good news, but it always has a twist to make it bad.
In the last month or so, in the United States, our Office of Global Affairs has had two listening sessions.
And we, the people, have been able to also send in written comment.
So quite a number of people have spoken directly to our delegates.
We spoke to Colin McIff, who is the delegate who is I was the Vice Chair of the Working Group for the Amendments.
We spoke directly to Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto, who is in charge of what everybody calls the Pandemic Treaty.
It's really a framework convention.
And so I found it to be quite enlightening, quite entertaining.
Not what they had to say, but what the people had to say.
I was very proud of everybody.
I felt that they all We had it clear.
They had done their homework.
The people can understand what is going on here.
And so we did, you know, I will give our government officials, our delegates credit.
They did set up an opportunity where we could publicly express our opinions, okay?
Am I under any illusion that they heard a word that we had to say?
No, they're going to be listening to whomever it is they listen to.
But the point is, I'm happy that people realize that individual people have an obligation to speak up.
Yes.
Because if we had just been silent, you know, they had a bunch of people come in who were, you know, for this, that or the other organization.
And those are the only people who speak, you know, in support.
Of what they're doing.
So I have a couple articles on my subset, speaking truth to power.
And, you know, I encourage everyone, that's one nation out of 193.
Where is the public comment period in Australia and New Zealand and, you know, Singapore and the United Kingdom and so forth and so on?
The United Kingdom is getting very close to having 100,000 signatures which would require a debate on the amendments.
Friends of mine and many other people in Europe had a meeting about a week ago for a totally different something that a lot of people don't really understand what it is.
In the European Union, you can have what's called a citizens initiative.
It's required that you get seven people from seven different countries.
And ultimately, you have to have a million signatures.
But I have every faith that we're going to be able to get it.
But quite a number of members of the members of the European Parliament, MEPs, spoke up at URSS.
You know, Christine Anderson spoke up and she wore sort of like a gold And many people were like, who was that golden woman?
Oh my goodness, what did she have to say?
And she just laid down the gauntlet.
She's just like, hey, WHO, you're the ones who want this battle.
We are going to bring it to you.
We will not allow this to go forward.
And so I'm happy and I think it's wonderful that people are speaking up.
But here's the issue.
This is the thing that is really starting to get me not happy.
And you don't want me to be not happy because it takes a lot to get me that way.
Number one is secrecy.
In regards to the amendments, we did get access to the originally submitted amendments in mid-December.
And there has not been a single revision Not a new version, not a new draft, nothing.
And so there have been many, many, many, many meetings.
There's going to be meetings upcoming in July.
There's going to be meetings next week for the purported treaty and meetings after that for the amendments.
And they're going to have a joint meeting for the two of them.
They will not let us see the current state of the documents that they have negotiated.
We don't know if things have been added or subtracted or changed or what.
We are not being allowed to see what's going on, and that is unacceptable.
Now, with the WHO CA +, They showed us a working draft.
They showed us a conceptual zero draft.
They showed us a zero draft.
And then they said to all of the nations, submit more text, whatever it is your nation wants to submit, way back at the beginning of April.
And they promised to have a compilation document on May 22nd.
Well, they're keeping it secret.
There is a thing out there in the world, people talk about it, and I'm not happy because I'm not allowed yet to see it.
No one has revealed it.
No one has leaked it.
The government hasn't published it.
The WHO hasn't published it.
It's referred to as the Bureau's compilation text.
It's been rumored to be somewhere between 190 and 208 pages, and here's why they don't want to let it out.
What happened is they keep saying, meaning the WHO keeps saying, well this is a member nation-led process.
Well, the member nation submitted 200 or so pages of documentation But only 43 pages showed up in the Bureau's text.
What happened to all of the rest?
So a lot of nations have very diplomatically, you know, in their own little sly language, have voiced how unhappy they are that their requests, their submissions, their proposals did not make it into the draft that everyone has been allowed to see publicly.
So I refer to the Bureau's text as the bureaucracy's text.
This is no longer This is no longer a member nation-led process.
The WHO has clearly intervened.
I wouldn't have a pause, but yeah.
You know, who knew, who saw that coming, right?
But the point is, many of the nations are very unhappy that they submitted texts and it is not in the document that is being negotiated.
And I know why the compilation text is being hidden, because it tells you which nation Well,
I have an idea here, James.
I have an idea.
If people are reaching out to their members of parliament or senators or members of Congress or however it works in whichever country, And they're saying, oh, leave it to the Joint Standing Committee, you know, we're going to figure out what comes out out of that.
Okay, you're blind or dumb as a representative, so what I'm going to demand now from you is that we want to demand a release of each step of the draft.
We want to, if you're saying we're going to wait for the Joint Standing Committee, I as a person that pays your wages am now asking you to demand A public release of every single submission from every country, every single draft that is out there that is not yet made public.
I want to see all of it.
You're telling me to wait for the Joint Standing Committee?
Okay.
In the meantime, I want to see all of it.
Perhaps that's a way because that's something that members of parliament wouldn't be able to push back on.
You know, I'll wait until the experts come to an agreement.
No, no.
I want to know now what's being negotiated.
Is that feasible, James?
Oh, it's certainly feasible whether or not they can comprehend simple words and simple requests like that.
One of the core principles in the document is transparency.
And the hypocrisy is not surprising.
But still, astonishing.
Yes.
That they can talk about how transparent they are and how they want this process to be led by the member nations, and then they just go and do the opposite.
It's not surprising, but it is still, with people who think Good thoughts about the world that we want to live in.
When you come face to face with what is just clearly lies and evil and hypocrisy beyond compare, at some point, good people have to say, no, this is enough.
You're lying.
You're hiding the information from us, and we will not stand for it any longer.
Well, here's the thing, James.
I'm very, very encouraged right now.
I am very encouraged because I'm seeing the people saying, you know, they're really fed up with the lies.
For example, let me just give you one example.
In Australia, members of local councils in their local government areas have been going to council meetings, number one, to stop drag queen story time, which is sexualizing your children and Pedophilia in public places.
They don't want that in their local government area.
And as ratepayers, they have a right to put a stop to pedophilia in their local government areas.
So no, we don't want grown men dressing as women, reading to our children in a library.
That's wrong.
Okay?
So they've successfully stopped, I think, over 10 of these groomer sessions in their areas.
That's great.
So another thing that they've been doing is going to their local councils and demanding answers on the smart city plans and plans to turn the cities into smart cities.
And, you know, it's even made the legacy media now where Coffs Harbour, for example, the city of Coffs Harbour is saying, oh, we just don't know where this is coming from.
Why are people angry about smart cities?
And, you know, I said in a recent broadcast, I said they're not all in on it.
That one might have been, but not everyone in the council is part of the club.
And so, you know, some of them just require education.
So what some really great people from New Zealand are doing is they've built relationships with some of the council staff and they're actually going in and giving scheduled a presentation to give to those people to educate them on smart cities.
The other thing that's happened is in Australia, because people have been so successful in challenging these councils, they're now just shutting them down to the public claiming that there's a threat to their safety which there absolutely is not.
And so what's happened now is that someone's saying, well, no, I'm going to sue you.
So there's now legal action, James, where someone's saying, no, we're actually taking you to court.
You can't shut public meetings down.
There's no threat to your safety.
So what I'm seeing is people are saying, no, this...
We are not compromising on this.
What we are asking of you is completely reasonable.
We're going to keep doing it because we know the truth and we're going to do it until you answer to us because we pay your wages in order to answer to us.
And I think that that attitude is growing worldwide.
From your article, I'm going to bring it up right now.
This is the European Union Citizens Initiative.
This is the international lawyers versus the who.
There are people saying enough is enough.
We're going to do what we can because we know the truth.
And so that tenacity that I'm seeing in people is really, really encouraging to me, James.
So I'm not...
I'm in no way, shape or form do I have rose-coloured glasses on right now.
The situation is extremely dire.
But the people understand it and they're doing something about it.
And that to me, you know, whether we have enough action yet or not is...
I don't think we do, but that to me is encouraging.
Would you agree?
Absolutely.
I've been saying that I've been an optimist all along, and we don't need everybody.
No movement ever is 100% complete and total agreement.
You need a small percentage of dedicated people.
I think we're well over 20 different nations that are represented on exitthewho.org.
Okay, so ExitTheWho.org is for the entire world.
Every time I look at my phone, there's somebody else reaching out to me from somewhere else.
And ExitTheWho.com is just the United States.
And so we've already got 50 members of Congress who seem to be able to, you know, figure out what the heck is going on and do the right thing and sign on as co-sponsors for legislation.
So Maria, you're absolutely right.
There is great cause for optimism.
But there's a difference between optimism where you go, oh, you know, we won some little battle, and so, okay, great, we won.
No, these people are relentless.
And ultimately, ultimately, it will be fought on a local level Not in violence in any way, shape or form, but in terms of pushing back against public servants who seem to have forgotten who it is they serve.
Maybe they think they serve lobbyists or donors or young leaders from some group in Geneva.
No, they are supposed to and they are obligated to serve the people.
And if the people, and I'll take away the if, The people are waking up to the fact that they are actually the boss.
You are the authority.
Authority comes to you from your Creator, from your God, and if you choose to give authority through a constitution to a form of government, whether it's federal or state or whatever it might be, read that darn document and read How limited the authority is that was given.
And when someone says, oh, you have to do so because I'm, you know, in government, you go, show me in the Constitution where way back when the people gave you the authority.
There was a meeting in Aspen, Colorado, about two weeks ago, where they interviewed a number of secretaries of the Health and Human Services Department in the United States.
They interviewed Javier Becerra and a couple of former secretaries of Health and Human Services.
First words out of Javier Becerra's mouth in the interview was, "Oh, well, you know, I just wish everybody would realize that the federal government does not have the authority to control health.
We give a lot of money and we have a lot of influence, but we don't have authority." So that's shirking responsibility, but it's actually a true statement.
It's actually true.
But that doesn't mean that they don't work overtime to confuse people and bribe people and use money and funding.
So that's why we're dealing with all of these things in the schools.
Many local school districts, the parents have found out that the reasons why, and I'll just go with a currently less explosive issue, They found out more than a year ago that the reason for the masks and the jabs were not for health reasons for the health of their children.
It was that the government had said, if you do these things, we'll give you millions and millions of billions of dollars.
And when the parents found out that there was no health-based justification that the school groups, you know, the city councils and the school boards were abusing their children because that meant they would get more money.
And then you look at what they're doing with that money.
You know, you can never take that fire out of those mama bear's belly, no matter what you do.
When they know that they were lied to and that the purpose was financial and monetary.
There's no way past that.
And I'm happy to hear that you're seeing that elsewhere in the world.
I'm very, very optimistic.
We just have to keep going.
I agree.
So really, I guess what I've taken out of this, James, is if the...
Because I'm very relentless in my approach to things.
I won't stop until I get what I want.
And I really want to pass that on to everyone that's in this battle.
Don't stop until you get what you want.
It's very simple.
When you're dealing with a public servant, remember that the person that you're speaking with Has their meal on their table tonight because your taxes have paid for it.
They are actually there.
Their job is to respond to you and represent you.
Not what they want, not those above them.
Their job is to represent you and respond to you.
They're like your personal customer service representative that needs to respond to you.
If they're not doing that, there's no problem with reminding them of that respectfully.
Right?
So when you're going to them and saying, okay, we want transparency.
Okay, no, no, no, we're waiting for the Joint Standing Committee.
Okay, I want from you to go and obtain the drafts, go and obtain everything that's still, all of the documents that should have been published by now but have not been.
This is what I want as the person that you are representing.
Please go and do that for me.
Because they are your public servant, right?
That is the relationship here.
So I really think, James, that if people start doing that en masse and put them to work, put the public servants to work for the public, not for stupid initiatives that, you know, that they get distracted with themselves.
No, they are working for you.
I really think that if people do that in a respectful way, Like we've seen with the councils and form those relationships, attend the meetings, educate them, put the public servant to work for you.
They may be stupid.
Many of them are, unfortunately, but their job is to work for you.
And I think that that's the main takeaway here.
While the lawyers are forming their movements, while the European Citizens Initiative is happening, every single person needs to keep going, James.
And even though it sometimes feels like it's not moving forward, believe me, the seeds that are being planted will eventually sprout and you will be proud that you took part in it.
And James, I have to say for all your effort, thank you for playing a huge role in that.
Well, thank you for giving me a platform to share it with all of the folks who listen to you and follow the lead that you've taken.
If each person gets back in touch with their own authority, You get your authority from your creator and when you realize that you have servants in the public domain and you put forth the effort to do your job because with that authority comes a responsibility.
If you never say to your public servants exactly what it is you want them to do, how are they going to know?
They're not obligated to be psychic, but if you put it in writing and you mail it to them, they are obligated to respond.
Yes.
And so take the action that you're obligated to take and demand that they Fulfill the responsibilities that they're obligated to do in that wonderful position and that wonderful job with all those wonderful benefits and pay that they receive from your hard-earned tax dollars.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
James, thank you so much for your time.
We really appreciate it.
Thank you, Mary.
Well, that is all very, very encouraging and it's important for us to remember that we are strong.
We are very, very powerful.
It's only if we stop believing that we have that power that the globalists can actually take control.
And as that awareness raises and spreads, the more chance we'll have of defeating this evil, evil plan.
But in the meantime, we always have to prepare for the worst.
I interviewed Peter Hobson from Gold Bullion Australia Group this week, and we spoke about the fact that BRICS has just announced that it's very likely that their currency will be gold-backed.
So come July, sorry, the meeting on the 22nd to the 24th of August, when they have this meeting, this seminar that they're holding, they may very well announce that this is official.
Peter says, and very honestly, and we appreciate his honesty, that he doesn't think that they'll come out officially with this because it's essentially a declaration of war.
But the chances of gold skyrocketing in that time, or after that time, are certainly there.
And that definitely will be the case once they officially state it.
So if you're in Australia, head to Gold Bullion Australia Group before August.
You know, I recommend considering this really at any time because the financial system is so unstable.
But definitely before August, consider investing in Bullion.
Please think about it.
If you're in Australia, head to Survival Supplies Australia for all of your survival needs, including emergency survival food, off-grid living, first aid medical supplies, first aid kits, also very important to have camping, hiking gear, absolutely everything.
Anywhere in the world, These satellite phones from the satellite phone store are going to work and they are military grade phones encrypted by the satellite phone store.
So head to sat123.com forward slash Maria and prepare yourself with alternative communication solutions.
also if you're in australia stockman steaks are holding a fantastic promotion this month for z media's audience if you spend 200 you receive one kilogram free of beef mince if you spend 300 you receive two kilograms free and spend 500 you receive three kilograms of free beef mince so we encourage everyone to take advantage of that offer this month in july thank you so much for tuning in today Don't give up.
Don't forget that these people work for you.
And no matter what grandiose plans they have, if the people push back...
Enough.
They will not be able to get through with this.
That is the reality, no matter what they try to convince you of.
God bless you all.
I'll see you later on this week, right here on Uncensored.
Share this everywhere.
▲
Export Selection