In previous articles I discussed the probability that Deborah Birx, the White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator, was not a representative of the public health agencies but, rather, was appointed by the National Security Council. I now have proof that this was, indeed, the case. I have also uncovered documents that show:
- As of March 13th 2020 the National Security Council (NSC) was officially in charge of the U.S. Government’s Covid policy.
- Starting on March 18th 2020 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was officially in charge of the U.S. Government’s Covid response.
On March 11th 2020, at a Heritage Foundation Talk, Trump’s National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien when discussing what the White House and NSC were doing about the virus, confirmed that the Covid Task Force Coordinator was brought in by the NSC. He said:
We brought into the White House Debi Birx, a fantastic physician and ambassador from the State Department. We appreciate Secretary Pompeo immediately moving her over to the White House at our, well at the President’s, request. (min. 21:43-21:56)
An astonishing Government document dated March 13th 2020 entitled: “PanCAP Adapted U.S. Government COVID-19 Response Plan” (PanCAP-A) reveals that United States policy in response to SARS-CoV-2 was set not by the public health agencies designated in pandemic preparedness protocols (Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, PPD-44, BIA), but rather by the National Security Council.
This is the pandemic response organisational chart from page 9 of PanCAP-A, showing the NSC solely responsible for Covid policy:
What is the National Security Council? According to its website, the NSC “is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his or her senior advisors and cabinet officials”.
The NSC does not include as regular attendees any representatives from public health related agencies.
It does include the President’s National Security Advisor, who is “the President’s most important source of policy advice on foreign and national security policy”, according to the White House Transition Project’s document for the National Security Advisor and Staff. “In some administrations,” the document continues, “foreign and national security policy making is essentially centralised in the hands of the NSC advisor with minimal input from cabinet-level departments such as State or Defence.” Furthermore, “there is little statutory or legal constraint (beyond budgetary limits) in how the role of NSC advisor is defined or how the NSC staff is organised and operates.” (pp. 1-2)
In other words, if the NSC is in charge of Covid response, it can pretty much decide and impose anything it wants without any constraints or oversight, as long as the President agrees, or at least lets them take the lead.
But what exactly is PanCAP-A, in which the NSC appears in such a surprising Covid-response leadership role?
PanCAP-A is the closest the U.S. has to a national Covid response plan. PanCAP-A stands for “Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted”.
An exhaustive online search did not turn up the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan from 2018, which was apparently “adapted” to produce PanCAP-A. However, the existence of the original document is confirmed in various documents, including a statement on “Preparedness for COVID-19″ presented to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on April 14th 2021.
In this statement, Elizabeth Zimmerman, a former FEMA Administrator, who is sharing with the Senate Committee her findings on “The Initial Pandemic Response and Lessons Learned”, says she had trouble finding the Government’s plan for the U.S. response to COVID-19:
In researching disaster response plans to refresh my memory for this hearing, I found several detailed plans that were publicly available and saw mention of plans and directives that were not publicly available. The time spent searching for these plans and directives was frustrating for an experienced emergency manager.
Then, in reference to the plans she was able to find, or knew about but may not have actually seen, she says:
Following the Anthrax attacks in 2001, the federal Government invested a lot of money on processes and plans centred on public health response – bioterrorism and pandemics in particular. … One of the latest plans, January 2017, is the Biological Incident Annex (BIA) to the Response and Recovery Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs). The BIA is the federal organising framework for responding and recovering from a range of biological threats, including pandemics.
However, it was not publicly seen that these plans were being used during the onset of COVID-19 nor does it seem that there was a national COVID-19 response plan.
Finally, she references the 2018 PanCAP, the adapted PanCAP, and then makes another surprising statement:
Also, there was a 2018 Pandemic Crisis Action Plan (PanCAP) that was customised for COVID-19 specifically and adopted in March 2020 by HHS and FEMA; the plan identified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) with FEMA supporting for coordination. However, a mere five days after the national COVID-19 emergency was announced, FEMA became the LFA.” [boldface added]
What Zimmerman is saying here is that, in the PanCAP-A organisational chart, where the NSC is in charge of policy and the HHS is in charge of almost everything else – actually, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is in charge of everything else. FEMA replaced HHS as the Lead Federal Agency, with no warning or preparation.
This means that, in effect, starting on March 18th 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – which comprises the CDC, NIAID, NIH and other public-health-related agencies – had no official leadership role in pandemic response – not in determining policy and not in implementing policy.
This is a staggering piece of information, considering that all pandemic preparedness plans, as Zimmerman notes, placed the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) at the helm of pandemic response.
How was FEMA put in charge? According to the Stafford Act, which “constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs”, the disasters to which FEMA is empowered to respond include:
any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organisations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
Very clearly, FEMA is an agency neither designed nor intended to lead public health initiatives or the country’s response to disease outbreaks.
Yet, as Zimmerman reported, on March 18th 2020, just five days after the official date of PanCAP-A, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was removed from its lead role in pandemic response, and FEMA was (at least operationally if not policy-wise) put in charge.
In a Congressional Research Service report from February 2022, entitled “FEMA’s Role in the COVID-19 Federal Pandemic Response”, the opening paragraph states:
On March 13th 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a nationwide emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), authorising assistance administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Five days later, the President notified then-FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor that the agency would assume leadership of the federal pandemic response effort – the first known instance of FEMA serving in such a role for a public health incident.
FEMA’s January 2021 COVID-19 Initial Assessment Report emphasises how unusual this chain of events was:
The agency’s response to COVID-19 has been unprecedented. When the White House directed FEMA to lead operations, COVID-19 became the first national pandemic response that FEMA has led since the agency was established in 1979. It was also the first time in U.S. history the President has declared a nationwide emergency under Section 501b of the Stafford Act and authorised Major Disaster Declarations for all states and territories for the same incident. (p. 5)
A FEMA fact sheet from March 4th 2020 reveals that the agency was not given advanced warning of the enormous new responsibilities that would be thrust upon it just two weeks later:
At this time, FEMA is not preparing an emergency declaration in addition to the Public Health Emergency declared by HHS on January 31st 2020. (p. 2)
The table below is from a September 2021 report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security, “Lessons Learned from FEMA’s Initial Response to COVID-19”. This document stresses that: “The PanCAP-A did not address the changes that ensued when FEMA was designated the LFA. Furthermore, FEMA (and HHS) did not update the PanCAP-A or issue interim guidance addressing the changes in critical roles and responsibilities for each agency.” (p. 11)
In other words, HHS – the agency designated by statute and experience to handle public health crises – was removed, and FEMA – the agency designated by statute and experience to “help people before, during and after disasters” like earthquakes and fires – was put in charge. But the pandemic planning document was not updated to reflect that change or how that change would affect the Covid response.
Why was FEMA suddenly and unexpectedly given this lead role? I would argue that the NSC wanted to ensure that no policy or response initiative emanating from the public health departments would play any role in the Covid response. Since FEMA had no planning documents or policies regarding disease or pandemic outbreaks, there would be nothing in the way of whatever the NSC wanted to do.
So what did the NSC want to do? PanCAP-A, in which the NSC takes the lead role in setting Covid policy, does not give a detailed answer, but does clearly place NSC policy above anything else that might contradict it.
What does PanCAP-A say? On p. 1, under “Purpose”, it states:
This plan outlines the United States Government (USG) coordinated federal response activities for COVID-19 in the United States (U.S.). The President appointed the Vice President to lead the USG effort with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) serving as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) consistent with the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 44.
In other words, in accordance with a bunch of pandemic preparedness laws and directives, the HHS is the Lead Federal Agency in charge of pandemic response.
As we move through the document, however, the roles and responsibilities of the HHS become increasingly muddled and diminished.
On p. 6 under “Senior Leader Intent” it says:
The National Security Council (NSC) requested adaptation of the PanCAP to address the ongoing threat posed by COVID-19 in support of the Administration’s efforts to monitor, contain and mitigate the spread of the virus. The plan builds on objectives that prepare the USG to implement broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures…” [boldface added]
In other words, everything the Pan-CAP-A says about how the HHS is planning to address the pandemic is “adapted” in favor of “objectives” that prepare the government to implement “broader measures”.
On the next page, we get the exact same vague language under “Strategic Objectives”, which include implementing “broader community and healthcare-based mitigation measures”. A footnote tells us: “These objectives were directed by the NSC Resilience DRG PCC on February 24th 2020.” [boldface added]
What is the NSC Resilience DRG PCC? There is no explanation, appendix or addendum, nor anything in the entire PanCAP-A to answer this question – a noteworthy omission, since it apparently defines the objectives upon which the entire U.S. pandemic response is based.
Similarly, on p. 8 under “Concept of Operations”, we read:
This concept of operations aligns interagency triggers to the CDC intervals for each phase and groups key federal actions according to response phase. It also layers in the COVID-19 Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC.” [boldface added]
There is no explanation or description of what the “Containment and Mitigation Strategy developed by the NSC” is referring to.
In conclusion, everything we thought we knew about the U.S. government’s Covid response is upended in the Pandemic Crisis Action Plan – Adapted (PanCAP-A), which gave the NSC sole authority over policy, and the simultaneous Stafford Act declaration, which resulted in FEMA/DHS taking the lead role in its implementation.
This means the doctors on the White House Task Force who headed HHS departments – including Fauci, Redfield and Collins, the heads of the CDC, NIAID and NIH – had no authority over determining or implementing Covid policy and were following the lead of the NSC and the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), which is the department under which FEMA operates.
It means our response to the Covid pandemic was led by groups and agencies that are in the business of responding to wars and terrorist threats, not public health crises or disease outbreaks.
I believe that the national security authorities took control of the Covid pandemic response not just in the U.S. but in many of our allied countries (the U.K., Australia, Germany, Israel and others) because they knew SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered virus that leaked from a lab researching potential bioweapons.
Whether or not the ‘novel coronavirus’ was in fact a highly lethal pathogen, it was a military threat because it was a potential bioweapon, and therefore it required a military-style response: strict lockdowns in anticipation of Warp Speed vaccine development.
Furthermore, all of the seemingly nonsensical and unscientific policies – including mask mandates, mass testing and quarantines, using case counts to determine severity – were imposed in the service of the singular goal of fomenting fear in order to induce public acquiescence with the lockdown-until-vaccines policy.
And once the national security authorities were in charge, the entire biodefence industrial complex, consisting of national security and intelligence operatives, propaganda and psyop (psychological operations) departments, pharmaceutical companies and affiliated Government officials and NGOs assumed leadership roles.
Much research is needed to unearth more evidence in support of these hypotheses. The work continues.
Debbie Lerman is a Brownstone Fellow who has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practising artist in Philadelphia, PA. This article first appeared at the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Putin wants a ceasefire where he’s losing
‘The Russians, defeated in the naval sphere by the Ukrainians, would appear to have more to gain from a ceasefire.’
‘….since early 2024 exports and imports to and from Ukraine have been at near pre-war levels anyway. Strikes in 2023 using a well planned and executed mix of special forces, missiles and drones effectively drove the Black Sea Fleet out of Sevastopol and into a state of near hiding in the Eastern part of the sea……Freedom of Navigation had largely been restored for the Ukrainians.’
‘UK intelligence noted that on the night of March 20, the Ukrainian Defense Forces used an unmanned aerial vehicle to attack an ammunition depot at the Engels-2 strategic aviation airbase.
It is almost certain that the targeted site stored aviation munitions used in strikes against Ukraine, British intelligence reported.
The analysis suggests that the losses were significant and are likely to disrupt airstrike operations from the base in the short term.’
So the Ukrainians have also, already, effectively imposed an energy sector ceasefire by force of arms.
‘Russia dedicated staggering amounts of manpower and equipment to several major offensive efforts in Ukraine in 2024, intending to degrade Ukrainian defenses and seize the remainder of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
These Russian efforts included major operations in the Kharkiv-Luhansk Oblast area, Avdiivka, Chasiv Yar, northern Kharkiv Oblast, Toretsk, Marinka-Kurakhove, Pokrovsk, and Vuhledar-Velyka Novosilka. Russia has achieved relatively faster gains in 2024 than throughout most of the war after the initial invasion and developed a blueprint for conducting slow, tactical envelopments to achieve these advances, but Russian forces have failed to restore the operational manoeuvre necessary to achieve operationally significant gains rapidly.
Russia has thus paid an exorbitant price in manpower and equipment losses that Russia cannot sustain in the medium term for very limited gains.’
The U.S. strategy of weakening Russia has been successful.
There is a ceasefire in the Black Sea as a consequence. An energy facility ceasefire may follow.
‘…after the publication of the corresponding statement on the results of the meetings and all the work of the teams, it will be possible to transition to silence regarding energy.’
But ‘neither the world nor Ukraine trusts Russia, so Russia must prove that it is ready to end the war and not deceive the world.’
Russia will not……
‘The Kremlin later issued a statement on March 25, stating that the ceasefire in the Black Sea will take effect only after Western sanctions on Russia’s Rosselkhozbank and other financial organizations involved in supporting international food trade operations are lifted and have their connection to the SWIFT messaging system restored.’
The introduction of drones into modern warfare has indeed resulted in significant changes to military thinking – which the West has still to assimilate. It is, for example, interesting that Iran apparently considers the idea of an Air Force composed of incredibly expensive modern fighters to be outdated, preferring a huge fleet of inexpensive drones.
Drones result in massive casualties to both armoured vehicles and military personnel, which explains the slow and careful advance of Russian forces. Russia has certainly suffered significant manpower and equipment losses but so has Ukraine: the morbid count of bodies exchanged by both sides was last well in excess of 10:1, if I remember correctly.
The US strategy of weakening Russia has failed completely since Russia is now militarily and economically significantly stronger than before the SMO, despite – or one could argue – because of the sanctions from both USA and Europe.
“Neither the world nor Ukraine trusts Russia” is absolutely not true. Russia has always kept its word in agreements with Ukraine, including the recent agreement not to attack energy infrastructure (which was immediately broken by Ukraine). And the world outside the West is very happy to place its trust in economic relationships with the country.
Trump may, in the case of Russia alone, play the statesman and demand the two sides stop fighting but who are they fighting against? It is USA that started and continues this proxy war against Russia, using Ukrainians and their country as abject, disposable pawns: to what purpose? Precisely how does USA benefit from a “strategy of weakening Russia”?
As I have written before, Russia is a major source of the world’s resources, would it not be more profitable for USA to encourage good relations with Russia rather than war against the country? Or do you mean Russia should be politically weakened, so that USA can continue playing bully boy in the world’s playground?
The world outside the West is tired of USA’s hegemony. USA has convinced its obedient subordinates in Europe to also wage war against Russia at great expense – again, to whose benefit? Does anyone in Europe benefit from this war? Are you going to once again claim that Russia is about to conquer all Europe, despite being supposedly so weak?
USA is also financing Israel to continue its genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, and to continue bombing almost every neighbouring country: how sick and tired do you think the populations around the world are of USA today? The West is still subject to the propaganda pumped out by its mainstream media but that is not the case in the “Global South”. And now Europe is also experiencing just how little it is valued by USA but our glorious politicians are still stuck in their globalist world, much to our detriment.
Tuesday Morning Bagshot Rd
& Nightingale Crescent Bracknell
Credible evidence’ ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe harassed women
Or not really…..
‘I gave the Daily Mail interview on the 25th of February, Farage’s team was made aware of that interview on the 26th.
These complaints were raised to the Party Chairman the day after, on the 27th.
Their complaints were submitted to the independent parliamentary body on the 28th of January, and the 2nd of February.
Why did it take almost a month for these to be raised within Reform? The day after the Reform leadership was made aware of my mildly critical interview?’
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1904543048853237911?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Expensive…..
‘I have spoken to my team – they are horrified that they have been publicly named by Reform.
Separate to my own action, they are now in touch with a legal team. By Reform putting their names in the public domain, they have been libelled and endangered.’
Still, no doubt old ‘Crypto Cotters’ in Montenegro will foot the bill…..potentially with laundered Russian money……..
‘Cottrell is set to launch a political strategy and polling firm, Geostrategy International Unlimited, at a time when Reform is in the midst of a major fundraising push. The party hopes to raise millions of pounds to fund its rapid expansion, partly by targeting overseas donors, as opinion polls increasingly suggest it poses the biggest threat to Labour at the next general election.
As an unlimited company, Geostrategy International will never have to file financial accounts, but can still make political donations; alarming transparency campaigners concerned by Cottrell’s previous conviction and his proximity to politics.’
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/george-cottrell-nigel-farage-reform-geostrategy-international-unlimited-company-donations/
The Conservative Party should make every effort to get Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib onboard.
British politics requires individuals of character, stature, commercial experience, common sense, all of which these two have in spades.
So you think Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib are going to suddenly pretend that they didn’t really mean all their criticisms of the Conservative Party and ask their supporters to now vote Conservative?
They might do if they were asked to write the next Conservative manifesto.
Feel free to sign and share
Signed.
More in hope than expectation…!
Signed and passed on.
Signed.
Regarding the dreadful Beeb article above about Rupert Lowe, he’s put out this lengthy post yesterday, so here’s just an excerpt;
”A statement from my entire current team:
“These two women have vexatiously complained in an attempt to smear Rupert, and the entire team. And we are a team. We work together well. The only issues raised within the office have been from these two individuals, who only did so after they committed serious offences.
This whole ordeal has been difficult on all of us. We don’t want any of this – we just want to get on with our jobs, and support Rupert who has been a fantastic boss. There has never been any bullying – we will all go on the record to say so, and have done so already.”
I have heard nothing from the relevant body in Parliament, nor have my team. Of course, I will cooperate fully with that investigation, if it ever comes.
This is not bullying. There was no bullying. There never has been any bullying. Using such claims to damage me through my staff is shameful, and I will be urging Parliament to take action alongside my own legal teams.
They have put my team through hell in an attempt to smear my reputation. This is not how politics should operate. It is dark, dirty and simply not the British way of doing things.
Anyone involved in Reform should be aware that when it becomes politically convenient for them to do so – they will use any means to get to you, including innocent staff.
My team has been more effective than anyone in Westminster at uncovering waste, revealing important data and supporting my work. I am incredibly proud of what they have achieved.
Reform’s leadership have proven themselves to be deceitful cowards.”
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1904531625641140411
”Reform is not democratic, it holds its subscribers in contempt, it shuts down free speech, it doesn’t stand for this country and, as you have experienced, it engages in lawfare. Under Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf it is part of the problem, not the solution.” Ben Habib
“Four viruses already in UK could trigger new pandemic”
=
Itching for excuses to lockdown and vax up! In other words more CONTROL!
Yes, it was inevitable.
And the response is… FRO.
Too right
“New workers’ rights Bill allows officers to go into homes” – Officers enforcing Labour’s workers’ rights overhaul will have the power to enter people’s homes and seize documents and laptops while investigating potential breaches of the new laws…
…In accord with the 1984 playbook, Workers Rights means Government Wrongs.
Book-Burners of the Dis-Civil Service Unite.
Will these enforcement officers be wearing brown shirts?
“Four viruses already in UK could trigger new pandemic” – UK health chiefs have issued a stark warning about 24 deadly viruses that could trigger the next ‘Disease X’ – a term used to describe the culprit behind the next pandemic…
…No pandemic in the developed world since 1918, and there won’t be until Kommissar Miliband completes the Great Leap Backward and we all live in filth and squalor, desperate in our 15-minute ghettos for our next two-hour ration of electricity.
A box office disaster for Disney’s Snow White.
Jolly good. They really, really do need to learn that if you go woke, you go broke and to “leave those kids alone.”
“Brits see Reeves as ‘incompetent’ ahead of Spring Statement”
Rachel Reeves announces £4.8bn in welfare cuts by DWP
” Rachel Reeves set to slash benefits further to plug £1.6 BILLION BUDGET BLACK HOLE”
****************************************************************
There’s one very easy way for her to raise that money:
UK foreign aid spending on asylum seekers rises again – BBC News
“More than a quarter of all UK overseas aid was spent on ASYLUM COSTS AT HOME last year, new figures show.”
“The Foreign Office statistics reveal £4.3 BILLION of its Foreign Aid Budget went on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.”
*****************************************************************
Trump Admin Ends Taxpayer-Funded Housing For Illegal Immigrants
“If meritocracy is now ‘racist’, Britain truly is doomed”
This article in The Expose shows where DEI came from:
DEI began as a tool used by Lenin and Stalin – it ended in disaster. So too will today’s DEI – The Expose
Stalin’s Soviet DEI Program – New Discourses