Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 421
May 11, 2023
Supreme Court Declares Imran Khan’s Arrest Unlawful
Key takeaways from today’s hearing:
SC declares Imran’s arrest “unlawful”, directs him to appear before IHC at 11am tomorrow; written order to be released shortlyCJP Bandial says PTI chief will be kept at the Islamabad Police Lines Guest House but would not be considered a prisonerImran asks supporters to remain peaceful, says unaware of unrestJustice Bandial allows 10 people to stay with Imran over the nightThe Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday termed PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case “unlawful” and directed him to appear before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) tomorrow (Friday).
“The manner of execution of the arrest warrant issued by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) dated 01.05.2023 in the Al-Qadir Trust case within the premises of the Islamabad High Court against the petitioner is invalid and unlawful,” the ruling said.
Imran was whisked away from the IHC premises by paramilitary forces on Tuesday, leading to violent protests across the country. The PTI chief had immediately approached the high court for release but it had declared his arrest legal.
The former premier’s lawyer, Barrister Ali Zafar, then petitioned the SC on his behalf for Imran’s release.
Earlier today, a three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah took up Imran’s petition and had directed NAB to present him before court.Subsequently, the PTI chief was presented in court amid tight security a little after 5:45pm. A Dawn.com correspondent present at the scene said that the former prime minister was taken inside the SC via the judges’ gate.
In the written verdict, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the top court said that the execution of NAB’s arrest warrant violated the petitioner’s right of access to justice and “the sanctity and safety of the court as he had already surrendered to the court for seeking judicial relief against the action taken by NAB in the Al-Qadir Trust case”.
In this regard, it highlighted that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 4, 9, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution had been infringed.
“The petitioner is directed to be produced before the Islamabad High Court tomorrow i.e. 12.05.2023 at 11am for hearing of his Writ Petition filed to challenge the NAB action against him in the Al-Qadir Trust case.
“The NAB authorities and the ICT Police shall ensure foolproof security to the petitioner until his production in the Islamabad High Court in this regard,” the court order stated.
The apex court also directed the registrar of the IHC to place the matter before IHC CJ Justice Aamer Farooq for the constitution of a bench to hear the case.
It went on to say that to secure Imran’s security until his appearance at the IHC tomorrow, he “shall remain in the premises where he is presently retained in police custody, namely, the Police Lines Guest House, H-11, Islamabad (Police Guest House)”.
[…]
Imran asks supporters to remain peacefulDuring the hearing today, Imran said that no harm should be caused to the country and asked his supporters to remain peaceful. “We only want elections in the country,” he maintained.
The PTI chief stated that he was told by his lawyers a day earlier that “there is anarchy in the country” and asserted: “We don’t want anarchy in the country.”
[…]
The hearing[…].
Subsequently, the court ruled that Imran’s arrest was “illegal” and directed the PTI chief to approach the IHC. “You will have to accept the high court’s decision,” the top judge said, reiterating that Imran had to appear before IHC tomorrow (Friday).
Justice Mazhar said that the SC would direct the high court to fix a hearing for 11am tomorrow, while the CJP stated that Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan would be the guarantor for security.
[…]
“We don’t want you to be harmed,” Justice Bandial said. “Imran Khan will stay at the guest house as a guest [and] his protection would be the government’s responsibility,” he added.
“The case will resume from where the matters became complicated,” the top judge remarked, adding that a written order will be issued soon.
At the outset of the hearing — which commenced a little after 2pm — one of Imran’s counsels, Hamid Khan, came to the rostrum and informed the apex court that his client had approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for pre-arrest bail.
[…]
The CJP asked Imran’s counsel about the number of Rangers personnel who had carried out the arrest of the former premier. Imran’s lawyer responded that “100 rangers personnel entered court premises” in order to arrest the PTI chief.
“What dignity remains of the court if 90 people entered its premises? How can any individual be arrested from court premises?” he asked.
“In the past, action has been taken against lawyers for vandalism inside the court,” he observed. “If an individual has surrendered to the court, then what does arresting them mean?”
He further said that NAB had committed “contempt of court”. “They should have taken permission from the court’s registrar before the arrest. Court staffers were also subjected to abuse,” he added.
CJP Bandial emphasised that courts should be accessible to everyone for relief and that individuals should feel safe to approach the courts.
Imran’s lawyer then demanded that his client be released from NAB custody, stating that the arrest was made without an investigation officer present.
The chief justice noted that the court was currently examining the manner in which the arrest was conducted and whether contempt had taken place.
[…]
“No one can be arrested from the Supreme Court, a high court or an accountability court,” the CJP said.
Imran’s lawyer Hamid said that if that the party would not have approached the SC if the PTI chief had been arrested from outside his home or outside the court.
Here, Justice Mazhar asked if Imran had responded to the NAB notice, to which the lawyer replied in the affirmative.
“According to the law, an arrest cannot be made when an inquiry is still being carried out,” Hamid said.
[…]
But Justice Minallah said that NAB had “not learnt its lessons”. He observed that NAB had been accused of many things, including “political engineering”. “Had NAB taken permission from the registrar?” he asked, adding that a letter had been written to the interior ministry for the warrant’s execution.
[…]
Via https://www.dawn.com/news/1752306/sc-orders-immediate-release-of-imran-after-terming-arrest-unlawful
Gazprom Continues to Supply Gas to Europe via Ukraine
By ECD1/TCO1
Quite curious that a Russian company is able to continue supplying Europe through the country they are fighting and despite the alleged sanctions.
Weird how things work sometimes.
Gazprom continues to supply gas to Europe through Ukraine via the Soudja station. Yesterday it delivered 37 million cubic meters of gas, a Gazprom press release has stated.
“Gazprom transports Russian gas through Ukraine in the amount confirmed by the Ukrainian side through the Soudja station, i.e. 37 million cubic meters by April 29. The request for pumping through Sokhranovka was rejected,” he said.
The previous day’s transit volume was 42.4 million cubic meters.
Gas transportation through Ukraine remains the only route to Western and Central Europe. Pumping through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline has stopped completely. Turkish Stream and Blue Stream are destined for Turkey and countries in southern and southeastern Europe.
Russia announced on Friday that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which runs under the Baltic Sea to connect Russia with Germany and other Western European countries, would not restart on Saturday as planned due to an oil leak detected during maintenance operations over the past few days.
Usually the German group Siemens Energy carries out the maintenance of the Nord Stream 1 turbines, but this time it was not involved in the work carried out by Gazprom.
Covid Jabs the Big Picture
Health Advisors and Recovery Team (HART)
Part 1
[…]
The regulators failed us in numerous ways as set out in The Perseus Report. Examples include:
Companies were allowed to skip testing for gene and cancer toxicity and even studies showing how much spike is produced, for how long and where in the body it reaches. Pfizer said these studies were “not considered necessary.” Even while their trial info sheet said “Due to the urgent need for a vaccine against Covid-19, with agreement from the MHRA, some of the tests usually required for a newly manufactured vaccine.have been modified, in order to make the vaccine available more quickly for assessment.”They did not demand these studies were done after rushed emergency approvals either. No human studies were carried out to see what happened to the synthetic modified RNA – no-one knows how long it takes to be removed from the body. There is evidence that in some it lasts between at least 28 days and 4 months in the blood.The regulators let the pharma companies get away with terminating the placebo arm of the study after ~3 months by offering them all the novel products. This was despite us knowing that narcolepsy caused by Pandemrix vaccine took on average of 8 months to be diagnosed.The lipid nanoparticles that deliver the modified synthetic mRNA are themselves toxic. This mechanism of delivery was shelved in 2016 for gene therapy to treat inherited genetic conditions because of the multiple doses needed. It was claimed it could still be used in vaccine technology because that only requires one dose…The viral vector used for delivering the AstraZeneca DNA message was reported in 2007 to cause platelet activation, which can lead to blood clots.There were many more points made including failings in investigating deaths, failing to listen to patients, problems with manufacturing processes and problems with accountability and governance all of which are in the report.Since 2005 there have been concerns about the regulator losing “sight of the need to protect and promote public health.” The CEO of the MHRA, Dame June Raine, claims the MHRA is now an “enabler” not a “watchdog.” Even before there was political capture there were pre-existing conflicts of interest.
The spike protein is the most toxic part of the virus. It damages lungs, vessel walls and causes clots. Part of the sequence is identical to a region of a bacterial sequence that can bind directly to a particular type of white blood cells resulting in lethal cytokine storms. This part of the sequence was heavily mutated in the Omicron variant making it less lethal. However, even the most recent injections contained the original Chinese spike sequence with this dangerous sequence.
The manufacturers decided to use the WHOLE Chinese spike sequence rather than parts of it, or peptides, which have been shown to be safer for vaccine design. Some manufacturers modified the spike so that it could not bind to the receptor and enter a cell. This might have reduced some harm from receptor binding but not from the action of spike within cells. The spike was delivered into cells so spike was produced INSIDE the cells in the first place. AstraZeneca did not modify the sequence. From November 2020 it was clear that parts of AZ spike could be shed outside of cells.
The Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data shows a higher rate of serious adverse reactions from the treatment group (12.5 per 10,000) than any reduction in serious events from covid (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 for Pfizer and Moderna respectively). Yet the claim of 90%+ efficacy was all that was reported and all that Dame June Raine claimed she needed to see in order to approve the drugs.
AZ issued a press release claiming 100% efficacy against hospitalisation and death after only two severe covid hospitalisations and one death in the placebo arm. This claim was repeated widely and was believed.
At the time, the priority was to protect the old and vulnerable who accounted for 98% of covid deaths. There were going to be 15 million jabs to freedom:
The evidence presented is damning. The failures of the regulators to adequately test the safety and efficacy of these novel vaccines are shocking. The circular belief that vaccines required fewer safety checks than other novel therapies is a dangerous assumption that has put the lives of millions at risk. The fact that serious adverse reactions were higher in the treatment group than any reduction in serious events from covid is deeply concerning. We must demand accountability from the regulators and demand that the safety and wellbeing of the public is always the top priority, not profit or political gain. There was total regulatory failure in allowing these products to be given to anyone, which was compounded by not withdrawing them promptly once evidence these issues were clinically relevant became clear.
May 10, 2023
Does Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Put Teens at Risk of Future Heart Attacks?
By Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH
A new study shows that six months after being diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis, 80% of teens had not recovered.
Every cardiology office in America should be recognizing COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis presenting in young persons, 90% are male, with chest pain, effort intolerance, arrhythmias and cardiac arrest after injections of mRNA vaccines.
As I see these patients, the common question is, “When is this over?”
While electrocardiogram and blood tests tend to normalize quickly, my concern is that ongoing inflammation is occurring due to the continued production of the Wuhan spike protein coded by the long-lasting Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines.
While blood tests can give inferences on inflammation, cardiologists also use cardiac MRA to visualize the inflammation, establish the diagnosis, and craft a prognosis.
We would hope young teenagers would resolve their MRI results and go on with life. A recent report to the contrary caught my attention.
Barmada et al studied a clinical cohort consisting of 23 patients hospitalized for vaccine-associated myocarditis and/or pericarditis. The cohort was predominately male (87%) with an average age of 16.9 ± 2.2 years (ranging from 13 to 21 years).
Patients had largely noncontributory past medical histories and were generally healthy before vaccination. Most patients had symptom onset 1 to 4 days after the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.
Six patients either first experienced symptoms after a delay of >7 days after vaccination or were incidentally positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing upon hospital admission; these six patients were thus excluded from further analyses, although they potentially reflect the breadth of clinical presentations of vaccine-associated myopericarditis.
The remaining cohort of 17 patients showed no evidence of recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, with antibodies to spike protein but not to nucleocapsid protein and negative nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcription quantitative PCR at hospital admission.
Credit: Anis Barmada et al.While the authors clearly show high levels of inflammatory markers, my attention was drawn to the follow-up MRI scans.
As shown in the figure, only 20% had resolved their abnormalities (late gadolinium enhancement) at over six months (199 days).
This paper raises questions: 1) is there ongoing heart damage and inflammation at six months? 2) does the LGE in 80% represent a permanent “scar” putting these children at risk for future cardiac arrest?
These data strongly call for large-scale research into this emerging problem given the large number of potential young persons at risk.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-myocarditis-teen-heart-attack/
Lula to Propose Ukraine Peace Initiative at G7 Meeting
President Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, May 9, 2023. | Photo: Twitter/ @JorgeGestoso
NewsletterThe Brazilian president’s international affairs advisor Celso Amorim traveled to Ukraine and Russia to find out what the parties in conflict want.
On Tuesday, the Brazilian President Lula da Silva announced that he will invite India and Indonesia to join the club of countries he wants to form to mediate in favor of a negotiated solution to the Ukrainian conflict.
“It is the time for diplomacy, it is not the time for war,” he said in a joint statement with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte made at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia.
“We need to find someone to discuss peace and Brazil is willing to do so,” said Lula, who will propose the creation of a group of mediating countries during the next meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) to be held in Japan from May 19 to 21.
“Peace is the first path. It is to stop the war and thus create conditions to negotiate an end,” the Brazilian president reiterated, explaining that the solution to the Ukrainian conflict must be a “compromise solution” that satisfies both parties.
The "empire of lies": US military historian Col Douglas McGregor outlines the actual development of the war in #Ukraine. Excerpt from London Real, 4 May 2023, full interview here: https://t.co/pLvyQTwS4X pic.twitter.com/jpPtfMgHOg
— tim anderson (@timand2037) May 5, 2023
Lula’s statements come at a time when his top adviser on international affairs, Celso Amorim, traveled to Ukraine to meet with President Volodimir Zelenski. Previously, Amorim had a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I hope Celso brings me a solution so that we can talk about peace. He knows what Putin wants and he will know what Zelenski wants. That way we will have instruments to talk with other countries and possibly stop this war,” the Brazilian president said.
Currently, Prime Minister Rutte is on a three-day visit to Brazil, where he will hold meetings in the cities of Sao Paulo, Brasilia and Fortaleza.
[…]Via https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Lula-to-Propose-Peace-Initiative-for-Ukraine-at-G7-Meeting-20230510-0013.htmlRFK Jr Calls for Study on SSRI/Mass Shootings Link
“Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SSRIs or some other psychiatric drug. And this is only happening in America where … we take four times as many [psychiatric drugs] as the average European country.” stated
@RobertKennedyJr. “Prior to the introduction of Prozac, those shootings just were almost unknown, and now they’re an everyday affair. But NIH will not study that because it will offend the pharmaceutical industry. And it’s something that we ought to be studying.”
.@RobertKennedyJr Shakes Up Big Pharma With the Inconvenient Truth About Mass Shootings
"Anecdotally, it appears that almost every one of these shooters were on SSRIs or some other psychiatric drug. And this is only happening in America where … we take four times as many… pic.twitter.com/EIcxzCW407
— The Vigilant Fox
(@VigilantFox) May 10, 2023
Arkansas National Guard Takes Over Multinational Training for Ukraine
>
Joint Multinational Training Group – Ukraine. Photo: Spc. Christian Carrillo/US National Guard
The Defense Post
The Arkansas Army National Guard 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Task Force Bowie) has assumed command of a training group upskilling Ukrainian warfighters to defend against Russia’s invasion.
The Joint Multinational Training Group – Ukraine is a rotational mobilization effort under the authority of the US European Command, US Army Europe and Africa, and the 7th Army Training Command.
Their duties include preparing the Ukrainian Armed Forces in combined arms, joint maneuvers, and other capabilities issued through the US Presidential Drawdown Authority.
Ukrainian Military Training in GermanyThe training is being held at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, in partnership with other US defense units, allied militaries, and partner nations.
Task Force Bowie received the command from New York Army National Guard Task Force Orion, which has been in a leadership role since July 2022.
Task Force Orion trained Ukrainian soldiers in over 15 different systems and equipment over nine months.
The task force oversaw eight Ukrainian Armed Forces tactical groups for combined arms and joint maneuvers training.
“The proof and the results are in the bravery and the actions of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters who are accomplishing them on the battlefield,” Task Force Orion Commander Col. William Murphy said.
With Orion’s aid, the number of Ukrainian warfighters upskilled in Germany increased to more than 9,600.
“We are excited…to increase the [Armed Forces of Ukraine’s] lethality and capability,” Task Force Bowie Commander Col. Olen Bridges stated.
“We’re eager to continue the legacy of the Joint Multinational Training Group – Ukraine mission. We know that there is a lot to do, and we’re here to do it.”
[…]
Via https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/05/05/arkansas-national-guard-ukraine-training/
Early English Invasions of Wales and Ireland
Episode 16 English Invasion of Wales and Ireland
The Celtic World
Dr Jennifer Paxton (2018)
Film Review
During the early Middle Ages, Wales and England repeatedly raided one another. Wales also took advantage of disputes between and England’s regional kings. For example they allied with the pagan king of Mercia to kill King Oswald of Northumbria (ruled 634-542 AD). During the 8th century, King Offa of Mercia built a dyke to establish a clear boundary between the two countries and reduce the frequency of Welsh raids.
King Gwynnedd (ruled 1055-1063 AD) united all the Welsh kingdoms under a single monarch though the country refragmented again after his death. This meant the Welsh had no unified defense against repeated English invasions that steadily pushed the Welsh border westward.
By the 12th century, England was also more unified than Ireland, which was made up of four frequently warring provinces (Ulster, Connacht, Leinster and Munster). In the 1100s. the English controlled the western coast of France and much of Wales and had no interest in pursuing territorial gains in Ireland. However in 1155 AD, during the reign of Henry II, Pope Adrian IV (the first English pope) granted Henry the authority to invade Ireland to reform Ireland’s Catholic church.
Ousted as the king of the Irish kingdom of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough (1110-1171 AD) sought help from Henry II in regaining his throne. When the English king declined, Dermot allied himself with the Welsh warrior Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare (aka Strongbow), who responded along with a number of vassals and mercenaries.
Henry, about to be sanctioned by the pope for murdering Archbishop Thomas Becket, eventually joined them with siege equipment and a sizeable army. The other Irish kings initially welcomed Henry’s military occupation, believing he would secure their rights against the Norman lords who were were continuing to usurp Irish land.
Having captured a small portion of Ireland on the east coast, in 1177 Henry II sent his youngest son John Lackland (later King John) to govern the territory conquered by Strongbow. Although subsequent English kings claimed sovereignty over the whole island, in reality the king’s rule only ever extended to isolated regions. The rest of the island – referred to as Gaelic Ireland – remained under the control of various Gaelic Irish kingdoms or chiefdoms. The latter were often at war with the Anglo-Normans lords who controlled large fiefdoms throughout southern Ireland.
The area under English rule and law expanded and shrank over time. It reached its greatest extent in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, prior to the arrival of the Black Death in 1348. The plague had its most devastating effects on Irish townships, which were mainly controlled by the English.
In 1361, Edward III’s son Lionel married an heiress to the Earldom of Ulster, and Lionel was sent to rule Ulster on Edward’s behalf.
In 1366 the Irish parliament (established by the Normans in 1264) passed the Statutes of Kilkenny, over concerns that Ireland’s English settlers were going native. Under these laws Anglo-Irish settlers:
were forbidden to speak Irish among themselves.were forbidden to use Irish first or surnames.were forbidden to ride bareback (as the Irish did).were forbidden to wear Irish haircuts (short in front and long in the back).were forbidden to have Irish performers in their hallswere forbidden to use Irish law to settle disputes.Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/5701024/5701058
May 9, 2023
Chemicals Found in Hand Sanitizers Linked to Asthma, Birth Defects and Infertility
By Brian Bienkowski
Quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, which are used in disinfectants are linked to asthma, dermatitis, inflammation, infertility, birth defects and other problems.
Disinfectants have had a moment since the COVID-19 pandemic began — and scientists are warning that this widespread use is spurring health problems, antimicrobial resistance and harming the environment.“It’s ironic that the chemicals we’re deploying in vain for one health crisis are actually fueling another,” Erica Hartmann, a co-author of a new study examining the dangers of disinfectants and an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, said in a statement.
Hartmann and colleagues’ new study, published this week in Environmental Science & Technology, examines quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, which are used in disinfectants and personal care products.
They reviewed the existing environmental and human health science on quats, which have been used much more since the pandemic began, and found that the compounds are linked to asthma, dermatitis, inflammation, infertility, birth defects and other problems.
They can also harm aquatic life and cause antimicrobial resistance, which can make drug-resistant viruses and bacteria.
“Antimicrobial resistance was already contributing to millions of deaths per year before the pandemic,” Hartmann said. “Overzealous disinfection, especially with products containing [quats], threaten to make it worse.”
Quat use and exposure
Quats can be found in disinfectants, baby wipes, eye drops, hair conditioners, fabric softeners and other products.
There was a spike in disinfectant use when the COVID-19 pandemic began, increasing exposure, and researchers saw an associated spike in quats in people.
People are mostly exposed via their skin and breathing quats, but food and water could be other potential sources of exposure.
Certain professions, including housekeepers, food or medical equipment preparation, dental assistants and nurses, are more highly exposed. Children and teachers may also have elevated exposure.
“Disinfectant wipes containing [quats] are often used on children’s school desks, hospital exam tables and in homes where they remain on these surfaces and in the air,” Courtney Carignan, a co-author and assistant professor at Michigan State University’s Center for Research on Ingredient Safety, said in a statement.
The most common quat is benzalkonium chloride, but if you see ingredients on labels that end in “ammonium chloride,” there are probably quats in the product.
The authors point out that U.S. regulation varies — pesticides, for example, list quats, while paints do not. Most quats are unregulated, and so are not tested for health impacts. This makes it a challenge to tease out how much people are exposed or what the health impacts are.
While the feds haven’t tested the compound, academic researchers have linked the chemicals to multiple health problems, and the authors point out that there is evidence going back more than 70 years that the chemicals spur antimicrobial resistance.
Using safer cleaning products
The authors recommend not using quat-containing compounds when the chemicals are unnecessary. Soap and water usually do the trick — and if you need a disinfectant, the University of Massachusetts Lowell has a guide to safer products.
“Drastically reducing many uses of QACs won’t spread COVID-19,” Carol Kwiatkowski, a co-author and scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute, said in a statement.
[…]
Is WHO a Front Organization for Takeover of US Government?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. Analysts warn that the ratification of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations could strip away sovereignty from nation-states and place public health decision-making power in the hands of the WHO and its director-general.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) World Health Assembly (WHA) will convene May 21-30 in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the proposed “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).Many analysts have warned that the ratification of either or both of these instruments would diminish or completely strip away sovereignty from nation-states and place public health decision-making power in the hands of the WHO and its director-general.
Details around how this might happen in the U.S., however, are difficult to pinpoint — partly because of the secrecy surrounding negotiations and partly because of the complex combination of domestic and international law that would have to come into play in order to strip U.S. sovereignty.
“If these amendments and if this pandemic treaty are passed, then that would basically be the end of our national sovereignty,” said lawyer Reggie Littlejohn, co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force.
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, agreed. He described the WHO’s proposed instruments as “an attempt to take over the United States of America by using the WHO as a front for that purpose.”
“This is being backed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bill Gates, the Chinese communist dictatorship, Big Pharma and the biowarfare industry,” Boyle said.
Boyle said there’s been so much opposition to the dictates coming out of Washington over the handling of the pandemic “that these elites have decided to go to the WHO and use the WHO as a front organization to accomplish its objectives.”
[…]
Boyle, who has studied treaties going back to the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899, said the pandemic treaty “will automatically come into effect immediately upon its signature,” adding that he knows of no such treaty in existence today that does this.
“You will have a medical global police state issuing orders all the way down here in the United States,” Boyle said, “contravening state local health authorities, your governor, your local attorney general, your local surgeon general, and contravening all your democratically elected officials to accomplish this.”
The IHR amendments will deliver the same result via different means, and “will give these totalitarian dictatorial powers to Dr. Tedros [WHO director-general],” Boyle said.
[…]
According to the most recent draft of the IHR amendments, Littlejohn said, “They want to strike the word ‘non-binding,’ so that the IHR would become binding and the WHO would go from being an advisory body to a regulatory body.”
The proposal to remove the term “non-binding” came from Bangladesh, Littlejohn said, adding that there is “language in the IHR amendments that allows the WHO to step in and take power even without declaring a pandemic or a public health emergency. It just has to be a potential public health risk.”
Roguski said the EU proposed this provision, which refers to the recognition of a potential “pandemic situation” as opposed to an actual pandemic.
Littlejohn also cited provisions of the pandemic treaty (page 23, article 17), allowing the WHO “to tackle false, misleading misinformation or disinformation” in the name of strengthening pandemic or public health literacy.
[…]
An ‘end run’ around state and local control?
[…]
Article 19 of the WHO Constitution gives the WHA the authority to adopt conventions or agreements — such as the pandemic treaty — by a two-thirds vote,” Boyle said.
[…]
The WHO Constitution circumvents the U.S. Congress via its provision that any treaty “can provisionally come into force after approval by the WHA,” Boyle said.
[…]
Littlejohn noted that not only can any treaty “provisionally come into force” after WHA approval, but portions of treaties or agreements also can. As a result, “in whole or in part, the pandemic treaty can be applied provisionally … it’s possible that certain parts of the treaty” might be passed this month and could be brought to force provisionally.
Malaysia proposed a change to Article 42 of the IHR amendments, saying that recommendations have to be implemented “as soon as possible,” Boyle said. As a result, “If you have to implement recommendations, they’ve suddenly become binding. That gives up sovereignty and freedoms all over the place.”
Another document that can be used to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA), Boyle said. This law includes language “to facilitate national capacity to comply with and adhere to … other relevant frameworks that contribute to global health security.”
“The Biden administration can take the position that because of the NDAA of 2023, it can simply go right ahead and provisionally adhere to the terms of the pandemic treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate,” Boyle said. “The moment it gets reported out of the WHA, Biden can say ‘I’m invoking the NDAA’ to comply with and adhere to ‘other relevant frameworks that contribute to global health security.’”
According to Littlejohn, the language stating that the U.S. is “obligated to comply with and adhere to any relevant framework that contributes to global health security” likely includes both WHO instruments. “They can argue that … this passed through Congress … we’ve already agreed to ‘adhere to and comply with,’” Littlejohn said.
Boyle added the NDAA also includes the Global Pandemic Prevention and Biosecurity Act of 2022, which “paves the way for the IHR amendments and this treaty.” He argued that, through this, “the U.S. Congress has already given its authorization to both the IHR amendments and the treaty.”
These provisions would circumvent the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that police powers reside in the hands of the states, not the federal government.
“Police powers include public health,” Boyle said, “so the Biden administration could take the position immediately upon approving the WHA treaty, that we could provisionally bring that whole treaty into force, and that circumvents the 10th Amendment,” under the aegis of the NDAA, via the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Boyle cited two Supreme Court decisions, U.S. v. Belmont (1937) and U.S. v. Pink (1942), “where the Supreme Court upheld executive agreements as the constitutional equivalent of treaties when it comes to circumventing the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — that’s the danger here.”
According to Boyle, though the current IHR, enacted in 2005, “were only recommended,” the U.S. government and U.S. Department of State nevertheless “took the position that this was a binding international agreement, that they listed in a publication called U.S. Treaties in Force.”
“They’re still there today,” Boyle said, “which means that even though they have not received the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, nevertheless they were approved by the executive branch of government in accordance with the WHO Constitution, which in turn had been approved by this joint resolution of Congress.”
Boyle argued that “this whole process … was produced by the fact that there was a lot of domestic opposition here in the U.S. on a state and local basis to all the orders coming out of Washington, D.C. … including the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-takeover-us-government/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
