thelibertybeacon--2020-08-28--What Is Gilead’s Role In The War On Hydroxychloroquine? (And Abbvie Pharmaceuticals)

Is Gilead , the maker of Remdesivir , waging war on HCQ ( hydroxychloroquine ) ?
Attacks on the drug have been continuous ever since Dr. Didier Raoult used this quinine derivative to save the lives of COVID-19 patients last March .
The first attempt to discredit HCQ was a hastily compiled Veterans Administration hospital system study last April .
Notably , one of the study ’ s authors had in the past received numerous grants from Gilead , with one grant in 2018 totaling nearly a quarter of a million dollars .
After deep flaws in the VA study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescue in May with a “ 15,000 patient ” megastudy allegedly compiled from hospitals all over the world .
This strategy succeeded : Following its publication in the Lancet and the NEJM , all outpatient use of HCQ was severely restricted in the U.S. , Australia , and most of Europe .
When the Surgisphere scam was exposed , both articles were quietly retracted and the editor-in-chief of the Lancet tried to wash his hands of this embarrassing incident by denouncing Surgisphere ’ s “ monumental fraud.
” However only a few days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in persuading WHO to suspend all trials for HCQ .
Who put them up to it ?
The study ’ s main author , Mandeep Mehra , also apologized for his reliance on a third party for the data .
He may not have known the data was fabricated , but the hospital he directed was conducting two trials for Remdesivir .
Was he under pressure from his sponsors ?
These are the stakes : Drug companies have every right to recoup their cost of research and development , but lobbying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is both cheaper and more effective is a crime against humanity .
Progressives mistakenly believe that socialized medicine protects patients from the abuses of big pharma , but the first nation to severely restrict access to HCQ was France .
( ER : We are in total agreement that socialized medicine does NOT protect patients in this way at all .
But a word about France : Surprisingly , it has an insurance system of healthcare where the ones with the best plans get the most from it .
The poorer people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up contributing more into the system relatively speaking .
Perhaps France was first because it is the home country of Professor Didier Raoult , who is influential and capable of standing his ground . )
This policy compelled Dr. Raoult to testify against Gilead ’ s disproportionate leverage over the medical community during a meeting of the French National Assembly last June .
Notably in the U.S. , a third of the FDA ’ s budget comes from pharmaceutical user fees , and according to the NIH ’ s website , eight out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19 treatment guidelines are currently affiliated with Gilead .
These government ties to Gilead more than triple when you include panel members with past associations .
( ER : so that is more than 24/55 members ! )
Paradoxically , most opposition to HCQ in the U.S. comes from the left , but conservatives who know the ways of crony capitalism regard this as par for the course .
After all , big pharma has given more to Democrats ever since the passage of Obamacare and up to now , Gilead employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning for everyone who colluded in this disinformation campaign .
If you are among the policymakers or physicians participating in this charade , you may want to dissociate yourself while you can credibly plead ignorance for tens of thousands of preventable deaths .
Access to HCQ varies by state .
If you can not get this drug from your doctor , America ’ s Frontline Doctors has kindly provided contact information for telemedicine physicians that are HCQ-knowledgeable .
You can find these doctors by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scrolling down to the bottom of the description .
Revenues paid by BigPharma .
With more than 12 doctors involved , don ’ t you have an epidemic outbreak of conflicts of interest ?
The recent crisis has highlighted the polarities and sometimes surprising decisions of doctors who also have advisory or executive roles in high authorities ( the Scientific Council , the High Council of Public Health ) .
Professor Perronne recalled having set up a system for declaring conflicts of interest before any decisions are taken , going so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates if necessary .
At the beginning of 2020 , the Data+Local collective cross-checked data from the Transparence Santé ( Health Transparency ) database , set up after the Mediator scandal .
( ER : Mediator , a drug for weight loss used with type 2 diabetes sufferers produced by France ’ s Servier laboratories and prescribed in France only , is said to have caused the death of hundreds of patients . )
The 30,000 practitioners in 32 university hospitals across the country shared more than 92 million euros , in addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under agreements between university hospitals and laboratories .
All this does not of course take into account the aid paid to victims ’ and/or patients ’ associations .
Here is the Top 13 ranking of recent revenues paid by the pharmaceutical industry N°1 .
The Palme d ’ Or ( ER : Oscar ) is awarded to Professor François Raffi of Nantes .
541,729 € , including 52,812 € from Gilead .
Is it by chance that we are told that the anonymous phone call to threaten Didier Raoult , if he persisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone of the infectiology department of the CHU of Nantes , of which François Raffi is head of department ?
Probably a pure coincidence .
( pictured left ) N°2 .
Professor Jacques Reynes of Montpellier .
291,741 € , including 48,006 € from Gilead and 64,493 € from Abbvie .
However , Jacques Reynes was asked by Olivier Véran to lead the Raoult protocol clinical trial in Montpellier while he was also the national coordinator of two Remdesivir studies for Gilead .
He certainly did not have the time to send his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Minister .
( pictured centre ) N°3 .
Pr Karine Lacombe of Paris – Saint Antoine .
212,209 € , including 28,412 € from Gilead .
She is on the last step of the podium , but the main thing is to be there .
There is not only the podium with the Ministers in Matignon .
( pictured right ) N°4 .
Professor Jean Michel Molina of Paris – Saint Louis .
184,034 € , including 26,950 € from Gilead and 22,864 € from Abbvie .
Now Jean-Michel Molina is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Infectious Diseases on a few cases , to say that hydroxychloroquine does not work .
Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses is the official journal of the SPILF ( Société de Pathologie infectieuse de Langue Française ) .
( pictured left ) N°5 .
Pr Gilbert Deray from Paris .
160.649€ .
A nice sum for a nephrologist who is very present on the TV sets .
Attention : Remdesivir can be very toxic for the kidneys .
( pictured centre ) N°6 .
Professor Jean-Paul Stahl from Grenoble .
100.358 € , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this sum has not been declared on his IPR .
However , Jean-Paul Stahl is editor-in-chief of the journal Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses .
He is the one who compared Plaquénil* ( brand name of HCQ ) to toilet paper .
( pictured right ) N°7 .
Pr Christian Chidiac of Lyon .
90,741 € , including 16,563 € from Gilead .
However , Christian Chidiac is President of the Communicable Diseases Commission of the High Council of Public Health , which issued the famous Opinion banning hydroxychloroquine , except for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking to include patients in official trials ( thus Discovery ) .
His assistant , Pr Florence Ader , quoted below , is the principal investigator of Discovery .
Pure coincidence .
N°8 .
Professor Bruno Hoen of the Pasteur Institute .
82,610 € , including 52,012 € from Gilead .
Note that on his IPR , he noted having received only €1,000 from Gilead !
However , Bruno Hoen attacked the Marseille team in an email dated March 18 , 2020 , shared with all infectious diseases specialists .
N°9 .
Pr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including €15,028 from Gilead .
Note that on his IPR , like his predecessor , he noted that he only received €1,000 from Gilead !
It must be overwork .
But Pierre Tattevin is president of the SPILF .
This learned society attacked hydroxychloroquine to encourage inclusions in Discovery , as well as in other studies by drawing lots with groups of untreated patients ( randomized studies ) .
N°10 .
Pr Vincent Le Moing of Montpellier .
68.435 € , including 4,776 € from Gilead and 9,642 € from Abbvie .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss Jacques Reynes quoted above , the clinical trial of Montpellier .
N°11 .
Dr. Alain Makinson of Montpellier .
63,873 € , including 15,054 € from Gilead .
Dr. Alain Makinson is participating in the Montpellier study with Jacques Reynes and Vincent Le Moing .
A beautiful trio .
Montpellier is very well represented .
N°12 .
François-Xavier Lescure of Paris – Bichat .
28,929 € , including 8,621 € from Gilead .
Now , François-Xavier Lescure is the assistant of our famous Yazdan Yazdanpanah who is in the Scientific Council for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marseille team to discredit hydroxychloroquine .
He is co-author of the highly questionable study on Gilead ’ s remediant , published in the New England Journal of Medicine .
However , this study has no methodology .
N°13 .
Pr Florence Ader from Lyon .
11.842 € , including 3,750 € from Gilead .
Florence Ader is the principal investigator of Discovery .
After twelve , it ’ s starting to be an outbreak of an epidemic !
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

Is Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir, waging war on HCQ (hydroxychloroquine)?
Attacks on the drug have been continuous ever since Dr. Didier Raoult used this quinine derivative to save the lives of COVID-19 patients last March.
The first attempt to discredit HCQ was a hastily compiled Veterans Administration hospital system study last April. Notably, one of the study’s authors had in the past received numerous grants from Gilead, with one grant in 2018 totaling nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
After deep flaws in the VA study were exposed, Surgisphere came to the rescue in May with a “15,000 patient” megastudy allegedly compiled from hospitals all over the world.
This strategy succeeded: Following its publication in the Lancet and the NEJM, all outpatient use of HCQ was severely restricted in the U.S., Australia, and most of Europe.
When the Surgisphere scam was exposed, both articles were quietly retracted and the editor-in-chief of the Lancet tried to wash his hands of this embarrassing incident by denouncing Surgisphere’s “monumental fraud.”
However only a few days earlier, Lancet editors played a major role in persuading WHO to suspend all trials for HCQ. Who put them up to it?
The study’s main author, Mandeep Mehra, also apologized for his reliance on a third party for the data. He may not have known the data was fabricated, but the hospital he directed was conducting two trials for Remdesivir. Was he under pressure from his sponsors?
These are the stakes :
A five-day treatment with Remdesivir costs around $3,000.
A five-day supply of generic HCQ costs around $10.
Drug companies have every right to recoup their cost of research and development, but lobbying to suppress access to a lifesaving treatment that is both cheaper and more effective is a crime against humanity.
Progressives mistakenly believe that socialized medicine protects patients from the abuses of big pharma, but the first nation to severely restrict access to HCQ was France. (ER: We are in total agreement that socialized medicine does NOT protect patients in this way at all. But a word about France: Surprisingly, it has an insurance system of healthcare where the ones with the best plans get the most from it. The poorer people with no plans or poor plans usually end up contributing more into the system relatively speaking. Perhaps France was first because it is the home country of Professor Didier Raoult, who is influential and capable of standing his ground.)
This policy compelled Dr. Raoult to testify against Gilead’s disproportionate leverage over the medical community during a meeting of the French National Assembly last June.
Notably in the U.S., a third of the FDA’s budget comes from pharmaceutical user fees, and according to the NIH’s website, eight out of 55 members of the panel responsible for COVID-19 treatment guidelines are currently affiliated with Gilead. These government ties to Gilead more than triple when you include panel members with past associations. (ER: so that is more than 24/55 members!)
Paradoxically, most opposition to HCQ in the U.S. comes from the left, but conservatives who know the ways of crony capitalism regard this as par for the course. After all, big pharma has given more to Democrats ever since the passage of Obamacare and up to now, Gilead employees donated three times more to the Biden campaign.
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning for everyone who colluded in this disinformation campaign. If you are among the policymakers or physicians participating in this charade, you may want to dissociate yourself while you can credibly plead ignorance for tens of thousands of preventable deaths.
* * *
Access to HCQ varies by state. If you cannot get this drug from your doctor, America’s Frontline Doctors has kindly provided contact information for telemedicine physicians that are HCQ-knowledgeable. You can find these doctors by clicking on any state in their website and scrolling down to the bottom of the description.
************
Revenues paid by BigPharma. With more than 12 doctors involved, don’t you have an epidemic outbreak of conflicts of interest?
FRANCE SOIR
The recent crisis has highlighted the polarities and sometimes surprising decisions of doctors who also have advisory or executive roles in high authorities (the Scientific Council, the High Council of Public Health).
Professor Perronne recalled having set up a system for declaring conflicts of interest before any decisions are taken, going so far as to exclude people from decisions or debates if necessary.
At the beginning of 2020, the Data+Local collective cross-checked data from the Transparence Santé (Health Transparency) database, set up after the Mediator scandal. (ER: Mediator, a drug for weight loss used with type 2 diabetes sufferers produced by France’s Servier laboratories and prescribed in France only, is said to have caused the death of hundreds of patients.) The 30,000 practitioners in 32 university hospitals across the country shared more than 92 million euros, in addition to some 78 million euros paid out under agreements between university hospitals and laboratories. All this does not of course take into account the aid paid to victims’ and/or patients’ associations.
Here is the Top 13 ranking of recent revenues paid by the pharmaceutical industry
N°1. The Palme d’Or (ER: Oscar) is awarded to Professor François Raffi of Nantes. 541,729 €, including 52,812 € from Gilead. Is it by chance that we are told that the anonymous phone call to threaten Didier Raoult, if he persisted with hydroxychloroquine, came from the cell phone of the infectiology department of the CHU of Nantes, of which François Raffi is head of department? Probably a pure coincidence. (pictured left)
N°2. Professor Jacques Reynes of Montpellier. 291,741 €, including 48,006 € from Gilead and 64,493 € from Abbvie. However, Jacques Reynes was asked by Olivier Véran to lead the Raoult protocol clinical trial in Montpellier while he was also the national coordinator of two Remdesivir studies for Gilead. He certainly did not have the time to send his Public Declaration of Interest (PDI) to the Minister. (pictured centre)
N°3. Pr Karine Lacombe of Paris – Saint Antoine. 212,209 €, including 28,412 € from Gilead. She is on the last step of the podium, but the main thing is to be there. There is not only the podium with the Ministers in Matignon. (pictured right)
N°4. Professor Jean Michel Molina of Paris – Saint Louis. 184,034 €, including 26,950 € from Gilead and 22,864 € from Abbvie. Now Jean-Michel Molina is co-author of an article published in Medicine and Infectious Diseases on a few cases, to say that hydroxychloroquine does not work. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses is the official journal of the SPILF (Société de Pathologie infectieuse de Langue Française). (pictured left)
N°5. Pr Gilbert Deray from Paris. 160.649€. A nice sum for a nephrologist who is very present on the TV sets. Attention: Remdesivir can be very toxic for the kidneys. (pictured centre)
N°6. Professor Jean-Paul Stahl from Grenoble. 100.358 €, including 4,552 € from Abbvie. Please note that this sum has not been declared on his IPR. However, Jean-Paul Stahl is editor-in-chief of the journal Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. He is the one who compared Plaquénil* (brand name of HCQ) to toilet paper. (pictured right)
N°7. Pr Christian Chidiac of Lyon. 90,741 €, including 16,563 € from Gilead. However, Christian Chidiac is President of the Communicable Diseases Commission of the High Council of Public Health, which issued the famous Opinion banning hydroxychloroquine, except for the dying(!!), and asking to include patients in official trials (thus Discovery). His assistant, Pr Florence Ader, quoted below, is the principal investigator of Discovery. Pure coincidence.
N°8. Professor Bruno Hoen of the Pasteur Institute. 82,610 €, including 52,012 € from Gilead. Note that on his IPR, he noted having received only €1,000 from Gilead! However, Bruno Hoen attacked the Marseille team in an email dated March 18, 2020, shared with all infectious diseases specialists.
N°9. Pr Pierre Tattevin from Rennes. €79,956, including €15,028 from Gilead. Note that on his IPR, like his predecessor, he noted that he only received €1,000 from Gilead! It must be overwork. But Pierre Tattevin is president of the SPILF. This learned society attacked hydroxychloroquine to encourage inclusions in Discovery, as well as in other studies by drawing lots with groups of untreated patients (randomized studies).
N°10. Pr Vincent Le Moing of Montpellier. 68.435 €, including 4,776 € from Gilead and 9,642 € from Abbvie. Now Vincent Le Moing pilots, with his boss Jacques Reynes quoted above, the clinical trial of Montpellier.
N°11. Dr. Alain Makinson of Montpellier. 63,873 €, including 15,054 € from Gilead. Dr. Alain Makinson is participating in the Montpellier study with Jacques Reynes and Vincent Le Moing. A beautiful trio. Montpellier is very well represented.
N°12. François-Xavier Lescure of Paris – Bichat. 28,929 €, including 8,621 € from Gilead. Now, François-Xavier Lescure is the assistant of our famous Yazdan Yazdanpanah who is in the Scientific Council for Covid-19. He has publicly criticized the Marseille team to discredit hydroxychloroquine. He is co-author of the highly questionable study on Gilead’s remediant, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, this study has no methodology.
N°13. Pr Florence Ader from Lyon. 11.842 €, including 3,750 € from Gilead. Florence Ader is the principal investigator of Discovery.
After twelve, it’s starting to be an outbreak of an epidemic!
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-28--NEWSFLASH! British PM Rushed to Hospital!

British Prime Muppet Boris Johnson was rushed to hospital this morning after being taken ill .
He was struck by a series of dizzy spells before and during a press briefing in which he was seen to lean on the NHS in order to steady himself .
He spent several hours at St Judas ’ Hospital near Traitor ’ s Gate in London where he underwent tests and was later released when doctors were able to confirm that there was “ nothing to worry about ” , which for many was the dire news they had been dreading .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the PM ’ s sudden illness was most likely COVID related and “ due to him taking so many u-turns he became dizzy.
” Boris was back at his desk by the evening and the nation promptly went into mourning .
It was believed at first that side effects of the medication he has been prescribed to manage a severe case of forked tongue might be responsible for the dizzy spells but this was eliminated after a thorough examination .
He has been advised to limit the u-turns to no more than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Daily Scare Avoid it now by not clicking here It was featured on UK Reloaded because some people never learn The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB ) Comment Policy : As a privately owned web site , we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam , advertising , vulgarity , threats of violence , racism , or personal/abusive attacks on other users .
This also applies to trolling , the use of more than one alias , or just intentional mischief .
Enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this websites administrators .
Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning .
Disclaimer : TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner .
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “ fair use ” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political , health , economic and social issues .
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “ fair use ” you must request permission from the copyright owner .

by Steve Cook
The White House, Washingborough 27/8/20
British Prime Muppet Boris Johnson was rushed to hospital this morning after being taken ill. He was struck by a series of dizzy spells before and during a press briefing in which he was seen to lean on the NHS in order to steady himself.
He spent several hours at St Judas’ Hospital near Traitor’s Gate in London where he underwent tests and was later released when doctors were able to confirm that there was “nothing to worry about”, which for many was the dire news they had been dreading.
A spokesperson for St Judas told reporters that the PM’s sudden illness was most likely COVID related and “due to him taking so many u-turns he became dizzy.”
Boris was back at his desk by the evening and the nation promptly went into mourning.
It was believed at first that side effects of the medication he has been prescribed to manage a severe case of forked tongue might be responsible for the dizzy spells but this was eliminated after a thorough examination.
He has been advised to limit the u-turns to no more than one a day.
Related news
Clarifications:
The White House mentioned above is the one in Washingborough in Lincolnshire, not the one in Washington DC. Referring to Boris as the Prime Muppet was a tampon. Sorry about that. When we said “tampon” this was typo and it should have said . . . , er, “typo”. Sorry about that as well.
The above article is from the Daily Scare
Written in crayon since 2014
Avoid it now by not clicking here
It was featured on UK Reloaded because some people never learn
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-08-29--Learning From Natural Disasters: FEMA & Federal Aid

Patrick Henry , a designer of our Constitutional Republic said , “ I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided , and that is the lamp of experience .
I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.
” What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters ?
As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need , so the question is not SHOULD we help , but instead where should disaster help come from ?
Looking at the design of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Disaster Relief is Not Within Federal Authority Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States .
James Madison , father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792 : If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article , section , or clause , then the federal authority does not lawfully exist .
We know that to be a factual statement by the terms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution : The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution , the States .
No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means .
Remember : Congress can not expand its own or another branch ’ s delegated power by legislative act .
Alexander Hamilton , a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist # 78 : The President has no authority to change the Constitution ; he doesn ’ t have the authority to make laws of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid , the president making legislative acts , is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid .
The Judiciary can not expand federal power beyond the Constitution .
James Madison , addresses such a violation in 1800 : If elected representatives in Washington DC can not identify the Article , section , and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States , then that authority , very plainly does not legally exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does not create that authority .
If legislative act is the only authority , then as Hamilton so accurately announced , that legislative act is void and no law at all .
A supreme Court opinion , nor series of opinions can not be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary can not exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution .
The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution can not provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what we hear is that “ We must have the federal government ’ s help ; without it we can not function.
” According to William Pitt , the Younger , in 1783 “ Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom .
It is the argument of tyrants ; it is the creed of slaves.
” The purpose of the Constitution is to “ preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers .
If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities .
To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic .
In that case , then Congress , the President and the courts would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution they have no basis to even exist .
How Should Disaster Relief Be Handled If the federal government wasn ’ t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year , the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters .
Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic , our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States ( in addition to the millions in private donations we see after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they see fit .
In fact , the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle .
Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers , the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States .
This “ brotherhood ” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support .
They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate .
The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form .
As a matter of fact , they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion .
James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792 , that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars , “ would subvert the very foundations , and transmute the very nature of the limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He repeated this truth in 1794 , when he said most definitively : There is no Constitutional reason and no Constitutional authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs .
There is and never has been any constitutional reason to look to any President to be the savior after a storm , during a pandemic , or other natural disaster .
* The only reason to look to any President in a time is crisis is political – to encourage love or hate of a personality – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government , most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “ nanny-hood ” of the federal government .
Charity is a voluntary gift of the individual .
Government can not give charity as they don ’ t take money voluntarily and they cant “ give ” what they don ’ t actually own .
So the solution is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your neighbor who is actually in need .
( 2 ) Don ’ t be a pawn in the political game for power by blaming someone in government … or crying out to government to fix the hurt .
If you would like a better understanding of how our Constitution created our federal judiciary , our online educational program called Liberty First University , will give you that understanding free from historical revision and political propaganda .
They have both online courses on the judiciary and DVDS available for in home , church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find out more by clicking on the image below .
Check out The KrisAnne Hall Show and subscribe by clicking on the link below :

Learning From Natural Disasters: FEMA & Federal Aid
Authors Note: As a portion of America attempts to blame the POTUS for problems in COVID-19 or Hurricane Laura, let us be reminded this blame game is purely POLITICAL and has NO BASIS in the Constitution!
By: KrisAnne Hall, JD
Patrick Henry, a designer of our Constitutional Republic said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters?
As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not SHOULD we help, but instead where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.
Disaster Relief is Not Within Federal Authority
Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States. James Madison, father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792:
“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”
If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist. We know that to be a factual statement by the terms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution:
“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States. No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:
Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist #78:
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort.
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Article 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid.
The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison, addresses such a violation in 1800:
“…dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…”
If elected representatives in Washington DC cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States, then that authority, very plainly does not legally exist. Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority. If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all. A supreme Court opinion, nor series of opinions cannot be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretended authority.
Sadly, what we hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.” According to William Pitt, the Younger, in 1783 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” The purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers. If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities. To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have ZERO authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.
How Should Disaster Relief Be Handled
If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters. Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States (in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters) could individually provide relief as they see fit. In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle.
Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States. This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support. They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one State, the remaining States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate. The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form. As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion.
James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”
He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
The Bottom Line
There is no Constitutional reason and no Constitutional authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. There is and never has been any constitutional reason to look to any President to be the savior after a storm, during a pandemic , or other natural disaster.* The only reason to look to any President in a time is crisis is political – to encourage love or hate of a personality – so parties can build power. However, because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government, most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government. Charity is a voluntary gift of the individual. Government cannot give charity as they don’t take money voluntarily and they cant “give” what they don’t actually own.
So the solution is very simple:
(1) Give to your neighbor who is actually in need.
(2) Don’t be a pawn in the political game for power by blaming someone in government … or crying out to government to fix the hurt.
••••
*If you have a questions about “Emergency Powers” then you must read THIS ARTICLE. Study a complete course on the proper power placement of the State and Federal governments here: www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com
••••
••••
See more articles by KrisAnne HERE •••• Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE! so you can get the “Daily Journal” delivered right to your “door” everyday! Subscribe Here: Daily Journal Delivery ••••
Get Informed – Get Equipped – Get Inspired Because “Liberty must be defended at all hazards.” John Adams
If you would like a better understanding of how our Constitution created our federal judiciary, our online educational program called Liberty First University, will give you that understanding free from historical revision and political propaganda. They have both online courses on the judiciary and DVDS available for in home, church, and group meetings.
You can find out more by clicking on the image below.
Check out The KrisAnne Hall Show and subscribe by clicking on the link below:
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.