News

Fully vaccinated professional soccer player François-Xavier Fumu Tamuzo was forced to end his career prematurely in April following what he describes as “devastating vaccine injuries.” The former Stade Lavallois player in France is now taking […]

The post Professional Footballer Suing Pfizer For Ending His Career After Jabs ‘Shut Down’ His Body appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Alex Jones predicted NATO’s WWIII plot with Ukraine 10 years ago.

Check out this video from exactly 10 years ago, where Alex Jones predicts how NATO would use Ukraine as a pretext to foment World War III with Russia.

---

---

$95 billion foreign aid bill just contains wording that U.S. can confiscate Russian assets and send them to Ukraine.

In an attempt to punish Russia for trying to make things right in Ukraine, the United States is threatening to expropriate, aka steal, frozen Russian assets and deliver them to Ukraine. Should Washington follow through with this, Russia is warning that the U.S. will in effect pull the plug on not only its own but the entire global economy and financial infrastructure.

In the new $95 billion foreign aid and TikTok ban bill just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, there is wording that states the U.S. can confiscate Russian assets and send them to Ukraine. Should that actually happen, it will be game over for Western dominance over world affairs.

“This would be nothing short of a breakdown of all foundations of the [global] economic system,” Peskov told journalists, adding that the White House will set “a dangerous precedent” if it dares to follow through on the threat. “In no way could that be considered a lawful action.”

(Related: Israel had better back off with attacking Iran, otherwise Russia is promising to deliver fighter jets and other weapons of war to Tehran.)

Lawless America

In addition to legal challenges, the U.S. will also face direct retaliation by Russia if attempts are made to steal Russian assets for redistribution to Kiev, Peskov made very clear to the press pool.

Following through on the threat “will cause serious damage to the economic interests of the U.S.,” Peskov explained, because “many nations and many investors would certainly think 10 times before putting their money into the American economy or parking assets there.”

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde agrees, having noted earlier this month that the U.S. plan to steal Russia’s assets is a clear “violation of the legal international order.”

Currently, the U.S. is holding hostage about $300 billion worth of Russian assets. Western officials say Moscow should be forced to pay Kiev for damages caused by its special military operation, which seeks to unseat the corrupt, Western-led deep state that controls Ukraine.

The European Union (EU), meanwhile, which is currently holding the lion’s share of the frozen funds, is expressing concerns that any follow-through on the asset redistribution threat from the U.S. will almost certainly destabilize the euro.

The euro’s potential destabilization seems to be part of Peskov’s warning to the West to back off and leave Russia’s assets alone. The Russians know better than our own moronic politicians that it would be financial suicide for the U.S. to try to steal what rightfully belongs to Russia.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the only decent members of Congress speaking out against all this, warned earlier this year that the U.S. plan to steal Russian assets would be “an act of economic war.”

“The Zion Master will do it – the peoples of America are just servant immigrants,” wrote one commenter about the psychopathic Western leaders who are leading Americans off a financial and economic cliff.

“The damage and risk have already been done when the Western dominated and controlled financial system seized and stole the interest off the Russian foreign assets at the beginning of the special military operation,” wrote another.

“Confiscate them outright and it’s game over.”

Someone else added to the conversation that the U.S. government “is run by a cabal of large corporations, corrupt politicians and officials of the administrative departments.”

“These ruling elites control the flow of information, and therefore what the masses believe. They don’t care how many Ukrainians, Russians or Americans die so long as they get what they want. Their most powerful weapon is the propaganda they use to manipulate the masses. The way to defeat them is to expose the secrets behind their false narratives. That’s what they fear most.”

The U.S. is run by greedy, soulless morons who are leading the nation off a financial cliff. Find out more at Collapse.news.

Sources for this article include:

RT.com

NaturalNews.com

---

---

Michael Schisler applies U.S. Code provision to senators who ‘conspired’ together

As most are aware, Senate Democrats recently voted unanimously to discard the House impeachment articles against Alejandro Mayorkas for his unlawful implementation of Biden’s open border policies. This was the first time in U.S. history that an impeachment has been summarily discarded by the U.S. Senate for a person still in office for crimes alleged while still holding that office.

The House of Representatives did its job in accordance to the Constitution, including investigations, subsequently sending its articles of impeachment to the Senate. Since the House is the duly elected representation of We the People, the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas emanated from We the People. And poll after poll shows that the American people do in fact want Mayorkas removed for his lawless handling of the southern border.

But the Senate didn’t do its constitutional duty, apparently in violation of the body’s own rules no less. And as a result, We the People were illegally denied the impeachment trial of Mayorkas and the Senate’s lawful verdict.

Nowhere in the Senate’s own published rules for impeachment do we find any plain reading of the text to support the idea that a trial of the accused via articles of impeachments is optional for the Senate. But even if it were optional, as Democrats contend, such optionality creates a monumental problem under the law.

In designing their tactic to dispose of the articles against Mayorkas, Senate Democrats mimicked a trial judge’s right to dismiss a case due to lacking evidence, in the judge’s sole opinion. The problem is, the Senate is not a trial judge and has no similar right. And even if it did, as Democrats contend, the Senate would be required to exercise that right in a way that doesn’t violate the rights of others.

But it’s impossible for the Senate to cite lack of evidence or unconstitutionality of charges without violating other’s rights because in so doing they automatically violated the constitutional rights of every U.S. citizen alive to have their duly elected representatives’ articles of impeachment against Mayorkas tried.

And therein lies the monumental problem.

This is exactly why the plain reading of the Senate impeachment rules doesn’t allow the Senate to dismiss an impeachment. Democrats had to painfully contort the Senate rules in order to come up with a “right” for them to dismiss the articles and not go to trial.

But it gets worse.

When Schumer played his hand in calling for a vote to dismiss the articles, and Democrats in the Senate voted unanimously to dismiss without further consideration the establishment of a committee to hold a trial, as offered by Ted Cruz, it’s clear that this was a predetermined course of action Democrats had war-gamed in advance to execute at the appointed time. Or said another way, Senate democrats conspired to dismiss the articles of impeachment rather than try them.

So here we have in the Senate majority’s actions, both a conspiracy and a violation of constitutional rights.

The trillion-dollar question is whether there is anything illegal about any of this. Turns out U.S. law does in fact have something Democrats swear applies to these kinds of situations:

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, which states:

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, …”

This is the same statute being used by Democrats in their lawfare against Donald Trump for his alleged role in J6. And if it’s good enough to use against Trump, its good enough to use here, too.

Fifty-one Senate Democrats conspired to kill the valid articles of impeachment. As a direct result, constitutional rights were denied the entire U.S. citizenry to have our articles of impeachment tried by the Senate.

So now the question for the citizenry becomes, “How do we peaceably redress our grievance?” I would advocate exclusively through established mechanisms, meaning our elected representatives.

But what would we have our elected representatives do?

Impeach all 51 Senate Democrats for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.

Simultaneously.

That’s what.

Clearly, this is a case where an unprecedented act by Senate Democrats requires an even more unprecedented response by House Republicans.

Were this to ever come to pass, which it won’t with Mike “Hakeem” Johson as speaker, the way it likely plays out is that the House impeaches the 51 Democrat senators, sends their articles of impeachment to the Senate, and all Democrats in the Senate would be prohibited from participating in the trial since, they are the impeached defendants.

From this point it becomes a game of chicken between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Republicans would tell their Democrat colleagues that the Mayorkas impeachment will in fact go to trial, or else all 51 Democrat Senators are going on trial.

Democrats will appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming the Senate cannot legally function with 49 members simultaneously trying the other 51 members. Who knows what the Supreme Court would do with such a mess?

But in the meantime, who would blink first? Would the Democrats capitulate and allow Mayorkas to go to trial, where he would assuredly be acquitted anyway? Or would Republicans capitulate to media smears?

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a lawyer, but by the same token it really isn’t difficult to understand why simultaneously impeaching all 51 Democratic senators works under “18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.” For months now, Democrats have been explaining their novel new legal reasoning why this statute is surely applicable in such situations. Including the one regarding Trump with respect to J6.

And hats off to them; they did a great job explaining it in a way that even I can understand. All I’ve done is apply their own legal theories to a very similar legal predicate. And who knows, if Republicans decide to actually fight for a change instead of just whining, maybe karma pays our Senate Democrats a most unwelcome visit very soon.

House Republicans have a very real option to correct the Senate with respect to their dismissal of the Mayorkas impeachment trial. And the public needs to see Republicans do something other than capitulate as usual. To quote a famous movie depicting a precarious situation and directing it toward Republicans: “What’s your move?”

---

---

A Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) concluded that children who live in locations with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride […]

The post Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride ‘Significantly Lowers’ Children’s IQ appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Trump lawyer asks SCOTUS if ex-presidents Bush, Obama & Biden face charges for their crimes while in office.

A lawyer representing former President Donald Trump in a pivotal Supreme Court case on presidential immunity on Thursday posed a hypothetical question asking if ex-presidents George Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden could similarly be retroactively charged for their transgressions while in office.

“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it,” Trump attorney D. John Sauer said during his opening statement.

“For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official Acts. The Framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing Liberty.”

“If a president can be charged, put on trial, and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed,” he continued. “Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office.”

“The implications of the Court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case,” Sauer stated.

The opening statement by Trumps attorney struck home with me.

There are concrete crimes committed by other presidents that haven’t been touched by any prosecutorial standard.

If they strip Trump of the immunity, then the last 5 presidents have to take the stand and go to court. pic.twitter.com/rdrjzSjqrj

— Joshua Walker (@RedsRepair95) April 25, 2024

“Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq?” asked Sauer.

“Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing US citizens abroad by drone strike?” he continued. “Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies?”

“The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure.”

Meanwhile, attorney Michael Dreeben, representing the Biden Justice Department and Special Counsel Jack Smith attempted to claim the Constitution does not grant presidential immunity.

Elsewhere during the proceedings, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned if presidential immunity extends to a president who orders a military assassination of a political rival.

Of course, Dreeben when asked if Obama could be tried for murder for the drone strikes argued this could not be the case.

“So the Office of Legal Counsel looked at this very carefully and determined that, number one, the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch,” Dreeben said. “The president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad, and it determined that a public authority exception that’s built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute, because it talks about unlawful killing, did not apply to the drone strike.”

Justice Samuel Alito later discussed the prospect of vindictive prosecutors with ulterior political motives with Dreeben.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also got smacked down when she tried to argue a broad immunity scope would “embolden” a president to act with reckless abandon, to which Trump’s attorney replied it hadn’t been a problem for the past 234 years.

President Trump remarked favorably of the SCOTUS case on Thursday.

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity, and I think it was made clear that a president has to have immunity—We want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. So, I heard the meeting was quite amazing and the justices were on their game.”

?Trump responds to the Supreme Court hearing on presidential immunity:

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity, and I think it was made clear that a president has to have immunity—We want presidents… pic.twitter.com/zqf2N8iu4u

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 25, 2024

Zero Hedge reports SCOTUS could issue a ruling granting Trump partial immunity.

Reading the tea-leaves of the comments has left most believing that SCOTUS will fail to grant former President Trump the full immunity he is seeking (choosing instead to narrow the protections for former presidents), but are likely to issue a ruling that could further delay his trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

That would be a partial win for the former President.

---

---