English
Afrikaans
Shqip
العربية
Հայերեն
Беларуская мова
Български
Català
简体中文
繁體中文
Hrvatski
Čeština
Dansk
Nederlands
Eesti
Filipino
Suomi
Français
Galego
ქართული
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
עִבְרִית
हिन्दी
Magyar
Íslenska
Bahasa Indonesia
Gaelige
Italiano
日本語
한국어
كوردی
Latviešu valoda
Lietuvių kalba
Македонски јазик
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
فارسی
Polski
Português
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
Русский
Gàidhlig
Српски језик
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Español
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
The International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) is planning to meet in secret from Monday, January 9, 2023 to Friday January 13, 2023. The IHRRC will be working to finalize what is now a 46 page document that includes proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The proposed amendments would:
- Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1)
- Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.”
- Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
- Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
- Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
- Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6, 7 and 8)
- Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
- Allow the disclosure of personal health data. (Article 45)
- Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)
- Create an obligation to build, provide, and maintain, IHR infrastructure at points of entry TO ENABLE THE W.H.O. TO UNDERTAKE THIS CENSORSHIP (Annex 10)
The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023 to Tuesday May 30, 2023. In order for the proposed amendments to be considered during the 76th World Health Assembly, they must be submitted to the World Health Organization at least 4 months in advance.
The IHRRC plans to submit these proposed amendments to the WHO by Sunday, January 15, 2023.
The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations. According to the already agreed upon rules of the IHR, if the proposed amendments are adopted, the member nations would not need to take any additional actions.
The United States Senate would not be required to provide a two-thirds vote to give their “advice and consent.” No signatures by national leaders would be needed.
Hal Turner Editorial Opinion
This is precisely how all the elected politicians around the world intend to FORCE Vaccines on everyone, FORCE Vaccine Passports, and FORCE quarantines; by DELEGATING those powers to unelected people at the World Health Organization, then telling YOU "Our hands are tied, this is required by International Law and Treaty, we have no power to stop it."
Worse, the WHO deems to decide for you and me, what constitutes "disinformation and misinformation, and they are giving themselves power to not only decide that, but to be able to actively CENSOR all of us, to prevent us from getting information out to the public when WHO and their pals are all wrong . . . as in the just recently proved "COVID-19" nonsense, and their phony "vaccines" that are causing people to drop dead in public.
Because they are making changes within an EXISTING TREATY, no vote by the US Senate is needed and nothing can be done (other than abrogate the Treaty and quit the WHO) to stop these FORCED changes.
You, your family, your children, could be FORCED to be vaccinated with God only knows what, simply because these unelected people in Geneva, Switzerland, say so! You or your children could be FORCIBLY QUARANTINED just because these unelected people in Geneva Switzerland say so.
This is the single most outrageous power grab in world history. It should be stopped. Now.
Because this is an existing Treaty, it, along with the US Constitution, is, by virtue of the Supremacy Claus of our Constitution, "the highest law of the land." No state would be able to "opt-out." There could be no redress of any of it via courts because it is a Treaty. All of us would find ourselves completely helpless.
It has never been decided by a US Court, as to whether or not a Treaty can usurp or over-rule provisions of the US Constitution. Are you willing to trust the present US Judiciary to protect our rights? I'm not. I've seen the federal courts in action up close and personal. They are now fabulously corrupt and completely unreliable.
If this secret meeting is allowed to put forth the changes outlined above, you and I would no longer have a right to speak the truth about things they do; they can censor it by law. You and I would not have the right to say "no" to their new, phony, and harmful, 'vaccines."
This is a usurpation of liberty taking place right before our eyes. We must step up right now to put a stop to it while we can still do so peacefully, and not by force of arms.
Oh, and "arms" . . . could be deemed a matter "potential to impact public health" and they could BAN the private ownership of firearms, and it would be legal because . . . a Treaty!
Comments
The details of the secret negotiations between the World Health Organization and the United States' delegates to the WHO must be investigated and made public IMMEDIATELY.
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-united-states?publication_id=746475&post_id=73906312&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true
CLICK HERE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
Also contact your Congressional Representative, and Senators via phone. Call their Washington Office and each of their local offices too!
https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/addr/
https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
https://contactsenators.com/senator-email-addresses
https://www.house.gov/representatives
EMAIL TEMPLATE (Short Version)
Dear Representative/Senator____________
This email is to alert you to secret negotiations that are ongoing regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
This is NOT in regards to the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”
The Senate will NOT be asked to give its “advice and consent.”
These proposed amendments seek an international agreement that would dissolve national sovereignty and replace it with a global medical and financial dictatorship, which would take away the United State’s sovereign authority, individual State authority under the 10th Amendment as well as the people’s unalienable right to privacy regarding health matters and freedom to travel.
I demand that you actually read the official documents below and publicly state your position in regards to the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Official Documents from the World Health Organization:
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf
https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/ihr-review-committees/review-committee-regarding-amendments-to-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Submissions-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496
For additional information, please contact James Roguski directly at 310-619-3055 and review the following information: jamesroguski.substack.com/p/100-reasons
Sincerely,
BTW - the second link gives a page not found (404) error.
Much appreciated.
To whom is it binding if it has been a secret?
Secret treaties and blood debt are NOT SEEN in the words?
These "secret" treaties do not qualify under all treaties, as presented because of the very nature of this conceal of a Non-State Representation of Men not chosen.
These "secret" treaties are to easy to become Active Treason and there for, by there very nature, do not rise to the standards set forth.
God is not asleep. He knows what time it is. We all may be forced to fight for our rights; one time they will want us to deny Yeshua/Jesus or be killed. Decide now what you will do.
Remember the demons are TERRIFIED of Yeshua. They know who he is and how mighty he is. Most Christians have no idea.
The enemy also knows his time is just about up. We all need to put in our big boy pants and get right with God and Yeshua now. Today is the day of salvation. The Son of God is coming back.
Revelation 19:11 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.”
3. Treaties must likewise be made under the Authority of the United States before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. From where do the President and the Senate obtain their Authority? From the Constitution. The Constitution must specifically authorize the national government to act in an area before they may lawfully make a treaty addressing the object. The national government may not circumvent the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers to do by treaty what they may not lawfully do pursuant to the enumerated powers. E.g., our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/…/treaty-making-powers…/
https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/supremacy-clause/
We just need few pieces of information to connect you with your representatives.
Take Action NOW! Share this link to help create a RESISTANCE TSUNAMI!
https://inhere.salsalabs.org/stop-ihr-amendments/index.html
Sign The Petition
Stop IHR Amendments
As you hide in the corner,
you are defeated, meager, of no consequence,
and near room temp.
Satan appreciates your loyalty.
As soon as you haven't eaten in a few days you will be right there to comply to get your hotpocket or slice of pizza or chicken wings.
Yep, no where in my readings does it say that the US "Christians" are somehow special.
I wish we could find some "Christians" who are still in Ukraine and ask them about the idea of being whisked away. I am sure that now they would probably have made different choices a long time ago.
I don't know how much Americans know, but the Canadian government has gone from banning all handguns to "making an amendment" to ban all guns in Canada, everything from hunting rifles to most bird hunting shotguns.
The traitors are obviously "going for it".
There remains the question of how the Treaty Clause comports with the rest of the system of enumerated and separated powers. Missouri v. Holland (1920) suggests that the Treaty Clause permits treaties to be made on subjects that would go beyond the powers otherwise enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert (1957), however, the Court held that treaties may not violate the individual rights provisions of the Constitution.
There remains the question of how the Treaty Clause comports with the rest of the system of enumerated and separated powers. Missouri v. Holland (1920) suggests that the Treaty Clause permits treaties to be made on subjects that would go beyond the powers otherwise enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert (1957), however, the Court held that treaties may not violate the individual rights provisions of the Constitution.
constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii/clauses/346
Question: Wouldn't this apply to protection of our Constitutional rights? Someone with more legal knowledge please answer this if you can.
Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/27/253/
This is where the US Supreme Court ruled that a treaty trumps the US Constitution.
Periodically, the question comes up on the bar exam.
The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...
"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,
"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."
Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:
"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."
The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED.
Now we must let our elected "representatives" in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE... we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.
[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. - CDR]
__________________________________________
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:
"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".
pg 317 - "The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson," A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." ______________________________________________________________
There remains the question of how the Treaty Clause comports with the rest of the system of enumerated and separated powers. Missouri v. Holland (1920) suggests that the Treaty Clause permits treaties to be made on subjects that would go beyond the powers otherwise enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert (1957), however, the Court held that treaties may not violate the individual rights provisions of the Constitution.
There remains the question of how the Treaty Clause comports with the rest of the system of enumerated and separated powers. Missouri v. Holland (1920) suggests that the Treaty Clause permits treaties to be made on subjects that would go beyond the powers otherwise enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution. In Reid v. Covert (1957), however, the Court held that treaties may not violate the individual rights provisions of the Constitution.
constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii/clauses/346
Question: Wouldn't this apply to protection of our Constitutional rights? Someone with more legal knowledge please answer this if you can.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
While treaties may preempt contradictory state law and supplant earlier-in-time federal legislation, the treaty power is not so broad as to override the Constitution.1 The Supreme Court stated in dicta in several cases that treaties may not alter the Constitution or authorize acts that the Constitution expressly prohibits.2 Although the Court has never invalidated a treaty itself on constitutional grounds,3 it has held that courts may not give treaties domestic effect in a way that interferes with individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution.4 In Boos v. Berry, the Supreme Court held that a treaty-based obligation to protect foreign embassies did not authorize Congress to enact legislation that infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.5 Similarly, in Reid v. Covert, a plurality of the Court determined that the United States could not rely on international agreements as authority to conduct criminal proceedings that did not comply with the grand-jury and jury-trial guarantees in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.6 The Supreme Court has since cited the Reid plurality opinion and described its conclusions related to the constitutional constraints on the treaty power as well established.7
Topics
Freedom of Speech
Supreme Court
Footnotes
Jump to essay-1In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court noted that, whereas the Supremacy Clause gives acts of Congress the status of supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, treaties are deemed supreme law of the land when made under the authority of the United States. See 252 U.S. 416, 432 (1920) (discussing U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2). Holland described it as an open question whether the authority underlying the treaty power could extend beyond what the Constitution permits. Id. But the Court clarified in subsequent decisions that the treaty power is subject to certain constitutional restraints, and the variation in language in the Supremacy Clause was intended to ensure that treaties made under the Articles of Confederation would remain in effect under the Constitution. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 16–17 (1957) (plurality opinion). See also infra notes 4–7.
Jump to essay-2See Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 657 (1853) (The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620 (1870) (It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.); De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) (It would not be contended that [the treaty power] extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924) (The treaty-making power of the United States . . . does not extend ‘so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids.’) (quoting De Geofroy, 133 U.S. at 267). See also Reid, 354 U.S. at 16 (This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.).
Jump to essay-3See Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Constitution 185 (2d ed. 1996); Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations § 307 cmt. a (2018).
Jump to essay-4See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 324 (1988) (It is well established that ‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.’) (quoting Reid, 354 U.S. at 16 (plurality opinion)). See also Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 416–17 & n.9 (2003) (stating that the power of a treaty to preempt state law is ubject . . . to the Constitution’s guarantees of individual rights).
Jump to essay-5See Boos, 484 U.S. at 324, 334. Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, several lower courts and commentators have concluded that the United States cannot exercise powers that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress, such as the appropriations of funds, through a treaty. See ArtII.S2.C2.1.4 Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties.
Jump to essay-6The plurality in Reid rejected the argument that an executive agreement between the United States and Great Britain and the North American Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement permitted military courts to try the dependents of U.S. military personnel living at overseas posts when the criminal process did not comport with constitutional guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Reid, 354 U.S. at 15–19 & n.29. See also Amdt5.2.1 Historical Background on Grand Jury Clause and Amdt6.4.2 Historical Background on Right to Trial by Jury (discussing the constitutional guarantees of a grand jury and trial by jury). While only four Justices joined the Reid plurality opinion, none of the separately concurring or dissenting Justices questioned the plurality’s analysis of the treaty power. See Reid, 354 U.S. at 41–64 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in the judgment); Id. at 65–78 (Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment); Id. at 78–90 (Clark, J., dissenting joined by Burton, J.).
Jump to essay-7Boos, 484 U.S. at 324. See also Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 417 n.9 (citing plurality opinion in Reid).
Congress.gov
Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth
my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 144:1
AND ITS THE GOD DAMN STUPID "PATRIOTS"....
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice“
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I am seeing more and more clearly, that the absolute piss poor education of "patriots" in the principles of Liberty is the cause of most of our problems.
I am not going to repeat my arguments, but if you do not know that treaties CAN NOT supersede the US Constitution, please get off of the Liberty bus, and go and join the fuking Left-Tards.
You are of no fuking use to the cause of Liberty.
"Because this is an existing Treaty, it, along with the US Constitution, is, by virtue of the Supremacy Claus of our Constitution, "the highest law of the land." No state would be able to "opt-out." "
Bull shit Hal
What is the mental block here?
Yes the Constitution is the highest law and it clearly says that treaties can not supersede it.
States fuking CAN opt out in 2 ways. They can declare something unconstitutional and nullify it (like they have with federal gun and drug laws) OR the States can secede from the Union. (but you have to have enough brains to know that you need a State Militia for your State to assert it's sovereignty, and patriots lack this particular part of the brain)
"It has never been decided by a US Court, as to whether or not a Treaty can usurp or over-rule provisions of the US Constitution. Are you willing to trust the present US Judiciary to protect our rights?"
BULL SHIT AGAIN HAL
They have illegitimately declared that treaties can supersede the Constitution at least 3 times. It matters not because the Constitution still says what it says and they were never given the power of judicial supremacy!
“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. if it is, then we have no constitution.”
~Thomas Jefferson
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
~Thomas Jefferson
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
I have just cited the actual text of the Constitution for the united States of America which explicitly states "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
You claim it clearly says that treaties can not supersede it." but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that. Nowhere. Not anywhere.
You claim this is "bullshit." Explain why?
You go on to claim:
"They have illegitimately declared that treaties can supersede the Constitution at least 3 times. It matters not because the Constitution still says what it says and they were never given the power of judicial supremacy!"
Please cite the cases to which you refer.
Hum? So All debts contracted in a secret room and engagements entered into at the expense of the soul of the state, binding?
To whom is it binding if it has been a secret?
Secret treaties and blood debt are NOT SEEN in the words?
These "secret" treaties do not qualify under all treaties, as presented because of the very nature of this conceal of a Non-State Representation of Men not chosen.
These "secret" treaties are to easy to become Active Treason and there for, by there very nature, do not rise to the standards set forth.
Okay, where does the Constitution give the government the "authority" to make treaties that supersede it? Our rights are unalienable and from GOD, protected by the Bill of Rights not 'granted' by it. They have NO authority to wad up our Supreme Law of the Land and toss it in the trash can simply because they want to.
As per your above statements, here's what the GOVERNMENT says about it (so they KNOW BETTER) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1-3-2-4-3/ALDE_00012960/
We live in a Nation of fuking mind controlled retards!
This is so simple a child can figure it out, yet no one of our so called patriot mouthpieces
seems to have enough brain cells to debate what is probably the most important issue in 100 years in this country!
Patriot is becoming a very dirty word in my mind.It means that you think that you know everything.
That "judges" are God, and what they say goes even when they were never given that particular authority.
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”
~ Saint Augustine
Jamie Waldon and Steve Quayle
Chew on this show for a while
Add it to this WHO info
The War serves as a perfect vehicle for their agenda on many levels including max distraction while they carry out secret meetings and new laws.
https://www.hagmannreport.com/delusion-unto-destruction-steve-quayle-jamie-walden-join-doug-hagmann-the-hagmann-report-january-5-2023/
After praying about it, I’ve come to terms with the fact that God has sent a strong delusion and no matter how much we try to convince them otherwise about the jabs, or anything for that matter, it won’t change their minds. I was a deluded soul before I got saved and got right with the Truth. Without the Truth, they’ll never believe the truth.
Now we just have to keep preparing. Trusting God to hide us away from these incoming troops. Then you have the other troops who are foreign, being trained and flown into the UK to facilitate the taking of non-jabbed people to the camps. See John O’Looney’s video about what intel soldiers have called him with for context. If they’re doing it there, they’re doing it here. Bringing them in with the immigrants.
The deck is stacked against us. But we have to stop living as if we are defeated. We already know evil will win the battles, but Jesus will win us the war. He said he would never leave or forsake us. So we have to believe Him.
My two cents. Like I said, the two videos left me feeling ill too. But the most important thing is to get the lost to Jesus because as Mike Yeadon said, these inoculated people only have 2-5 years before they die. That scares me more than anything.
If you look at all the things that were talked about in that interview, and step back as was suggested to a macro view, you'll see those 3 layers conjoin.
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1612462510778589185
2025?? That's 2 to 3 years away. I don't think it will be more than 3 to 4 months. That's when the subject of this article will be adopted.
By 2025 all the untold millions "predicted" by the Deagel Report will have to have died by then.
https://sustainatlanta.com/2015/04/02/remembering-the-time-andrew-jackson-decided-to-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-the-name-of-georgias-right-to-cherokee-land/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/vaccine-salesman-year-chief-says-covid-boosters-used-countries-kill-children-fake-fact-checkers-freak/
But there will be flickers of light in small places where GRANDMAS are on their knees and can use a gun too.
For MEN have turned into fat or narcissistic blobs who should have...could have...risen up to STOP THIS EVIL but did NOTHING.
MEN...you fools lost it all
You did NOTHING
Perhaps some of the Jan 6 men and women were willing....but they were deceived by Trump the ultimate Trojan horse CON artist.
He was bait for Christians...used to unleash 0landemonic #1 and the man to divide and conquer.
After seeing this...the nuking of DC maybe the hope of the world...at least to slow them down.
Harsh words, but true. Shades of history repeating itself.
When the last vestige of the Moorish invasion of Spain, the city kingdom of Granada, was finally captured by King & Queen Ferdinand & Isabella in 1492, as a royal courtesy they allowed the last Moorish king of Granada & his family to leave in defeat towards North Africa.
The legend goes that when they reached the last mountain pass from which Granada could be seen in the distance, he burst out in tears. Whereupon his mother instantly rebuked him saying: "Do not cry like a woman for that which you did not know how to defend like a man".
And thus we find ourselves in the same situation today to our eternal shame...
They’re training foreign born soldiers because they don’t trust their own to do this to their countrymen and women. But Arabs sure will.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2w9Kx31GPLPe/
It made my blood run cold. We need to prepare for the same thing here.
From Doctrine & Covenants 123:17: “Therefore dearly beloved brethren let us cheerfully do all that lies in our power that we may stand still, and with the utmost assurance, see the salvation of God and for his arm to be revealed.”
From Doctrine & Covenants 123:17: “Therefore dearly beloved brethren let us cheerfully do all that lies in our power that we may stand still, and with the utmost assurance, see the salvation of God and for his arm to be revealed.”
So if he was crowned, his name is known now. Do you know his name?
“Health Regulations Review Committee”
A self appointed “commie-ittee” wants to “Regulate” your “ Health” to
ensure some type of advantage for none other than, themselves of course.
“in secret.”
Did they hire Austin Powers & Mini-me for counsel.
Hegelian Dialectic
A fictitious (lie) problem is created, then an apparently contradictory
proposition is presented to overcome the fictitious problem, which
results in a third proposition to resolve the fictitious (lie) problem,
involving unacceptable and repulsive measures.
Oh Dear, some how a plandemic has occurred again... and again... and again...
There must be tighter control over the sheepole to promote good health.
Take many jab's, ration food, energy and movement. Remove all means
of self defense and independent transactions.
There, all is well now and you didn't even have to vote for us. (If you don't like
us you disappear.)
The credit card data goes directly to the credit card processor, STRIPE and remains on their computers.
Yes, my web site did get hacked and damaged. But there is NO CREDIT CARD info stored on this site, ever. So it cannot be stolen from this site.
Ever.
I set it up that way from the beginning because I, too, have seen credit card fraud and I did not want MY site to ever be the source of that for anyone.
Hal
reported?
And make sure another e-mail account was not inserted then marked as a contact for a verification code.
This is why we subscribe to Hal Turner.
No where else is this so radically covered.
Add to this one of MildB's postings,
US DEPT OF DEFENCE CONTROLLED THE
COVID19 VACCINE PROGRAMME FROM
THE START.
flying from?
Food distribution.
Fuel shortages.
Environmental sabotage.
Air&water.
Zombie apocalypse.
Draft.
Ukraine miasma.
Educational deterioration.
Dumbed down youth.
Immigration complications.
The coup underway in USA.
the unreported vaccine deaths.
Fag ascendancy.
Atheism crowned.
The hour is late.
Damn.
End of story.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6818&context=penn_law_review
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAW REVIEW
AND AMERICAN LAW REGISTER.
FOUNDED 1852
VOL. {8 .S-1 APRIL, 1909 Nuvuan 7
THE EXTENT OF THE TREATY-MAKING POWER
OF THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE OF THE
UNITED STATES.
Something has been written on the extent of the treaty-
making povier of the President and the Senate. Little has
been decided.
While the courts have frequently decided questions in-
volving treaties, most of these decisions have been confined
to the determination of the question whether a right claimed
under the treaty in question was covered by the terms of the
treaty, or whether such right, if within the scope of the
treaty, had been taken away by subsequent legislation. A
very few cases have involved a determination of the extent
of the treaty-making power, and in these few the point de-
cided is so narrow, was so inadequately, or not at all argued,
or has been rendered so doubtful by dicta of later judges
of the Supreme Court as to leave the whole question open.
There are only four clauses in the Constitution and its
amendments, in which treaties are mentioned. The first
is a prohibition on the States: "No State shall enter into
any treaty, alliance, or confederation." Art. I., § io,cl. i.
The second designates the repository of the power: "He
[the President] shall have power, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-
thirds of the Senators present concur." Art. II., § 2, cl. 2.
(435)
EXTENT OF TREATY-MAKING POWER
The third gives the federal courts jurisdiction in cases
arising under treaties: "The judicial power shall extend to
all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution,
the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their authority." Art. III., § 2.
The fourth provides for the legal effect of a treaty. "This
Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall
be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not-
withstanding." Art. VI. § 2.
There is another clause which provides: "No State shall,
without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement
or compact with another State or with a foreign power
* * **" Art. I.,§Io, cl. 2.
It will be seen from a reading of these provisions that
the treaty-making power is not in terms either limited or
made unlimited. It is not, in terms, made absolute, as if
it had been provided that all other powers granted- or re-
served by this Constitution shall be subject to the treaty-
making power, but neither is it in terms limited, as if it
had been provided that this power shall not be used to de-
prive any other departments of the federal government, or
the States, of any powers vested in or reserved to them re-
spectively. Is the treaty-making power then limited, or
absolute? All who have written on the question agree that
it is limited, though all do not agree where the limitation
should be placed.2
If, as is admitted, the treaty-making power is impliedly
'In the early part of the x9th century some members of Congress,
in debate, seem to have held the view that this power was unlimited. In
the debate on the Louisiana treaty, Senator Cocke, of Tennessee, said:
"I would ask what are the constitutional limitations? (on the treaty-
making power) It has none, sir, in that respect, and I contend that the
treaty-making powers are competent to the full and free exercise of
their best judgment in making treaties, without limitation of po.wer."
Annals of Cong. 0803-1804), p. 71.
OF THE PRESIDENT AND SENATZ
limited, what are the limitations on it? The general an-
swer, in whatever form it is expressed, is that it is limited
by other provisions of the Constitution.
Some say they’re more reliable than the Magic Unicorn.
But others know better.
Constitution of the US overrides treaties as it is the Constitution that enables those treaties to execute its powers.
As the GREAT DAVID once said:)
“I trust in God, so why should I be afraid? What can mere mortals do to me?”
Psalms 56:11 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/psa.56.11.NLT
I and my wife faced the decision to not take or take the mark of the beast Vaccine; We chose not to and we were forced to leave our Jobs.
Yet we survived and have prevailed. God is truly good and he has blessed us and sustained us but not without challenges that have become heavy burdened on us. That is an understatement.
We all have trials and tribulations in our lives. Some are heavy and some not but if you put your trust in God he will make a way even when you don’t think you can make it through.
Courage is the key. When things become impossible and unbearable never surrender to fear (as 80% of Americans have in taking the Vaccine).
Just Trust in Jesus even when you think you can’t.
1 Be merciful unto me, O God: for man would swallow me up; he fighting daily oppresseth me.
2 Mine enemies would daily swallow me up: for they be many that fight against me, O thou most High.
3 What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.
4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.
5 Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil.
6 They gather themselves together, they hide themselves, they mark my steps, when they wait for my soul.
7 Shall they escape by iniquity? in thine anger cast down the people, O God.
8 Thou tellest my wanderings: put thou my tears into thy bottle: are they not in thy book?
9 When I cry unto thee, then shall mine enemies turn back: this I know; for God is for me.
10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.
11 In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.
12 Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee.
13 For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the living?
In Jesus Name,
Amen
The Richest 1% of the World Has Deemed Your Life Purpose to Maximize Your Utility to Them no longer necessary. [1]
Covid lockdowns from 2020 to 2022 were not about protecting anyone’s health but were primarily about preserving the wealth of the richest 1% of the world and also transferring a great deal more of the cumulative global wealth to them.
The most important question in 21st-century economics may well be: What should we do with all the superfluous people, once we have highly intelligent non-conscious algorithms that can do almost everything better than humans?
Harari himself confirms my analysis by stating:
1. Organisms are algorithms. Every animal — including Homo sapiens — is an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.
2. Algorithmic calculations are not affected by the materials from which the calculator is built. Whether an abacus is made of wood, iron or plastic, two beads plus two beads equals four beads.
3. Hence, there is no reason to think that organic algorithms can do things that non-organic algorithms will never be able to replicate or surpass. As long as the calculations remain valid, what does it matter whether the algorithms are manifested in carbon or silicon?
Because Harari and the 1%ers view humanity as nothing more than exploitable algorithms, it is no wonder they lack any humanity for the plight of the suffering on this planet and instead view them as useless feeders and breeders.
If you or a loved one are incapable of serving the State’s goals as determined by the privileged and entitled Satanic opinions of the Hararites. It should come to no surprise to you they do not even consider humans that serve other humans in acts of compassion and love to be of any utility.
Just shut up, put this mask on and get in line for your vitamin supplement shot, wink wink.
It is clear to many it's no vaccine!
This is the type of people that are enacting policy in our world today. This position is very clear to some about their term “human utility”.
Statement 1, “99% of human qualities and abilities are simply redundant for the performance of most modern jobs,” a position that incredulously completely dismisses the job of a mother to bond with her newborn child, or of the job of a father to raise a strong, disciplined son of honor.
Business
The rise of the useless class
(more correctly, The Terminal generation is now on deck)
Feb 24, 2017 / Yuval Noah Harari
https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/
Note: superfluous
soo͝-pûr′floo͞-əs
adjective
1 Being beyond what is required or sufficient.More than is wanted or is sufficient;
2 rendered unnecessary by superabundance; unnecessary; useless; excessive.
3 an interval that exceeds a major or perfect interval by a semitone.
[1] primary source
Sign:WildB USNR BT2/RPO Comp287
They were fake…
The “doctors” posed as ER physicians and were part of the LGBTQ community in some way. They created this hellish/apocalyptic scenario that made it sound as if bodies were piling up in the streets. Well, this probably won’t come as a huge surprise to you, but those popular “ER doctors” were fake.
Covid lockdowns from 2020 to 2022 were not about protecting anyone’s health
https://www.revolver.news/2023/01/remember-the-twitter-er-doctors-who-claimed-hordes-of-patients-were-dying-daily-of-covid-they-were-fake/
New documents reveal the US Department of Defence (“DoD”) controlled the Covid programme from the start, the military’s investigative newspaper Armed Forces Press has said. The US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) vaccine approval process was theatre. Covid injections are “medical countermeasures” – a grey area of products that are not regulated as vaccines or medicines.
https://expose-news.com/2023/01/08/us-dod-controlled-covid-vaccine-from-start/
Only thing that would stop it is ww3.
Were there ever a hill to die upon. This would be it. Gonna be a Heck of a fight. God's Will be done.
They have no place in World society and should be STOPPED right now!
We have seen the deceit and damage caused by WHO edicts with Covid, they should be under investigation and disbanded not allowed to massively increase their undemocratic, unelected, power to control the World population!
Hmm, why the shift? What are they preparing for in the near future that they are shifting their attention to predominantly Red counties? Just sayin
Advisory status defines them as “having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them.”
RSS feed for comments to this post