reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The recent court decision allows for the reinstatement of a regulation that gives the Department of Health the power to lock up or lock down New Yorkers without any proof of illness or exposure to a communicable disease. There are no time limits or location restrictions, meaning individuals can be detained for days, weeks, or even months in any facility chosen by the department. Once in quarantine, there is no procedure outlined for how individuals can be released. The attorney general's response to a judge's question about how families can get out of a facility was that they could hire a lawyer and sue. This situation is concerning and unbelievable.

Powers exist to enforce mandatory quarantines, which may include tracking individuals, using bracelets, and deploying police to ensure compliance.

Texas' controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 4, may go into effect today if the US Supreme Court doesn't intervene. The law allows arresting migrants based on their immigration status. Texas plans to give them a choice: return home or face jail time. The state is taking a tough stance, with penalties ranging from 6 months to 20 years. If other states follow suit, the border issue could be resolved without needing a wall. Peace and love.

The speaker expresses concern about a law they found while doing a Google search. They explain that the law allows any prison or hospital to be declared a penitentiary, which worries them in the context of potential future lockdowns and mask mandates. They admit to not fully understanding the law and highlight that it requires the approval of the lieutenant governor of the province. The speaker is surprised to discover that the law was recently modified.

Charges have been filed against the state of New York, Kathy Hochul, Leticia James, and Mark Schroeder of the DMV. This action is being taken by a new DOJ to protect American citizens and angel moms. New York is accused of prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens.

The recent court decision allows for the reinstatement of a regulation that gives the Department of Health the power to lock up or lock down New Yorkers without any proof of illness or exposure to a communicable disease. There are no time limits or location restrictions, meaning individuals can be detained for days, weeks, or even months in any facility chosen by the department. Once in quarantine, there is no procedure outlined for how individuals can be released. The attorney general's response to a judge's question about how families can get out of a facility was that they could hire a lawyer and sue. This situation is concerning and unbelievable.

Ronald Reagan once said that the scariest words in English are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." In the past three years, we have experienced the truth of those words. Currently, people in Maui are facing a similar situation. Governor Green has the power to do whatever he wants under HRS 12 78-13, as long as he declares a state of emergency. This includes suspending laws, segregating people, and charging property owners for damages. The speaker is determined to investigate the fires and will bring lawsuits and journalists to find answers. They have questions about the water being shut off, the lack of sirens, restricted access to private property, and criminal charges for taking photographs. The speaker plans to visit Maui with a team to get the answers they seek.

New York is currently in court discussing quarantine camps where the Department of Health can mandate isolation or quarantine without proof of sickness. This includes diseases like the common cold. The regulation also allows them to choose where to quarantine individuals, even if it's not in their own homes or local areas. The court is expected to make a decision in the next few months. This situation is concerning and some people are comparing it to the Hunger Games. It's important to be aware and prepared.

It's April 30, and I saw that yesterday the Department of Justice is suing New Jersey over the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which restricts when law enforcement officers, including federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, can have masks on. This stood out to me because this is exactly what Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said was going to happen. Remember this clip? “The love of God and all that is good. Can you differentiate between the fact that we don't make laws that control the federal government? My God, what are we doing here? I'm not a lawyer. I was an English teacher and I comprehend that. My fifth grade middle school English students would understand it. I am coming to you not from a point of ideology because I know in the minority party, we already lost that argument. You guys are way, way out in the ether with that. I'm not even hoping to win the ideology. I'm hoping to win the logical argument to say, why do we keep passing laws that are gonna end up in court, we lose, and the taxpayer gets shafted over and over and over? You cannot vote yes for a law that controls local, county, state. Oh, oops. And federal. No. Federal's gotta come off for this to count. The only reason why you're passing it is to affect federal agents. Hello? Lights on. No one's home. I'm not an attorney. I need a freaking honorary degree after going through this for four hours yesterday saying, what? Don't a roomful of lawyers understand? Ludicrous. Oh my goodness.” What does that mean for us as taxpayers? I did see in New Jersey Spotlight News they reported that New Jersey's attorney general's office had spent over $53,000,000 in one year on outside private lawyers alone, on top of their in-house staff costs. Now for my question that came next, maybe somebody else would have a better source for this, but I just asked Rock about how much something like this would cost as a lawsuit. The initial response in motion practice is somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000 because that's mostly in-house attorneys. The discovery and hearings is $100,000 to $300,000 if it gets contentious. It says the common range for litigation is another $250,000 to $800,000. And then appeals, if New Jersey loses appeals, could range anywhere from $150,000 to $400,000. So that brings us in a range from $300,000 to $1,200,000 over this case. No matter where we stand on the issue, we should know how much it's going to cost us.

Speaker 0 describes concerns from June 2005 that Israel wasn’t preparing to attack Iran anytime soon, and that there was hurry to roll out a sequence of events as planned. The sequence described starts with Israel attacking Iran, with retaliation by either Iran or China after Iran is struck with a nuclear weapon. This leads to a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East, followed by a ceasefire. He heard this being planned in the meeting and says it is being choreographed, “like the script for a movie.” In this rollout of the scenario, as the world looks on with horror, people will demand from their governments heavy controls over travel, over communication, over people who meet, and over people who protest in the streets. They want to prevent crazy bombers in airplanes and in shopping malls. Because people will be driven into fear, they will request, demand, and insist on heavy controls from their governments, which will be justified. This is where the martial law situation in Western countries is intended to come about. The speaker emphasizes that this is just the start of a much bigger and pretty horrifying story.

This video discusses the implementation of Rule 213 in New York State, which allows the government to remove individuals from their homes and place them in quarantine for any disease, including non-contagious ones. The rule has faced legal challenges, but Governor Hochul appealed a previous decision and it has now been approved. There are concerns about the lack of age restrictions, due process, and time limits for quarantine. Additionally, individuals can be forced to take medication or vaccines, including experimental drugs, without the ability to prove they are not sick. The only remaining option for appeal is the New York State Court of Appeals. The speaker questions the constitutionality of the rule.

If you live in New York, sell your house, condo, or move out ASAP. They can take you to a concentration camp under the guise of quarantine. There's no stopping them. This is a warning to run fast and leave New York now. Like, subscribe, and follow for more updates.

According to the speaker, anyone living in Washington state should leave immediately because the state has "gone absolutely insane." The speaker claims that a recently passed medical bill allows the state government to do whatever they want to individuals during a declared medical emergency. The speaker alleges that, based on the advice of scientific experts, the state can force individuals to take mandated medical treatments. The speaker references a previous proposal to create internment camps for unvaccinated people, and suggests this could happen again. The speaker states they would not raise children or live in Washington state under these conditions.

The speaker claims to have discovered who is controlling the Democrats: Julia Spiegel, CEO of Governors Action Alliance. Spiegel's assistant, Emma Clough, allegedly sent an email regarding executive actions governors can take to protect sensitive data and prepare for potential National Guard deployments. Governors were purportedly directed to sign a pre-drafted executive order stating that no state resources should assist National Guard units deployed to the state if the governor objects. The speaker asserts this order means states are on their own and should not listen to the federal government. These orders, drafted by unelected people, allegedly instruct governors to not help Trump, despite 70% of America wanting illegals who commit crimes deported and nearly 80% opposing transitioning children. The speaker identifies Spiegel as the former legal counsel to Gavin Newsom. The speaker concludes that the Democrats don't care about the 77,000,000 people who voted for Trump, federal laws, or the fact that these issues are not supported by even the majority of some Democrat states.

I'm appealing the judge's ruling that the quarantine regulation is unconstitutional. We'll resolve this in court. There's already a law to address contagious individuals, so this is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money. This is evil; I believe it's an attempt to put Americans in quarantine camps. Stop the appeal; it's unconstitutional and you're wasting money. You're working for Hochul, and your actions are evil. I hope you lose in court. You're wasting taxpayer money and acting unconstitutionally.

The transcript presents a wide-ranging discussion surrounding alleged global control schemes, pandemic responses, and political voices that challenge mainstream narratives. Key points repeatedly asserted across speakers include: - Quarantine camps and mandatory isolation: Several speakers describe unvaccinated people being quarantined in regional facilities or camps, with police enforcing removal from homes and controlling movement. Quoted moments include claims of being told “from higher up where to take you” and references to being sent to Howard Springs, with entries about bracelets, police checkpoints, and long-term confinement in small cells. One account describes the experience as “inhumane,” like being imprisoned. - Legal authority for quarantine: Speakers contend there are laws and public health powers allowing mandatory quarantine in noncompliant populations, and note that states or authorities could isolate people against their will, sometimes with penalties for noncompliance. - FEMA camps and the “new world order” (NWO): There are persistent claims that FEMA camps exist or were planned as part of a broader agenda to detain large numbers of healthy people, with rhetoric about a “new world order” that would be permanent and tyrannical. The dialogue connects these ideas to a coordinated global power structure. - The “new world order” narrative and global elites: Multiple speakers describe a group of wealthy elites who allegedly seek to depopulate the world and establish a top-down authoritarian regime. References are made to depopulation schemes, the Georgia Guidestones, and statements by Rockefeller and Gates-adjacent figures. The idea that the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank are part of a coordinated effort to impose a new global order recurs. - Warp speed vaccines and public health policy: A central claim is that the vaccine rollout was rushed (warp speed) to enable a broader economic reset and to justify lockdowns; vaccines are described as instruments used to control populations, with assertions that they would be administered under emergency use authorization unless fully FDA-approved. The defense of vaccine mandates is rejected by some speakers, who instead celebrate Trump for opposing mandates and for providing an option to refuse vaccination without being forced into quarantine camps. - Trump’s role and political realignments: Trump is portrayed as opposing mandates, opposing the military–industrial complex, and opposing censorship. Speakers credit him with halting or slowing the NWO’s preferred timeline and with defunding or challenging global institutions seen as part of the plan. Trump’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine and other early treatment considerations is discussed as part of his resistance to a mandated, centralized approach. - Media control and “fake news”: The transcript alleges that mainstream media are a propaganda arm (“mockingbird” operations) used to push state narratives, suppress dissent, and manipulate public opinion. Trump’s confrontations with the press are framed as part of dismantling this control. - COVID-19 lockdowns, surveillance, and social control: The dialogue claims lockdowns created a controlled, surveilled society, with contact tracing, restricted movement, and the normalization of authoritarian measures. The supposed transition to a “new normal” is described as a gradual, incremental shift toward permanent restrictions and biometric tracking systems. - Public activism and awakening: Speakers claim that the pandemic and related policies awakened large portions of the population—particularly conservative, Christian, and Republican sectors—to the alleged conspiracy. They suggest that open discussion, social media, and political action have expanded, reducing fear and encouraging resistance to mandates and censorship. - References to sources and figures: The conversation cites a range of sources and personalities, including Chad Vivas (an artist whose work is presented as revealing or countering the NWO narrative), General Michael Flynn, and Donald Trump. It also mentions broader associations with organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum as part of the alleged framework of control. - Historical and hypothetical mechanisms: Several speakers compare contemporary events to past episodes (e.g., Patriot Act, surveillance state) and to imagined blueprints (e.g., “lockstep” scenarios, digital IDs, vaccine passports, biometric tattoos). They discuss potential future crises as opportunities to solidify control, while asserting that public awareness and resistance have disrupted or weakened those plans. - Closing notes and visuals: The transcript closes with references to art and media promoting the narrative, including paintings and social media posts linked to the movement, and emphasizes ongoing themes of awakening, resistance, and civic engagement against what is portrayed as an ongoing global plan.

According to the speaker, anyone living in Washington state should leave immediately because the state has gone "absolutely insane." The speaker claims that Washington state passed a medical bill, signed by the governor, that allows the state to do whatever they want to individuals during a medical emergency. The speaker recalls that Washington previously discussed building internment camps for unvaccinated people. The speaker alleges that the state can dictate what happens to every individual based on "scientific experts" during a statewide emergency declared by the governor. The speaker asserts that individuals will be forced to take whatever "scientific experts" say they have to take. The speaker states they will not have their kids in that state and will not live in that state.

Governor Hochul stated on national TV that criminal aliens should be deported after NYPD officers were assaulted and after a woman was burned alive on a subway by an illegal alien. However, when Mayor Adams wants to arrest criminal aliens and use Rikers Island, Hochul allegedly tries to undermine those efforts. According to the speaker, Hochul implemented the "Green Light Law," preventing ICE and CBP officers from accessing DMV data, hindering their ability to identify individuals during traffic stops. The speaker claims that even with a warrant, New York notifies the suspect of the investigation. The speaker is calling her out for sanctuary policies.

The speakers discuss historical and contemporary concerns about “quarantine camps.” Speaker 0 references quarantine camps for the Japanese during World War II and notes Bobby Anne Cox Flowers’s activism in New York state to stop the building of quarantine camps, asking what purpose such camps serve now while acknowledging that the state government is pursuing them. The exchange suggests that these camps were or are being maintained or created in the present day, prompting the question of why they would be needed. Speaker 1 adds that, in their experience as counsel to the pledge of resistance in the 1980s, there was a mass pledge—about 100,000 members—to take to the streets if Reagan invaded Nicaragua, exercising First Amendment rights to protest. They claim that in response, either Reagan or Bush senior directed Oliver North to draft Rex 84, which would, in the event of such an invasion, authorize the detention of people and the designation of areas of the country to be under martial law. The assertion is that these provisions were designed to enable the suspension of civil liberties and the detention of citizens, effectively indicating that facilities such as camps had been prepared or designated for this purpose. Speaker 0 confirms the existence of the camps and questions whether the federal government has invoked Rex 84 or carried it out, asking whether Congress passed it. They respond that Rex 84 was an executive order, not a congressional statute, and express uncertainty about its current status. The conversation then reiterates that the camps have been built or existed for some time, with Speaker 1 maintaining that the proposals were connected to directives from the executive branch rather than through legislation. The dialogue highlights a belief that camps already exist and that a mechanism like Rex 84 could enable rapid detention and martial-law-like conditions in the United States, tied to historical episodes of civil-liberties concerns during the 1980s. The speakers emphasize the distinction between executive action and congressional action, noting that Rex 84 was issued as an executive order and suggesting it has not been revoked according to their understanding, though they admit they have not read it and acknowledge its continued presence on a government or legal docket. The exchange centers on whether such structures remain in place and how they might be activated in the future, linking past protest history, executive directives, and the contemporary debate over quarantine camps.

This video discusses the implementation of Rule 213 in New York State, which allows the government to remove individuals from their homes and place them in quarantine for any disease, including non-contagious ones. The rule has no age restrictions and no time duration limit, meaning individuals can be taken at any time and held indefinitely. They are also forced to take any medication or vaccine, including experimental drugs, without the ability to prove they are not sick. The video expresses concern over the lack of due process and constitutional issues surrounding this rule. The speaker mentions that the rule was recently approved by the appeals court, with the possibility of one more appeal remaining.

They're taking kids from shelters if they don't have a safe place to go afterward. We confirmed this with a child protective services representative. The shelters are closing by Friday, and if families can't find safe accommodations, the children will be taken. Some shelters are still open, but many are not. We visited a shelter today that provides meals and laundry, but they must leave by noon on Friday. It's a serious situation, and it's hard to believe it's real. Families are in distress, and the implications for the children are concerning.

We've filed charges against the state of New York, Kathy Hochul, Leticia James, and Mark Schroeder of the DMV. This new Department of Justice is committed to protecting American citizens and angel moms. New York is prioritizing illegal aliens over its own citizens, but this ends now.

We are normalizing a government agency disappearing people. They are kidnapping people and transporting them to concentration camps, both domestic and foreign.