VIDEO: Netanyahu Calls For Free Speech And Protests to STOP on College Campuses Across America
A video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was played on the Wednesday Alex Jones Show, guest hosted by Owen Shroyer.
“Benjamin Netanyahu is telling Americans they can’t protest at a university in the United States of America?!,” Shroyer said. “I’m sorry, last time I checked you are not the President of the United States, and even the President of the United States cannot stop First Amendment activity.”
Don’t miss:
BREAKING: FDA Says Bird Flu Found In Cows Milk
DON’T MEME ME: Australian Prime Minister Brags of Banning Memes Mocking Him
Guest host of the Alex Jones Show, Chase Geiser played a video on the Wednesday show of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese initiating the Streisand Effect against himself.
Australia’s globalist puppet Albanese spoke with the press this week about the social media censorship. Albanese claimed social media companies have ‘a responsibility’ to make sure ‘misinformation’ doesn’t spread on their sites.
Don’t miss:
BREAKING: FDA Says Bird Flu Found In Cows Milk
Did The WHO Water Down Its ‘Pandemic Treaty’? Not Really, Experts Say
The latest draft of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “pandemic agreement” no longer states that the document is binding on WHO member states, according to reports circulating widely on blogs and social media.
One report, published on April 22 by independent journalist Peter Imanuelsen, states that with the removal of a key article from the draft treaty, countries “no longer have to obey the WHO.”
But experts who spoke with The Defender said it is too soon to say the WHO backed down. They pointed out that the latest drafts of the proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), still under negotiation by WHO members, contain obligations for nations and curtail freedoms for people globally.
Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “There is no victory,” as the proposed IHR amendments give the WHO’s director-general “unlimited legislative and executive powers to declare a pandemic and the measures which need to be taken” — and strengthen existing powers as specified in the current IHR, ratified in 2005.
Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender the two proposed instruments will still direct WHO member states to distribute vaccines and drugs and obey demands issued by the organization during a declared “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).
Writing for Door to Freedom, Nass said the latest revisions to the IHR amendments state that the document is “non-binding” but that other language contradicts this.
“So what if the term ‘non-binding’ is no longer crossed out? The document is still binding on nations due to other language, the requirement to report back to the WHO on how well nations are complying, and the new Compliance and Implementation committee, which will ride herd on nations that do not comply,” Nass wrote.
What’s more, “Nations must ‘adjust’ their domestic legislation to comply … though the document claims it has no intention of imposing on national sovereignty,” she added.
Nass said claims that language regarding “misinformation” and “disinformation” was removed from the latest draft of the IHR amendments is also false. She wrote:
“The control of misinformation and disinformation got moved to an Annex where it would be less obvious. However, the control of information is now even more stringent, as ‘surveillance’ and managing misinformation are now considered ‘Core Capacities’ that all nations will have to develop, and on which they will be scored using a monitoring system still to be developed.”
Terhorst said if the WHO ratifies either or both of the two proposed documents in their current iterations, it would attain “legislative and executive powers, autonomous powers,” that are explicitly prohibited by the WHO’s Constitution. According to Terhorst, the constitution limits the WHO’s power to that of an “advisory body.”
Member states will vote on the proposed instruments at the 77th World Health Assembly, scheduled for May 27-June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland.
‘A form of negotiating blackmail’
Independent journalist James Roguski has chronicled the negotiations for both the “pandemic agreement” and the IHR amendments on his Substack. In an April 18 post, he said that negotiations on the proposed “pandemic agreement” have “failed.”
This failure, Roguski said, leaves the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body no choice but to propose that nations sign an unfinished document and agree to delay the details into the “far distant future,” through the passage of a proposed “Pandemic Treaty” resolution.
In a separate Substack post on April 23, Roguski wrote that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is “resorting to a form of negotiating blackmail,” by “attempting to pressure the WHO member nations to adopt and sign an incomplete agreement” at next month’s meeting.”
According to Roguski, the “not-so-subtle threat” is that if member states do not sign the incomplete document, “they will not be able to continue to participate in the subsequent negotiations to work out the details.”
Member states can sign the “pandemic agreement” at WHO headquarters in Geneva from May 28 to June 28, and at United Nations headquarters in New York from July 8, 2024, to July 7, 2025.
Roguski wrote on April 18:
“They have always wanted to reach an empty agreement in order to set up a Framework Convention and a brand new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) [COP] that would be empowered to meet on a yearly basis off into the future, forever.
“They know that they cannot show us the details of what they really want to do. They are proposing an incomplete, watered-down agreement in the hopes that they will be able to make decisions in the future in the hopes that we won’t be paying attention.”
According to Roguski, WHO member states have not agreed on aspects of the “pandemic agreement” that involve One Health, the development of a “Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing System,” financing and financial rules governing the COP.
Yet, the resolution requires WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to immediately implement clauses about topics such as “Preparedness, readiness and resilience,” “Vaccine and therapeutic related compensation and liability during pandemics,” “regulatory strengthening” and a “Coordinating Financial Mechanism.”
IHR Amendments would give WHO director-general ‘lawmaking powers’
The revisions to the proposed IHR amendments have led to a new document that Terhorst said, “appears to be less awful than the earlier draft.” But that’s “deceiving,” he said.
Like Nass, Terhost noted that the latest draft foresees the establishment of an IHR Implementation and Compliance committee, “intended to facilitate and oversee the implementation of and promote compliance with these Regulations.”
“This means that if a PHEIC is declared … or a pandemic or pandemic emergency or early action alert, all member states have to answer and obey the orders from the WHO director-general, and their own institutions have to implement the measures requested such as lockdowns, vaccination, quarantine, travel restrictions,” Terhorst said.
As a result, the director-general will have “lawmaking powers” to declare a PHEIC and the measures nations must take in response, Terhorst said.
Writing on his Substack April 22, Roguski listed several “unacceptable” proposals contained in the most recent draft of the IHR amendments, including vaccination requirements, proposals to quarantine travelers, proposals for the implementation of “vaccine passports” and testing requirements as a prerequisite to travel, enhanced surveillance mechanisms, and censorship under the guise of targeting “misinformation.”
Silvia Behrendt, founder and director of the Agency for Global Health Responsibility, based in Austria, told The Defender that aside from these provisions, the proposed IHR amendments also violate Article 55, Paragraph 2 of the existing IHR (2005).
This clause requires the WHO director-general to communicate all proposed changes to the IHR to all member states at least four months before the World Health Assembly. The WHO claims that it fulfilled this requirement when the “WHO Secretariat circulated all proposals for amendments to the IHR on 16 November 2022.”
Behrendt disagreed. “The new draft is, to a very high extent, a new version which we have never seen,” she said. “This proves that the deadline has not been met, because it’s not enough time” for the WHO member states.
“This is also not the final draft,” Behrendt said. “They will have a new [negotiating] session and there will again be new changes to it.” The Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations meets April 22-26.
Behrendt said this is a particularly burdensome process for smaller states, who are faced with dual negotiations regarding the “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments but lack the capacity to keep up with both.
“This is a cascading effect and it’s a very complex situation because they negotiate on the same subject matter. It has never been done in international law,” Behrendt said, noting that the European Union (EU) is part of the negotiations for both proposals as a separate entity, even as its individual member states are also part of the negotiating process.
Terhorst said the EU lacks the authority to participate as a separate party in these negotiations, noting that public health policy in the EU is the sole domain of the states. Behrendt said this is an attempt by the EU to “take the lead” on public health policy.
Terhorst said the EU, a proponent of digital health passports and “digital identity,” is “acquiring more and more power,” and alongside other WHO member states and negotiators, is seeking to rush through the two proposals before this year’s U.S. presidential elections, where two of the three leading candidates oppose the WHO.
Behrendt said the recent bird flu scare is one more reason the WHO is rushing to push through both proposals. “It’s very interesting that it surfaces now,” she said, noting the timing of the outbreak, just before this year’s World Health Assembly.
Other non-state actors, like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are also participants in the negotiations as official WHO “stakeholders.” Behrendt cited the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Traders as one such organization, noting “they have dominated” the negotiating processes for the two WHO proposals.
Global opposition to WHO proposals is growing
Terhorst said global opposition to the two WHO proposals continues to grow. On April 16, the Dutch Parliament passed a motion asking the country’s government to postpone its vote on the IHR amendments at next month’s World Health Assembly, because the amendments were not submitted at least four months before the assembly.
The Dutch government is not bound by the motion, Terhorst said, but she noted the broad support the motion enjoyed in Parliament. “Even parties who were very much in favor of all the COVID-19measures, they thought that this was just not legal.”
Terhorst also noted that the Dutch government previously submitted a reservation — a legal request for more time to review — against the 2022 IHR amendments, but has not made the formal reservation letter public, claiming the letter is “diplomatic information.”
“Why is it a diplomatic relations issue? It’s a legal issue and the Dutch Parliament should be able to verify that this letter has been sent,” Terhorst said, adding that the Dutch Parliament never ratified the IHR (2005), perhaps because it is unconstitutional.
Last week, tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Japan to oppose the two proposals. And last month, the Louisiana Senate voted unanimously to ban WHO involvement in the state’s health policy, while lawmakers in Uganda also opposed the two proposals.
On May 2, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Global Affairs will host a listening session “to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help [it] inform and prepare for U.S. Government engagement at the World Health Assembly.”
The session is open to the public, but those interested must RSVP by April 26.
BREAKING: FDA Says Bird Flu Found In Cows Milk
Toronto Catholic School Board Rejects Pro-Life Flag Motion After Voting For Homosexual Flag in 2021
TORONTO (LifeSiteNews) –– In what appears to be a betrayal of the faith, the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) last night voted against trustee Michael Del Grande’s motion seeking to have pro-life flags flown on top of all district buildings in the month of May. The same board in 2021 voted in favor of flying the gay “pride” flags at atop its schools.
The vote against Del Grande’s pro-life motion happened during a regular board meeting Tuesday night, which was packed with supporters of his motion.
Del Grande, trustee for Scarborough – Agincourt, told LifeSiteNews after the meeting that “[a]nyone who watched it could see the inconsistency between my items and theirs.”
“The most irony of the night was [trustee Angela] Kennedy rising to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust and Turkey’s denial, but when it came to the holocaust of unborn children, she was in denial just like Turkey,” he added.
Del Grande’s motion was voted down in an 8 to 2 vote. Scarborough trustee Garry Tanuan was the only trustee other than Del Grande to vote in favor of the motion.
In total, trustees voted down Del Grande’s two pro-life initiatives, the first which proposed that the pro-life flag fly at all district schools in May, and the second that staff educate students about the pro-life cause on the same day as the Canadian March for Life.
When speaking in favor of his motion before the vote, Del Grande told the board there is “an opportunity to showcase ourselves as defenders of human rights in the greatest social justice battle of our day.”
“We are a pro-life board,” he implored.
After saying this, some 50-plus attendees at the meeting seated in the public gallery erupted in applause, which immediately drew the ire of TCDSB Chair Nancy Crawford.
TCDSB Maria Rizzo accused Del Grande and his motion of allowing “nasty politics” to worm “its way into our boardroom or into our classrooms.”
Rizzo claimed that the reason the board voted in favor of allowing the “pride” flag to fly in 2021 was because it was a “student-led” initiative, unlike Del Grande’s pro-life motion, failing to mention the Catholic Church’s unchangeable condemnation of what the LGBT flag represents, and the Church’s moral clarity that abortion is murder and ought to be opposed.
During the meeting and before the vote, several people were allowed to speak in support of Del Grande’s motion.
Multiple times public attendees in the gallery voiced their displeasure with the TCDSB for not supporting Del Grande’s motion. As a result, TCDSB Chair Nancy Crawford expelled the gallery attendees, after having given them multiple warnings to be quiet, observing that they could watch the rest of the meeting as they all had “computers.”
Soon after the vote, multiple people in the gallery started shouting, “shame, shame,” with one person saying loudly, “This isn’t a Catholic board.”
Crawford immediately stood up and called for “security” to “clear the building of our visitors.”
As supporters of the motion exited, one could be heard saying, “This is supposed to be a Catholic school.”
Catholic board ‘disgraced itself,’ ‘spit in the face of God’
Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) Director of Political Operations Jack Fonseca told LifeSiteNews that the “TCDSB disgraced itself” by voting against Del Grande’s motion.
“Most of the trustees showed themselves to be unconcerned about making any serious effort to protect the lives of innocent and vulnerable unborn babies who are at risk of death from abortion,” he said.
“The eight trustees who voted to defeat this powerful and potentially culture-changing right-to-life motion have spit in the face of God, the author of life, who surely desires every Catholic to defend the innocent from being slain, and to speak out prophetically against their deliberate destruction.”
Fonseca observed that “possibly” these trustees have made “themselves personally responsible for many future abortions that would have been prevented if the motion had passed.”
He told LifeSiteNews that should Del Grande’s motion have passed it would have been a “beautiful pro-life symbol been allowed to fly over every school, and along with it, a full day of pro-life instruction.”
“I would encourage people who appreciate Mike’s prophetic voice, to email him a note of thanks,” he said.
As reported by LifeSiteNews last week, three TCDSB trustees Kevin Morrison, Maria Rizzo, and vice-chair of the board Markus de Domenico, all made comments to legacy media before the vote in which they voiced their opposition to Del Grande’s Catholic motion.
LifeSiteNews was also told recently by Neil MacCarthy Director, Public Relations & Communications for the Archdiocese of Toronto, that Archbishop Francis Leo will “not” be commenting on the matter at this time.
Despite the board’s decision, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life remains clear and unchangeable.
Pope John Paul II’s pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), affirmed the Church’s constant, traditional and historical teaching on the sanctity of human life and the gravity of the crime of abortion.
‘Sacredness of Life’ motion passed in place of Del Grande’s stronger pro-life motion
During the board meeting, vice-chair Markus de Domenico’s notice of motion titled “Supporting Student Learning on the ‘Sacredness of Life,’” which purports to be a pro-life motion but was put forth after he – and two other trustees – had come out in public opposition to Del Grande’s flag motion, was brought before the board.
This motion was supposed to not have been voted on at Tuesday’s meeting, however, the board decided to “waive the bylaw” which states that a notice of motion be discussed and voted on. After some back and forth, de Domenico’s motion was voted in. Del Grande and two others opposed to allow the motion to be voted on.
De Domenico’s proposed motion asked that the board, in an attempt to nurture its “Catholic Community,” provide “additional supports, resources, and special activities for schools on the sacredness of life during the ‘National Family and Life Week’ this May and every May following.”
While the motion itself seems to be in support of Catholic teaching and therefore unobjectionable, Fonseca warned LifeSiteNews that de Domenico’s recent opposition to Del Grande’s pro-life flag motion suggests a different goal is in play.
Fonseca told LifeSiteNews that he is of the belief that de Domenico’s motion’s entire purpose was to “undermine and sabotage Del Grande’s pro-life flag motion specifically, and more broadly, to undermine the National March For Life and the pro-life movement.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the TCDSB in recent months has seemingly had no issues with promoting a pro-LGBT agenda, as can be seen in an instance from earlier this year when it recommended its staff watch a pro-LGBT play about a little girl who thinks she is a boy.
As for Del Grande, he has been facing ongoing legal battles after being canceled for going against the LGBT agenda. He was tried before a tribunal of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) for objecting to the addition of transgender ideology into the Toronto Catholic District School Board’s policies and for defending the Catholic Church’s teaching that abortion is morally wrong.
CLC has asked that Canadians who wish to express their gratitude to Del Grande, demonstrate it by donating to his legal defense fund.
To respectfully voice your opinion regarding Del Grande’s pro-life motion and the vote against it, please contact:
TCDSB Trustees
Joseph Martino
Ward 1: Etobicoke
Phone: 416-512-3401
Email: joseph.martino@tcdsb.org
Markus de Domenico (Vice-Chair)
Ward 2: Etobicoke
Phone: 416-512-3402
Email: markus.dedomenico@tcdsb.org
Ida Li Preti
Ward 3: North York
Phone: 416-512-3403
Email: ida.lipreti@tcdsb.org
Teresa Lubinski
Ward 4: Parkdale-High Park, Etobicoke-Lakeshore
Phone: 416-512-3404
Email: teresa.lubinski@tcdsb.org
Maria Rizzo
Ward 5: North York
Phone: 416-512-3405
Email: maria.rizzo@tcdsb.org
Frank D’Amico, CD
Ward 6: York
Phone: 416-512-3406
Email: frank.damico@tcdsb.org
Michael Del Grande
Ward 7: Scarborough-Agincourt
Phone: 416-512-3407
Email: mike.delgrande@tcdsb.org
Garry Tanuan
Ward 8: Scarborough
Phone: 416-512-3408
Email: garry.tanuan@tcdsb.org
Kevin Morrison
Ward 9: Toronto
Phone: 416-512-3409
Email: kevin.morrison@tcdsb.org
Daniel Di Giorgio
Ward 10: Toronto
Phone: 416-512-3410
Email: daniel.digiorgio@tcdsb.org
Angela Kennedy
Ward 11: East York, Toronto
Phone: 416-512-3411
Email: angela.kennedy@tcdsb.org
Nancy Crawford (Chair)
Ward 12: Scarborough
Phone: 416-512-3412
Email: nancy.crawford@tcdsb.org
Archbishop Francis Leo
Phone: (416) 934-0606
Email: communications@archtoronto.org
BREAKING: FDA Says Bird Flu Found In Cows Milk