Garvey's Ghost TV 2-28-2022: Ukraine Special

 

Bitchute

Rumble

About Those 'Internet Enabled" Vehicles

 One of the scenes that stood out to me in Minority Report was when the "powers that be" decided to take over Anderton's vehicle and reroute it to what I presume was the nearest police station.  In the current non-fiction world the vast majority of new and new-ish cars are accessible remotely and can be rendered in-operable by the company, a hacker or law enforcement. Of course this has been sold to the public under the guise of "safety", "convenience" and "reducing crime". However; those of us who understand what is going on, knows that it is only a small step to "suppressing political actions we don't approve of".

Now recently in Canada we got a good view of where the state would go when it deemed it a "national emergency" but the example I'm posting here is what's in store for us in the future:

US Freedom Convoy Trucker Left Stranded After Penske Corporation Turns Off Power Remotely to His Rental Truck

"Sandberg was heading to Washington DC with the Freedom Convoy truckers.
Penske shut down his vehicle on the road and later released a statement on how the company does not support the freedom protests."

While it is certainly Penske's right to express a disagreement with the Freedom Convoy, but what business was it of theirs if Sandberg did? He rented a truck from them. As far as I know renting a vehicle doesn't mean the rental agency is endorsing (or not endorsing) said function. it is literally none of their business so long as no laws are being broken.

See, this nonsense started with financial institutions but it will inevitably branch out to everything. This is why there is a push for digital identities and digital cash. Once you are tied into the system with no means of transacting, interested parties will simply cut you off (and literally immobilize you) if you are non-compliant. Monday's GGTV episode will discuss this in more detail. 

But how long till that vehicle you leased, that appears to be traveling to some protest the lienholder doesn't agree with is immobilized? How about they decide to immobilize the vehicle prior to the event. You know, just in case. Or maybe, since you wrote something online, your vehicle is immobilized and repossessed?

If this action by Penske can stand, then all of those scenarios can stand. After all, if you don't own it, it's not yours.

mRNA Vaccine In The Liver?

There appears to be a study out of Sweden that shows that the mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine can get into liver cells, be converted to DNA. and those liver cells will express the spike protein and that could result in auto-immune disease, among other problems. Below is a video from Dr. Been on the matter:

Now onto my commentary:

1) Remember back in the day early in the vaccine release a lot of people were talking about how this could/would alter your DNA?

Well here we appear to be.

2) Remember when the CDC and the "vaccine" creators said that no way no how would the mRNA go anywhere other than where it was injected?

Well here we are. 

Recall that I posted on the matter a while back. There I pointed out that mRNA could in fact leave a cell and travel to other cells:

"So yes, mRNA can be in exosomes, be transferred to other cells and be translated there. Yes, mRNA can exist in outside the cell and "do things" without the encapsulation. How many people have had their Shot move from the deltoid to [enter body part]? "

Well now we see that one such "body part" is the liver.  Also:

"This study demonstrates for the first time that mRNA is itself utilized as an intercellular messenger molecule with nuclear functions."

"Nuclear functions" you say?

Well...surprise...

So to summarize. Here at The Ghost we discussed that mRNA can leave the injection site and end up in other organs. We showed that the mRNA could then do "nuclear" things at those locations and that the consequences of that are thus far unknown. Now we have more research that confirms the Ghost Hypothesis (based on previous mRNA studies) and adds that the mRNA is converted to DNA hence (permanently? ) changing the genome of the host or at least the genome of affected organs  with still unknown long term consequences.

And we still have government agencies and private companies mandating these shots? 

How long until the "if you took..." commercials start and multi-trillion dollar settlements start rolling in?

Oh yeah, did I mention the Furin cleavage site that has appeared in a Moderna patent?

Tax Payer Funded Drug Paraphernalia

This guy said a Catholic church is giving this stuff out. What is a church doing giving out crack pipes and heroin needles?

I thought the free crack pipe story was debunked. pic.twitter.com/gJRy6ENlcr

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) February 23, 2022

 

Joe Biden's America.

Actually, They Did

There is an an article out there about Professor Mark Woolhouse, a  "prominent lockdown advocate" who apparently now regrets backing lockdowns (prepare for a lot of this). In the piece he says the following:

"“We knew from February [2020], never mind March, that the lockdown would not solve the problem. It would simply delay it,” said Woolhouse, adding that no one in government appeared to recognize the failing of that strategy..."

"No one in government" eh?

 As we have seen on the internet, WEF (World Economic Forum) members have agents in all levels of "western" governments as well as corporate and religious entities. It has, thus far captured Canada via Trudeau

 These people did in fact recognize the fallout. They wanted the fallout. I gave up on the "know not what they do" angle a while back. It is clear to me that these are malicious actors.

"As early as April 2020, SAGE was sent information confirming that lockdowns would “cost three times more years than the disease itself,” but there was virtually no consideration of the fact that “those over 70 had at least 10,000 times the risk of dying as those under 15 years old.”"
 

I dare say that the mortality on the elderly is/was seen as a good thing. Older people tend to be far less liberal than younger people. In addition, older people tend to have resources that younger people do not have and that means that older people are more independent. If you eliminate this voting block you can increase the levels of dependency in your population and decrease the number of "conservatives" and those who remember the "good old days" when you had expectations of privacy and bodily autonomy.

This is why, IMO, Cuomo got away with killing all those nursing home residents. Did I mention that killing the older people has a financial upside for the government?

Sure there are politicians who were and are motivated by fear and a desire to "do the right thing". However; it is abundantly clear that there are agents of third parties directing policies. It's high time to stop giving these people a pass.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-21-2022: Reality Sets In

Bitchute

Rumble

 In this episode:

*Bill Gates is sad.

*Canada's protests get real

* A viewer's comment

*Corona rules meet reality

*Smash the patriarchy, eliminate women's sports.

Did Trudeau Collapse Canada's Banks?

 I started seeing rumblings of Canadian banks going offline late yesterday. This morning I saw a report from Wayne Dupree on the matter which included the following:

“Something is happening with Canada’s banks. The website problems are only a symptom of something much larger. Today a friend reported that about noon he tried to withdraw $4000 cash from his Etobicoke (Toronto) CIBC branch – to be told there is a $1000 daily limit per customer.”

and:

“Bank teller at @TD_Canada told me they ran out of cash yesterday from everyone leaving. I was one of them.”

I cannot overstate the problem this causes.

Let's say that only 1 million Canadians support the truckers and ONLY those persons are withdrawing money. Say they all take out 10 dollars. Banks would have to cough up $10 milllion. Many branches simply do not have that amount of money on hand. Particularly when you consider that money is spread out around branches.

Consider then if each person wants $100. Well that's $100 million the banks have to part with. You do realize that just because your account says you have say 10,000 in the bank, it does not mean they HAVE 10,000 at the particular branch (ask me how I know).

So $1,000 per customer and again only assuming 1 million customers, you have $1 billlion being removed from banks. 

The more zeros the bigger the problem.

Trudeau being the WEF agent communist that he is, can't see past his own biases and narrative and see that his emergency power and declaring lawful financial transactions as terrorism could cripple his country. After all you cannot compel anyone to put money in a bank. People put money in the bank because they expect it to be safe (relative to in your home which may be burglarized or burn to the ground). When the government announces that it can and will seize the financial assets of individuals, without any due process, simply because they financially supported a movement the government up and declared to be "unlawful" (again without any sort of due process), banks look worse than mattresses.

I wrote a post on "due process"  back in 2019, which seems to have been prescient, that I'll quote below:

"Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in."

It seems to be the case now that all across the so called "democratic West" the idea of due process is whatever the officials say it is. Americans and Canadians are getting a good dose of Communism right now: 

High inflation
Insecure "rights"
State seizure of assets

There may still be time to vote and protest yourselves out of this but that window is closing fast.

FDA Officer Reveals The Long Term Plans

FDA employee spills the beans:

Garvey's Ghost TV: The Ghost Unshackled

Topics:

1) No More Live On YouTube

2) COVID Vaccines don't give mucosal immunity

3) Vaccine {IN] effectiveness against infection

4) Pfizer CEO admits the jabbed are the long term tests.

5) Open Everything: Liberal \bout face on lockdowns.

6) Liberals believe they own your kids and the public property is their property.

7) New documents reveal spying on Trump while in white house.

More OSHA Decision Fallout

 As predicted, the language used in the OSHA decision has freed NYC to move forward with its own mandate.

The Supreme Court on Friday denied a request from a group of New York City public school teachers seeking to block a vaccine mandate for employees who were not given a religious exemption.

Their appeal was directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles cases from that region. She rejected an earlier challenge, filed in October, to the city’s vaccine mandate. She rejected the teachers' latest appeal with no explanation, which is the court’s usual procedure.

Sotomayor didn't have to give an explanation. The words were in the OSHA decision. Seconsly, I already said that Sotomayor should never have been allowed to be involved in such decisions given her personal conflict of interest. For those who don't recall, Sotomayor, though "vaccinated" is still deathly afraid of getting COVID. This makes it clear that she doesn't believe that said "vaccines" work. If she doesn't believe such vaccines work, she has no business mandating them on other people.

Requests for exemption have also been denied to employees if the leader of their religious organization has spoken publicly in favor of getting the vaccine. That means objections are not honored for many Catholics, the appeal said, given the pope’s endorsement of vaccinations.

Very odd to see this since prior rulings make it clear that one's objection is not subject to such scrutiny or dependency on the agreement or approval by a "religious leader".

Not surprised Sotomayor would miss that.

I'll repeat once again that this doesn't stop until a court rules on the basis of the bodily autonomy of individuals being inviolable. Upholding the text of laws such as the ADA the explicitly denies the ability of both public and private entities from inquiring about the "functions of the immune system" of any potential or current employee unless it has a direct bearing on business.

Said ruling also needs to address the known risks and lack of efficacy in terms of transmission and infection, which is The Point of vaccination. Until these things are done these mostly blue areas will take the language of the OSHA ruling and impose what they want.

California's Proposed COVID Jab Law

For those of you who watched my video on the SCOTUS OSHA decision, you'll know that I was more pessimistic than others because a part of the decision was that the states had a right to make such a mandate rather than the federal government. 

I warned that it would result in certain states, mostly blue coastal, would take the liberty to create their own mandates on their residents while most red states would not.  Lo and behold California is first up to bat.

"Assembly Bill 1993, introduced by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require employees and independent contractors to show proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 unless the employee obtains an exemption for a medical reason, disability or “sincerely held religious belief.” Those who received an exemption would be required to be regularly tested."

Since SCOTUS has already said that they consider such a move lawful, if this is passed via the legislative process it is unlikely that any legal challenge would win.

This is why I insisted that any true "win" in this matter would be on the grounds of the individual autonomy enjoyed by each citizen. Thus far, though I have read many suits that bring up this point, none of the decisions I have seen have made so much as a peep in this regard.

"The bill comes as the latest effort by legislators to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and increase vaccination rates among eligible populations. During a news conference Friday, Wicks said that while combatting the pandemic has posed a challenge over the last two years, one thing has become clear – “vaccines keep us safe.”"

This brings us to the second point I have made about these laws. The claim of the "slow the spread" needs to be gutted as an acceptable legal argument. 

"The vaccine mandate for workplaces would remain in place until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “determines that COVID-19 vaccinations are no longer necessary for the health and safety of individuals,” according to the bill’s text."

And this goes to my third argument in regards to subjecting the governor and state legislature to the whims of a un-elected bureaucrat  in DC. And let's be clear the CDC will not make any claim that "vaccination" are "no longer necessary". In fact they are currently trying to get these shots to be considered childhood immunizations which would provide total immunity to every and any "vaccine" producer.

"Senator Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, co-authored the legislation alongside Wicks and said the bill would help protect vulnerable populations against disease, particularly those who are immunocompromised and “depend on the rest of us” to get vaccinated."

Because these shots prevent transmission and infection.

Oh right. They don't.

"Thus far, the bill has won support from the Small Business Majority, who found in a recent poll that 47% of small businesses in the state already require employees to be vaccinated, and another 24% are considering instating a requirement. On Friday, the organization’s President and CEO John Arensmeyer said the bill would provide clarity for California businesses and “help them get back to normal.”"

 I don't know how representative this Small Business Majority is but that polling reflects a couple of things:

1) They think they own you.

2) They will do anything, including f***ing over their employees in order get that paper.

I doubt this will fail, given the demographics of California. And I expect some other states to follow. After all  SCOTUS gave them the green light.

Don't Say You Weren't Warned

It's CNN so you know it has a lot of Dem and Independent voters. Here at The Ghost we warned the public about what was at stake.

The Real Misinformation

 So I awoke this morning to an e-mail from YouTube that they had removed my last stream due to medical misinformation:

How your content violated the policy

YouTube doesn’t allow claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO). Learn more here.

What was the basis of that claim? Well as usual they didn't point to any time stamp. 

Of course not. 

I can surmise that the segment in question (which is now linked to the BitChute version) was about the child who received a shot and got myocarditis and at the time of the article could not swallow.  In that segment I pointed out that the doctor who prescribed the shot told the parent that the shot was "safe". I pointed out that it was known and admitted to that these shots have an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in males and that such information should have been disclosed to the parent.

Furthermore since the child already had respiratory issues, it was a bad idea to give that child a medical product that has a known respiratory side affect.

That's not medical misinformation nor does it contradict "expert consensus" (whatever that is), local health authorities or the WHO.  This is known published and public information. Also  there is no denying that the case being presented is evidence of an adverse event among many thousands of known adverse events of the same type. Indeed "local health authorities" in numerous countries have specifically barred the use of said biological products in children and adults under certain ages for the precise reasons discussed.

So this strike is unwarranted. But as I've written here before, I'm not going to complain about it. The above is only a demonstration of what's going down. For those who are still in a slumber, this should be a wake up call. Stating facts about The Precious is deemed "misinformation" by the powers that be. Clearly you are being propagandized.

Anyway, to that end, future videos will be here:

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@sondjata:f
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/U5RNSbA3nCa3/
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1309762

I actually get more views on BitChute than YouTube and since I get 0 revenue (from either place) I have no financial incentive to play the strike game. There may be clips posted there but that's about it. I strongly encourage readers and viewers to look at these alternate platforms. Yes there are some nutters on them but that is worth the absolute wealth of actual info that is available to you should you seek it out.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-9-2022: Mash Up

 Live 8PM EST

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-5-2022: So I Was Right

 Live 8PM EST

https://youtu.be/G9JhoABjccg

Democrats: The Ends Justify Any Means

 We can go back to Obama's executive order that was DACA and DAPA to see when Democrats crossed a clear line into the realm of "laws don't matter" land. Obama had previously and correctly noted that he had no power to essentially amnesty a whole group of people. Then, with Dems having realized they control enough of the institutions designed to check such power, Obama reversed course and broke the law. 

That could have a should have been an impeachable offense (not faithfully executing the laws passed by congress) but it's not like Republicans are opposed to cheap labour.   Fast forward to Trump being elected and his belated attempt to end DACA. What happened? A judge decided that no, Trump couldn't do that. 

Never mind that executive orders aren't laws and thus can be reversed at any time by any subsequent administration as easily as any administration makes one. Never mind that Obama's order was itself unlawful and should have been null and void. No, instead it was a clear example of ends justifying the means. The institutions collaborated to get an end: Cheap migrant labour who would have children who, being citizens, in their estimation would lean Democratic when they reach voting age.

So the plot is clear, Democrats would push to expand the power of the presidency while they have power and retard the power of the presidency when they don't. Having captured enough institutions, in this case the judiciary, they had the ability to get what they want regardless of whether they have the office. This is effective because not only do decisions that don't go their way only temporary in nature (they'll wait it out or take another chance) they also suffer no personal consequences.

This brings us to the latest example in Virginia. Democrats in that location are losing their minds that a Republican won the governorship there. And now we have blue counties who are essentially going all out insurrection where they have simply decided that the governor's orders mean nothing, the laws be damned because they don't like the "new" rules.

"Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has broad power to issue executive orders overturning mask mandates in schools, lawyers from the state Attorney General’s Office argued Wednesday, while lawyers for local school boards argued that the governor’s action usurps their authority."

No such argument was in the offing when Northam was governor. Why?

"In the meantime, schools and parents are left with uncertainty. School boards across the state have refused to implement an executive order from the new Republican governor that not only overturns a statewide mask mandate, but also bars local jurisdictions from imposing a mandate on students."

There is no "uncertaintly". You cannot force people to put a thing on their body nor can you force someone to put a thing IN their body. YOU can choose to put a thing on your body and YOU can choose to put a thing IN your body. You have always had that choice. It was Northam's order that was illegal. Youngkin's order restores the proper role of the state by returning the state to it's proper posture.

Again, this reveals that Democrats want power to IMPOSE. The party that crows about "right to choose" doesn't really mean it.

"At Wednesday’s hearing, Deputy Attorney General Steven Popps argued that Youngkin is entitled to issue executive orders responding to the coronavirus pandemic just as his predecessor, Democrat Ralph Northam, did when he imposed a statewide school mask mandate."

Exactly. The same power to impose is the same power to lift. This is not even a close question. I'd only add that the governor did NOT have the power to impose.

But John Cafferky, a lawyer for Alexandria Public Schools — one of seven school boards that jointly filed the lawsuit opposing Youngkin’s order — said Northam’s actions were justified because he was acting to preserve public health." [My underlines]

And here is the money shot. The "pandemic" overrules rule of law. Hence the ends justify the means. I will point the viewer to my video on how the majority of Democrats are essentially Nazis as they would gladly imprison anyone who doesn't toe the government line on The Wuhan.

Given the known demographics of Alexandria and the fact that they are currently discriminating against students and handing out suspensions I have no doubt that they would be crying "public health" for the next 3 years.

So this is just another example of "executive power good" when that executive does something Democrats like and "executive power bad" when the executive does something Democrats don't like. It also underscores just how authoritarian these people are and that they like it that way. Free people cannot live with such persons in power.

I don't know the mindset of the new Va. AG but if I were in his shoes, I would lever any civil and criminal law against the school boards AND the individuals and put any RICO statute that could apply on them as well. We can start with a count of battery for every student made to put a mask on under threat of suspension or in school discrimination. And that battery charge would go down to the individual and up to those creating the "policy". Until these people feel personal consequences for their actions they will not stop. Right now the only people feeling personal consequences are those who are acting lawfully. This needs to stop.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-2-2022: The Black Cry Babies

 Live 8PM EST.