Vitamin Lawyer Health Freedom Blog

Transitioning to Substack

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 16:12:00 +0000

To continue to follow my blog postings, please subscribe to my Substack:

https://freedomadvocate23.substack.com/

An Open Letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Exit the UN!

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Fri, 14 Feb 2025 02:53:00 +0000

White Paper in Support of UN & Agency Review

An Open Letter to the Secretary of State

To the Hon. Marco Rubio, United States Secretary of State and to the
United States Ambassador-Designate to the United Nations, the Hon. Elise Stefanik

Contents

0.1 Introduction|
1.0 What is the United Nations and What are its Agendas?
1.1 United Nations Agencies and Programs Contrary to US interests
1.2 The UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is Contrary to our Constitutional Rights.
1.3 History of Senate ‘Consent’ to UN Charter, which was not a Treaty, in 1945.|
1.4 The Act to appoint a UN Ambassador and provide for US participation.
1.5 The unilateral authority of the President to withdraw from the UN.
2.0 Conclusion.

0.1 Introduction

The United Nations and its Agencies and Programs are Contrary to US interests, Constitution and sovereignty.

Eighty years and countless dollars of participation have demonstrated its destructive impact on every aspect of our Nation’s life. The Secretary of State and the Ambassador are urged, in the strongest possible terms, to recommend to the President the United States immediate withdrawal from the UN and all its agencies, programs and operations.

Pursuant to Executive Order of February 4, 2025, requiring the Secretary of State and the United Nations (UN) Ambassador to review and report to the President on international bodies, this White Paper is designed to provide detailed information about the incompatibility of continued United States’ membership in the UN and all of its constituent organizations, programs and activities from a Constitutional, cultural, economic, health and values-based vantage point.

This White Paper will examine:

1. The history of UN, its agencies and programs, showing that they are comprehensively contrary to the interests of the United States.

2. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, showing that it is antithetical to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, abrogating our fundamental inalienable rights.

3. The history of fraudulent and Unconstitutional Senate ‘consent’ to, and supposed ratification of, the UN Charter in 1945 when it was misrepresented to the Senate as a Treaty.

4. The Unconstitutional, unlawful and expensive expansion of US participation in the UN and its subsidiaries far exceeds the enabling legislation of 1945 which appointed a UN Ambassador and, thus, circumscribed US participation.

5. The unilateral authority vested in the President to withdraw from the UN absent Congressional, Judicial, Legislative or International direction, decision or control.

We begin with Agenda 2030, its predecessors and successors:

Following adoption of Agenda 21[1] at the Rio United Nations Conference on Environment and Biodiversity[2] , comprehensive reorganization of every aspect of human society was initiated by the United Nations through its member states and their political subdivisions.

When progress was unsatisfactorily slow, another set of goals and programs, known as Agenda 2030,[3] was adopted by the United Nations’ membership. On June 13, 2019, the UN-Forum Partnership, between the UN and the Word Economic Forum (WEF), a private economic development organization, was formalized to “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” specifying that the partnership “identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations”, offering a private organization nearly unlimited influence and control over global policies and implementations reaching into every aspect of human life, planet-wide.

The fundamental principles upon which this comprehensive reorganization of society is based is naked Marxism: central control of the means of production, workers and distribution for the supposed benefit of all and the actual benefit only of the most powerful.[4]

According to both the United Nations and its partner, the World Economic Forum (WEF), human rights are a useless relic of the past, based on a “fairytale we tell ourselves”[5] and most of the population of the world is “unnecessary”, easily replaced by machines. Those people remaining will, through BioDigital Convergence[6],[7],[8] be quite literally rendered subunits of the machine.[9]

Restricted to a tiny radius of free movement under constant surveillance, limited to “alternative”
proteins, the denizens of UN/WEF supported “15-minute cities”[10],[11] it is hard to reconcile the right to either life or liberty with the comprehensive, draconian and minutely controlled existence “permitted” by the masters of every aspect of their fate with these well-articulated plans. But they are, indeed, fully consistent with the ultimate destruction of our guaranteed freedoms in exchange for the total control of a Marxist society envisioned and being rapidly implemented with US tax dollars by the dogmatically and consistently anti-freedom United Nations.

Depopulation is, and always has been, a central part of the United Nations’ aspirations, at least since 1974,[12] continuing and accelerating through the present via comprehensive implementation of Agenda 2030.

In partnership with WEF, the UN has decided that the world they wish to dominate and govern “needs” very few of us. Those of us remaining will be neutralized individually and collectively, reduced to prisoners in confined environments.

President Trump’s Executive order of 4 February 2025 was described by the White House as:

"The Executive Order also requires the Secretary of State to review and report to the President on which international organizations, conventions, or treaties promote radical or anti-American sentiment." [13]

The Order provides:

"Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, in consultation with the UN Ambassador, shall conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the United States is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States and whether such organizations, conventions, or treaties can be reformed. "[14]

1.0 What is the United Nations and What are its Agendas?

The contents of this White Paper are intended to provide significant backgrounder information to justify a review not only of the UN’s agencies and programs, but of the UN itself, but of continued United States participation in the UN itself: does this organization supports the values of the United States? Is it ‘contrary to the interests’ of the United States? It is, and we submit, the United States ought to withdraw from the UN.

Presenting itself as benign and helpful, the UN has successfully propagandized itself into a position of psychological and political near invulnerability since its creation in 1945. Meanwhile, the sinister reality of its actual agenda for comprehensive world domination has proceeded nearly unnoticed by most of us.

For Agenda 2030 / The Great Reset to come into full effect by the year 2030:

· Vast numbers of people must die, making an almost endless number of “Vaccines” necessary

· Virtually all farms and livestock must be destroyed, making “alternative proteins” and synthetic “food” necessary

· All privately owned vehicles must be banned, making 15-minute cities necessary

· Dissent must be criminalized, making comprehensive surveillance and censorship necessary

· All production and distribution must be centralized, making confiscation of private property necessary

· Economic activity must be monitored and controlled, making digital currency necessary

· Reproduction must be controlled and suppressed, making destruction of fertility necessary

Despite consistent positive propaganda spin, like USAID, UN programs serve the UN’s programmatic agenda, which differs markedly at every point from our Constitutional form of government.

Actually means:

1.1 United Nations Agencies and Programs Contrary to US interests

Agenda 2030 is a brilliantly articulated, comprehensive plan to destroy every facet of human society and, indeed, humanity itself. Its target is total world domination, control and ownership. Through a series of specialized corporations such as:

· World Health Organization (WHO)

· United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)

· United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

· International Labor Organization (ILO)

· World Trade Organization (WTO)

· International Monetary Fund (IMF)

· Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

No aspect of private, political or community life remains intact once Agenda 2030 is implemented. Full worldwide operationalization is scheduled for 2030, a mere five years away.

The UN is the source of numerous tyrannical and anti-American subsidiary organizations and programs, which have been operating for decades inside the US and internationally to the serious detriment of the US. The US taxpayer has footed a substantial portion of the bills for activities working directly against US interests, values, beliefs and needs.

Utilizing vast public relations budgets, the UN and its agencies launder Marxist ideas and policies by filtering them through its many minion organizations and programs, sanitizing them with distorted and distorting Orwellian language to ensure our cooperation in the destruction of our own bodies, families and societies. This is done as a technique to create a false perception of authority and consensus, as well as diffusing the accountability for UN directives which are woven into US policy at every level of governance.

1.2 The UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is Contrary to our Constitutional Rights.

The language of the UNDHR typically sets forth a ‘right’ or ‘freedom’ and then allows restrictions on same, ‘as provided by law’ – there are no inalienable rights under the UN system, contrary to the provisions of the US Constitution, such as Amendment One which prohibits any law restricting freedom of speech, religion and assembly. This example from the end of the UNDHR shows the intent to subordinate our inalienable rights to UN dominance:

Article 29

[1] Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

[2] In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

[3] These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. [Emphasis added]

1.3 History of Senate ‘Consent’ to UN Charter, which was not a Treaty, in 1945.

There are no signatories, either national or individual, to the UN Charter bound, as if by a “Treaty”, to either the UN or its Member States, nor can there be.

Facts & Law:

[A] At the end of World War Two the victorious powers negotiated the establishment of a successor to the League of Nations, to be called the “United Nations.” The UN Conference in San Francisco, in the spring and early summer of 1945, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, adopted the Charter and it was opened for signatures. President Truman was present at the Conference when the US Secretary of State signed the Charter, June 26, 1945. [15]

[B] In Article 110 the Charter requires its ratification:

1. The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

2. The ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all the signatory states of each deposit as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization when he has been appointed.

3. The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states.[16]

[C] Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States, and a former Senator, personally took the Charter to the US Senate asking for ‘advice and consent’ to join the United Nations.

[D] On July 28, 1945 the Senate held a Roll Call vote, as the Congressional Record shows:[17]

The Congressional Record states:

“Two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, the resolution of ratification is agreed to, and the treaty is ratified.”

[E] The US State Department, as official Depository, has published a document showing the ratifications of the original members. This excerpt shows the initial US signing of the Charter by the Secretary of State in June of 1945 and the date in August of 1945 when President Truman signed the Charter while he was in Europe at the Potsdam Conference.[18]

[F] While the National Archives shows a photo of President Truman signing the actual Charter on August 8, 1945. There is no record of a formal “Instrument of Ratification” on file with the Depository, as required by the Charter itself.[19],[20]

[G] The US Constitution provides, Article VI:

“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”

[H] The Vienna Convention on Treaties (VCLT) defines Treaties as contracts between sovereign states.

” Article 1 – Scope of the present Convention

The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 3 – International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention

The fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between States and other subjects of international law…”⁷

[I] Congress initially adopted the UN Participation Act in 1945⁸ after President Truman signed the Charter. While the Act provides for an ambassador-rank US Representative appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate it does not authorize US participation in the United Nations.

Discussion: The United States relationship with the UN is unconstitutional, conceived in deceit, maintained in deceit and is thus ultra vires.

Harry S. Truman assumed the office of President of the United States when President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. Previously he had been Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, of which he had been a member prior to becoming Vice-President.

In an unprecedented act, Truman personally presented the United Nations Charter to the US Senate and spoke to the body in favor of participating in the UN. He stated, among other points:

“I am appearing to ask for the ratification of the Charter… in accordance with the Constitution. … For this is not a static treaty…” (Emphasis added)[21]

Although the President pro tem of the Senate inaccurately characterized the Charter of the United Nations as a “treaty” the President of the United States specified it was not a “treaty.”

[22]

This inconsistency suggests that the Senate was misinformed regarding the nature of the document. This situation is further exposed by the US State Department’s official compendium of Treaties in Force[23] and its supplement[24] which do not list the UN Charter as a Treaty in force.

The Vienna Convention on Treaties is clear: international agreements, such as Charters, are not treaties.[25]

Therefore, by the preponderance of relevant authorities, the Charter is not a treaty. Despite the incorrect use of the word “treaty” in the Congressional Record, UN decisions do not trigger the “Supreme Law of the Land” clause of the Constitution. The UN Charter was conceived, presented and maintained by deceit. Any action by the US Government in furtherance of participation is ultra vires and void as unconstitutional.

Thus, State (and local) governments are not bound to follow UN dictates, including those issued by such subsidiary UN bodies as the World Health Organization.

The Charter explicitly differentiates between ‘Treaties’ and ‘international agreements’, stipulating that any Treaty brought before the UN must be registered with the Secretariat. The facts further show that no signatory to the UN Charter is bound, as if by a “Treaty”, to either the UN or its Member States. Nations which conclude the same international agreement do not enter into a Treaty among themselves by so doing. Section 102 of the Charter, the only Article referencing Treaties, states:

1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.[26]

The deception continues even today, since the US State Department erroneously refers to the UN Charter as a “multilateral treaty”.

“The United States is depositary for over 200 multilateral treaties – including, for example, the Charter of the United Nations, The Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the North Atlantic Treaty. In its depositary capacity, the United States keeps the original treaty texts and facilitates their signature, as appropriate. The depositary also receives instruments relating to the treaties, such as instruments of ratification, and maintains status lists of such actions.”[27]

[Note: some agreements listed by the State Department as “multilateral treaties” are certainly not; for example, the Kosovo UN Security Council Resolution is on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_Kosovo]

[Note that all of the United Nations ‘treaties’ listed on the various State Department compilations noted above appear to be operational agreements for various international agencies, not Treaties governing relations among States.]

International conventions and agreements to form international associations, private clubs among nations, are not Treaties under Article VI of the US Constitution and as such are not binding on the Nation or its several States.

With the very recent Decision by the United States Supreme Court, Loper et al. vs Department of Commerce, overturning the traditional ‘deference’ shown by Courts to the interpretations of law by Federal Agencies, there is no special credence that we must give to the State Department’s interpretation of US treaty obligations.[28]

Continued participation in the UN and its subsidiary organizations, commitment of resources or public funding of same, on the basis of our alleged “treaty” obligations to them, is an unlawful act and must be immediately terminated.

1.4 The Act to appoint a UN Ambassador and provide for US participation.

The United Nations Precipitation Act of 1945 provided that the President shall appoint a Representative to the UN who shall have the "rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary..." (see screen shot above). This appointment was a separate Act from any alleged Senate 'consent' to the UN Charter. The Representative "shall hold office at the pleasure of the President..." who therefore may remove the Representative or any "additional persons with appropriate titles..." appointed to participate.

1.5 The unilateral authority of the President to withdraw from the UN.

The US became a ‘member’ of the private membership club known as the United Nations by signature of the then President, unnecessarily ‘ratified’ by the US Senate.

Since the UN Charter is not a Treaty binding the United States as part of the Supreme Law of the Land, the President may, by unilateral act, withdraw from the UN. While the Constitution requires Senate consent to any Treaty, there is no constitutional provision regarding withdrawing from a ‘Treaty’ or any international agreement. Thus, such an act is solely within the executive competence of the President.

2.0 Conclusion.

The UN “Sustainable Development Goals” are a set of utopian (ie. fanciful and unrealistic) premises that they wish to impose on all nations, in order to steer the planet towards their twisted version of a better future. But, for whom will this future actually be “better”? At first read, each of the goals appears to be a very desirable and universal hope that people share. However, the devil is in the details, as always. These vague, seemingly benign statements are meant to lull the populace into a state of inattention and trust. Just in time for the Great Culling...

The Secretary of State and the UN Ambassador must conclude that the only way for the United States to protect its citizens from UN programs and agencies that are contrary to the interests of the United States, imposing globalist tyranny, is to withdraw from the UN immediately. #ExitUN

Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Fucetola JD
12 February 2025

With thanks for editing and research to the https://PreventGenocide2030.org collaborative.

[1] Agenda21.doc

[2] United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992 | United Nations

[3] 2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_kcsd_primer_en.pdf

[4] OHCHR | Universal Declaration of Human Rights - English

[5] Human rights is just a story - Noah Yuval Harari

[6] Exploring Biodigital Convergence - Policy Horizons Canada

[7] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12356

[8] U.S. Oversight of Laboratory Biosafety and Biosecurity: Current Policies, Recommended Reforms, and Options for Congress

[9] https://youtu.be/YrK8c3L3AKw

[10] https://youtu.be/OefI7KHWByI

[11] What is the 15 minute city in agenda 2030? - Geographic FAQ Hub: Answers to Your Global Questions

[12] Recommendations for implementation of World Population Plan of Action_1.pdf

[13] www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-withdraws-from-anti-american-un-organizations/

[14] www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-and-ending-funding-to-certain-united-nations-organizations-and-reviewing-united-states-support-toall-international-organizations/

[15] http://www.sfmuseum.org/un/signing.html

[16] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

[17] https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/un-charter-roll-call-vote-1945.pdf

[18] https://2017-2021.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/298-UN-Charter.pdf

[19] https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/64-50

[20] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v01/introduction

[21] https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/69/address-senate-urging-ratification-charter-united-nations

[22] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1090/pdf/COMPS-1090.pdf

[23] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1090/pdf/COMPS-1090.pdf

[24] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/TIF-Supplement-Report-2023.pdf

[25] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

[26] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

[27] https://www.state.gov/depositary-information/

[28] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

Libertarian Nationalism 2024

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 03:31:00 +0000

Libertarians and Nationalists
A New Generation Arises

"In a battle between force and an idea,
the latter always prevails." Mises, Liberalism

The Western World is in turmoil, with tens of millions of refugees from across the world coming toward North America and Europe UNHCR. Demographics are being changed as millions risk everything to escape intolerable conditions. Wars continue to grind out refugees and grind down civilized values, with the wars in Ukraine and the “Holy Land” poised to become regional conflicts risking World War III.

Reacting, people of European heritage, on both sides of the Atlantic, and in places like Australia and New Zealand, are organizing to defend what they see as threats to their freedoms and cultures.

The old political consensus in Western countries favoring personal liberty and a market economy is at risk from statists of the Left as well as from some "command economy" supporters on the Right.

Lysander Spooner, great 19th Century American Libertarian lawyer, pointed out that the Old World's aristocratic tyrannies were grounded in what he called the 'four monopolies': state churches, chattel slavery, the 'legal infirmities' of women and government economic monopolies. He saw all these old institutions collapsing.

History proved him correct, but other tyrannies developed. These include public tyrannies such as state schools, state ‘healthcare’ and central planning through central banks with state-monopolies over fiat ‘money.’ They also include ‘private’ institutions such as globalist-dominated NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and publicly traded, but ostensibly private entities such as YouTube, Facebook and Google.

The disempowered young on the extremes of the political divide, many of whom might have been in military formations in centuries past, have been taking to the streets, no matter which end of the spectrum, in increasing numbers.

This includes the World-Wide Rallies and Trucker Convoys of 2021/22 , the mass MAGA rallies of ‘23 and ’24, and the rapidly growing revolt of the UK and EU Right, all of which involve millions across the globe, opposing further censorship, lockdowns and mandates.

American and European youth are forming 'fight clubs' and other groups (examples: 'Active Clubs', the Patriot Front and the Proud Boys), encompassing every nuance from an individualist libertarian ethos through the 'hard right' of American Nationalists.

Example: the dozen Tenets of the Proud Boys include several strictly libertarian (maximum freedom, minimal govt.) as well as 'hard right' (closed border) and traditionalist values ('venerate the housewife').

That's a wide spectrum. Can there be any intersectional correspondence between libertarian individualists and corporatist nationalists?

This is not an academic question since there are now a number of credible crises that may play out, putting us all on the battlefield of a third world war -- or we may be facing our own "1346 Event" (the year of the Black Death that killed half of Eurasia) mediated, this time, by global immune system collapse, triggered by mass adverse reactions to the novel gene-altering COVID and more recent similar 'jabs').

Meanwhile on the battlefield in Ukraine... quite literally thousands of nationalist and other militants from all over Europe have gathered, forming Freikorps to fight for Russia or Ukraine. 'Nazi' regiments and 'Anarchist' cooperatives are fighting together ‘for Ukraine’.

Alliances on the Right are controversial; for a hundred years both libertarians and nationalists glared at each other, recently across the social media, (watching each other’s edgy videos of sparing, banner drops, hiking and protests) while at the same time standing against the Left, such as Antifa.

It is said that FDR and his first cabinet were fans of fascism. One commentator opined,

"Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini 'admirable,' adding that he was 'deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.' Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise...” Daily Caller.

This suggests a 'forgotten history' that may illuminate our question regarding the alliances on the Right and Left. Also consider the prior century (the 19th of the Common Era) when the theory of the omniscient State was developed by statists and opposed by proto-libertarians (such as Max Weber and Lysander Spooner).

The theory they opposed, that the State was a special type of organization, has ancient roots, growing from the 'divine right of kings'. Centuries later Marxists called for a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' justified by the 'force' of history. It was in the early 20th Century that the political theory was given a name, the State of Exception.

That ‘State’ is the legal theory justifying tyranny asserted originally by the German Jurist (and later Nazi) Carl Schmitt and strongly criticized by libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard.

Schmitt saw the unlimited powers of the totalitarian state as arising from a permanent state of emergency, a "State of Exception" which allowed ruling elites to act arbitrarily, capriciously and without adherence to the rule of law. Libertarians hold there can be no 'emergency' exception to inalienable rights.

Centrally planned economies fail, whether of the "Right" or the Left. World War Two discredited fascist theory just as the collapse of the USSR a few decades later discredited Marxism-Leninism. How did the two political movements 'on the Right' (libertarian and nationalist) react to each other over the century in which the theories of both movements developed?

Ludwig von Mises, the 20th Century's great philosopher of liberty, left his native land, Austria, in 1934, the year the Austrofascists took over. After a time in Switzerland he spent the war and post-war years in the United States where he mentored what has become a world-wide libertarian economic and political movement.

We have recently seen an avowed libertarian become President of Argentina and the Republican Candidate for US President appear before the Libertarian Party Convention engaging in direct, public ‘negotiations’ with the Party for libertarian support. He offered to include libertarians in his administration, including in a commission designed to quickly pardon January 6^th and other political prisoners.

Mises pointed the way toward a libertarian nationalist approach with his understanding of classical liberalism’s cosmopolitanism –

“...nationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.” L. von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, 1919

Or, as Jefferson put it, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations... entangling alliances with none.”

Both seek a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from globalist political systems used to micro-manage Human Action.

Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The strategy must be, ‘Abolish multiple old regulations for any new one proposed" -- and the same as to taxes and bureaus.’

Nonetheless, Mises was accused of being 'soft' on fascism by various Marxist scholars, as he thought Italian Fascism was to be acknowledged for stopping a Communist takeover there. His condemnation of fascist policies is clear:

"That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone." Mises, Liberalism

Both collectivist political movements, Communists and Fascists, espoused the same morality of 'might makes right' and supported central planning and government domination over all of social life. Left or Right, statism supports dictatorship, central planning and economic exploitation of the Market by the Government.

This is a critical point at which both Left and Right statism can fail: they do not understand market economics and the inescapable laws of the market.

Both tendencies on the Right (nationalism and libertarianism) see, in common, cultivating manliness among the youth as a significant value, in direct opposition to the Left's championing of Critical Race Theory's offspring, Critical Sex Theory, with its emphasis on 'metrosexual' feminized males and non-binary or trans persons.

Both see themselves as the 'True Right', as Rothbard might have called it. Both seek to build lasting communities of like-minded, self-actuated, and politically active, men and women who value individual effort, physical prowess, and intellectual achievement.

In this way the new Western Chauvinists stand not just against the Left, but more importantly, stand against the globalist elite that seeks to manipulate both Right and Left, exercising especially strong control over popular Leftist causes such as 'climate change' and 'systemic racism'.

Ultimately, it is dissatisfied individuals, engaging in Human Action, guided by Informed Consent, who will set the underlying economic and social conditions which will determine how Western Civilization will develop in the coming decades and centuries.

It was Mises who defined the first principle of Human Action (praxeology) as "Humans act purposefully". Arising from that understanding, all Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction.

The youth of the world are profoundly dissatisfied, none more so than Westerners of European heritage.

Beware, as a new generation arises.

There is one step we can all take right now: #ExitUN

https://PreventGenocide2030.org

Fortified Functional Food

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Fri, 16 Aug 2024 01:18:00 +0000

The concept of Functional Foods is a market concept, not an FDA regulatory category, not subject to FDA control. It was created as a response to perceived consumer desires that were not addressed by the laws and regulations governing dietary supplements, including the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, passed unanimously by Congress, which secured Americans' right to speak more freely about the benefits of nutrients. While a major step forward, DSHEA continued some restrictions on speaking the truth about food and health.

We did move beyond the prior era when FDA raiders would tear the "Health Food" sign off health food stores as we were not permitted to associate 'health' and 'food' together. Now we could speak truthfully about the relationship between nutrients and the normal structure and function of the body. That was a partial victory which engendered the vibrant natural products industry in America and globally that is heading toward a trillion dollars a year! [1]

The concept of Functional Foods developed from the need to describe the functional benefits of food to a growing marketplace. One definition proposed for the concept was,

"Functional foods cover a variety of foods. Minimally processed, whole foods along with fortified, enriched or enhanced foods, can all be functional foods. Generally, these foods have a potentially beneficial effect on health when consumed on a regular basis and at certain levels." [2]

Certain Functional Foods, such as, say Orange Juice as a source of Vitamin C, provide their benefits as they are, naturally. Other foods, when fortified with nutrients, can provide even greater benefits. "Another area that is often questioned is food fortification — when products include added

vitamins and other nutrients. Fortified foods can have a place in a healthy eating plan. Some may help to provide nutrients that might be low or missing.

For example, there are only a few foods that naturally contain vitamin D, so products that are fortified with it, such as milk, are a main source of vitamin D for many people." [3]

Thus Fortified Functional Food is a category of nutrition which has potential benefit when fortified with more of the key nutrient, or with other nutrients that complement the key nutrient in the food. Such foods are not used merely to 'supplement' the diet, as allowed by DSHEA, but to provide health benefits that go beyond mere supplementation.

Such Fortified Functional Foods, in their most sophisticated formulations, may very well qualify as Medical Foods, permitted under the Orphan Drug Act Medical Food provision, to be recommended by a physician for the dietary management of a health condition. Thus, Fortified Functional Foods may claim more than just 'supporting' normal form and function. The act states that such foods are

"...intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation….” [4]

In 2004 WHO, the World Health Organization, defined NCDs, the “preventable noncommunicable diseases of under nutrition…” (such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity) as a major health concern that can be addressed through a "strategy [that] includes the promotion of a healthy diet." [5]

Fortified Functional Foods are intended to promote wellness through providing targeted nutrition based on the on-going development of nutritional science.

Ralph Fucetola JD [6]
Institute President
www.VitaminConsultancy.com

Reposted from: https://inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/IHR-FunctionalFoods.pdf

-------

[1] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210121005382/en/Global-1.1-Trillion-Healthand-Wellness-Foods-Market-to-2027-U.S.-Accounts-for-Over-28.9-of-Global-Market-Size-in2020-While-China-is-Forecast-to-Grow-at-a-7.5-CAGR-by-2027---ResearchAndMarkets.com

[2] https://www.eatright.org/health/wellness/healthful-habits/functional-foods

[3] Ibid.

[4] Section 5(b) of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 360ee (b) (3))

[5] https://www.unnutrition.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/NCDs-Diets-Nutrition%20brief-ENWEB.pdf

[6] Retired Attorney at Law (1971 -2006): www.VitaminConsultancy.com

The UN Charter is Not a Binding Treaty!

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Tue, 14 May 2024 01:46:00 +0000

LEGAL MEMORANDUM
Is the United States in a Treaty Relationship
with the United Nations?

Questions:

Is any participation and funding of the United Nations (and its subsidiary and/or associated organizations) legal?
Did the 1945 signing of the United Nations (UN) Charter and the US Senate vote authorizing the President’s signature create Treaty obligations binding on the United States?
Was the UN Charter ratified as a Treaty by the US Senate or is it merely a contract between the United States and an international association?
Is the absence of the required deposit of the formal Instrument of Ratification evidence that the UN Charter was not lawfully ratified?
Are the UN Charter and related UN documents (such as the WHO Constitution) binding on State governments under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution?
Are the UN Charter and related UN documents binding in any way on the United States?
What binding obligations does membership in the UN (and its subsidiary organizations) impose on the United States?
Was the manner in which then President Harry S. Truman presented the Charter to the US Senate unconstitutional as conceived in deceit, maintained in deceit and thus ultra vires, beyond the power of the President and Senate?

Facts & Law:

[A] At the end of World War Two the victorious powers negotiated the establishment of a successor to the League of Nations, to be called the “United Nations.” The UN Conference in San Francisco, in the spring and early summer of 1945, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, adopted the Charter and it was opened for signatures. President Truman was present at the Conference when the US Secretary of State signed the Charter, June 26, 1945. [1]

[B] In Article 110 the Charter requires its ratification:

The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
The ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all the signatory states of each deposit as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization when he has been appointed.
The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states. [2]

[C] Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States, and a former Senator, personally took the Charter to the US Senate asking for ‘advice and consent’ to join the United Nations.

[D] On July 28, 1945 the Senate held a Roll Call vote, as the Congressional Record shows [3]:

The Congressional Record states:

“Two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, the resolution of ratification is agreed to, and the treaty is ratified.”

[E] The US State Department, as official Depository, has published a document showing the ratifications of the original members. This excerpt shows the initial US signing of the Charter by the Secretary of State in June of 1945 and the date in August of 1945 when President Truman signed the Charter while he was in Europe at the Potsdam Conference [4].

[F] While the National Archives shows a photo of President Truman signing the actual Charter on August 8, 1945. There is no record of a formal “Instrument of Ratification” on file with the Depository, as required by the Charter itself. [5] [6]

[G] The US Constitution provides, Article VI:

[H] The Vienna Convention on Treaties (VCLT) defines Treaties as contracts between sovereign states.

” Article 1 – Scope of the present Convention

The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 3 – International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention

The fact that the present Convention does not apply to international agreements concluded between States and other subjects of international law…” [7]

[I] Congress initially adopted the UN Participation Act in 1945 [8] after President Truman signed the Charter. While the Act provides for an ambassador-rank US Representative appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate it does not authorize US participation in the United Nations.

Discussion: The United States relationship with the UN is unconstitutional, conceived in deceit, maintained in deceit and is thus ultra vires.

In an unprecedented act, Truman personally presented the United Nations Charter to the US Senate and spoke to the body in favor of participating in the UN. He stated, among other points:

“I am appearing to ask for the ratification of the Charter… in accordance with the Constitution. … For this is not a static treaty…” [9] (Emphasis added)

Although the President pro tem of the Senate inaccurately characterized the Charter of the United Nations as a “treaty” the President of the United States specified it was not a “treaty.”

This inconsistency suggests that the Senate was misinformed regarding the nature of the document. This situation is further exposed by the US State Department’s official compendium of Treaties in Force [10] which does not list the UN Charter as a Treaty in force.

The Vienna Convention on Treaties is clear: international agreements, such as Charters, are not treaties.

Thus, State (and local) governments are not bound to follow UN dictates, including those issued by such subsidiary UN bodies as the World Health Organization.

Further, continued participation in the UN and its subsidiary organizations, commitment of resources or public funding of same, on the basis of their alleged “treaty” status, is an unlawful act.

Respectfully submitted,

Ralph Fucetola JD
Attorney at Law: 1971 – 2006

--------------------

[1] http://www.sfmuseum.org/un/signing.html
[2] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[3] https://www.senate.gov/about/resources/pdf/un-charter-roll-call-vote-1945.pdf
[4] https://2017-2021.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/298-UN-Charter.pdf
[5] https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/64-50
[6] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v01/introduction
[7] VCLT: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
[8] UN Participation Act of 1945: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1090/pdf/COMPS-1090.pdf
[9] https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/69/address-senate-urging-ratification-charter-united-nations
[10] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf

Devolution USA

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sat, 03 Feb 2024 03:38:00 +0000

Devolution USA

Maybe It Is Time to Seriously Discuss Peaceful Devolution USA

Will the United States survive as a highly centralized, bureaucratic nation state? This memo assumes the nation will fracture in the near future. What do Americans really want? Do their choices, and their votes, matter?

Hundreds of thousands of Californians and New Yorkers have ‘voted with their feet’ and moved mostly to Texas and Florida. Many Texans, for example, want to leave the Union again [1] and become an independent nation again. [2] The USA seems to be coming apart at the seams.

So it might be time to revisit the foundational document of the federal system: the Declaration of Independence.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- United States Declaration of Independence

For the first time in a century and two thirds Americans face the real prospect of irreparable differences among large geographic areas of the federation. Many fear that we are on an irreversible path toward a civil war between the over-populated coastal urban centers and the food and fuel producing interior regions they depend upon.

This map shows states supporting Texas’ efforts to secure the international border as the federal authorities fail to do so.

A second civil war would be a struggle for control by the urban elites or autonomy for the interior regions. The electorate appears nearly evenly divided, with no clear majority, although I suspect in 2020 the Regime Uniparty ‘transferred’ about 5 million votes from the Green and Libertarian Parties to put the Biden Remime in power. It currently looks like the Regime holds all the levers of Federal power... Congress, the presidency and the highest courts are all compromised.

This time it must not be like what happened in 1860/65 when the Federal Government destroyed dozens of American cities and about a million and a half Americans died in the war and subsequent famine (mostly, BTW, former slaves) during a failed attempt to split the Federation.

Furthermore, the Law of Nations has evolved substantially since the War Between the States, with the right of national self-determination generally trumping ‘recognized’ nation-state boundaries.

Would people support an Institute for Peaceful Secession [the IPS] which would study how peaceful secession and dismantling of the Union could occur?

The Institute could study relatively peaceful examples from history, like the Czechoslovak "Velvet Revolution" and the break-up of the USSR or British Empire.

What would we actually have to do to peacefully replace the United States of America and its authoritarian legislative, judicial, executive/military bureaucracy with true guardians for our liberties?

Maybe that new structure could be called the American States' Common Market or the New American Confederation.

A new Declaration of Full Independence is needed, clearly protecting those states that choose to move from subservience to federal authority and, for example, gaining power to opt-out of international agencies such as the WHO.

Americans would most likely need a free trade treaty among the States. This could include joint international border controls, but free internal travel and trade for citizens of the States. States with similar policies might form collaborating blocks, coordinating activities. Or they might not. Freedom for individuals and localities should be primary.

That was the original concept of the Confederation that existed before the Constitution of 1787 and is within the purview of the Declaration of Independence which reserves to the people the "...right, [the] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Americans have lived under three separate polities since declaring independence: the Continental Congress [1774 – 1781], the Confederation [1781 – 1789], and the Federation under the Constitution of 1787 [1789 – present]. Planning for a Fourth Republic should not be unthinkable.

The first step toward making a New American Confederal Republic a reality would be studying and publicizing how to do it peacefully.

A bit over twenty-five years ago the arguable most powerful and largest imperial government on earth, that of the USSR, disappeared -- nearly without warning and, surprisingly, with little bloodshed.

Many areas, like Ukraine, which had been part of the empire since the 1700s, became independent nations again.

It was just a few years before that the head of the Red Army bragged that the "correlation of forces" had shifted decisively to the USSR and against the West. We all know what happened and the suffering of millions as the old regime collapsed without any planning.

While the peoples of the former USSR are now much better off than before, it took a quarter century for them to be able to enjoy the freedoms their resistance to Red Tyranny had at least partially regained.

We could face similar horrific hardship unless we plan for the devolution of the Third Republic.

There is already a state-supported body known as the Uniform Law Commission which can serve as a model. It developed the Uniform Commercial Code among other model state laws and is an example of cooperation among the States. [3]

Another approach would be for those States, like Texas, that are distressed by the CCP-backed Coup of 6 January 2021, when Congress was panicked into approving the stolen election, leading to the current border crisis, to demand the convening of a Convention of the States to revise the Constitution of 1787, as provided in that document. [4]

That body could reform the Federal System and, perhaps, preserve the Union. While we all hope saner leaders prevail, we must face the historic fact that every nation has changed over time, often in revolutionary ways. What is the average longevity of a Republic? Even the strongest last just a couple of centuries. [5]

Change will happen. The alternative to destructive change is preparation -- prepping for the inevitable.

What basic principles could inspire a movement for the peaceful Devolution USA?

Here are some that might be considered:

1. Do No Harm; one Civil War was enough.

2. Keep the national common market with no internal tariffs and external tariffs limited to funding ports and border control.

3. Common national security based primarily on State forces and militias; maintain the Marines & Space Force.

4. Common peaceful international relations, no overseas bases, with the States retaining power to opt-out of Federal regulations or treaties and other international agreements that require State action to implement.

5. Allowing of market-based currencies free from political and central bank manipulation.

6. Devolve all government activities not explicitly stated in Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution of 1787 from the national government to the States; strictly enforce the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

7. Maintain the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments), the 13^th and other personal rights amendments.

8. Collaboration among the States, without requiring Federal approval.

The Free Republic can be re-imagined for the modern world with its global communications and markets, but only if the stultifying power of the Federal Bureaucracy is abolished.

Comments?

If you are interested in further exploring Devolution USA, please follow this Group on Telegram: https://t.me/+jjRoN9E9zYdiYjJh

By: Ralph Fucetola JD
Retired Attorney at Law
ralph.fucetola@gmail.com

----

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Independence_Referendum_Act

[2] Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836 https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5872/m1/1071

[3] "The Uniform Law Commission, also called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a non-profit, American unincorporated association. Established in 1892, the ULC aims to provide U.S. states with well-researched and drafted legislation to bring clarity and stability to critical areas of statutory law across jurisdictions" https://uniformlaws.org/home

[4] https://conventionofstates.com/

[5] https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/17/most-world-powers-last-250-years-is-americas-expiration-date-near/

Ver 1.1 / 8Feb24

Advice for the Globalists

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:48:00 +0000

Telling the Globalists Why I Will Not Comply
The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care

At James Roguski’s suggestion I submitted the following email to the Global Public Health Convention Panel. You may want to submit your comments too.

21 September 2023
Dame Barbara Stocking, Chair
Global Public Health Convention Panel
bms44@cam.ac.uk
Hon. Dame Stocking,
I am taking this opportunity to do as you suggested on September 19, 2023 in your Guest Editorial at Geneva Health Files, with an offer of suggestions to resolve the WG-IHR (Working Group – International Health Regulations) ‘impasse’.
I am a retired lawyer (36 years practice in the USA) and an ordained minister. My area of expertise has been in regulation of natural health products. My website is www.VitaminConsultancy.com.
I am the author of Informed Dissent: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/informed-dissent-the-book/
I work with an international collaboration of health freedom advocates through Natural Solutions Foundation.
In conjunction with other advocates, we have developed and published The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care.
The document may be found here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/the-seven-principles-of-humane-health-care/
The Principles are:
Existing International regulations and treaties regarding international, local or personal health must be replaced by the principals of H.H.C. (Humane Health Care), starting with the First Rule: Do No Harm.
1. Public Health: In a humanely functioning society with proper hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, pandemics and wide-spread chronic illness do not occur. Pandemics do not occur in well-functioning societies.
2. Sovereignty: Pandemics and other ‘health conditions’ must not be used as weapons to curtail or eliminate the inalienable personal rights and freedoms of We, the People, nor to damage personal sovereignty and/or national sovereignty.
3. Personal Medical Freedom is essential and guaranteed. Each individual is the relevant stakeholder in preserving his/her health and has the absolute human right to access any health strategy, freely deciding whether or not to consent to, or refuse, any proposed treatment.
4. Informed Consent is the necessary precondition for health freedom; any violation of Informed Consent is both a crime against humanity and against the individual.
5. Informed Dissent: means demanding transparency, open communications and unfettered freedom of speech, which are essential to prevent tyrannical consequences of ‘pandemics-of-convenience’ and widespread chronic ill health.
6. Social Controls Violate both Informed Consent and Informed Dissent and promote pandemics or widespread chronic ill-health. Social controls include lockdowns, Digital ID Passports, Social Credit Scores, social distancing, censorship and so-called “vaccine” mandates.
7. Local Control, in harmony with the above Principles, must form the basis of social governance. Global, private and public-private partnership organizations must remain free of conflicts of interest and be restricted to advisory roles only.
We, the free peoples of the world, showed through our World Wide Demonstrations and Trucker Convoys that we will not comply with tyrannical health impositions such as those contemplated by the IHR amendments. We understand that compliance is death while defiance frees.
I will not comply. https://PreventGenocide2030.org
Rev. Ralph Fucetola JD
Source: https://substack.com/redirect/d761a67c-3809-4bb8-9a67-739ac063b806?j=eyJ1IjoibDRoM2QifQ.k5QYd2WhiNkPDVVfanHJK_R89oBO6BFU5vhSYLGuVaU

Also posted: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/advice-for-the-globalists/

I Will NOT Comply: Propagandemic 2.0 Mandates and Restrictions are Unlawful!

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:33:00 +0000

"They" are coming after us again... with unlawful mandates and restrictions...

https://loud-proud-and-free.printify.me/products

Although the COVID-19 declared "Pandemic disease" of 2020/22 was proven to be not much more dangerous than the Annual Flu, especially if you take into account that nearly no one died from the 'disease' but millions died from the officially-sanctioned 'treatment' for same and continue to die from long-term adverse reactions to the novel, barely tested, gene-altering 'vaccines'.

The restrictions and mandates imposed globally have been shown to have been not just useless, but actually causing harm, especially to young people. Courts around the world are reaching the only just solution: the lockdowns and restrictions have been unlawful from the start.

The World Health Organization -- WHO -- backed by various government 'health' agencies and NGOs, having learned nothing from the disaster over which it presided, wants to double down, adopting draconian regulations for future declared pandemics, manipulating the process of creating a new 'pandemic treaty' and establishing a framework for a world-wide 'vaccine passport' system. Of course their complicit national agencies are preparing more lockdowns and mandates.

"They" are telling us that all these failed policies are coming back at us. "They" are telling us we must comply.

But we know the truth: the disaster stopped only when millions of resisters joined together in World Wide Rallies and Trucker Convoys and refused to comply. It took a year for our protests to succeed, but we learned a valuable lesson.

This time we are ready to resist from the start.

Compliance kills; defiance frees.

Declare that you will not comply here: https://PreventGenocide2030.org

The unlawfulness of the lockdown, restriction and mandate regime is clear.

The violations of the universal right to free speech through government--big tech collusion are now well-known.

Recent court decisions in the USA have reinforced that understanding. Both the trial judge and the first appellate level court agreed to enjoin the Regime's program of instructing media companies as to what truthful information was to be suppressed. The case is Missouri vs Biden and it will reach the US Supreme over the next few months. The courts took the extraordinary step of enjoining the White House due to the obvious unlawfulness of the Regime's attempts to ignore the First Amendment's pledge to respect freedom of communications.

"On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services to request the blocking of material, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been some coercion in the government's contact with social media companies in violation of the First Amendment, but narrowed the extent of Doughty's injunction to block any attempts by the government to threaten or coerce moderation on social media..."*

It is my opinion, as a scholar of the Law, that the great legal lession of the declared pandemic is that governments will engage in unlawful behavior anytime they have an excuse. Eventually the legal system catches-up with legal precedence and government overreach is somewhat restricted.

It has been said that "The courts follow the elections..." but I suggest they also hear the shouting in the streets.

They will hear I Will Not Comply.

------------

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Biden

Strolling for Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sat, 02 Sep 2023 01:36:00 +0000

Expressing Non-Compliance

Just strolling down a sidewalk with some friends can constitute resistance to authority, triggering the anti-First and Second Amendment authoritarian Left.

That’s what a group of Proud Boys learned during August 2023 in upstate New York. They met one weekend noon and over several hours strolled down the main streets of several nearby towns, carrying flags, including the Stars and Stripes, along with the Gadsden ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ and Proud Boy ‘Laurels’ flags.

The corporate media, echoed by local politicos, tried to spin a ‘peaceful and patriotic’ walk into a continuation of the January 6th ‘Insurrection’. Local citizens’ reaction did not reflect their ‘leaders’ prejudices. They warmly greeted the strollers and during the following few days a number of them spoke favorably about the strollers before local municipal meetings.

Now people across the globe are being told to prepare for another round of useless mask mandates, devastating lockdowns and ‘unavoidably unsafe’ vaccines.

To freedom advocates this recalls how the lockdowns and other unscientific impositions ended: when people around the world came together in the World Wide Demonstrations, Trucker Convoys and mass refusals to comply the ‘emergency’ ended. Even in totalitarian Red China.

The prospects for the survival of the Republic — “If you can keep it.” — look bleak. Thousands have been criminally charged, or otherwise punished by banks or other state corporatist entities for walking and speaking.

A number of patriot leaders have been sentenced to decades in prison for protesting what they consider to be a stolen election in 2020, becoming martyrs whose freedom must be a primary demand of the Freedom Movement. The Movement seeks restoration of the freedoms taken during the 2020/22 'pandemic.'

There is a growing consensus in the Freedom Movement that mass action must continue. The call is: “I refuse to comply”

We will not comply with mandates, lockdowns and corporate collusion with government to censor or punish speech. We want an end to war and anti-science corporate ‘health’ care.

Compliance is death.

The unprecedented increase in ‘all cause’ deaths since the vaccine rollout proves that.

Life is in our Great Reject of their Great Reset.

I do not consent. I will not comply.

https://PreventGenocide2030.org

Informed Dissent -New Book by Counsel Ralph

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sun, 28 May 2023 03:25:00 +0000

INFORMED DISSENT

During the Years of the Declared Pandemic, On the Way to World War Three: 2019 - 2023

https://www.lulu.com/shop/ralph-fucetola/informed-dissent/paperback/product-9nyzn2.html

The ‘pandemic’ started in early 2020 but things were already in motion in 2019, with at least one ‘think tank’ running a simulation scenario in October involving a new pandemic disease that would rapidly spread from a lab in a city in China. Perhaps synchronistically at nearly the same time I gave a paper at the Libertarian Scholars' Conference (King's College, Manhattan) on Informed Consent.

Our essays begin with that paper, but reach back to cover the disturbing developments regarding vaccine mandates earlier that year.

The following opinion pieces are divided into two sections: Pandemic and Freedom. Within each section they are mostly organized by date.

With Gratitude to:
Rima E. Laibow MD for reminding us: “Don’t You Dare!”
General Bert for telling the world:
“Informed Consent is the Defining Issue of the 21^st Century” and
James Roguski for coining the phrase: “Informed Dissent”

Contributor Notes: Your author is a retired lawyer (36 years practice) and minister. The opinions expressed in Informed Dissent are those of the Author, not necessarily those of the Institute for Health Research.

"Informed Dissent means demanding transparency, open communications and unfettered freedom of speech, which are essential to prevent tyrannical consequences of ‘pandemics-of-convenience’ and widespread chronic ill health."

Table of Contents

PART ONE: PANDEMIC,Informed Consent Paper,The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care,Rep. Gottheimer Misunderstands,Tribunals of Conscience,The Great Facebook Purge of 2020,Mandatory Masking and the ADA,New York Lawyers Need a Lesson in the Law,"The Police Power of the State is Not without Limits",An Open Letter to Justin Amash: Speak Out for Informed Consent!,Mind Control and COVID,Martial Law, the US Constitution and COVID-19,Can the USA Survive the COVID Pandemic?,Who is Telling the Truth about COVID-19?,The Good Health Lawyer Obtains Vaccine TRO,Coronavirus and Bioweapons,Deadly Coronavirus from China or CDC?,Call to Veto,NJ Senate Delays Abrogation of Religious Conscientious Objections to Vaccines,Lawyers Against Mandatory Vaccines,The Persecution of Vaccine Conscientious Objectors,Politico Reports: The "Two Party" System and Vaccine Mandates,Fox News Fake News Vaxx Propaganda Attacks NY Jewish Community,What Measles Outbreak?,Forced Vaccination is a Crime Against Humanity,
PART TWO: FREEDOM,Libertarians and Nationalists: A New Generation Arises,We are the Resistance to the Great Reset,The Empowered Fear the Powerless,The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory,The "White Supremacist" Big Lie,Song Review: By God We'll Have Our Home Again,The Meme Wars,Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment,Speaking the Unspeakable: The First Amendment & Violent Overthrow,Is the End of the USA Unthinkable?,Rubicon or Reichstag at the Capitol?,Was the 2020 Election Legitimate?,Nationalist Libertarianism,Federal Communications Commission Comments,Comments to FCC Regarding Trump Censorship Petition,Trump Issues Internet Censorship Policy Order,Social Media Must Honor Freedom of Speech,
APPENDIX,2019 Informed Consent Paper Slides,General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent,My Biography,Essay Sources & Dates

Debt Limit Default Big Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:00 +0000

"Raise the Debt Limit or
Default on the Federal Government Debt"

Big Lie

Head of the Regime Biden asserts he has the power, under the 14th Amendment, to unilaterally raise the Federal Debt Limit without Congress's consent.

The actual words of the Amendment, however, suggest differently: It is Congress that has plenary power over the Debt, not whoever holds the office of President.

"Section 5 - The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Some weeks ago Speaker McCarthy made a political mistake when he spoke (6 February 2023) and supported 'raising the debt ceiling' but with 'reservations'. In early May the Republican House Majority passed a Debt Increase 217 to 215, with several Freedom Caucus Republicans refusing to vote in favor.

When a government has to borrow more to pay the interest on its debt it is clearly bankrupt, but for the largesse of its creditors. No one who lends money to the US Government under those circumstances has a legitimate expectation of being repaid. Repudiation of the debt may be the only choice of future generations and may be the necessary precondition for the restoration of the Republic.

Both governing parties, what we can call the Uniparty, are unwilling to stop the bubble the massive 'printing' of fiat currency must engender. Both sides of the Uniparty depend on pumping the bubble, primarily through ever growing agencies and programs. Both sides will keep the game going until the formerly 'good as gold' US Dollar evaporates even more than it has over the past century of Federal Reserve fiat monopoly.

Pointing out the truth of the Federal Debt, some suggest, violates the 14th Amendment's clause against 'questioning' the Debt. I cannot imagine that the authors of the Amendment thought the 14th Amendment amended the First Amendment. Those who say that 'failing to raise the debt limit' will cause the Federal Government to 'default' on its debt are lying -- so long as they have trillions in taxes coming in they can service their debt -- and they are "questioning the debt" themselves...

Calling debt-financed government 'fraud' is protected speech.

Nonetheless we are told that the US government might 'default' on its public debt if the 'ceiling' is not raised. But what exactly is this limit on the Federal Treasury's ability to borrow?

From the beginning of the Republic until relatively recently every issuance of Federal notes had to be authorized by a specific enactment by Congress. Every time the USA went deeper into debt Congress had to take responsibility. Thus, for generations the Federal debt remained relatively low.

Then in 1917 Congress decided to hide its Constitutional obligations regarding debt and substituted the 'Debt Ceiling' for actual Congressional oversight. [1] In that year the Debt was 5.7 billion dollars (when twenty dollars equaled an ounce of gold) [2]. Today the debt tops $31 trillion, a 5,438 percent increase.

What Speaker McCarthy does not address is the 'Elephant in the Room' which is that the US Government is not obligated to go further into debt to service its Debt. It can do that from the taxes it collects. Defaulting would thus be a political choice.

The opposite policy choice is to use incoming revenues to pay the interest on the debt, and, for the sake of our grandchildren's future, begin to pay it off. The Federal Government takes in at least $4.7 trillion [3] so it has plenty of money to meet its debt. What's left over can be applied to other government expenses, or returned to the taxpayers.

Why then does the Uniparty want to raise the Debt Ceiling?

So Congress can spend even more money than it has, without taking political responsibility.

Big-Spender Biden has a new ally in Big Spender McCarthy. Both are, in effect, defrauding the public and causing the Federal Debt to be 'questioned.'.

We are in a time when the savings and real incomes of the real people who contribute to the real national economy (that means private employees and small businesspeople, including farmers and craftsmen) are falling, as a result of government inflationary policies. The special reserve status of the US fiat dollar is disappearing.

The elite classhas no worries. It increasingly includes all Federal employees, who now represent the highest paid employees in the nation, with the greatest benefits, all at the expense of taxpayers who cannot keep-up with increasingly expensive basic living expenses. [4]

Prudent leaders would slash government spending, abolishing whole departments and agencies, especially those in charge of Making America Woke instead of Making America Great Again. We must abolish the 87,000 new armed IRS agents; we must defund the other recently armed multiple Federal Police Agencies. They are a clear and present threat to the Republic.

Years ago Ron Paul suggested that, since 'we owe it to ourselves' the Federal Reserve's share of the national debt could be written off. That step would reduce the debt by $6.2 trillion. [5]

Clearly there is no reasonable need to raise the Debt Ceiling.

It is time that the Federal Government spent within our means. Certainly the Head of the Regime claiming the power to dictate the level of the Federal Debt is a clear and present threat to the Republic. We are governed by a Regime that no longer even pretends to govern under the Constitution, making it a lawless Regime.

If Congress fails to gut federal spending the bursting of the bubble will result in a forced restructuring of governance on this Continent.

The Debt Limit should not be raised one fiat penny!

If not now, the time will come when a new generation refuses to be bound by the fraudulent promises of a previous generation's disingenuous politicians.

The clock is ticking...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_debt_ceiling
[2] https://www.thestreet.com/politics/national-debt-year-by-year-14876008
[3] https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
[4] https://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-federal-employees-are-paid-more-than-their-private-sector-counterparts
[5] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FDHBFRBN

The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Fri, 24 Feb 2023 03:33:00 +0000

DECLARATION

OF THE AD HOC
#WHOxit ADVOCATES COLLABORATION*
The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care
https://preventgenocide2030.org/

“Pandemics do not occur in well-functioning societies.”
Public Health / Sovereignty / Personal Medical Freedom
Informed Consent / Informed Dissent
Social Controls Violate / Local Control

We Declare:

Existing International regulations and treaties regarding international, local or personal health must be replaced by the principals of H.H.C. (Humane Health Care), starting with the First Rule: Do No Harm.

Public Health: In a humanely functioning society with proper hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, pandemics and wide-spread chronic illness do not occur. Pandemics do not occur in well-functioning societies.
Sovereignty: Pandemics and other ‘health conditions’ must not be used as weapons to curtail or eliminate the inalienable personal rights and freedoms of We, the People, nor to damage personal sovereignty and/or national sovereignty.
Personal Medical Freedom is essential and guaranteed. Each individual is the relevant stakeholder in preserving his/her health and has the absolute human right to access any health strategy, freely deciding whether or not to consent to, or refuse, any proposed treatment.
Informed Consent is the necessary precondition for health freedom; any violation of Informed Consent is both a crime against humanity and against the individual.
Informed Dissent: means demanding transparency, open communications and unfettered freedom of speech, which are essential to prevent tyrannical consequences of ‘pandemics-of-convenience’ and widespread chronic ill health.
Social Controls Violate both Informed Consent and Informed Dissent and promote pandemics or widespread chronic ill-health. Social controls include lockdowns, Digital ID Passports, Social Credit Scores, social distancing, censorship and so-called “vaccine” mandates.
Local Control, in harmony with the above Principles, must form the basis of social governance. Global, private and public-private partnership organizations must remain free of conflicts of interest and be restricted to advisory roles only.

https://preventgenocide2030.org/

Make Your Monthly Health Freedom Pledge Here Today!

Please help. Give Health Freedom your generous continuing support we can continue doing what we do best: support Informed Consent and Informed Dissent — and shine the light of truth on the threats to Health and Freedom we are facing.

Use this link to support Natural Solutions through PayPal,
https://paypal.me/natsolutionshealth

Or this one to donate to the Institute through Fundly,
https://fundly.com/support-natural-therapies.

----------------------------

* This Declaration of the Ad Hoc Collaboration is in keeping with a series of Health Freedom Declarations issued over the past decades, including:

[1] Wilton Declaration, 2002 –
http://www.lifespirit.org/wiltondec.html
[2] Tiburon Declaration, 2007 –
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=460
[3] Long Beach Declaration, 2012 –
http://drrimatruthreports.com/the-long-beach-health-freedom-declaration/

[4] Santiago Declaration – 2015
http://drrimatruthreports.com/international-health-freedom-declaration/

Libertarians and Nationalists: A New Generation Arises

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 03:05:00 +0000

Libertarians and Nationalists: A New Generation Arises

Fasces at US House of Representatives

"In a battle between force and an idea,
the latter always prevails." Mises, Liberalism [1]

INTRODUCTION

The Western World is in turmoil, with over a hundred million refugees and other migrants across the world coming in our direction. [2] Millions are crossing into the USA and the EU. Nations with centuries of tradition are being overrun by culturally dissimilar people. The situation is beginning to take on the appearance of one of the great historic migrations of the peoples, such as those that overwhelmed classical Roman civilization. Demographics are being changed as millions risk everything to escape intolerable conditions.

Reacting, large numbers of people of European heritage, on both sides of the Atlantic, and across the globe in places like Australia and New Zealand, are organizing kindred and collaborative groups to defend what they see as threats to their freedoms, their cultures and their people.

There are several tendencies developing in this milieu. There are Christian fundamentalists, Nordic Neo-Pagans, libertarian techno- and crypto-nerds, rightist 'active clubs' and more edgy fight clubs, well-organized militant nationalist groups like the Patriot Front. There are those who position themselves as 'Fascists' without understanding the Socialist basis of Fascist ‘economics'. Then there are those, like the Proud Boys drinking clubs, who are 'in the middle' groups, decidedly anti-Antifa and anti-Fascist as well.

THE POLITICAL CONSENSUS

It seems that the centuries' long political consensus in Western countries favoring personal liberty and a market economy is at risk from statists of the Left side as well as from some 'command economy' supporters of the nationalist, nominally Right, side.

It was about a century and a half ago that Lysander Spooner, great 19th Century American Libertarian lawyer, pointed out that the Old World's aristocratic tyrannies were grounded in what he called the 'four monopolies' -- state churches, chattel slavery, the 'legal infirmities' of women and government economic monopolies. He saw all these old institutions collapsing.

In the intervening 20th Century, with government monopolies like the Federal Reserve leading the way, the old 'classic liberal' ideals of liberty and free market economic progress seem unreachable to many, especially disempowered, mostly young white men on the extremes of the political spectrum, many of whom might have been in military formations in centuries past. People have been taking to the streets, no matter which end of the spectrum, in increasing numbers.

This has become a strong trend and is exemplified by actions such as the World-Wide Rallies and Trucker Convoys of 2021/22 which involved millions across the globe, but mainly in Western countries. The lockdowns and mandates have become rallying points for the Resistance [3] in the Western world.

MANNERBUND -- MENS' GROUPS

On a more local level, young men in America and Europe are forming serious 'fight clubs' and other active groups ('Active Clubs', the Patriot Front and the Proud Boys again come to mind). The youth who gravitate to these alliances have a broad spectrum of political beliefs, encompassing every nuance from an individualist libertarian ethos through the 'hard right' of American Nationalists.

This mix can be seen in the dozen basic principles of the Proud Boys which include several strictly libertarian propositions (maximum freedom, minimal govt.) as well as 'hard right' positions (closed border) and traditionalist values ('venerate the housewife') [4]

That's a wide spectrum. Can there be any intersectional correspondence between libertarian individualists and corporatist nationalists? Can libertarians and fascists ever cooperate on any issue?

There is in European politics the idea that there is a 'hard line' between 'democratic' parties and fascist (and, I would say, communist) parties; all the 'democratic' parties agree, no matter who 'forms the government' the extreme parties will not be allowed into the halls of power. Are libertarians obliged to honor this understanding among the statist parties? How far should freedom advocates cooperate with nationalists who, while expressing Western values, may be willing to, under certain circumstances, initiate violence to effectuate change to their liking?

This is not an academic question since there are now a number of credible crises that may play out, putting us all on the battlefield of a third world war -- or we may be facing our own "1346 Event" (the starting year of the Black Death pandemic that killed half of Eurasia over just two years, mediated, this time, by global immune system collapse, triggered by mass adverse reactions to the novel gene-altering COVID 'jabs').

Meanwhile on the battlefield in Ukraine... quite literally thousands of nationalist and other militants from all over Europe have gathered, forming freikorps to fight for Russia or Ukrane. 'Nazi' regiments and 'Anarchist' cooperatives are fighting together on the Ukrainian side.

COLLABORATION ON THE RIGHT?

The issue of alliances on the Right has remained controversial for a hundred years and even now both sides glare at each other across the social media, (watching each other’s edgy videos of banner drops and protests) while at the same time each stands against the Left as personified by groups like Antifa.

During the past hundred years, as America embraced 'foreign entanglements' in World War One, the first fascist State was founded (Mussolini's Italy in 1922). Later a number of countries became self-consciously fascist, including Spain, Portugal, Romania, Argentina, Austria and Germany. It is said that FDR and his first cabinet were fans of fascism.

One commentator opined,

"Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini 'admirable,' adding that he was 'deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.' Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise, writing of Roosevelt’s many reforms, [and] ‘Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.'” [5]

These early 20th Century machinations suggest a 'forgotten history' that may illuminate our question regarding the alliances on the Right and Left. Remember World War II started when both Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, as allies, a few weeks apart.

Also consider the prior century (the 19th of the Common Era) when the theory of the omniscient State was developed by statists and opposed by proto-libertarians (such as Max Weber and Lysander Spooner).

THE STATE OF EXCEPTION

The theory they opposed, that the State was a special type of human organization, has very ancient roots, growing from the 'divine right of the priest kings'. This concept may be denoted as 'statism'. It was further developed in Plato's Republic, which made no significant provision for free speech and dissent.

Centuries later Marxist writers proposed a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to overthrow both feudal and classic liberal societies. There has never been a statist commitment to equal rights or free markets. But it was in the early 20th Century that the political theory was given a name, the State of Exception.

What is a "State of Exception"? It is the legal theory justifying tyranny asserted originally by the German Jurist (and Nazi) Carl Schmitt [6] and strongly criticized by libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard. [7]

1. Special executive powers
2. Suspension of the Rule of Law
3. Derogation of legal and constitutional rights

More about the history of the State of Exception in my blog, The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory. [8] To summarize, in my opinion there can be no 'emergency' exception to inalienable rights. All theories supporting the State of Exception are anti-freedom and must be extricated from our public life.

FASCISM AND COMMUNISM BOTH FAIL ECONOMICALLY

Centrally planned economies fail, whether of the "Right" or the Left. World War Two discredited fascist theory just as the collapse of the USSR a few decades later discredited Marxism-Leninism. However, the embers of these theories remain scattered around and flame up every so often, in 'liberated zones' or 'no go' or 'gang' areas in many Western cities and universities.

In this context, how did the two political movements 'on the Right' (libertarian and nationalist) react to each other over the century in which the theories of both movements reached their fullest development? We seek to find the collaboration within libertarian individualism and the individualism within nationalism.

As a subsidiary issue we look at the disconnection between Right Nationalism as a political movement and Government Domination (Fascism, Corporatism, Socialism or Syndicalism) as an economic theory. Libertarians, on the other hand, have an 'unhampered market' economic theory clearly at odds with statism's central planning and enforced collaboration between Market and Government.

LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM

Let's look at Ludwig von Mises, the 20th Century's great philosopher of liberty. I note that he left his native land, Austria in 1934, the year the Austrofascists took over. After a time in Switzerland he spent the war and post-war years in the United States where he mentored what has become a world-wide libertarian economic and political movement.

He pointed the way toward a libertarian nationalist approach with his understanding of classical liberalism’s cosmopolitanism.

“nationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.” [9]

Or, as Jefferson put it, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations... entangling alliances with none.”

My blog on Nationalist Libertarianism explores this further [10]

Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade

Lead to a libertarian world.

As a practical matter, urgent steps in the direction of greater individual liberty require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems used to micro-manage Human Action.

Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish multiple old regulations for any new one proposed" -- and the same as to taxes and bureaus.

Nonetheless, Mises was accused of being 'soft' on fascism by various Marxist scholars, as he thought Italian Fascism was to be acknowledged for stopping a Communist takeover there.

However his condemnation of fascist policies is clear:

Here Mises was applying the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle [NAP] and condemning the pro-war policies of the tyrannies of his time, primarily the Fascists and the Communists.

THE FUTURE OF COLLABORATION?

Both collectivist political movements espoused the same morality of 'might makes right' and supported central planning and government domination over all of social life. Left or Right, statism supports dictatorship and the anti-freedom State of Exception. They are each run by self-selecting elites that engage in vicious internal rivalries. They support central planning and economic exploitation of the Market by the governing elites.

This is a critical point at which both Left and Right statism can fail: they do not understand market economics and the inescapable laws of the market. The economic failures of statism are lessons from which young persons can be "Red Pilled" away from statism and toward liberty. Liberty, when understood, can be profoundly redemptive.

Both tendencies on the Right (nationalism and libertarianism) however do see cultivating manliness among the youth as a significant value, in direct opposition to the Left's championing of Critical Race Theory's offspring, Critical Sex Theory, with its emphasis on 'metrosexual' feminized males and non-binary or trans persons.

Why have some of those who espouse an 'Alt Right' [sometimes Alt Right 3.0] lifestyle of learning, martial training and activism ['Cultured Thug'] also adopted a more extreme 'fash' (Fascist) style, while others use more 'center' nationalist symbolism? Why is fascist posturing [giving what are considered 'Roman Salutes' and the like] so attractive to some on the Right, while others, such as libertarian nationalist youth, remain committed to peace, free trade and civil liberties?

Both see themselves as the 'True Right'. Both seek to build lasting communities of like-minded, self-actuated, and politically active, men and women who value individual effort, physical prowess, and intellectual achievement. There are commonalities on the Right.

CONCLUSION

It was Mises who defined the first principle of Human Action (praxeology) as "Humans act purposefully". Arising from that understanding, all Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction.

The youth of the world are profoundly dissatisfied, none more so than Westerners of European heritage.

Beware, as a new generation arises.

-----

Footnotes:

[1] https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html

[2] https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/

[3] https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2022/11/we-are-resistance-to-great-reset.html

[4] The Tenets are:

1. Minimal Government
2. Maximum Freedom
3. Pro Free Speech
4. Pro-Gun Rights
5. Anti-Racism
6. Anti-Racial Guilt
7. Anti-Drug War
8. Anti-Political Correctness
9. Closed Borders
10. Glorify the Entrepreneur
11. Venerate the Housewife
12. Reinstate a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

[5] https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/13/fdr-praised-mussolini-and-loved-fascism/

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

[7] https://mises.org/library/carl-schmitt-and-murray-rothbard

[8] https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-state-of-exception-tyrannys-theory.html

[9] L. von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, 1919

[10] https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2020/09/nationalist-libertarianism.html

[11] https://www.PreventGenocide2030.org

--------------

References:

https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html

https://mises.org/library/mises-and-fascism

https://mises.org/library/was-mises-fascist-obviously-not

https://mises.org/library/mises-his-importance-and-relevance

https://fee.org/articles/misess-lost-papers-plundered-by-the-nazis-buried-by-the-soviets-rediscovered-by-me/

We are the Resistance to the Great Reset

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:37:00 +0000

We are the Resistance to the Great Reset
There is No Emergency Exception to Inalienable Rights

"Liberty" in Ancient Cuneiform

It started long before the 'Pandemic of 2020.' The phrase 'The Great Reset' was in use for years to label the globalists' plans for a New World Order and a new fiat globalist monetary system. We just did not know what would trigger the final stages of the imposition of tyrannical international governance. Now we know. An 'Emergency' was needed to allow the 'State of Exception' which derogated our heretofore inalienable rights, such as our universal rights of Informed Consent and Informed Dissent.

At least 5.9 billion have received the still-experimental 'Emergency Use Authorization' COVID 'vaccine' -- without ever being truly informed of the risks. We know that all of them now have the biomarkers for deadly heart and circulation risks.

Billions may die over the next few years, not from the 'Pandemic' but rather from adverse reactions to the jabs. They will die from myocarditis, from SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome), sudden onset, late stage cancer and other once rare conditions. This 'Great Culling' will jeopardize our finely-tuned markets and supply chains. It may lead to a collapse of civilization and mass starvation.

We, the Resistance, refuse to go quietly to the sad end planned for us by the globalist elite. First, many of us have refused the jabs. We 'purebloods' will not be part of the Great Die-Off. Rather, we are the dissidents who will survive and expose what the elites would rather hide.

We will do that by building on the unique world-wide resistance to the pandemic lockdowns and mandates. That resistance started in March of 2020 with the first of the World Wide Rallies. Ninety cities in fifty countries participated. Within a year hundreds of cities and towns in nearly 150 countries protested together: a million people in Berlin; a million in Vienna; nearly as many in France and Britain; the largest demonstrations in Australian and New Zealand histories.

As the lockdowns began to crumble the Truckers Convoys took the lead, first in Canada and then in France and the USA.

These two developments represent a quantum change in world politics. For the first time the cozy relationships of government diplomacy were overshadowed by People Power in the streets. Except in totalitarian regimes the lockdowns and mandates evaporated.

But that did not stop the globalist cabal. They struck back. May of 2022 the Regime in the USA offered a dozen amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that would further empower the World Health Organization (WHO) despite its complete failure to effectively address COVID. WHO is widely viewed as corrupt and very cooperative with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), helping to cover-up the source of COVID.

The Resistance, remembering how we had just stopped the lockdowns and mandates, went to work. Groups of health freedom advocates in a dozen countries generated strong public opposition to the IHR amendments. Over a few months millions of messages were generated to the legislatures of the USA, Canada and South Africa, among others. The amendments stalled.

Our Push Back tactic is to boldly tell legislators and our other agents in government to stop. We want WHO abolished, not further empowered. We want national sovereignty respected along with our individual right to control our own bodies and make our own informed health care choices.

Rather than an all-powerful international bureaucracy that will continue to make mistakes that will then damage people globally we want the basic principles of good health: sanitation, hygiene and nutrition to guide all nations in their responses to any perceived pandemic threat.

We call these the Seven Principles of Humane Health Care [read it here: www.preventgenocide2030.org]

What is the basic tool of the Resistance? It is nothing less than speaking truth to power.

We Push Back by demanding our inalienable rights; by petitioning our agents in government to protect our rights rather than diminish them.

Our goal is Health Freedom. Our strategy is to get as many countries out of WHO -- #WHOxit -- as we can. Our tactic is to Push Back ever more boldly.

There is no emergency exception to inalienable rights.

Join us by taking the Action Items at www.preventgenocide2030.org

Visit us at www.OpenSourceTruth.com

You are the Resistance.

Gottheimer Misunderstands

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:26:00 +0000

My Congresscritter

Gets it Wrong

NJ’s Rep Gottheimer Misunderstands
Or Maybe Chooses Not to Understand…

I sent our most recent Action Item, supporting USA withdrawal from the WHO, to my Congresscritter. His staff misread the letter, or maybe didn’t read it at all. You can take the Action and read that letter here: https://inhere.salsalabs.org/congress-stop-who

So I responded to Rep. Gottheimer (his letter is below mine).

Dear Congressperson Gottheimer,

I note your email which misstates my position on the WHO and USA responses to the “novel” COVID outbreak.

I do not support the international response to COVID: lockdowns, masking and Emergency Use Authorization (or any) “vaccine” mandates.

As the President of the Institute for Health Research, a recognized NGO founded in 1998, I stand firmly against the response and against the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), proposed by the USA delegation without Congressional oversight. The IHR changes would jeopardize USA sovereignty. You have sworn to uphold that sovereignty.

Furthermore, the separate proposed Pandemic Response Treaty would also surrender national sovereignty whenever the Director General declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (a PHEIC, pronounced ‘fake’).

I urge you to support Rep. Biggs’ HR 7931 which would withdraw the USA from WHO.

And while you’re at it, how about a public commitment of support for the universal right of Informed Consent? This fundamental right is under concerted globalist attack for the first time since the right was enshrined in international law during the Subsequent Nuremburg Trial of the Nazi Doctors for violating Informed Consent. Here is a link to a paper about the history and legality of Informed Consent I delivered to the Libertarian Scholars Conference (held at King’s College, Manhattan, October 2019). https://inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Informed-Consent.paper_.1a.pdf

Our District looks to you for protection from all governmental violations of personal liberty whether in the name of “security” or “health” or any other excuse.

Sincerely,

Ralph Fucetola JD
Institute President
www.InHeRe.org

Here is Gottheimer’s letter.

The Empowered Fear the Powerless

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:21:00 +0000

A specter haunting
America and its skull
Wears a tricorne hat.

The Empowered Fear the “Powerless”

A specter is haunting[1] America, wearing a tricorne hat.

We must never forget the horrific wars of the Twentieth Century (the "American Century") during which socialist states, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China, killed over a hundred million disarmed men, women and children. Americans stood firm and by Century's end humanity thought there would be a respite during the new millennium, after the never-to-be-lamented USSR collapsed and Red China was forced to allow market forces which raised the living standards of a quarter of humanity, despite the false ideology the CCP continues to profess.

That respite was short lived as a renewed global “Empowered Elite” arose from the very successes of the triumphant global capitalist market. Those newly “woke” Empowered value power so much that they are willing to use any claimed crisis to achieve one goal: global central planning to “rationalize” the unpredictable results of the worldwide free market. Control is the goal of plutocrats and bureaucrats alike.

However, consider that today there are more scientists and engineers working on this planet than the total population of just a few centuries ago. Consider the accelerating pace of innovation and change. We are ever closer to that ‘singularity’ when technological change happens at an ever faster pace. Unpredictably.

Those Empowered who believe they rule the world are afraid of innovation. Change is a threat to their sinecures and their government-guaranteed profits. Their corporations and institutions are at risk when human action brings about new associations, inventions, structures and concepts.

How are the Empowered likely to respond?

The obvious choice of these “elites”, as expressed through their governments, international agencies and “nongovernmental” organizations, is to frighten people with horrifying tales of ersatz global environmental catastrophizes or pseudo-pandemic diseases. Then, there’s always a war or two...

Fear is followed by tyranny.

Whether they are telling us we must give up our prosperity for the sake of some previous state of the ever-changing environment or telling us we must give up all our personal freedom, including Informed Consent, to “flatten the curve” of a novel disease which will, no matter what, run its course, their use of state power to preserve Empowered wealth is obvious.

Yet for every action there is an opposite reaction. Their attempt here is to reverse the past three hundred years of greater freedom; centuries during which the tyrannies of chattel slavery, government-controlled religion and belief, the “legal infirmities” of women, and government trade monopolies were all abolished, after millennia of subjugation and repression.

And it certainly looked as though they were succeeding in reversing centuries of progress (in the name of “progressivism” – as usual, Aesopian reversal of meanings to hide the one vital question: who benefits?).

Then, after a year of harmful lockdowns, meaningless masking and dangerous vaccine mandates people began to resist. The “woke” attempt to break the open society and the nuclear family went too far...

Starting in March of 2021 a series of World Wide Demonstrations developed. At first, every other month on the third Saturday. In March people in 90 countries and 150 cities demonstrated; in May a 150 countries and 300 cities; in July, nearly every non-totalitarian country, hundreds of cities. Then people started demonstrating every Saturday, in thousands of cities and towns. Then truckers formed caravans demanding a return to an open society. We saw a hasty retreat by the Empowered as lockdowns and masking disappeared and as cracks formed in the vaccine mandates; and so the resistance continues. People are becoming aware of the threat to our universal right of Informed Consent. Similarly tens of thousands are joining local political party committees, while irate parents are attending schoolboard, library and council meetings in unprecedented numbers.

People are rising up against Empowered Tyranny.

Throughout the world, and especially in Europe and the English-speaking nations, there is a growing uprising by men in the prime of life who are viewed by the Empowered as powerless and unnecessary to consider. They are the “deplorables”. Men’s groups, active clubs, fathers’ groups and the like are becoming politicized. Men seek to protect their spouses and children. They seek to protect their livelihood.

At the same time the mothers of the world are rising up, to protect their families and children. The World Wide Demonstrations bring together all liberty-loving people, demanding freedom of choice and Informed Consent.

But it may very well be the numerous men’s groups, arising throughout the Western World that pose the greatest threat to the Empowered, and thus the greatest hope for humanity.

It is the specter of a newly awakened masculinity that most frightens the Empowered.

This return to manliness is against a background of severe depletion of testosterone levels among many Western men, caused by feminizing hormones in the environment, and as recently revealed, by certain “vaccines” that have been mandated in direct violation of Informed Consent.

What are these men’s groups? They are voluntary private associations.

They are independent fraternities in the original meaning of the word: brotherhoods. The ancient bonds of brotherhood among men in towns and rural communities, where the members of the “Mannerbund” (men’s group) helped each other in various ways: by “raising” a barn or responding to the “hue and cry” to defend the community from invasion or wrong-doing, or otherwise acting from their common bond.

Sometimes such groups have an overt political quality: consider the Sons of Liberty of the 1760’s for example: drinking clubs that sparked a revolution. Other times they have a religious quality, and there are many such confraternities. The Masons and Shriners can be considered as hybrid groups.

So can the Democrat Party’s thugs, once the white-hooded KKK, more recently the black-hoodied BLM. The (G)OP, America’s other ruling party, is not much better. Except for the Greens and Libertarians no American political party supports the universal right of Informed Consent.

In the past decade there has been a growth of voluntary associations among working family men in the United States; among plumbers, electricians, craftsmen, contractors, builders, among others. An example is the Proud Boys, with their nearly libertarian, explicitly pro-free speech, anti-racist and pro-free market beliefs (all adult men are welcomed, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion or adult sexual preference).

Throughout especially Eastern Europe and North America, and to a lesser extent Australia and New Zealand, younger men are forming “crews” or Active Clubs where they mix nationalist ideals with physical training, including hiking, mountaineering, boxing, wrestling and the like. They are bonding as men in a society that denigrates their capacities. They engage in what some have called “tribe and train” forging bonds of mutual respect.

“Tagging” walls, posting stickers, or “banner drops” (holding flags and banners with slogans on bridges over busy highways) and the use of social media to spread their ideas is an integral part of the activities of such groups. Many are attracted by the strong ties of brotherhood that collaborative human action engenders.

We are at the start of a growing revolution, the results of which we cannot yet predict. What can be said is that a growing number of men are collaborating with the goal of reasserting their natural liberty.

[1] Marx and Engels used this phrase to describe the threat of Revolution in the 1848 Communist Manifesto; V. Haval use the same phrase to begin his 1979 critique of Communist power in Eastern Europe, The Power of the Powerless. Here we refer to the uprising, primarily of Western men, resisting the Global Socialist Tyranny which certain corporate, government and academic empowered “elites” seek to impose.

The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:03:00 +0000

The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory

The Meme is the Message...

Politics is that portion of Human Action [1] involved in establishing and maintaining the State. The following from Max Weber: the "state can be defined as a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". [2]

Private Associations, such as patriot groups, interact with politics at large and have their own internal legitimacy issues. However, from Weber's definition, those internal activities are not "politics" but rather the natural give-and-take of a voluntary community. Voluntary association is the hallmark of communities of free people. Involuntary association is the hallmark of the monopoly State.

So what do the activities of people in institutions of government have to do with the private expressive association activities of people in various private associations? Let's approach that issue by looking at a little history. We could mention the Mannerbund (the Men's Group) of Northern Tradition, or the voluntary communities established by pioneers, such as the Amish. But a more direct example can be found in the American Revolution.

I recently saw part of a documentary on the American Revolution wherein the narrator mentioned "the Sons of Liberty which was recruited from local street gangs...". I see the modern patriot groups, such as the Proud Boys, as not-dissimilar from those Sons of Liberty (it wasn't tea those men were drinking before the Boston Tea Party...).

In contrast to the impending tyranny is the freedom philosophy contained, for example, in the Proud Boys Tenets [3] which include such beliefs as "Minimal Government / Maximum Freedom; Pro Free Speech / Pro Gun Rights; Anti-Racism / Anti Racial Guilt; Glorify the Entrepreneur / Venerate the Housewife...". Equally important is a willingness to fight for the Right.

These views lead to an adherence to the American Constitution, as originally understood and intended to limit government power, not limit the rights of individual citizens. Patriots see their role as standing firmly for traditional values.

Such Americans view the "State of Exception" under which we currently live as unacceptable.

What is a "State of Exception"? It is the legal theory justifying tyranny asserted originally by the German Jurist (and Nazi) Carl Schmitt [4] and strongly criticized by libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard. [5]

As originally asserted, prior to the Nazi take-over of Germany, and later developed in his post-war Theory of the Partisan, Schmitt saw the unlimited powers of the totalitarian state as arising from a permanent state of emergency, a "State of Exception" which allowed ruling elites to act arbitrarily, capriciously and without adherence to the rule of law. He asserted such a state justified:

    1. Special executive powers
  2. Suspension of the Rule of Law
  3. Derogation of legal and constitutional rights

American legal theory, based upon constitutional limits on government power and “inalienable” rights, does not permit broad emergency exceptions. A good example of this is the constitutional restriction on suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus (the writ that allows Judges to question arbitrary imprisonment). Even if the writ were to be suspended, that suspension is subject to the Bill of Rights, which amended the original Constitution, including the original writ provision. The Bill of Rights holds that government must always respect basic human rights.

No one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without "Due Process of Law" -- the opposite of a "State of Exception".

It is undeniable that the American Deep State holds to a theory of government more like that of the Nazis than that of the Constitution. We have been ruled under emergency regulations since the declaration of war against Japan. More so since the PATRIOT Act and other emergency laws arising after the September 11th attacks. The federal authorities currently use whole series of emergency measures to restrict political speech, going so far as to engage in false-flag and entrapment techniques designed to provide the very terrorist threats against which they are supposed to protect us.

Examples can be offered: the now-exposed entrapment regarding the supposed plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, or the dozens of federal agents exposed as directing the January 6th "insurrection."

The Nazi Reichstag Fire was not the only false-flag used to justify a "State of Exception."

There have been increasing attacks against patriots over recent months as the unelected Regime [imposed as a result of Congress being panicked into certifying the contested 2020 election] consolidated power. Nearly a thousand have been arrested for allegedly participating in the January 6th "insurrection" and dozens remain in jail, under horrific conditions. The mass purge of public employees who might object to tyranny, under the rubric of "vaccine" mandates, resulting in the firing of thousands of soldiers, police, health care workers and first responders, is a troubling development.

The attacks have just escalated with the increasingly heavily armed Department of Homeland Security seeking to establish a new censorship bureau during April 2022, called the Disinformation Governance Board. [6] The Board (ultimately temporarily abandoned) was to have been created without Congressional approval. The head of DGS intoned, "The goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat." [7]

What threat? Apparently it is the "threat" that some people on social media may disagree with Regime policies.

Specifically mentioned were questioning the legitimacy of the stolen 2020 election, the abandoning of the southern border or the risk of war in East Europe. The real goal is Total Information Control. It is simply totalitarianism.

This attack on the First Amendment is, of course, justified by the "State of Exception" first created as a response to the 9/11 attacks and continued by the government's excessive response to the declared pandemic. It was, we are assured, just to "protect the Homeland."

The original American political theory of Inalienable Rights and constitutionally limited government, with the First Amendment explicitly denying government power to restrict speech, petition and association, has been abrogated and the ruling elite now base their power on the same theory of government, the "State of Exception" that was the basis of Hitler's dictatorship.

Just as Germany was devastated by Nazi governance ("Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely") Americans now face similar threats from a governing elite that has unconsciously adopted as its meme the Capitol surrounded by barbed wire, making clear the "State of Exception" upon which its power is based.

Recent efforts to brand the January 6, 2021 mass demonstration at the Capitol as an “insurrection” is part of a, perhaps, cunning plan to ban patriots from holding public office based on a provision of the 150+ year-old 14^th Amendment barring those involved in insurrection (after swearing to uphold the Constitution) from holding public office. This was a GOP-imposed, post-Civil War enactment.

What is to be done? Would the mass banning of the opposition mean the end of representative government? Is the creation of a censorship board to oppose the First Amendment the "red line"? Are the increasingly shrill attacks on the Second Amendment? When will the Sons of Liberty arise again?

The Proud Boys and other patriot groups, especially "Active Club" 'crews' offering fellowship and martial training in dark times, seek to be ready. They heard President Trump's famous injunction to "Stand Back and Stand By..." [8]

Many are now convinced this is the time to Stand Up and Stand Forward.

There are no emergency exceptions to inalienable rights.

Freedom Advocate 2°

--------------------

[1] See Mises, Human Action https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html - All Human Action is predicated on dissatisfaction.

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8107736-a-state-is-a-human-community-that-successfully-claims

[3] https://jerseyline.godaddysites.com/proud-boy-tenets

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

[5] https://mises.org/library/carl-schmitt-and-murray-rothbard

[6] https://youtu.be/e4inJSblCUY

[7] https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/mayorkas-announces-dhs-disinformation-governance-board-two-days-after-elon-musks

[8] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/did-trump-mean-told-proud-035805906.html

My "Political" Biography

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:09:00 +0000

Ralph Fucetola JD

Political Biography: 1961 - 2022

I was born into a large Italian construction and business family in, and lived in, northern New Jersey, all my life. I am an American Citizen, age 76. Although born in 1945 and technically too old to be a Boomer (and old enough to have avoided the war in VietNam through student deferments) I was part of the Boomer generation.

I remember being with Ralph Ginsberg and Larry Ferlinghetti at Rutgers in '63; I was part of the post-Beat Generation Rutgers poetry club. I shared a few joints with Prof. Tim Leary and author Robert Anton Wilson in later years. Profs. Murray Rothbard and Walter Block mentored me as a young man. Remote Viewer (Maj. Gen.) Bert Stubblebine was a mentor in later life.

I spent my summers "down the shore" in Ortley Beach where we've had a house for over 7 decades. My uncles all had places on the same lagoon, so my cousins and I had summers growing up together.

My political activities started in High School (Verona NJ) in the early 1960s when a friend and I were the only conservatives in the News Club, so we gave our views once a week over the school loudspeaker. Learned about censorship early.

Of course I read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative and anything I could find by Ayn Rand.

I was the second person in my family (36 cousins in my generation) to go to college and the first to get a graduate degree (JD). The family had a construction company (yes, I did work on construction jobs a couple of summers) five bowling alleys and, eventually, a strip mall and a hotel, all in north NJ. After I graduated my law office was between Arlington Lanes and our construction company.

At Rutgers College (B.A. with Distinction, New Brunswick, class of '67) I was one of the few conservatives on the student newspaper. They didn't purge the conservatives until a few years later. I joined College Republicans and was a Youth for Goldwater in '64. I was among the "Rat Finks" purged from the College (G)OP by the Rockerfellerists after that election.

In 1967 I was in D.C. with some Catholic Peace Protesters, at the Pentagon during the infamous exorcism there. The Right has almost always opposed foreign wars and supported the Founders of the Republic's foreign policy of non-intervention.

I joined Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and became NJ Ex. Director. During '69 I was one of the YAFers who, under the influence of the great libertarian Prof. Murray Rothbard and Prof. Walter Block (now head of economics department at Loyola) moved to a consistently libertarian position. In the summer of '69 both Leftist SDS and proto-Neocon YAF purged the libertarians. I was among those so purged, along with the extraordinary Kate Greene who became my wife (for 48 years, until her passing in 2021). We insisted that conscription was involuntary servitude and thus were booted out...

During that time period the Rutgers Newark YAF group (6 undergrads and one law student, me) decided to take our big Stars and Stripes and oppose a pro-Viet Cong march of thousands in Newark, NJ. We stood on Broad Street at the south end of Military Park with our flag outspread. The crowd was much larger than we expected. There was some pushing and shoving by the New Left precursors of Antifa (with some knees and elbows and fists flying) but we stood our ground. The mob was "deflected" by the flag and instead of rallying in the park as they had planned, they fled to Rutgers Campus and occupied the Student Union and surrounding buildings. We must have 'triggered' them... BTW, we were not pro-war and were certainly anti-draft.

The University put some "FreePeople" organizers on trial for the occupation and added me as a defendant for, I guess, carrying a flag. I could have been (but was not) expelled from law school. The Trial was a farce. Intentionally, with the FreePeople providing popcorn for the audience. The law school professors, being good liberals, did not expel anyone. I did come to respect the libertarian left and joined them at the occupation of Old Queens on the Rutgers College campus a few years later, without supporting any of their inarticulately expressed economic goals...

Became a member of the Rothbard-inspired Radical Libertarian Alliance (RLA) and still have one of the old banners carried in anti-war demonstrations in DC and NYC, "Conscription is Slavery, Taxation is Theft, War is Murder." I remember a bunch of us sharing a joint in the back of the hall when Rothbard spoke to the National Taxpayers Union, probably in 1970.

I've been a Libertarian Party supporter since the party's founding and have almost always voted for LP candidates, although there are (G)OPers like Rand Paul I like. While I did not vote for him, I do consider DJ Trump the legitimate President and the 2020 election to have been stolen. Trump was/will be the last Baby Boomer president (current Head of Regime Biden is too old to be a Boomer)

In 1970 I was at a Society for Individual Liberty meeting in Philly where we heard from the great L. von Mises, the 20th Century's leading philosopher of freedom, then in his 90s. In that speech to a group of long-haired libertarians (some of whom would become Members of Congress, Federal Administrators or best selling authors, lawyers and the like), he wagged his finger at us and said, "You are eating your seed corn." Of course he was right, powerfully encapsulating an entire generation. [I have a distinct memory of a very hippie Durk Pearson chatting with Margot Mises about why she should try LSD...] The post-Boomer generation, however, may now be in the biggest seed-eating frenzy of all.

Kate Greene and I hung out with consciousness warriors like Robert Anton Wilson and Tim Leary and adopted neopagan, gnostic beliefs. We delved into "alternative healing" and became certified in Human Bioacoustics, Hololinguistics and very basic Homeopathy, along with Reiki and other modalities.

I've been an ordained minister since 1973 in LifeSpirit Church -- www.lifespirit.org which was founded as the Libertarian Congregational Church. I smoked hemp, tripped on various substances, and survived the 1970s and 80s, while practicing law (1973 - 2006) and officiating at marriages and funerals along the way.

One of the first Internet Chats happened at our Morristown townhome in 1986, when Robert Anton Wilson chatted over my Commodore 64 text interface with people around the globe -- http://www.lifespirit.org/RAW-1986-chat.html -- transcript of vintage RAW.

I was a leader in the NJ Taxpayers Movement in the '70s into the '80s and spoke to the huge crowd at the Stop the Income Tax Rally in Trenton in 1976 stating that I could "no longer distinguish between taxation and theft."

Kate and I had one child, our magnificent son Drew Adriel, in 1988.

Of course I've supported Ron Paul. In the 1970s I was a member of the National Committee to Relegalize Gold, which supported the then-young congressman's successful effort to relegalize private ownership of bullion Gold -- one of the few great libertarian political victories of the last century.

Similarly, I worked with the TEA Party in more recent years. I am very active in the Health Freedom Movement, agreeing with my mentor and friend, the late Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine that "Informed Consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."

Just before the start of the "pandemic" of 2020 I delivered a paper at the Libertarian Scholars' Conference (at Kings College, Manhattan, October 2019) wherein I discussed the universal right of Informed Consent -- just as the globalist elite were setting-up the biggest attack on Informed Consent since the end of WWII: https://inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Informed-Consent.paper_.1a.pdf

I am currently a trustee of National Solutions Foundation and President of the Institute for Health Research -- www.InHeRe.org and I post at www.OpenSourceTruth.com

Unsurprisingly I was purged from Facebook during the Great Purge of 2020/21. My Telegram Chats: https://t.me/opensourcetruth and https://t.me/redpillcrusaders -- @FreedomAdvocate2°

I became a proud second degree Proud Boy on September 11, 2021.

Boycott Big Tech Media! http://www.opensourcetruth.com/socialmediaboycott/

I do consulting in the natural products industry: http://www.SystemsProcessingIntegration.com

Kate Greene's Collected Works and my Memoirs and other books are at https://tinyurl.com/FoundersLegacy

You can support our work here: https://fundly.com/support-lifespirit-church/

The "White Supremacist" Big Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Thu, 23 Dec 2021 19:29:00 +0000

"DON'T LOOK AT WHAT THEY STAND FOR
LOOK INSTEAD AT WHAT
WE SAY THEY REALLY MEAN"

I am neither a racist nor a white supremacist, though I am proud of my Caucasian roots; we are the great civilizers of the Western World. I am however an enthusiastic member of the often misrepresented alliance of independent men's clubs known as the “Proud Boys” (which has a lot in common with traditional American patriot groups from the 1700's, such as the Sons of Liberty, who were similarly both a hard-drinking fraternal organization and a political movement -- they weren't drinking tea before the Boston Tea Party).

I am heartedly tired of the miss-characterization of this and similar groups. Hence, this essay.

The Big Lie propaganda technique was perfected by the Nazis and the Communists, and brought to modern American politics by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Repeat the lie often enough, said Hitler, and the "masses" will believe it.

The Soviets were masters of this vile art as well, and we see it in play as the CCP denies genocide against Chinese Muslims while carrying it out, in plain sight.

When the Big Lie is attached to the Alinsky dictum that the strongest propaganda is to personalize the conflict -- not a conflict of competing ideas, but rather, an ad hominin attack of character assassination and disinformation -- you know the fix is in...

These are the techniques being used by such Deep State shills as Antifa and the Democrat Left. American nationalists, conservatives and libertarians are the target. The Big Lie is that anyone to the right of the extreme left is a "White Supremacist" -- a very convenient label to demonize the opposition to growing Deep State tyranny.

Why the amount of melanin in one's skin should have anything to do with the value of one's ideas is a canard that only a Marxist CRT drone could parse. In classic Marxism ideas had no validity beyond the "class" holding them In modern CRT "race" is substituted for "class." Same intellectual dishonesty.

Libertarians point out that collective nouns such as "race" or "class" are not capable of holding ideas. Only individual humans think, plan and engage in human action, as the 20th Century's greatest philosopher of liberty, L. von Mises, noted. Reasonable humans judge ideas by their content, not by the "race" or other irrelevant, artificial category that may be applicable to the expresser of the ideas.

To elevate "race" or "class" or similar above individual thought is to make the same grave error as the Nazis and the Communists. Their failure to perceive the reality of human action is why humanity has decisively rejected both forms of socialist ideology.

Let's apply this analysis to the recent attempt by the Deep State Left to label everyone who disagrees with their attempts to consolidate their illegitimate power as a "White Racist" or "White Supremacist."

A good example is the way the corporate mass media continually mislabels groups like the Proud Boys.

Just look at any Google Search.

The same propaganda terms are repeated over and over by various Deep State fronts such as ADL and SPLC. They "know" the real beliefs of the Proud Boys although the PBs state, in their own foundational documents, clear opposition to racism.

The "logic" behind this is something like: 'These White Racists are not proud of their beliefs so they express the opposite. We know they are racists although they seek to recruit members without regard to race, religion, ethnicity and adult sexual preference.'

Only propagandists could come up with the Big Lie that the PBs are racist although they publicly proclaim they are not. While the Left may be that devious and duplicitous, hiding their beliefs to trick people into blindly following them, the PBs are proud to stand for what they believe.

There would be no reason to pretend, no benefit to lie. The very purpose of the members is to express precisely the beliefs they profess, not hide them.

Of course Truth has nothing to do with the Big Lie.

In deed the more preposterous the lie, as Hitler noted, the more ready the "masses" are to believe it. He was, of course, wrong about the nature of humanity and the total collapse of both nationalist and internationalist socialist ideology proves that.

Now, though, we face the danger of a resurgent collectivist ideology, championed by a globalist elite, that seeks to categorize and divide humans so as to maintain the system of fake ideas and fiat money that only serves the increasingly perverse desires of that elite.

Although labeled as evil nationalists and supremacists around the world the real humans on this planet, those who are calling themselves the Unvaccinated, the Awake, the Resistance, or the "Pure Bloods" (of every ethnicity, religion and race) have taken to the streets in unprecedented numbers, earlier this year every other month and more recently every Saturday, to resisted Lockdowns, Mandates, Medical Tyranny in all its forms.

The Proud Boys are just one example of the Human Supremacists who are resisting the dehumanization we have all faced over the course of the Declared Pandemic.

They stand courageously for a program of traditional liberty and are willing to risk their freedom to preserve our liberty. That dozens of Proud Boy leaders are now prisoners of conscience, prisoners of war, since the false flag deep state coup of 6 January 2021 proves that.

Song Review: By God We'll Have Our Home Again

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Sun, 31 Oct 2021 14:51:00 +0000

By God We'll Have Our Home Again

A battle march, By God We'll Have Our Home Again, penned in June of 2020, has captured widespread notoriety, becoming a rallying song of the Resistance.

Resistance to what? That varies from person to person.

Some see it as Resistance to tyrannical government, worldwide. Those governments are using public reaction to COVID-19, an overblown novel flu-like outbreak (with 99%+ survivor-ability), to impose unprecedented lockdowns and medical mandates, to the detriment of all but the elites.

These new Resisters see local economies destroyed by the lockdowns while elites reap every higher incomes and dominance.

They are beginning to realize that the inoculations and authorized "treatment" are far deadlier than the alleged disease. Some expect a "1346 Event" triggered by the escalating avalanche of adverse reactions being reported to vaccine reporting systems around the world. They are not alone in this; a number of respected holistic physicians are predicting just that.

What is a "1346 Event"? That's the year the Black Death came to Eurasia. Within two years between a third and half of the population was dead. That is a real possibility now as well; perhaps a probability. Such an event would fracture modern society and crash all trade and transport connections that make that society possible. We see that starting in the supply chain problems of 2021. The looming tyranny is the predicate for the collapse of both population and economy.

Others see the central threat as an imminent economic collapse, brought about by the globalist elite's use of "global climate change" or "overpopulation" or similar dystopian possibilities to grab ever more while ignoring the very real harm being done to people around the world -- the destruction of the world market and its potential for greater prosperity, replaced by restrictions and regulations intended to diminish humanity. The opening images of the Song place it in just such a dystopian, very near, future.

Patriots in many nations, though, resist, setting aside their fears, planning to be part of the remnant that is willing to expend everything for a chance at a free future. These good folk, in every land, are the Resistance.

They resist by gathering in cities, towns and villages around the world,originally every other month on Saturday morning and being together without masks, without "social distancing" and in solidarity and comradery. Over the past three months the demonstrations have become weekly. Resisters are doing this by the dozens, the thousands and now even the millions (see: Melbourne, November 2021). Although ignored by the elite-controlled media, there is ample proof of a growing, world wide Resistance. [1]

Expressing oneself through voluntary association is an act of resistance. It is acting free in an increasingly unfree society.

The refrain "By God we'll have our home again" reflects the longings of a formerly free folk and their determination to retrieve their losses.

These words "By God we'll have our home again" bracket a series of complaints about the current situation, with declarations of strong intent to resist. "If there’s no fire to guide my way, then I will start my own."

Though it sounds like it could have been written several centuries ago, perhaps in Scotland or the Old South, it was written during the Year of the Declared Pandemic -- in Middle America.

This version has strong visuals and the website hosting it expresses some opinions with which I disagree (and some with which I agree). I'm sharing this song for itself alone, as a self-contained, heartfelt message, not necessarily for this particular version's surroundings.

The message is clear, "By blood or sweat..." unless we resist, there is no hope.

https://themannerbund.com/2020/11/11/by-god-well-have-our-home-again/

A wise friend once told me "The side with the best songs wins." One can only hope.

--------------------------------------

Lyrics

When there’s nothing left but the fire in my chest
and the air that fills my lungs
I’ll hold my tears and trade my years
for a glimpse at kingdom come.
On the other side of misery there’s a world we long to see.
The strife we share will take us there to relief and sovereignty.

Oh by god we’ll have our home again, by god we’ll have our home
By blood or sweat we’ll get there yet
By god we’ll have a home

In our own towns we’re foreigners now, our names are spat and cursed.
The headlines smack of another attack, not the last and not the worst.
Oh my fathers they look down on me, I wonder what they feel
To see their noble sons driven down beneath a cowards heel.

Oh by god we’ll have our home again, by god we’ll have our home
By blood or sweat we’ll get there yet
By god we’ll have a home

The way is dark, the road is lost, my eyes they strain to see.
I struggle forth to find a friend to light the way for me.
Oh brothers can you hear my voice or am I all alone?
If there’s no fire to guide my way, then I will start my own.

Oh by god we’ll have our home again, by god we’ll have our home
By blood or sweat we’ll get there yet
By god we’ll have a home

[1]Here is a video compilation from two months ago. Freedom gatherings have continued to expand since then: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/be-inspired-video-of-world-wide-demonstration-4/

Sometimes Satire is Impossible

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 02:33:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I posted a short FlipBook of quotations from Chairman Joe. In recent days Memes have popped up that cause me to question the satirical accuracy of the FlipBook.

It's not satire if it's real...

Certainly in an era hell-bent on tyranny, both petty and profound, humor is risky.

Herewith therefore FlipBook and Memes.

Read the FlipBook Here:
https://fliphtml5.com/hdrue/owwd

UPDATE -- THE FALL OF KABUL

The US retreat from Afghanistan shows us that the Imposed Head of the Regime was wrong about another entry in Chairman Joe's Little Red Book. The Taliban did not need jet fighters and nukes to send the foreign troops away.

Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires. Defeated the British Empire twice in the 19th Century, the Soviet Union in the 20th and the USA in the 21st. Perhaps it will be China's turn next. The only conqueror who sort-of-succeeded was Alexander the Great and he did so by marrying an Afghani princess...

Meme Wars

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 23 Jun 2021 01:10:00 +0000

THE MEME WARS

With Memes the Medium is the Message
“The Politicos So Misconstrue Reality That
Their Memes are Never Dank Enough to Reach the Soul...” JG

-----------------------

We know from 20th Century media guru Marshall McLuhan that "the medium is the message..." [1]

The medium that carries the information is its own message. That seems especially true of our 21st Century hyper-connected Internet virtual reality. The sign both contains the meaning and becomes the meaning. [2]

Political discourse is morphing into Meme Wars, and sometimes into street battles. The symbol becomes the meaning.

For example, consider the image of the US Capitol surrounded by barbed wire.

An Unintentional Meme

Even without words, a powerful message is displayed. The contrast between the Dome of the Capitol, an image rich in associate meanings such as the Sovereignty of the People and representative democracy contrasts with the barbed wire which conveys an opposite meaning. Thus, the image embodies the tension between the image and the significance that defines the concept of the Meme.

I recommend reading Josh Weltman's book Seducing Strangers. [3] In it he makes a fascinating observation, one of many, starting with a term from Aristotle's Rhetoric, "Enthymeme." [4]

He connects the term to Internet "memes" -- a word that was originally a play on the term "gene." [5] A meme is an idea (embodied as a catchphrase, image or the like) which spreads throughout a society in a fashion not unlike the way genes spread through a population. Or like viruses are said to spread.

The point he makes is that there is a certain pattern to the use of Internet Memes that makes them powerful persuasive tools. "If the first part... confuses, the second part must explain. And if the first part explains, the second part should confuse." [6]

Aristotle's Enthymeme is a logical construct where the "first term" of the syllogism is assumed to be understood by the listener. The second and third terms of the argument are more persuasive since the first is already in the minds of the listener.

For Internet image memes this can be generalized to: If the image confuses (or shocks, or astounds or amuses = surprises) then the words should explain; if the image explains, the words should surprise.

An Advertising Meme

To a degree the image above is an example of the process. The retro-image is typical '60s California and carries with it the whole meme complex of California Living. The words pull it into the present, starting with the then current year date and become a warning to those doing business in California that the changing rules will impact them and require attention.

The average attention span of the average Internet user is very short. Just seconds. [7] Notice mainstream TV, for example. The editing cuts (especially for ads) are often the length of a heartbeat, sometimes two or three. Hardly ever more.

Thus the Internet Meme, with its rhetorical tension between image and word, is an ideal tool to get the message through the medium and into the minds of your audience -- in the concise form needed by modern attention spans.

Internet communication is becoming a battleground of memes – a virtual Meme War. This is especially true regarding political opinion communications. The carefully orchestrated censoring of Internet legacy media (such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook) which (shades of Apartheid) “banned” thousands of users (including your author) due to their political opinions, just prior to the 2020 USA elections, is widely seen as an attempt to control the election results by preventing the exposure of the way the elections were rigged. [8] During the same period that the legacy media were driving hundreds of millions away uncensored platforms such as Telegram.org experienced exponential growth. [9]

A good example of how Memes are used to organize political activism can be seen in the World Wide Demonstrations occurring every other month since March 2021, targeting the COVID Declared Pandemic masking, lockdowns and increasingly mandated Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) inoculations.

With the legacy media banning all mention of the Worldwide Demonstrations the organizers focused on using Telegram.org to coordinate. The main Worldwide Telegram chat has 58,000 subscribers. [10] Every nation and many provinces, states and local communities have Worldwide chats as well. This small group of people from across the world have orchestrated increasingly large and coordinated events, involving up to a hundred nations with some cities hosting hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, defying lockdown and masking mandates.

Under the powerful memes WWG1WGA (Where We Go One We Go All), “One Day Everyone Together” and #WeWillAllBeThere images are created that convey the world-wide scope of the effort. Note the use of the hashtag (#) which is itself an Internet Meme, originally intended to enable easier Internet searching of social media. It now conveys the concept that what follows is a label that relates to meme-like communication. It becomes a meme of itself, thus both violating and confirming the semiotic concept of a sign that signifies something other than its self.

What makes a “good” (effective) meme? Why did my young interlocutor assert that the "Politicians" (Presumably in contrast to the Patriots) can’t meme?

He says it is because they have a highly distorted perception of Reality (in the Misean sense). Now I agree that statists of all stripes misperceive Reality, believing that collective nouns (like party, class, nation, corporation) can engage in Human Action. They cannot, as Mises showed – only individuals think, plan and act. [12]

Misperceiving the basic nature of our social interactions must distort the human action that results from the dissatisfaction triggered by the misperception. Truth is a precondition for effective human action.

So what does Truth have to do with meming? Can a false meme be effective? Is “propaganda” simply false meming?

Since the Internet meme is usually built on the tension between the image and the word, if either is false to the communication sought to be made, the power of the whole to communicate is diminished. But what if the person offering the communication wants to communicate a lie? Then the rhetorical structure of the meme can be seen to be a two edged sword.

In ancient Greece rhetoric could be used to defend truth or to deny it. To utter grand philosophic ideals, or to condemn Socrates to death.

My Millennial Connections tell me they call what is happening The Meme Wars. Some of the most popular online groups are built around what are called "Dank Memes." [11] The more dissonance between the image and the words, the better. And so it goes.

If the image astounds, the words explain. If the image explains, the words astound...

-----------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message - "The medium is the message is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in any message it would transmit or convey, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

[2] “In semiotics, a sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign. The meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or taste. .... the sign as a triadic relation as "something that stands for something, to someone in some capacity"” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiotics)

[3] Workman Publishing, 2015 - ISBN 978-0-7611-8495-9 (Co-producer of the TV series, Mad Men)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme - "An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma) is a rhetorical syllogism ... used in oratorical practice."

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme - "In 2013 Dawkins characterized an Internet meme as being a meme deliberately altered by human creativity—distinguished from biological genes and Dawkins' pre-Internet concept of a meme which involved mutation by random change and spreading through accurate replication as in Darwinian selection."

[6] Weltman, - see page 25.

[7] http://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/ - You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish

[8] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reuters-68-percent-of-republicans-say-election-was-e2-80-98rigged-e2-80-99/ar-BB1b8mzp

[9] https://www.theepochtimes.com/telegram-experiences-massive-growth-in-january-90-million-new-users_3668448.html

[10] https://t.me/worldwidedemonstration

[11] https://www.facebook.com/groups/1715753248636816/ [Gary Johnson's 2015 Dank Meme Stash was on Facebook but no longer accessible. A newer example of a libertarian-oriented meme stash is at https://t.me/toalibertarian -- here is a collection of memes from that site:

Subtle is better...

[12] At the very end of Human Action, Mises warned us all - https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/936

“Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law.

The elucidation and the categorical and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.”

Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:18:00 +0000

Ninth Circuit Goes Back to English Law in the Middle Ages, Says Pre-U.S. Law in Hawaii Allows State’s Open Carry Restrictions

A federal court denied a challenge to Hawaii’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms in a lengthy and scholarly opinion released Wednesday — finding that Hawaiian law and practice both predate and supersede a broad application of the Second Amendment.
“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago — nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state,” the opinion explains in language foreshadowing the method of inquiry and eventual ruling in favor of anti-gun regulation.

https://lawandcrime.com/second-amendment/ninth-circuit-goes-back-to-english-law-in-the-middle-ages-says-pre-u-s-law-in-hawaii-allows-states-open-carry-restrictions/

So we now make Constitutional decisions that restrict the Second Amendment based ignoring the Bill of Rights!

"The thorough (and admittedly non-exhaustive) historical inquiry, necessarily long and time-consuming, begins by invoking 'a series of orders to local sheriffs that prohibited ‘going armed’ without the king’s permission' which were promulgated by “King Edward I and his successor, King Edward II.” The final laws cited in this section are two explicit prohibitions on the public carrying of firearms which were upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1876 and 1882."?

That means the very reason for the Second Amendment -- the British King's efforts to deny Americans our right to keep and bear arms (as in Concord and Lexington) becomes precedent to ignore the Amendment!

This absurdity is followed by a reconstruction era Arkansas court, before the 14th Amendment jurisprudence developed, denying the right. What remains of the Amendment if I cannot go about armed?

The alleged conservative majority on the Supreme Court needs to clearly announce that our individual right to keep and bear arms trumps state restrictions, no matter how old the legal error which allowed them may be. Once we had a Federal Common Law until SCOTUS said it never was...

Tribunals of Conscience

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:21:00 +0000

Private Tribunals of Conscience
Their History and Why They Matter
Ralph Fucetola, JD

Support the Efforts of the Tribunals
www.MarshallsofConscience.com

Tribunals of Conscience and Crimes Against Humanity

Over the past century and more, various private Tribunals of Conscience have focused the moral judgment of humanity in situations where official bodies have either failed to hold violators of human rights to account or have been themselves the perpetrators of horrific acts that shock the conscience.

These nongovernmental, private expressive associations must be distinguished from international legal tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, which are examples of multinational courts established by governments under international law to try cases of making war and of war crimes.

International Criminal Tribunals

Discussing the impact of International Criminal Tribunals, a recent paper from the Netherlands noted,

“The idea that a ruler’s power cannot be absolute, that there must be standards beyond the ruler to protect his citizens, has become the foundation stone of international human rights law. But the idea of international criminal law, and international criminal tribunals, goes a step further. In the extreme case where the ruler commits or condones crimes against his people, it takes not only the formulation of norms, but also the administration of punitive justice out of his hands and up to the international level, even to the point where he himself can be tried on criminal charges. . . .

Yet the symbolic power of international criminal tribunals may be far greater than their legal authority and capacity would suggest. In the cases of Georgia and Kenya, the threat of an ICC investigation appears to be spurring national investigations. Above all, in the former Yugoslavia and in the situations the ICC is currently investigating, the existence of the investigations has given local civil society actors room to discuss "difficult subjects" related to the recent past, such as the occurrence of massacres, the use of mass rape as a political instrument, the use of child-soldiers, and the issue of accountability in whatever shape.” [1]

Crimes Against Humanity

International Law is ambiguous with regard to Crimes Against Humanity (CAHs).

“Unlike genocide and war crimes, which have been widely recognized and prohibited in international criminal law since the establishment of the Nuremberg principles, there has never been a comprehensive convention on crimes against humanity, even though such crimes are continuously perpetrated worldwide in numerous conflicts and crises.There are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements.” [2]

While the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” (Class C Charges) was used in the post-World War II imposition of “victors justice” against CAH perpetrators on the losing side, “the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecution—only those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In the event, no [independent] Class C charges were heard in Tokyo...” [3]

The failure of governments to respond to public concerns regarding CAH necessitates and justifies private persons constituting themselves into private associations for the purpose of condemning violations of basic humane standards.

Before the earliest Tribunals of Conscience there were several important international campaigns which contained elements later developed by the Tribunals. These include campaigns against slavery which started even before the beginning of the 19^th Century. Often led by concerns of conscience, by religious libertarians such as the Quakers, the anti-slavery movement included a major element of the Tribunals: the public condemnation of acts seen as immoral. [4]

Similarly, private commissions of investigation were established to oppose the horrific abuses in the Congo during the early 19^th Century when that territory was a personal fiefdom of the King of the Belgians. Slavery enforced by brutalities, including dismemberment, was widely condemned and various private campaigns, often led by clergy, investigated and condemned the violations of humanitarian standards. It was one of those campaigns where the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” was first used. [5] Later the phrase was used in reference to the genocide against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. [6]

Tribunals of Conscience

Various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to define “Tribunals of Conscience”.

The National Lawyers Guild, for example, has posited the following:

“A Tribunal of Conscience is a People’s Tribunal. Such tribunals date back more than six decades to the era of the Russell Tribunal on US war crimes in Viet Nam and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of People (Algiers, 1976). They provide an alternative forum for those who find no recourse in the formal institutions of the state or the international community. They are the place where the people judge the crimes of the state, not where the state judges the people.” [7]

Perhaps the earliest self-denoted Tribunal of Conscience was that convoked by B. Russell and J-P. Sartre regarding the War in Vietnam, in 1966. After two public sessions in Europe the Tribunal published a strong condemnation of United States' actions in Vietnam in 1967.

Russel quoted Robert H. Jackson, the Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, in justification of the establishment of the Tribunal:

“If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson [8]

The Russel/Sartre Tribunal encouraged subsequent private efforts:

“Additional tribunals have been conducted in the following decades on the same model, using the denomination Russell Tribunal. E.g., The Russell Tribunal on Latin America focused on human rights violations in the military dictatorships of Argentina and Brazil (Rome, 1973), on Chile's military coup d'état (Rome, 1974–76), on the situation of Human Rights in Germany (1978), on the Threat of Indigenous Peoples of America (1982), on Human Rights in Psychiatry (Berlin, 2001), on Iraq (Brussels, 2004), and on Palestine (Barcelona, 2009–12).” [9]

These efforts have also continued beyond the Russel/Sartre model. The “Permanent Peoples' Tribunal was established at the behest of a member of the Senate of Italy in Bologna in the late 1970s. It has held 46 sessions regarding separate Crimes Against Humanity over the ensuing decades. [10] These sessions have reviewed situations involving CAHs primarily against peoples who are not recognized as “nations”, such as the population of Western Sahara or the Kurds, who live in several Middle Eastern nations.

Recent Developments

Other Tribunals of Conscience have included the 2009 Agent Orange Tribunal of the International Democratic Lawyers Association [11]; the 2020 Belmarish Tribunal regarding the persecution of Julian Assange [12]; and the 2019 China Tribunal which states:

“The China Tribunal is an independent people’s tribunal established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from, amongst others, prisoners of conscience in China and to investigate what criminal offences, if any, have been committed by state or state-approved bodies, organisations or individuals in China that may have engaged in forced organ harvesting. “ [13]

During the 2020-2021 period of the “Declared Pandemic” the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice was established to hold the perpetrators of what the Tribunal found to be the “Genocidal Technologies Pandemic” accountable. It entered a formal judgment against various state-actors, politicians, businesses and NGOs for their various roles in triggering the false-flag “pandemic” and rushing “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, including novel class of “gene altering” injections into production and deployment. [14]

Humanity Benefits from Tribunals of Conscience

“What”, the skeptic may ask, “is the value of private Tribunals of Conscience to humanity?”

We live in a world where the promise of global peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocidal agenda (most recently, through the Declared COVID Pandemic), where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs -- a true Hobbesian international order. The new religion of this world is Statism, the worship of the institutions of the States, including their judicial institutions and administrative indiscretions.

As the lack of intellectual viability of Statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed and become, perhaps, increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, an alternative to state-sponsored "justice" is needed.

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN along with its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies" -- WHO and FAO, for example). Not included in this list are actual private persons, natural or cultural Nations, even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.

We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant Statist view of international law.

In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our private associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to humane individuals.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of Statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations.

Consider the historic role of Statism in the imposition of what libertarian philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies – all Statist institutions which have repeatedly perpetrated Crimes Against Humanity.

How can humanity trust the very Statist institutions which have so violated humane standards, by committing Crimes Against Humanity to exact meaningful justice for their own misdeeds, no matter how egregious?

Even as the vicious old concepts, chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, the very concept a "sovereign" State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must also be rejected. States and their political elites must be subject to true Justice or there is no Justice.

Clearly, that justice will not come from the very source of the criminality. Private persons of conscience must take the lead to expose and publicly condemn Crimes Against Humanity. This is the role, which is of inestimable value to humanity, of Private Tribunals of Conscience.

----------------

[1] https://www.academia.edu/4171788/International_Criminal_Tribunals

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East#Charges

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity#Abolition_of_the_slave_trade

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity#First_use

[6] https://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html

[7] www.inquirycommission.org / https://www.nlginternational.org/report/Final_Preliminary_ITC_Verdict.pdf

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal#Subsequent_Tribunals

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Peoples%27_Tribunal#List_of_sessions

[11] https://vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/paris_2009_tribunal_decision_2.15.10.pdf

[13] https://chinatribunal.com/

[14] http://www.peaceinspace.org

Also to be posted at:
International Journal of Natural Health, Science and Policy
http://www.inhere.org/international-journal-of-nhsp/

Trump's Last Stand?

noreply@blogger.com (Health Freedom of Choice Blog) — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:07:00 +0000

WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO?
Here is a Link that Reports SCOTUS Actions
https://certpool.com/conferences/2021-02-19

22 February 2021 UPDATE: Election Cases denied Certiorari with Justice Thomas writing dissenting opinions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/20

----------

On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court will consider granting Certiorari (accept the cases onto its docket) for several of the pending presidential election fraud cases, including the cases brought by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. These include the Georgia and Pennsylvania cases. If 4 of the 9 justices agree to accept the cases then the Court must hear them. If 5 of the 9 agree with the plaintiffs that massive election fraud occurred then the remaining question is what remedy will the Court impose. The Court can refuse to consider the cases (if no justice want to discuss the case, it is automatically dismissed under Rule 46), grant immediate Certiorari or request a BIO, a Brief in Opposition, and consider the request for Certiorari later.

There is a scenario in which D. J. Trump may still return to the White House in triumph.

But to understand how, we need to start in 2018 when Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion in the case of Abbott vs Perez. [1] This was a Texas electoral fraud case in which, as we have also seen this year, the trial courts refused to hear any evidence of fraud. When the case got to the Supreme Court the Chief Justice wrote that the Court could determine whether there had been fraud, or not, even in the absence of evidence presented in the courts below, by taking judicial notice of the actual voting statistics which are part of the public record. The court does not need to know the who or how of the fraud to determine whether or not there was fraud. In the Perez case the Court looked at the voting records and decided there had not been fraud.

This means if the Court decides to take on the presidential election fraud cases, those cases can proceed rapidly to a decision based on the public record of anomalous shifts in the votes among the candidates in the "key states."

That there were anomalies is widely accepted:

"This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates…" [2]

However, it will be up to the Court to finally determine the outcome of the 2020 election. Assume that 5 justices decide there had been fraud. What is the proper remedy?

Will the Court simply say, try again better next time? Or will the Court determine that the contested State electoral votes are invalid and no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes?

In that case there was no president after January 20th, and no vice president either. That has two astounding results.

First, the Speaker of the House would be Acting President. The Senate would be divided 50/50 with no presiding officer to cast any tie breaking vote.

Second, the choice of president falls to the House which under the Constitution has until March 4th to choose a president from among the top electoral vote getters. Each state gets one vote. Since the Republicans have a majority of the state delegations to Congress, they can easily choose Trump.

The divided Senate gets to choose the new vice president from among the top two electoral vote getters. I suspect the evenly divided Senate will not be able to choose a vice president before the March 4th deadline.

After that date the office would be vacant and the new president would have authority under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution to nominate a vice president, subject to Congressional approval..

And that is how Nancy Pelosi might end up as Acting President for a few weeks, succeeded by the once-and-future President Trump.

----------

[1] I wrote about the Perez case here: https://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2020/12/was-2020-election-legitimate.html

[2] https://wentworthreport.com/2020/11/25/high-quality-statisical-analysis-anomalies-in-vote-counts-and-their-effects-on-election-2020/

Vitamin Lawyer Health Freedom Blog

Transitioning to Substack

An Open Letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Exit the UN!

0.1 Introduction

1.0 What is the United Nations and What are its Agendas?

1.1 United Nations Agencies and Programs Contrary to US interests

1.2 The UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is Contrary to our Constitutional Rights.

1.3 History of Senate ‘Consent’ to UN Charter, which was not a Treaty, in 1945.

1.4 The Act to appoint a UN Ambassador and provide for US participation.

1.5 The unilateral authority of the President to withdraw from the UN.

2.0 Conclusion.

Libertarian Nationalism 2024

Fortified Functional Food

The UN Charter is Not a Binding Treaty!

LEGAL MEMORANDUMIs the United States in a Treaty Relationshipwith the United Nations?

Devolution USA

Advice for the Globalists

I Will NOT Comply: Propagandemic 2.0 Mandates and Restrictions are Unlawful!

Strolling for Freedom

Expressing Non-Compliance

Informed Dissent -New Book by Counsel Ralph

Debt Limit Default Big Lie

The Seven Principles of Humane Health Care

Libertarians and Nationalists: A New Generation Arises

We are the Resistance to the Great Reset

Gottheimer Misunderstands

My Congresscritter

Gets it Wrong

The Empowered Fear the Powerless

The State of Exception: Tyranny's Theory

My "Political" Biography

The "White Supremacist" Big Lie

Song Review: By God We'll Have Our Home Again

Sometimes Satire is Impossible

Meme Wars

Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment

Tribunals of Conscience

Trump's Last Stand?

LEGAL MEMORANDUM
Is the United States in a Treaty Relationship
with the United Nations?