If You Look Around And See That The US Is Starting To Look Like The Eastern European Socialist Hells Of The 1970s - Here's Why...
Check up on your state legislature website for legislation to enact these illicit and unconstitutional power grabs by corrupted governments, usually passed by stealthy means, without notice in media..
“If you were to ask 20 of your smartest friends, co-workers, and family members what they know about the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), it’s unlikely any of them would have much, if anything, to say. Most Americans have never heard of the ULC, even though the organization has become one of the country’s most influential groups.
If you were to call your state lawmakers, however, you’d likely get an entirely different reaction. Virtually every legislator in America is familiar with the ULC, and most — Democrats and Republicans alike — have a positive opinion of the group. That’s largely because the ULC has a long history of working closely with legislators to develop and revise the Uniform Commercial Code, a complex state law passed in all 50 states.
The purpose of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is to ensure that commercial and financial activities are regulated as similarly as possible throughout the United States. Without the UCC, conducting business in multiple states would be extremely difficult and costly.
Because the Uniform Commercial Code is so complicated, legislators have trouble understanding and altering it. They depend on the Uniform Law Commission, which is mostly composed of lawyers and academics, as well as the ULC’s partner organizations, to help them. As a result, the ULC has become so important to state lawmakers that it receives much of its funding from state appropriations. That means you, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for the ULC.
For much of the 20th century, the ULC played an important, nonpartisan, uncontroversial role in helping states adopt uniform laws. But in recent decades, the group has become increasingly more radical. It now regularly pushes policymakers to adopt legislation that undermines the rights of individuals and enhances the power of governments, large corporations, and financial institutions.
Take, for example, the disturbing model bill titled the Public-Health Emergency Authority Act (PHEAA). The ULC drafted and formally approved PHEAA in 2023, and it’s now asking legislators to pass it into law.
In the event that a “public health emergency” breaks out in the future, the PHEAA would effectively turn governors across the country into all-powerful quasi-dictators.
Under the ULC’s public health emergency bill, governors would have the right to seize control of virtually every part of their citizens’ lives. They could, for instance, regulate the “zoning, operation, commandeering, management, or use of buildings, shelters, facilities, parks, outdoor space, or other physical space, and the management of activities in those places.”
They would also have the authority to single-handedly regulate public-health-related “testing, isolation, quarantine, movement, gathering, evacuation, or relocation of individuals.”
Governors could further kill, relocate, and manage plants and animals in the state, as well as suspend “a provision of any statute, order, rule, or regulation if strict compliance would hinder efforts to respond to the public-health emergency or pose undue hardship or risk.”
The ULC would also grant governors the right to conduct unlimited “surveillance, monitoring, or assessment of the public-health emergency or any of its effects.”
And although the ULC’s bill suggests establishing a time limit on the initial duration of a declared “public health emergency,” its bill would also allow governors to renew an emergency with minimal oversight from legislatures, and to do so for an infinite number of times.
Emergency power isn’t the only troubling part of the ULC’s agenda.
In the 1990s, the ULC convinced lawmakers in every state to adopt a new draft of the Uniform Commercial Code. The revised UCC significantly reduced individuals’ property rights by changing rules governing the ownership and management of securities.
Stocks, bonds, exchange-traded funds, and other common investments are classified as securities, including many of the investments held in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs.
Under the ULC’s amendments passed in the 1990s, most individuals and pensions no longer directly own their investments. Instead, ownership belongs to their bankers, brokers, or, in the vast majority of cases, the custodians holding securities on behalf of brokers or banks.
Under this model, brokers and banks were able to take their clients’ investments, pool them together, and then take advantage of those investments by including them in their financial arrangements. This has empowered Wall Street and financial institutions to profit substantially from their clients’ wealth, all without most people having any idea how their investments are being used.
The ULC also convinced lawmakers to change the Uniform Commercial Code so — if a broker, such as Fidelity or Merrill Lynch, were to go bankrupt — brokers and financial institutions would typically be the first in line to collect payment on their debts. Individual investors and pensions were effectively pushed to the back of the line, putting them in grave danger of sustaining significant losses in a future financial crash.
The ULC not only wrote and promoted the model legislation that led to these changes in the 1990s, it has also been actively fighting recent attempts by some state lawmakers to give priority back to individual investors suffering from the bankruptcy of a broker. It seems the ULC is only interested in helping Wall Street and too-big-to-fail banks, not individuals and pension funds.
Additionally, the ULC has been the primary supporter of making alterations to state legal codes so that it would be easier for financial institutions to use a traceable, programmable, controllable central bank digital currency, should the federal government ever create one.
As all of these examples clearly illustrate, the ULC is not, as its advocates often claim, a non-ideological organization focused exclusively on convincing states to pass uncontroversial legislation about commercial law. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
The ULC is one of the most influential advocates of freedom-killing legislation in America today, and anyone who says otherwise has either failed to study the ULC carefully or, even more disturbingly, supports its outrageous policy proposals.” https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/11/meet-the-group-threatening-americans-freedom-youve-probably-never-heard-of/
These efforts at subverting and denying essential liberties in favor of a corporatist state are nothing new, and it’s all about a power grab by governments and the corporations which own them:
“The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act: An Assault on Civil Liberties in the Name of Homeland Security
by Sue Blevins
Heritage Lecture #748
June 10, 2002 |
A number of people have asked me what health freedom could possibly have to do with homeland security. Let me assure you that there is a major connection. It's called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. Those who have heard of it are far outnumbered by those who have not. And, as proposed, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act will impact our individual freedoms and civil liberties for years to come.
A HIDDEN AGENDA
In response to the tragedy of September 11, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced its support for model legislation. The goal was to provide federal funds to states to encourage the enactment of legislation to prevent and detect bioterrorist attacks. Drafted for the Centers for Disease Control by academicians from the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, the so-called Model State Emergency Health Powers Act was released on October 23, 2001.
It is noteworthy that a key attorney who assisted in drafting this proposal was also very involved in Hillary Clinton's health care task force nearly a decade ago. It is also significant that two articles related to this proposal were published or prepared well before the Trade Center attacks. In January 1999, in a Columbia Law Review article, a plan was presented for changing public health laws. A similar plan appeared in an American Journal of Public Health article, published coincidentally in September 2001, but accepted for publication in March 2001.
It appears that this model legislation--formulated long before the terrorism of last fall--actually represents the promotion and expansion of a long-standing agenda. As these proposals come before the individual states, our elected officials should be aware of this history and examine carefully all proposals submitted to them.
Although this model legislation was recommended as a means to help states protect citizens against bioterrorist attacks and deal with national defense issues, the draft bill goes much, much further. It calls for giving state public health officials broad, new police powers--all in the name of controlling epidemics of infectious diseases during public health emergencies.
Furthermore, with an equally broad stroke, this model legislation defines "infectious disease" as "a disease caused by a living organism." As drafted, the October 23, 2001, proposal stresses that "an infectious disease may or may not be transmissible from person to person, animal to person or insect to person." Thus, any disease caused by a living organism could be classified as an infectious disease creating or invoking a public health emergency.
It is these broad definitions--painted with an overly broad brush in equally broad language--that our state officials and our state-based think tanks must be alerted to, aware of, and involved in examining as similar bills advance on state legislative agendas.
Key to all of this is what may or may not be considered or defined as a "public health emergency."
A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Under this legislative proposal, once a public health emergency is declared, governors and state public health authorities would be granted greatly expanded police powers. While a few other actions are enumerated, I want to bring to your attention 10 main powers conveyed into the hands of only a very few individuals by this model plan.
Under the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, upon the declaration of a "public health emergency," governors and public health officials would be empowered to:
Force individuals suspected of harboring an "infectious disease" to undergo medical examinations.
Track and share an individual's personal health information, including genetic information.
Force persons to be vaccinated, treated, or quarantined for infectious diseases.
Mandate that all health care providers report all cases of persons who harbor any illness or health condition that may be caused by an epidemic or an infectious agent and might pose a "substantial risk" to a "significant number of people or cause a long-term disability." (Note: Neither "substantial risk" nor "significant number" are defined in the draft.)
Force pharmacists to report any unusual or any increased prescription rates that may be caused by epidemic diseases.
Preempt existing state laws, rules and regulations, including those relating to privacy, medical licensure, and--this is key--property rights.
Control public and private property during a public health emergency, including pharmaceutical manufacturing plants, nursing homes, other health care facilities, and communications devices.
Mobilize all or any part of the "organized militia into service to the state to help enforce the state's orders."
Ration firearms, explosives, food, fuel and alcoholic beverages, among other commodities.
Impose fines and penalties to enforce their orders.
As you can imagine, citizens across the country--at least the ones who were informed about it--were quite concerned about this model legislation. The American Legislative Exchange Council and other groups immediately began tracking the issue and reporting on how such legislation could affect citizens' individual freedoms and property rights. As Time magazine recently reported, gun activists were some of the strongest and most influential opponents.
Consequently, a revised model bill was released on December 21, 2001. Both models--which the states are using in formulating legislation--are on line at www.publichealthlaw.net. I encourage you to read them.
In an attempt to make the October draft appear less authoritarian, several words were changed in the December draft. For example, the revised language calls for "protecting" persons rather than "controlling" persons during a public health emergency. It says that the state would "manage" private property rather than "control" private property during a public health emergency. And it removes any direct mention of rationing firearms or alcoholic beverages but still retains the right to ration "other commodities," which clearly could be interpreted to include guns and alcoholic beverages--or many other items for that matter.
The revised model bill also contained two major changes. For those who may have been concerned initially about the new police powers granted, the revised text actually broadens them to include local governments as well as state officials. Furthermore, the revised language incorporates powers over medical licensing laws. Thus, health care facilities, doctors, and other providers will have to abide by added licensure requirements during a public health emergency to maintain or guarantee their right to practice medicine or run a health care business.
A DENIAL OF CONSCIENCE
How this medical licensure clause would affect doctors' freedom of conscience--and medical freedom for us all--must be scrutinized.
The state of Maryland's draft bill--one of the worst in the country, in my opinion--includes this language: "If the health care practitioner fails to comply with an order, regulation or directive, the secretary may request the appropriate licensing board to take disciplinary action against the health care practitioner." It goes on to authorize the imposition of fines of up to $10,000 for each offense.
What does this mean in practicality?
First, it means that a doctor, who might be opposed to abortion, would be forced by law during a public health emergency to administer a vaccine derived from fetal tissue. This legislation lays the groundwork for such a provision, and it clearly and absolutely infringes on doctors' and other health care providers' freedom of conscience.
Second, it means each of us as individuals is affected. Patients would not be able to refuse these treatments. Whether state exemptions--those granted for religious or philosophical reasons regarding selected vaccines or types of treatments--would remain in effect or not remains unclear. This legislation fails to clarify that such exemptions will not be overridden.
RECENT STATE ACTIVITY
According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, 24 states have actually introduced versions of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. On their Web site--www.alec.org--a color-coded map, showing the status of this legislation in all 50 states, is maintained. According to their data, three states--New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah--have passed legislation. Four states--Idaho, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming--have either inactivated or defeated this legislation.1
Clearly this legislation is being considered by a significant number of states across the country. It is our duty in the public policy community to help educate, inform, and alert both our state officials and state-based think tank leaders to the challenge to our freedoms and liberties this extreme model legislation will have for years to come.
I truly hope our national leaders will reconsider the coercive provisions of this Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. We can and must find a better way to defend citizens against bioterrorism while protecting our precious individual freedoms--the very freedoms that this current war on terror is being waged to defend.
As a gentleman reminded me recently, "You can't defend freedom by eliminating it." I believe--and believe it should be evident to you--that this model plan, if enacted throughout the states, would indeed do just that: eliminate our freedom to choose our medical care and health treatment and potentially eliminate a broader range of our basic civil liberties.
Sue Blevins is President of the Institute for Health Freedom. Her remarks were delivered at the 25th Annual Resource Bank Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” https://web.archive.org/web/20041023030752/http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL748.cfm
Wow man. I think I’m pretty smart on civics and the govt but had no idea.
Over time, bureaucratic organizations become corrupted by the interests of the details.