Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not!
Recent threats of war over Ukraine
Russia understandably fears the eastard expansion of NATO. A dangerous situation has arisen since Russia massed troops on Ukraine’s borders. Recently NATO countries, led by the United States, have supplied arms to Ukraine. There is a threat that the tensions building up in the region will lead to war. Such a development would be catastrophic for the entire world. Against this backdrop, let us examine the question of NATO’s illegality.
Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles
In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO’s legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I).
b War crimes: Violations of the laws and customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destructions of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
c. Crimes against humanity: Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of the laws of the country where perpetrated
ci.
cii. Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against the peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI as a crime against international law.
Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that “To initiate a war of aggression is therefore not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
At present, NATO’s nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This “nuclear sharing”, as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.
Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.’
The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.
Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?
At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive operations in connection with the coup which it carried out in Ukraine. Europe must refuse. See the following link:
NATO’s Aggression against Russia and the Danger of War in Europe
The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US interventions:
During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt, 2013-present.
Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the military-industrial complex needs justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed resources from social and environmental projects.
Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don’t they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?
The national system for compensating the COVID-19 vaccine injured has not paid out a single claim.
| Robert W Malone MD, MS Apr 20/2022 |
As reported by Maryanne Demasi, PhD in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the national system for compensating the COVID-19 vaccine injured has not paid out a single claim.
The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) was set up to address vaccine injuries associated with vaccines and other countermeasures during a pandemic or bio-threat event. A person cannot sue a manufacturer for an injury caused by a vaccine or other product listed as a countermeasure, they can only seek compensation from CICP by filing a claim. Shockingly, the US government through CICP has only approved one claim and has yet to pay out a single dollar to anyone vaccine injured or for death benefits to those who have died.
The table below from the VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 4/8/2022 . It shows the extensive vaccine injuries and deaths reported. The government is quick to point out that these are reported injuries and deaths to the US government, which will not be fully investigated by the CDC and so therefore can not be verified…
When a public health emergency was declared in 2020, the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act went into effect. That meant any injuries or deaths arising from the vaccines would have to be filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), as opposed to the usual route with the US’s national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The BMJ article reports that since then, there have been 1000s of claims filed by people injured/death from the vaccines, but not a single person has collected any compensation. Whereas, under the national vaccine program (VICP), compensation has been awarded in 36% of the 24 ,909 claims filed with around $4.7bn paid out since 1988.
The CICP payouts are limited to only the most serious injuries and death. The claims have to be made within a year after vaccination, and the program has a much higher burden of proof than the VICP. Loss of income under the CICP is limited to $50 000 a year, and no compensation is included for pain or emotional distress (or for attorney fees). Under the traditional vaccine injury program, payouts for lost wages are not capped, and compensation for pain and suffering is much higher.
Of concern is that the filing of a case must be completed within a year, but there is at least one person who has documented the electronic filing of her case, only to find on follow up, that the CICP had no record of her case. Concerns arise that such dropped cases will then be unable to be refiled, due to the time limits for filing. The backlog of cases now appears so large, the processes so opaque, that the CICP system seems irrevocably broken
The CICP is a “horrible program,” says Peter Meyers, emeritus professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, DC. “You basically submit your application for compensation, it’s then dealt with secretly, and you don’t have a right to have a lawyer paid for by the program. You don’t have a right to a hearing. We have no idea how these cases are being processed . . . There is such a lack of transparency in this program that it’s frightening.” (BMJ)
Furthermore, the CICP program resolves claims through an administrative process, not a judicial one (unlike the VICP). In order for a claim to be won through the CICP program, the legal burden of proof has to be BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That is a virtually unattainable demand. Particularly for an experimental vaccine for which the adverse events are not completely known and for which the government has stymied research efforts to determine just what those adverse events are. The CDC has also hidden the large portions of the data it is collecting for these vaccines. This means that the administrators judicating the injury claims would also not have the information that the CDC knows on the adverse events from these vaccines, making it virtually impossible to win many of the CICP vaccine injury cases.
Currently, a small group of Senators including Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Mike Braun, and Cindy Hyde-Smith have introduced the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Amendment Bill to reform the CICP to make its processes and payouts comparable to the VICP program. The bill also proposes the creation of a commission to identify injuries caused by a covid vaccines and it would also allow claims to be resubmitted.
This harkens back to the issues of the mRNA, the lipid nano-particles, as well as the spike protein issues with these vaccines.
We now know that the “mRNA” from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines which incorporates the synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine can persist in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection. This is not natural, and this is not really mRNA. These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body.
We also don’t know the full effects of the nano-lipid particles used, although we know that they aggregate in various organs, including ovaries and brain. We also know that they are very inflammatory. We know that the spike protein is cytotoxic. So, adverse events are going to persist for months after vaccination. That includes myocarditis.
So these long-term and unusual adverse events, most of which haven’t even been investigated to the full extent needed or even recognized, will not be included in the the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
Then there is the government’s “Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” (VAERS), which does consider vaccine injuries past a certain time. These adverse events, which may not show up for weeks or even months after vaccination, are not getting entered into the VEARS system. Further distorting what is known and knowable about this global “mRNA vaccine” experiment.
Isn’t it time to take a good, hard look at what is happening?
In order to fight corruption, we must first expose it. But when our government is are determined to hide embarrassing data, obfuscate facts and deny culpability, what chance do we have?
The government in the USA has agreed to provide liability for the vaccine injured in this country, relieving the pharmaceutical industry of this burden. It is time they did their job and lived up to their obligations.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-injury-compensation-system?s=r
I was driving home from work and saw a woman walking alongside the road. She was alone, and there wasn’t anyone anywhere near her for as far as I could see, which was several blocks in all directions. Not a soul was out in that very tiny town. And she wore a Big C mask. This type of fear is mental illness nurtured by government and has nothing to do with a “virus.” If they can get people to do this, what else can they get them to do? Oh yeah, child abuse. Suffocate your 2 yr. old with a mask for the good of the whole. After all, we are all safer for it, eh? At least that’s what the Stockholm masses say as they jab poison into their masked child. Groom your child for what is to come. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Just ask Disney.
BHP