NO MEDICAL MANDATES – Speech by Robert F. Kennedy at the Health Freedom Now ...

00.00.0000 | www.kla.tv/20444

The Kennedy Family has been involved in a 60 Year “Fistfight” with the CIA as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lays it out in his bestselling Family biography “American Values: Lessons I learned from my Family”. In his recent speech on the “Health Freedom Now” Rally he explained the great similarity of the CIA’s dirty techniques of population control and power takeover and what is being done to democracy and freedom today in the Covid Pandemic response. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be a thorn in the side of Big Tech and the ruling powers in the USA. His Instagram Account was removed without advanced notice in February 2021, but with the claim that he was spreading vaccine misinformation. Currently his facebook channel also is in danger of being banned. This is the reason why Kla.TV gives its viewers a chance to hear everything Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to say about this and the current Covid science on the “Health Freedom Now” Rally in New York City on the 16th of October 2021. Kla.TV is publishing his full speech. Listen to it yourself and spread it far and wide. Sharing is easy by using the buttons below this video. [Mary Holland:] Thank you. All right and so now it is my great honor to tell you all that Bobby is back! We are so thrilled to hand this over to, Bobby Kennedy, who's just come off finishing an amazing book that I hope he will tell you about. It's going to be out November 16th, please pre-order it, give it to your friends and let's use it to the max. [Robert F. Kennedy jr.:] Thank you, Mary Holland. Thank you, Rita Palma and John Kilmore and all the other organizers who put together this event and thank all of you for coming to this event. I wanna, I just wanna start out by talking about one factual issue, because the government and the pharmaceutical industry are telling us that the vaccines are safe and effective. I want to tell you what Pfizer said to FDA in its own licensing materials three weeks ago when it ended his six-month study. These are the pre-clinical trials that are supposed to last till December 2023, for three more years, but they allowed them to cut them off after six months and the reason clearly that they allowed them to cut them off after six months was the vaccine was waning so quick. It weighed, it weighed like 10 times over the six-month period and if they had waited any longer and get that study open, they would not be able to justify a license for it. Here's what the license said, it says that it's the key metric that all of you should understand is the metric of all-cause mortality. What that means is you look at the 22 000 people who got the vaccine, you look at the 22 000 people who got the placebo and you see how many of them died during the course the six-month courses at trial. Now what they found was that in the vaccine group one person of the 22 000 died from Covid in the placebo group, two people died from Covid. So that's why Pfizer can say at the vaccine is a hundred percent effective because two is a hundred percent more than one. Another way to look at that would be to say you have to give 22 000 of these vaccines to save one life. What happens when you give 22 000 vaccines, well we know the answer to that because it's in Pfizer's data. In the vaccine group over that six-month period 20 people died. In the Pfizer in the placebo group 14 people died. What that means is if you take the vaccine according to Pfizer's own data, and if I'm wrong please sue me Pfizer, what it means is if you took the vaccine, it's 48 more likely to die over the next six months. How did the people die? Well it saved one life from Covid as I said but there were five people in the vaccine group who died heart attacks and only one in the placebo group. So you're less likely, you're one in 22 000 less likely to die from Covid and you're four times more likely to die from a heart attack. That's what all-cause mortality is. But when FDA licensed the drug, it didn't look at all-cause mortality, it only looked: are fewer people dying from Covid. Now what somebody could tell you is: well we don't know that those people who died of heart attacks were actually killed by the vaccine. The problem with that argument is under the federal law any death that occurs during a clinical trial must be credited to the intervention until proven otherwise. So those five heart attacks are caused by the vaccine until Pfizer proves they're not. And what that means is the vaccine is not safe and effective and it is 48 more likely to kill you than somebody who didn't take the vaccine. And how can you compel Americans to take that? Particularly the people who are dying of mitocarditis are people who are healthy, they're athletes and their little children. And in what, in what universe is it okay to say: we are going to make these children die in order that older people can live, even if it were true. The average age of death in this country is 76 years old, that's the average life expectancy. The average death of Covid is the same as the average life expectancy. We have no business giving this to little children. It is unethical. I'm going to tell you two little bits of news that I read on the car ride over here. One is at the ACLU announced today and it is giving his annual constitutional champion award to Anthony Fauci. It is what you call irony. Number two: 17 attorney generals today democratic party, my party, wrote a letter to Mark Zuckerberg demanding that he remove me from Facebook. They already removed me from Instagram. And on Facebook, I've been very careful on Facebook but I don't give any excuses to remote Facebook. I only post pictures of rainbows and unicorns and kitty cats and this kind of stuff, I don't say anything about vaccines because I did say things about vaccines on Instagram, they were all true, I didn't give any misinformation if you can tell me one piece of misinformation that I put on Instagram, I'd like to hear about it. You know Facebook says, appeals process and when trump got ejected from Facebook they let him do the appeals process. The appeals route is actually a really good process because the judges in that process are law professors from all over the world very prestigious all professors. I'm a law professor and I believe, I believe that if I got an appeal process there is no chance that I would lose it because Facebook can't show a single piece of misinformation that I put out there. When they say misinformation it's a euphemism for any statement that departs from official government pronouncements or claims by the pharmaceutical companies. It has nothing to do whether it's accurate or inaccurate. We have on our advisory board Nobel Laureate, the man who discovered the HIV-virus in 1993, we have the former head of the national toxicity program at HHS, number one expert in the world in toxicity, we have 312 PHD scientists and physicians and if I was spouting misinformation they would not stay on our site. The reason they stay there is because every statement that we make is cited to a government database or to a peer-reviewed publication. They cannot point to a single inaccurate statement that we make now that doesn't mean that I will never post something inaccurate. We post millions and millions of facts. We try to make sure we have a very rigorous fact-checking team but at some point something's going to get through. I'm going to tell you this, if something gets through that's not accurate, we will find out right away and we will correct it. Because when we're wrong, we were wrong and that's what you're supposed to do now. I want to ask you: do you think Tony Fauci is a constitutional champion? [No!] Neither do I. Here's what's happened to the Constitution over the last year. First of all the first amendment is gone. And what does that mean? You have democrats out there who are saying: we got to get rid of the first amendment we got to get rid of freedom of speech. We can't let people talk if they're criticized pharmaceutical companies, if they're going to criticize government policies, that's why we have the first amendment so that Americans can criticize their government when they disagree with it. What does it mean when you no longer believe in the first amendment? It means, here's the only thing it can mean: you no longer believe in democracy, you no longer believe that the people can be trusted, you no longer believe that facts are going to triumph the best facts in the marketplace of ideas, in the in the furnace in the cauldron of debate, which is the whole theory of democracy, that the best policies ultimately are going to rise through that cauldron of debate and what the democratic party, my party, is now saying is: we can no longer trust the people. We have to protect them from dangerous thoughts, we have to protect them from dangerous bits of information and we have to lie to them because it's the only way we can continue to have peace. Well you may purchase peace like, that I don't think so. I can tell you what that you have abandoned democracy, that you have lost faith in it, you can no longer call yourself the democratic party, if you no longer believe in democracy. Now James Madison said: the reason that we put the first amendment first and put free speech in it is because all the other rights depend on that one. If a government can silence debate it can get rid of, it can get away with any kind of atrocity than it was and what's the next thing they did, they got rid of freedom of religion, which is also in the first amendment, they closed the churches in this country for a year with no public hearing, no ability for anybody to complain, no science behind it, they just said all the churches closed down and Tony Fauci kept the liquor stores open as essential businesses. And I don't mind they kept the liquor stores open, but there is nothing that I've been able to find in the Constitution about liquor stores and there's a lot about churches. And by the way, there is no pandemic exception to the United States Constitution or the bill of rights and it's not because the framers did not know about pandemics. There was a smallpox pandemic during the revolutionary war, that brought the armies of New England to complete halt for three months. There was the next summer a malaria epidemic in the armies of Virginia that ravaged the army of Virginia, so Washington and all the framers knew about pandemics, but they decided not to put a pandemic exception into the United States constitution. What else did they do in terms of championing the constitution? Well, they got rid of property rights. They closed every business in this country for a year. The Constitution says: you can close businesses, you have to have due process which is a public hearing and you have to pay just compensation. Did they do any of those things? No, they didn't! They just closed them down, a million businesses, sixty percent of black owned businesses. Many of them with three generations of hard work on capital construction are closed forever. Bankrupt and what other, what else do we have in the United States Constitution? Oh yeah, jury trials, they got rid of jury trials the seventh amendment. If you get injured by somebody who says a big corporation, who says that was a counter-measure, that was a vaccine that was ramped as of the error, you can assume, that no matter how negligent that company is, no matter how reckless that company was, no matter how toxic the ingredient, no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that company there is no depositions, there's no discoveries, there's no journal. Here's what the seventh amendment says: no American shall be deprived of the right of a trial before his peers in any matter exceeding 25 dollars in value. That's it. That's a whole amendment. How can they just say we're not going to allow jury trials, when somebody cripples you from life? Well that's another thing that they did. What about warrantless searches and seizures? We're guaranteed against that, this whole tracking and tracing and show me your ID and show me your medical records before you can get into this restaurant, bar, that violates your eyes, there is nothing left. What about due process of law? Here's what that due process amendment says, it says: if the government wants to pass the law, listen if congress wants to pass it all. All they have to do is vote on it, if you don't like it, your remedy is you vote against that congressman next time around but if a regulatory agency wants to pass a law, that's different. Because when we invented the regulatory agencies a lot of people said: wait a minute these guys could stay in that office for 50 years, you can't get rid of them they're like barnacles and there's no accountability, you can't vote them out of office, they're not subject to democracy, they're going to become these little tyrants, if we allow them to get away. So the courts and the legislature said: okay here's what we're going to do, we're going to make sure that when a regulatory agency passes a rule that it is subject to democracy so you have to go through certain steps. Here's what you need to do: you need to file a notice in the newspaper of record and all the local newspapers of people who are going to be affected by their regulation, that's number one. You have to publish the exact words of the rule and then you have to give people a 60-day comment period and the government has to respond to every comment. So if you have a, let's say, a outdoor kayaking company and the guy who owns that company says: I can't put masks on my customers because it's going to drown them, he needs to be heard and he needs to be responded to and if you can't accommodate, you have to try to accommodate to narrow the application the law to what is absolutely necessary to achieve its objective. Then you have a environmental impact statement, a regulatory impact statement, a economic impact statement, where the government agency explains all the science that it used to base that rule on. Does that ever happen with masking, with lockdowns or social distancing? No, there was no science told us, nobody ever made a citation, nobody ever said: here's why we think masking's gonna work. At one minute in March Tony Fauci says: masks don’t work. In June he says strap them on, in July strap another one on. Oh, with no it's just a dictat of a technocrat, no rule and then the last part of rulemaking is there's a public hearing, where Tony Fauci has to bring in all of his experts and all of his reports and all of his science and we bring in ours and we get to cross-examine his experts. They didn't want to do that because they couldn't find an expert who was brave enough to face that kind of cross-examination. So they just said: do what you're told and keep your mouth shut and you know virtually everybody in this country if they believe that the government was treating them fairly and had told them the reason to put on the mask, to do the social distancing, to take the vaccine and show them the proof, going through a process, virtually everybody would comply because that's our duty in a democracy. They didn't do any of those things, they just ordered us to behave, to be obedient to comply. Now I'm going to say one last thing, it's a long thing so. Oh, everybody in this crowd has a feeling of discomfort about what is happening to them, about what happened to our country? And how did all these countries around the globe, suddenly in one lockstep move pivot and end democracy, have this coup d’état against democracy and impose authoritarian controls all at once all over the globe. How did that happen? If you read my book, you will find that out. But I'm going to give you a little spoiler. How many of you know what event 201 is? The event 201 was a tabletop pandemic simulation that Bill Gates put on with the CIA. April Haines, the former deputy director of the CIA was part of that at the Pierre Hotel in October of 2019. She is now the head of the national security agency running the pandemic, so. Oh there was also social media titans there and there was Bloomberg News and the media was there and they had all of the major power centers of our country that were participating. This is in October, now you remember and in September, September 12th we now know that is probably when the virus escaped Wuhan. We know that from the intelligence reports from the satellite views of the hospital parking lots, from internet chatter, from people purchasing PCR tests and we'll honor all these other and people from the wan lab going to the hospital with COVID-like symptoms. So the current estimate is that it began circulating in September. So this is October, a month later COVID is already circulating and you have these people, led by Bill Gates, who are practicing a drill for what they're going to do when a pandemic comes. What pandemic are they preparing for? It's a corona virus pandemic - coincidentally - and it's a coronavirus pandemic that escaped from a laboratory. And what are they practicing? Are they practicing how to get vitamin D to the american population? [No.] Are they practicing how do we get people to exercise get them outside, let their bodies strong, build their immune systems? Are they saying we should we need to get people to lose weight and stop smoking and how are we going to do that? Are they drilling how are we going to protect the Constitution during a pandemic? No, they're not. What they're practicing is how do we use a pandemic as an excuse to clamp down totalitarian controls and eliminate the bill of rights. And how do we militarize medicine and monetize it. How do we make money on a pandemic. Oh, that's what they're practicing. And the fourth simulation, what is that about? It is how do we get the social media and the mainstream media to stop people from talking when they start saying this could be a lab-generated virus. I'm not, I'm making this up. This is what they were practicing and any of you can go on the internet look up the fourth seminar of agenda 21 which is the largest and the longest and the last one and that's all they're talking about. How do we shut people up? They have that George Gale who is there, he's the head of the chinese CDC, he's the one who was involved in the gain of function with Tony Fauci and Barrack and Dayzak and they're all and he himself is saying: I'm very worried that people are going to start saying this was lab-generated. How do we stop them from talking about that? How do we affect Bobby Kennedy from Instagram when he says we should investigate this? They didn't actually say, that's what they were thinking. So in writing my book I looked at that and then I started looking at the history of Fauchi and Gates and what I found was, that was not the only one of those pandemic simulations. I found 14 of them, involving hundreds of thousands of people. In Canada, in Europe and the United States, every one of them planned by the intelligence, the US and british intelligence agencies. All most of them involving Gates in the Johns Hopkins Center. Well, all of them, some of them, involving their top secret hundreds of thousands of frontline workers and hospital systems and police intelligence agencies, the FBI and the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies, hundreds of thousands of people, practicing these simulations and every single one of them, they are not talking about how to heal people. They're talking about how do we use this as a pretense to create a coup d’état against a western democracy. Oh I, I've spent a lot of time researching the CIA, because my own family had a 60-year fist fight with at an agency. I've written books about it. I have their manuals, one of the manuals I had to get almost impossible, it cost 1200 $. These manuals talk about how you go into indigenous countries and impose centralized control by a foreign government by the CIA and what they do is for Malaya. They go in, they destroy the local economy, they destroy social relationships, they destroy family relationships, they erode institutions, they pump up fear, they scapegoat, they use all the alchemies of totalitarianism and when they've sown total chaos, then they come in with a centralized control and they take over. So the CIA for many, many years was doing research on how do you control individual behavior and how do you control mass behavior. How do you impose mass controls on a population and that program was called an MK-Ultra, an operational artichoke. And they had 150 universities in this country, who the agency was pumping money into to develop different methodologies for social control, isolation, sensory deprivation, physical torture, psychoactive drugs, propaganda and one of the most famous of these experiments was one that was done in the mid 60s at Yale university, the home of the CIA. And it was done by a man and Stanley Milgram and what he did is he recruited people from all walks of life in America, construction workers, students, college professors, blacks, whites, all different kinds of Americans, the entire cross section of our country. He put the individuals at a table and in that room there was a man with a white lab coat who told him he was a doctor and they would tell they stood the subject to twist the dial which would administer an electric shock to a man strapped to a chair in the adjoining room. They could not see the person they were electrocuting but they could hear his screams, his bleeding, his begging, his agony and the people who were turning the dials up did not want to do it but the doctor would tell them do it anyway. And 67 percent of them ultimately turned it to 450 volts where it was written on the dial potentially lethal. It was 67 percent, a guy dress a white lab coat calling himself doctor, this is what Milgram said that authority figures can trump values and conscience in 67 percent of the people. 67 percent of the people. Some of them were crying, they were begging the doctor not to make them do it, they were violating their conscience, they were violating their essential values because somebody in authority told them to do it they did it anyhow. And don't you feel like we're all in a big Milgram experiment today? And there's a guy in a white lab coat who calls himself a doctor even though he's never treated a single covet patient and he's telling Americans to do things that violate their conscience and violate all their values and they're doing it because somebody, an authority figure is telling them to do it. And 67 percent of them are doing it, but 33 percent refused to do it and you heard that 33 percent. You are the ones who are standing up for your values, you are the ones that are going to save the country for yourselves, for your children and for the 67 percent, when they finally come to their senses. I am, we're representing a big group of nurses on the west coast and I was talking to one of them this weekend and she said we're all about 600 of us are about to lose our jobs and I said well you really need to think about that and she said we don't need to think about it we're going to die on this hill. We've already decided. And I'm going to tell you something that is going to be misinterpreted when people put in the papers etc. but I'm going to tell you anyway: there's a lot worse things than dying. And there was a generation of Americans in 1776, who felt that way. And they felt that it was worse to lose, there it would be better to be dead than to lose your freedoms and because of them we have a United States Constitution and we have a bill of rights. They gave it to us by laying down their lives for our country, their property, their livelihoods by sacrificing everything so that we could enjoy the bill of rights, that 67 percent has given away for free over the last year and we need to go get it back. Thank you all very much if I will see you on the barricades.

from dag.

Sources/Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ob6_Jy69Sw
https://truthcomestolight.com/thousands-protest-vaccine-mandates-call-for-health-freedom-at-new-york-city-rally-featuring-robert-f-kennedy-jr/
https://thejewishvoice.com/2021/09/thousands-gather-at-freedom-rally-in-new-york-city-to-oppose-vaccine-passport/