Senators Speak Out Against “Impending” WHO Global Pandemic Treaty

Senators Speak Out Against “Impending” WHO Global Pandemic Treaty

A controversial move within the WHO to consolidate and expand its global pandemic management powers has been slammed by several prominent Australian Legislators. The proposals under scrutiny are the so-called “Global Pandemic Treaty” and certain related Biden Administration amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005. They would, in the words of one senator, “give the WHO the power to act in a pandemic without the cooperation of individual states”.

Recent comments by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese have stoked concerns that the government will sign a pact that would outsource Australia’s pandemic response management.

In recent posts and interviews, Hon. Malcolm Roberts (Senator, One Nation), Hon. Alex Antic (Senator, Liberal Party), Hon. Gerard Rennick (Senator, Liberal National Party) and former Liberal National MP and current One Nation Senate Candidate George Christenson have all come out in strong opposition to the World Health Organisation’s controversial so-called “Global Pandemic Treaty”.

Their concerns revolve around the ability of Australian governments to determine their own responses to health pandemics while safeguarding the liberties and rights of their citizens.

Both Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and George Christenson have started online petitions demanding that Australian delegates to the World Health Assembly vote against the proposals. One Nation’s petition has received over 50,000 signatures.

Senator Malcolm Roberts also spoke about the Global Pandemic Treaty on George Christenson’s popular podcast, Conservative One.

Alex Antic, a Liberal Senator for South Australia, has written a strong letter to the Foreign Minister expressing concerns about the Amendments and the Global Pandemic Treaty. In it, he condemned any ‘draconian measures’ that would ‘restrain the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth and deprive Australian citizens of their right to medical autonomy’.

Antic finished the letter:

“the Australian people must not be subjected to the whims of WHO bureaucrats, and it is imperative that the Australian Government vote against the Amendments and resist the Global Pandemic Treaty.”

He posted the full text of his letter on Facebook:

“I write to register my concerns regarding the amendments proposed by the Biden Administration to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“the Amendments”) and the impending “Global Pandemic Treaty”.

I understand that the governing body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly will meet in Geneva later this month and, among other matters, that body will discuss the adoption of the Amendments by member states including Australia.

In broad terms, the Amendments seek to give the WHO the power to act in a pandemic without the cooperation of individual nation-states.

I am concerned that if adopted, these Amendments will shift much of this decision-making power away from Australian decision-makers, directly to the WHO and create a one-size-fits-all approach to disease management in this country.

Moreover, I note that on 1 December 2021 the World Health Assembly resolved to establish an ‘intergovernmental negotiating body’ to draft a new ‘WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’, the so-called Global Pandemic Treaty.

I am greatly concerned that the Global Pandemic Treaty will include even more draconian measures than those contained in the Amendments which will restrain the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth and deprive Australian citizens of their right to medical autonomy.

The Amendments and the Global Pandemic Treaty threaten our sovereignty by allowing the WHO to declare pandemics, impose lockdowns, and enforce treatments against the will of the Australian people.

One must also factor into account the historical failures from the WHO leadership in recent pandemics including a failed response to both the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics.

Any mechanism which overrules governments and hands supranational powers to unelected bureaucrats is completely unacceptable. The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda.

In my respectful view, the Australian people must not be subjected to the whims of WHO bureaucrats, and it is imperative that the Australian Government vote against the Amendments and resist the Global Pandemic Treaty.”

The criticism comes just days out from a Federal Election in which so-called “freedom-friendly” minor parties may play a significant role. Nevertheless, neither Antic, Rennick or Roberts is up for re-election in Saturday’s Federal Election.

As we head to the polls, Christians have perhaps more information available than ever before to help them make an informed and godly decision with their votes.

Here are just a few of them:

  1. Christian Values Checklist (a rating and ranking of the main parties)
  2. Australian Christian Lobby — Survey (a survey of individual candidates, although many have not responded)
  3. FamilyVoice Australia (a summary of the main parties and party leaders)
  4. The Catholic Weekly — Election Guide (a summary of the positions of some of the main parties)
  5. Vote Wisely — How to Vote Cards (a how-to-vote guide for below-the-line and above-the-line senate voting)

Please compare and cross-reference the resources linked above. Don’t rely on one resource for all your research.

Whatever the result of Saturday’s election, Christians can continue to pray for our political leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-3).

___

Photo by Anna Shvets.

Thank the Source

The WHO Power Grab for Total Control

The WHO Power Grab for Total Control

What could go wrong with Gates bankrolling a coercive globalist health body? Countries have ceded their authority to the WHO, allowing it to steamroll even those who would demur at over-the-top reactions to the next pandemic in store.

Nothing could go wrong if we turned our health care decisions over to a globalist body with powers similar to a one-world government and with the backing of folks like Bill Gates — right? Um, not if you know your history, especially the history of the past two years.

But the World Health Organization is looking to do exactly this. Back in 2005, the International Health Regulations (IHR) was set up to deal with international public health issues. It is an instrument of international law that is legally binding on the 194 WHO Member States.

Global Power

Earlier this year, the US government sought to amend the IHR to deal with pandemics in even a more globalised and coercive fashion. Many are warning about the anti-democratic and draconian nature of these proposed amendments. Recall that earlier on, I discussed one European champion for freedom, Eva Vlaardingerbroek. In a chat with Mark Steyn, she discussed this very move, saying:

This is the first step to world governance. … This is not a democratic process, this is something that is diametrically opposed to the democratic process. That’s why we’re not hearing about it. …

Once a new pandemic hits, and those are their words, not mine, we will have a united response to how to deal with a pandemic, meaning there will be this organisation that is not democratically elected, that we didn’t vote for… that is going to basically create laws that will decide how our respective nations are going to respond to a new crisis, a new pandemic. So this is huge news and it’s very dangerous, but we are not hearing anything about it.

The World Council for Health said this about the matter:

These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General — even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.

The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO “regional directors,” who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).”

Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy…

The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state — and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model — is the expert guide to better health and wellness.”

Corrupted

Scottish historian and author Neil Oliver has an important 8-minute video about it here:

This is part of what he said:

The WHO is a fabulously wealthy offshoot of the United Nations. It has its head office in Geneva and is presently headed by Ethiopian-born Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Know much about him? No, nor me. He and it are funded by 194 member states and also by donations from private entities.

As things stand, most of its money comes from the United States, from Communist China and from computer salesman and international man of mystery Bill Gates. Let us remember that for the past two years, the WHO has loudly celebrated the approach taken by China to the handling of Covid-19.

Even now, as tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens remain locked in their homes in scores of cities across that country… and after unknown numbers have died in those circumstances, including some who committed suicide by leaping to their deaths from their tower block imprisonment… the WHO continues to applaud the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party that is its benefactor.

For his own part Bill Gates, who struggles even to control viruses in the software sold by Microsoft, is on record admiring the Draconian approach taken by Australia — to the extent that he has said that in his opinion the world would have had greater success in eliminating the disease — the one that more than likely leaked from a lab in China — if only more nations had followed the Australian model, locked everyone down and sought Zero Covid….

Amendments written into the proposed treaty by the re-enamoured Biden administration will see 194 nations cede sovereignty over national health care decisions to the WHO. The WHO would thereby have decision-making power over and above our own government — and every other government.

Consider this — when you watch footage of the 26 million people of Shanghai locked down in their homes, their cats and dogs beaten to death in the street … the WHO would, by the terms of the new treaty, have the power to impose the same on cities here. Know too, that under the terms of the treaty, the WHO does not — does not — have to show any data to legitimise its conclusions or decisions.

It is also worth knowing, to say the least, that it would be up to the WHO to define what the next pandemic is. Seeing how things are going, I would hardly be surprised to hear about a pandemic of obesity, or of heart attacks — followed by the lockdowns and other restrictions to deal with same.”

Be Prepared

The Children’s Health Defense featured a piece by Dr Joseph Mercola, who put it this way:

Under the guise of a global pandemic, the WHO, the World Economic Forum and all its installed leaders in government and private business were able to roll out a plan that had already been decades in the making. The pandemic was a perfect cover. In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.

Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, extend it into the healthcare systems of every nation and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” healthcare system as part of The Great Reset.

While this is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.

And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,” without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity, just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.

Also, Dr Silvia Behrendt, an Austrian once involved with WHO on the IHR issue, said this:

Global health security ideology is not an ideology that humanity can live with. We all have diseases. We don’t like diseases. We can defeat diseases, but diseases are not threats to the nations, they affect individuals.”

She begins her talk with these words:

“Right now we hear a lot about the pandemic treaty — there has been a lot of attention and political focus on the pandemic treaty, besides which there are the IHR amendments proposed by the US, which are very explosive and which will change international law, definitely.

And on the other side, there are a lot of issues going on within WHO, which are very troubling and concerning, because health and powers get globalized to the extent that the individual’s freedoms get jeopardized.”

You can view this 35-minute video with her here.

By way of action, the World Council for Health said this:

In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:

  1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
  2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
  3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
  4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
  5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
  6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments

___

Originally published at CultureWatch.

Thank the Source

Erdogan Slams Door On Approving Sweden, Finland NATO Bids: ‘Nesting Ground For Terrorist Orgs’

Erdogan Slams Door On Approving Sweden, Finland NATO Bids: ‘Nesting Ground For Terrorist Orgs’


ER Editor: We’re doing a two-fer on this topic, one from FreeWest Media and one from Zerohedge.

Word is also that Sweden and Finland are sympathetic to the Kurds (in Syria), which is always a fierce red line for Erdogan. This is mentioned below.

Notice that the retired Turkish admiral expects to see Trump return.

********

Retired Turkish admiral questions wisdom of Sweden and Finland joining NATO

FREEWEST MEDIA

Retired Turkish Rear Admiral Ali Deniz Kutluk said the constant expansion has turned NATO into a cumbersome and unmanageable organisation. The discussed inclusion in the North Atlantic Alliance of two more countries – Finland and Sweden – will make the structure even weaker, and ultimately more dangerous for current members.

“Is NATO expansion right? Already the alliance is unmanageable. It has 30 member states. In addition, it has 39 countries that are called partners. Will the inclusion of these countries [Sweden and Finland] in NATO provide greater security or reduce it even more?” The Aydinlik newspaper quoted Kutluk as saying.

The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is not beneficial for Ankara. “Why would Turkey agree to a situation that would reduce its own security?” the retired military man added.

According to the Turkish expert, NATO is taking a step towards creating a less secure environment, as its expansion in Scandinavia may provoke Russia to retaliate. The rear admiral is afraid of a nuclear confrontation, where Turkey, as a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, can also be drawn into.

Retired Turkish Rear Admiral Ali Deniz Kutluk has noticed the decline of a firm NATO supporter, the Democratic Party in the US. Screenshot from YouTube

In addition, he noted that the prospect of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election in 2024 may lead to the refusal of protection of the members of the Alliance by the United States.

“If Trump is re-elected, the US will cool relations with NATO as in the past. If he takes steps to reduce or sever transatlantic ties and abandon Europe to see to its own security, then will we not find ourselves in an even more desperate situation?” he asked rhetorically.

Earlier, Finland and Sweden announced that they would seek to join NATO as soon as possible. In turn, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he would not support this decision as long as both countries assist Kurdish militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which the Turkish authorities consider to be terrorists.

Ankara, like other members of the North Atlantic Alliance, can block the admission of new members by imposing a veto. Despite upcoming meetings with officials from both countries, he said Ankara would not be swayed on its decision.

If Turkey, which has NATO’s second largest army, has no veto right in the decision-making mechanisms of the alliance and remains ineffective on this issue, NATO would be underscoring the futility of its own structure, said Professor of Political Science and International Relations of Maltepe University, Hasan Unal.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin noted on May 16, speaking at the summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO does not pose an immediate threat to Russia. However, “the expansion of military infrastructure into this territory” would result in a “reaction” from Moscow.

The Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto was nevertheless optimistic about his country’s prospects: “I’m sure that we will find a solution to this matter,” said the 64-year-old, but according to the NATO statutes, the admission of new member states requires the unanimous consent of all thirty member states.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was less welcoming. “We wouldn’t say ‘yes’ to them joining NATO, a security organisation. They were going to come on Monday to convince us. Sorry, they don’t have to bother.”

The ratification process for NATO membership normally takes about a year, but the military alliance was confident that it would be able to speed up this process.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reminded the press on Monday that Russia had “no territorial disputes with either Finland or Sweden”.

Essentially Sweden and Finland have joined a British military-political initiative

Sweden and Finland have been involved in NATO affairs for a while already through the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a UK-led force, comprising 10 nations working together to “complement” NATO. The coalition focuses on security in the Baltic Sea region and the North Atlantic, where its members are located.

The JEF is a British-led expeditionary force which consists of Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. Eight of the countries are also members of NATO, with Finland and Sweden currently outside that alliance.

It was first conceived in 2012 and announced by the then UK Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards. The JEF arose from the Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) which became redundant as a result of the UK’s focus on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The multinational JEF was publicly launched as a NATO initiative at the September 2014 Wales Summit, subsumed under the new “Framework Nations Concept” with Germany, the UK and Italy acting as support nations.

In September 2014, the British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon also announced the signature of a Letter of Intent between Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, to establish the JEF so that it is fully operational before 2018.

In early October 2015, Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said that he did not rule out Sweden joining the Joint Expeditionary Force, even though no formal process exists to do so at the moment, when he was summoned by the Riksdag to confirm if the government was engaged in formal talks to join the JEF without the knowledge of parliament.

On 22 June 2017, the Swedish government confirmed that Sweden would be joining the Joint Expeditionary Force.

Recently, several European leaders met with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, in London as part of Johnson’s flagship Global Britain plan.

While there are no JEF-dedicated standing forces, the United Kingdom provides command and control. In 2021, the JEF conducted its first maritime task group deployment in the Baltic Sea, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Britain, however, is not able to defend itself without the United States. It relies on the Pentagon for its nuclear deterrence through the US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement, a treaty which was again extended to 31 December 2024.

Source

********

Erdogan Slams Door On Approving Sweden, Finland NATO Bids: ‘Nesting Ground For Terrorist Orgs’

Tyler Durden's Photo TYLER DURDEN

In fresh Monday comments, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued his firmest words of rejection yet concerning Finland and Sweden’s announced bids to join NATO. Over the weekend after Erdogan first stated Turkey is “not favorable” toward the Scandinavian countries entering the alliance, there was widespread speculation among officials quoted in Western media reports that Turkish reluctance could be easily resolved.

When asked about Turkey’s reservations on Sunday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “I’m very confident that we will reach consensus on that” – somewhat dodging the severity of Ankara’s recent unambiguous statements as nothing at all to worry about in terms of a NATO unified front. But now Erdogan has defiantly poured cold water on the collective Western enthusiasm for achieving the consensus needed among the 30 NATO member states to admit new countries. There was even talk of ‘fast-tracking’ them, which now seems like a fantasy in light of Turkey’s stance.

Bloomberg, too, notes following Erdogan’s Monday speech that “he intends to block membership for the two countries, or at least extract concessions for it” – following their separate weekend announcements which came hours apart, affirming they will apply.

Getty Images

“These two countries lack a clear stance against terrorism” and “Sweden is a nesting ground for terrorist organizations,” Erdogan said. He pointed out that both countries have joined other European allies in imposing “sanctions” on Turkey, specifically recent restrictions on arms sales to Ankara going back to 2019 in context of the running war with Kurdish groups along its southern border. Turkey’s military has also continued to intervene against the Syrian Kurdish YPG, which has US and Western backing.

“First of all, we cannot say ‘yes’ to those who impose sanctions on Turkey, on joining NATO which is a security organization,” Erdogan stressed while standing alongside his Algerian counterpart Abdelmadjid Tebboune at the press conference in Ankara. “How can we trust them?” he posed in reference to Sweden and Finland.

Amid the blistering comments, Erdogan addressed earlier Monday statements by the Swedish foreign office indicating top officials would be dispatched from Helsinki and Stockholm to Turkey in order to address the objections. Stunningly (or perhaps no surprise at all), Erdogan dismissed the diplomatic attempts before they even begin. The diplomats “should not bother” coming, he said, if they hope to change Turkey’s mind on the matter.

According to Turkey’s Daily Sabah, in addressing the overture he again took the opportunity to apply the ‘terror supporters’ label

“They say they will come to Turkey on Monday. Are they coming to convince us? Excuse me but they should not tire themselves,” he noted.

Erdoğan said NATO would become “a place where representatives of terrorist organizations are concentrated” if the two countries join.

Starting Friday, Erdogan said that “Sweden has become a home for PKK and other terror groups” – which was echoed again the following day by Turkey’s foreign minister to a gathering of NATO ministers in Berlin. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the same time expressed optimism that this would be worked through, suggesting it’s but a “last-minute wrinkle” as described in Bloomberg.

Turkish commentary on the topic has grown more and more unbending by the day (on Saturday FM  Cavusoglu said the idea was “outrageous”), clearly demonstrating this is no small wrinkle at all, but is instead the Western military alliance’s second largest military in effect slamming the door on the prospect – or at least until it gets significant concessions.

As we described earlier the Turkish “demands” have already begun

Turkey laid out demands on Sunday on the sidelines of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, saying it wanted the two Nordic countries to end support for Kurdish militant groups present on their territory, and to lift the ban on sales of some arms to Turkey.

With the West desperate to keep up the pressure on Moscow amid the grinding Ukraine war (increasingly looking much more like a Russia vs. NATO proxy war), circumstances certainly now put Turkey in the driver’s seat. Like with the recent years’ S-400 saga, which put Ankara at the center of a tug-of-war with Moscow and Washington, Turkey’s leadership can now use its considerable leverage on the NATO membership question to get what it wants out of NATO allies. Brussels must of course achieve full consensus in order to admit Sweden and Finland – the latter which shares an 810-mile border with Russia. Moscow has in turn threatened possible “military and technical” actions.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

Russia Moves to Withdraw from WTO, WHO

Russia Moves to Withdraw from WTO, WHO


ER Editor: A shoutout to AlethoNews for making this RT story below available to us here in Europe.

But first, a word on this Russian withdrawal from international organisations from former RT editor and journalist Edward Slavsquat (aka Riley Waggaman) in a piece titled Russia might shred WHO agreements. The question that Slavsquat poses is what effect this withdrawal will have on current and upcoming global (so-called) agreements for Russia. But what about the effect on the rest of us regarding, for example, the pandemic treaty that members of the WHO are expected to vote on later this month, which could become international law.

He (humourously) writes,

The World Health Organization is terrible and Russia must immediately cancel its membership in this Bill Gates-sponsored international murder club. Everyone agrees. It’s a no-brainer.

The problem is, many high-ranking Russian government goons think Dr. Tedros is a total hunk and want to take him to prom and get him pregnant.

The weird thing is, this disgusting infatuation isn’t even mutual. The WHO passed a resolution last week threatening to vacate its office in Moscow. In response, Russia just kind of… moped.

But this is (slowly) starting to change? Interfax has the latest WHO-Russia drama alert:

A list of agreements between the Russian Federation and international organizations for consideration for their denunciation has been sent to the State Duma, said the vice speaker of the lower house, Pyotr Tolstoy.

“The Foreign Ministry has sent a list of such agreements to the State Duma, and together with the Federation Council we plan to analyze them and propose to denounce them,” Tolstoy said on Tuesday in the upper house.

“Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, now the next step is to withdraw from the WTO (World Trade Organization) and WHO (World Health Organization), which have neglected all obligations towards our country,” Tolstoy added.

“There is work to be done to revise our international obligations, treaties, which today bring not benefit, but direct damage to our country,” the parliamentarian said.

Slavsquat continues:

… we are pleased to read that lawmakers are starting to take action. Tolstoy isn’t some no-name chump, either: he’s an influential and powerful politician and an all-star among Russian conservatives.

In October, Tolstoy famously berated the government for not being more transparent about its coercive vaccination campaign (“There are few answers to the questions why those who are vaccinated are ill, why those who are vaccinated die, why there are problems and complications after the vaccinations themselves”).

All in all, he’s a good egg.

So… what comes next?

On May 22, the WHO will meet in Geneva for the 75th World Murder Assembly.

The agenda will focus mainly on murder and how to keep doing it. Probably the delegates will also brainstorm a name for the next bogus plague that will force the world to adopt bug-burgers and central bank e-coins: will they choose Monkey Herpes or Sneaky Sigma? It’s a surprise.

To be honest—and honesty is always the best policy—there’s a decent chance that in the very near future we’ll all be locked in our homes, without food, Shanghai-style, forever.

But maybe Russia will say Nyet? Please? We can’t do this again. We need a hug.

A word from Thierry Meyssan about Russia proposing to leave the WTO in view of the illegal sanctions launched against it:

Russia to quit WTO

After the United Kingdom announced that it would cease all exports to Russia, in violation of WTO rules, the United Russia Party tabled a bill in the Duma to withdraw Russia from the World Trade Organization (WTO) so as not to have to fulfill unilaterally the commitments of the organization.

Globalization as we have known it for thirty years is dying. The splitting of the world into two distinct zones should ultimately bring about the economic downfall of the West.

***

Additional note: Russia is also planning its withdrawal from the Council of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania). See here.

********

Russia moves to withdraw from WTO, WHO

Samizdat (RT)

Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, is planning to discuss the potential withdrawal of the country from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), according to Pyotr Tolstoy, the vice speaker of the parliament.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a list of such agreements to the State Duma, and together with the Federation Council [upper house of parliament] we are planning to evaluate them and then propose to withdraw from them,” Tolstoy said on Tuesday.

The vice speaker said that Russia had already canceled its membership in the Council of Europe, and that leaving the WTO and WHO is next.

“Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, now the next step is to withdraw from the WTO and the WHO, which have neglected all obligations in relation to our country,” he said.

Tolstoy added that the government is expected to revise Russia’s international obligations and treaties that do not currently bring any benefit but directly damage the country.

In April, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the “illegal” restrictions placed on Russian companies by Western states run counter to WTO rules, and told the government to update Russia’s strategy in the organization by June 1.

The decision came amid the sweeping Western sanctions imposed on Moscow over its military operation in Ukraine launched in late February. Since then, Russia has been subjected to around 10,000 targeted restrictions, making it the world’s most sanctioned country.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

A fresh Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade will certainly affect the law on same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

“The Sexual Revolutionaries fretting over gay marriage and contraception are not wrong,” said Ruth Institute President Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD.

“Once the Court stops propping up the Sexual Revolution with so-called rights invented out of thin air, a lot of ‘settled issues’ are up for grabs.”

“Although in his draft of a Roe decision, Justice Samuel Alito said it would not impact other so-called rights, like gay marriage, logic would suggest otherwise,” Morse observed.
Roe v. Wade was decided over 49 years ago,” Morse noted.

“But Obergefell v. Hodges — which mandated homosexual marriage nationwide — was only decided in 2015. Doesn’t that make Obergefell a less important precedent?”

Shaky Basis

“The Supreme Court found rights in the Constitution that simply aren’t there. There’s no right to privacy, which the Court claimed to find in the First Amendment. This imaginary right to privacy was the foundation for Griswold and Eisenstadt as well as Roe. And there is no right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment,” Morse explained.

“Part of the original Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was enacted to protect freedom of speech and religion. It says nothing about privacy, let alone abortion.”

“The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to prevent Southern states from abridging the rights of ex-slaves. Only justices bent on legislating from the bench could interpret that as requiring same-sex marriage nationwide,” Morse charged.
“The Court frequently changes its mind about divisive topics,” Morse said.

“In the 1858 Dredd Scott decision, it said slaves are property. In 1896, it said ‘separate but equal’ in education was constitutional. In 1954, it said it was not.”

Losing Ground

“There is one important difference between Roe and Obergefell though,” Morse continued.

Roe galvanised the pro-life community and created a vibrant authentically grassroots nationwide movement. After Obergefell, proponents of marriage threw up their hands and said, ‘Oh, well, we tried,’ and moved on to other issues. The right-to-life movement never gave up and has had many successes.”

“We are fighting transgenderism today, precisely because we lost and gave up on marriage in 2015. Obergefell de-gendered marriage, which led to removing gendered words from legal documents. ‘Husband’ and ‘wife,’ were replaced with ‘spouse’ or ‘partner.’ ‘Mother’ and ‘father’ became androgynous ‘parents.’ No wonder we’re fighting transgenderism in schools.”

“If the Supreme Court does recognise a right to life, it gives hope to those of us who never gave up on man-woman marriage.”

The Ruth Institute’s upcoming 5th Annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution June 24-25 in Lake Charles, LA, will feature a keynote speech by Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America. There will be multiple sessions on gender ideology, and Morse will present: “Defending Traditional Christian Sexual Ethics like a Pro.”
___

Originally published at The Ruth Institute. Photo by Gotta Be Worth It.

Thank the Source

15,000 NATO Troops Start Drills Near Russia – What Could Go Wrong?

15,000 NATO Troops Start Drills Near Russia – What Could Go Wrong?


ER Editor: Notice below the laundry list of countries doing ‘exercises’ just kilometres from Russia’s western border. A reminder of geography:

********

15,000 NATO troops from 14 nations, including the US, Sweden, Finland and Ukraine, start drills near Russia

SAMIZDAT (RT) via ALETHO NEWS

Large-scale NATO military drills started in Estonia on Monday. The exercise dubbed ‘Hedgehog 2022’ is one of the largest in the Baltic nation’s history, according to the military bloc. The drills will involve some 15,000 troops from 14 nations, including both military bloc members and their partners.

Soldiers from Finland, Sweden, Georgia and Ukraine are among those that will take part in the exercise, Finnish public broadcaster Yle reported. The drills will include all branches of the armed forces and will involve air, sea and land exercises, as well as cyber warfare training, according to the broadcaster.

According to a NATO statement, the drills will also see the US Navy Wasp-class landing ship ‘Kearsarge’ take part in the exercises. Both the military bloc and Estonian Defense Forces deputy commander, Major General Veiko-Vello Palm, have denied that the drills, just over 60km from the Russian border, have anything to do with Moscow’s ongoing military action in Ukraine.

The drills started just a day after Finland and Sweden officially announced their plans to join NATO, and were planned long before the conflict in Ukraine broke out, Western officials have said.

The exercises in Estonia are, however, just one part of NATO’s large-scale military activities near the Russian border. Another Baltic state, Lithuania, is hosting the ‘Iron Wolf’ exercise, which involves 3,000 NATO troops and 1,000 pieces of military equipment, including Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.

Two of NATO’s biggest exercises – ‘Defender Europe’ and ‘Swift Response’ – are taking place in Poland and eight other countries, involving 18,000 troops from 20 nations, according to NATO’s statement on Friday.

“Exercises like these show that NATO stands strong and ready to protect our nations and defend against any threat,” the military bloc’s spokesperson, Oana Lungescu, said, adding that the drills “help to remove any room for miscalculation or misunderstanding about our resolve to protect and defend every inch of allied territory.”

The NATO Response Force is currently taking part in the 7,500-strong ‘Wettiner Heide’ drills in Germany. The Mediterranean Sea is about to witness ‘Neptune series’ naval drills involving the USS ‘Harry S. Truman’ carrier strike group that will be placed under NATO command. This will only be the second time since the end of the Cold War that a US carrier group has been transferred under the military bloc’s command, NATO has said.

In June, the Baltic States and Poland will host what NATO describes as “Europe’s largest integrated air and missile defense exercise,” which would involve 23 nations.

In late April, Finland hosted NATO naval drills. Now, it is also hosting a joint land exercise, in which troops from the US, the UK, Estonia and Latvia are participating.

The massive military wargames are taking place amid heightened tensions between Russia, NATO and some of the military bloc’s partners. Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, and Sweden decided to reconsider their long-standing policy of non-alignment following a major change in public opinion after the launch of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

The development sparked a wave of criticism from Moscow, which warned that it would have to respond if Finland and Sweden join NATO. Moscow also maintains that it considers NATO’s expansion as a direct threat to its own security.

************

Source

Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

At Least 20 European Gas Buyers Open ‘Rubles-For-Gas’ Account With Gazprombank

At Least 20 European Gas Buyers Open ‘Rubles-For-Gas’ Account With Gazprombank


ER Editor: Yes, it’s all hot air from Brussels. European companies are still going ahead and buying Russian gas, albeit at higher prices, suddenly without it breaking EU sanctions. How?

Alex Christoforou explains what a clown world this has become (starting at 19:50 for around 3 mins). The EU has now said that if the European buyer of Russian gas, once having deposited the required sum in either euros or dollars, makes a public declaration ‘the sale is complete’, that means that no EU sanctions have been broken. Eh? Gazprombank still has to transfer that sum into rubles in order for gas to be properly bought and then delivered. But no matter, the EU clowns consider it a finalised sale, as if the transferring-into-rubles stage and actual delivery don’t even exist. It’s petty and delusional. As Christoforou says, they’ve worked it all out and figure they simply can’t do without Russian gas. The gas for rubles plan worked, which is a total embarrassment to the EU.

See this by Al Jazeera, EU gives companies green light to buy gas from Russia.

Besides, in addition to Russia, the big EU oil companies are making money hand over fist. Everybody it seems except the ordinary citizen who’s getting thoroughly squeezed. See European Oil Majors Report “Exceptional” Trading Profits.

********

At Least 20 European Gas Buyers Open ‘Rubles-For-Gas’ Account With Gazprombank

Tyler Durden's Photo TYLER DURDEN

Europe’s anti-Russian virtue signaling and harsh language are nothing more than a facade as the number of European companies opening accounts with Gazprombank JSC has doubled as President Vladimir Putin demands rubles for natural gas.

Bloomberg reports a person close to Gazprombank said twenty European companies had opened accounts with the private-owned Russian bank to swap euros for rubles to purchase natgas. Another 14 companies are requesting paperwork to facilitate transactions in rubles.

European gas buyers quietly paid for supplies in rubles, and the list continues to grow — despite being in breach of Brussels sanctions.

“Under the new mechanism, clients have to open two accounts: one in foreign currency and one in rubles in Gazprombank,” the person said.

This comes as deadlines for April supplies are near for major European buyers. The person said the payment structure involves European clients paying foreign currency to Gazprombank, then the funds automatically convert to rubles and won’t involve Russia’s central bank, which is under EU sanctions.

Last week, former Goldman partner and ECB head – Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi – confirmed companies will be able to pay for natgas in rubles without breaking EU sanctions.

“Most of the gas importers have already opened their account in rubles with Gazprom,” Draghi said during a recent press conference. He added that German companies were already paying rubles for natgas as both countries are top importers of Russian fossil fuels.

On April 27, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen specifically warned companies not to cave to Russia’s demands to pay for gas in rubles: “companies with such contracts should not accede to the Russian demands,” von der Leyen said. “This would be a breach of the sanctions, so a high risk for the companies.”

It should be evident that more and more European companies are going against Brussels’ sanctions. The bloc’s harsh words against Putin are nothing more than fluff.

Putin forcing natgas to be paid in rubles, on top of capital controls (ER: Russia is not applying capital controls according to this recent analysis by Jacob Dreizin – around the 6-minute mark), has transformed the ruble into the world’s best-performing currency this year. It’s now up more than 11% against the US Dollar since the start of the year, even outpacing the Real’s 9% increase to become the top mover in 31 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg.

The person close to Gazprom said four clients paid in rubles and expects more to come. So much for the worthless EU sanctions to put an end to Putin war funding.

************

Source

Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

The rise and fall of the WAG

The rise and fall of the WAG

The Wagatha Christie case is a brief, exhilarating reminder of a bygone culture. But it’s worth casting our minds back to the height of WAGdom. At the 2006 Germany World Cup, the assorted wives and girlfriends of Britain’s top footballers spent much of the tournament lounging by a hotel pool in Baden-Baden, south west Germany. The staff, wary of paparazzi attempts to snap their high-profile guests, decided to put up screens to protect their privacy. But these weren’t just any guests, and when the WAGs learned what had happened, they demanded the barriers be removed immediately.

While their husbands were representing England on the pitch, the WAGs were busy representing the team in the British press. Newspapers back home were filled with carefully coordinated snaps of the players out with their partners, with just enough ‘leaked’ gossip to keep the column inches filled. Within a few weeks, Cheryl Cole, Victoria Beckham and Elen Rives were the darlings of Fleet Street, prancing around in England tops and designer handbags. This was the unapologetic modern British woman: bleached highlights and oversized sunglasses.

Stagflation, Brexit, partygate. These tabloid phrases have come to define moments in our nation’s history. In the Noughties, that word was WAG. Perhaps the biggest misconception of the WAG is that these young women were forced into the spotlight by the big, bad tabloids. But to argue that would be to trivialise the sheer effort these women put into becoming national slebs. They were totally complicit in their rise to fame, with their boozy shenanigans and ladette attitudes, crawling up from the Z-list status conferred on them by their partners’ careers. Labelled ‘hooligans with Visa cards’ by the Spanish press, they were snapped dancing on tables and going on £60,000 shopping sprees. Isn’t there something glorious, almost aspirational, about the whole thing? Working-class women, the stars of their own success story.

Fast forward 20 years and WAG is now a tired term of a bygone era. And feminism has progressed to such a degree that we no longer believe that wives and girlfriends of millionaire footballers are something to ogle, but are instead objects of pity. Sat on crushed velvet sofas twiddling their thumbs while their husbands earn vulgar amounts for not doing much more, our admiration for the WAG died around 2010.

Alas, this week, WAGs are back on the radar. The Wagatha Christie libel, fought between Colleen Rooney, wife of ex-England captain Wayne, and Rebekah Vardy, partner of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, has shown exactly what bored housewives get up to when left to their own devices. Vardy is accused of selling stories about Mrs Rooney and her husband’s teammates to the tabloids, for what Rooney’s lawyer described as a ‘pretty penny’.

Evidence shown to the court suggests Vardy did so at least once. In one instance she texted her assistant – what exactly she needed assistance with remains a mystery – to leak a story to the Sun. That story concerned the footballer Danny Drinkwater, who spent a night in the cells for driving under the influence. ‘I want paying for this’, she barked, as if she didn’t already have enough money. Meanwhile, Colleen Rooney, sick of the constant intrusion into her life, set up her own investigation when she realised that stories from her private Instagram account were being leaked. By process of elimination, sending fake stories to her close personal contacts, Colleen discovered what she believed to be the source of the leak. In October 2019, she publicly announced ‘It’s……. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

Where did it all go wrong for the English WAG? Their demise can partly be blamed on the fact that peak WAG occurred when there were only a handful of television channels. Most of us would have been lucky to have had one family computer and a dial-up internet connection. The iPhone hadn’t even been invented during that fateful 2006 World Cup. Footballers were national heroes because there wasn’t much else in terms of entertainment, so, by extension, we lapped up the spouses’ lives too.

They have now been usurped by a kind of superWAG. A breed of WAG unhitched from the responsibility of being a wife or girlfriend of someone more established. Just look across the Atlantic to the Kardashians – famous, too, for not very much – but who are more glamorous, more entertaining, and more rich than people like Rebekah Vardy could ever dream of being. They launched real, lasting careers from thin air, one-upping their English counterparts who faded from relevance as soon as the divorce settlements were finalised. ‘Influencer culture’ cut out the papers, allowing would-be celebs to polish their own scripted, brand-conscious lives without being subject to the capricious judgements of newspaper editors. And most Instagram influencers now wouldn’t be seen dead in a boozy slagging match in a rowdy pub. So much the pity.

The era of Heat magazine front covers is an anathema to the TikTok generation. And yet they, too, are enjoying the heady whiff of DKNY perfume and Smirnoff Ice – a cultural vodka shot of WAG nostalgia. As the lives of these once-famous women unfold in court, I can’t help but feel that we have committed a grave disservice to WAGs; abandoning them when they needed us most. Maybe, if we didn’t discard them like a spent lottery ticket, they wouldn’t be at each other’s throats in the High Court.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)