Author: pmg

May 18, 2021

The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner
Chairwoman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairwoman Rosenworcel,

We are writing to request that the FCC ensure an up to date examination of its wireless radio-frequency microwave radiation regulations by reopening Docket 13-84 (“Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies”) to refresh the record before issuing its final response to the mandate of the 8-month-old August 13, 2021 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. the FCC.

A 2020 GAO Report on wireless technology noted that federal agencies have only reviewed a subset of the relevant research.¹ There is no federal agency with health or environmental expertise ensuring existing cell towers and any 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) do not cause biological harm or negative health consequences for we the people of the United States.. It is a regulatory gap.

Thus, in order to provide a comprehensive basis of evidence, before issuing its response to the DC Cir., the FCC should ask the relevant U.S. health and environmental agencies to systematically review the science that relates to their respective expertise, perform hazard/risk analysis, and offer science-based recommendations.

Several major studies on radio-frequency, human health and the environment have been published since this FCC Docket 13-84 was closed in 2019.² If the FCC does not reopen its docket, the FCC’s review, and thus its conclusions, would again be deficient because it would have excluded a review of the last two years of published science on the matter.

The totality of the science should be evaluated in a transparent process and proper federal radio-frequency microwave radiation maximum public exposure limits should be based on this full scientific review. We also urge the FCC to refresh the record by reopening Docket 13-84 in order to update the evidence of actual documented human harm from the irresponsible placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size of any “G” since 2019 There has been a large volume of such evidence already placed in the FCC’s record.

Wireless radio frequency microwave radiation is bioactive and is currently being insufficiently regulated., consistent with the scientific findings from over 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7 Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.

New wireless facilities are being proposed for our community and residents are questioning how FCC RF microwave radiation exposure limits can fulfill the FCC’s very mission: “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property” (U.S.C Title 47 § 151 Purposes of Federal Communications Commission) — as there has been no scientific evaluation in response to the Aug 13, 2021 DC Cir. mandate for the FCC to do so.

We thank you for your attention and response to this critically important request.

---

1. US Government Accountability Office, 5G Wireless: Capabilities and Challenges for an Evolving Network. U.S. GAO, November 24, 2020 — https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-26sp  ↩
2. Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. Sep 27. ; Choi Yoon-Jung et al., (2020) Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(21), 8079; Schuermann, David, and Meike Mevissen (2021) “Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 7: 3772.; Halgamuge MN, Skafidas E, Davis D. (2020) A meta-analysis of in vitro exposures to weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phones (1990–2015) Environmental Research, Volume 184; Uche, U.I., Naidenko, O.V. (2021) “Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach.  ↩

By Joan Engebretson May 13, 2022 | Original Telecompetitor article here. | Original NITA Notice of Funding Opportunity here.

NTIA released the eagerly awaited Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program on May 13, 2022. Rules for the program call for individual states to establish selection criteria and other rules for awarding funding, but those rules must conform to guidelines established by NTIA in the NOFO.

Among those rules: “Priority” broadband projects are those that will “provision service via end-to-end fiber-optic facilities to each end-user premises.” States are directed to award BEAD funding for an area to priority projects unless the cost per location exceeds the extremely high cost per location threshold or for “other valid reasons,” subject to NTIA approval.

The NTIA wrote in the NOFO

“End-to-end fiber networks can be updated by replacing equipment attached to the ends of the fiber-optic facilities, allowing for quick and relatively inexpensive network scaling as compared to other technologies. Moreover, new fiber deployments will facilitate the deployment and growth of 5G and other advanced wireless services, which rely extensively on fiber for essential backhaul.”

The NTIA NOFO also establishes a category called “reliable broadband service,” which in addition to fiber broadband, includes cable modem/hybrid fiber coax technology, digital subscriber line (DSL) and fixed wireless using entirely licensed spectrum or a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Satellite broadband and fixed wireless relying entirely on unlicensed spectrum are not considered reliable technologies.

• Projects involving “reliable” broadband other than fiber could be eligible for funding for an area if there are no fiber broadband applications for the area.
• Technologies not deemed “reliable” are an option for extremely high-cost areas.

The BEAD Funding Notice

The BEAD program, which was created in the infrastructure act, aims to make broadband available to all unserved locations in the U.S., with unserved areas defined as those lacking reliable broadband at speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. If funding has been awarded for all unserved locations in a state, the state can direct funding toward underserved locations, defined as those lacking 100/20 Mbps service.

Some of the rules for the BEAD program described in the NOFO appear to be aimed at ensuring that deployment goals are met:

• An unserved or underserved project can be as small as a single unserved or underserved location
• If a state does not receive BEAD funding applications for some areas, the state may engage with existing providers or others to find providers willing to build out those areas. In that scenario, the state may consider inducements such as use of state funding toward matching fund requirements.

The NOFO leaves it up to individual states to determine how to define project areas for the purpose of soliciting proposals. Options might include per census block, per town, or per county or other geographic level, the NOFO states.

Selection Criteria for Fiber Projects

States also have considerable leeway in determining selection criteria in making awards in areas where multiple companies are competing for funding. The states must follow certain rules in awarding funding in those situations, however.

In cases where there is more than one funding application for priority (i.e., fiber) broadband for an area, the most important criteria are:

• The provider must, absent a waiver, cover no less than 25% of the project cost
• Providers committing to provide the most affordable total price to the customer for symmetrical gigabit service should be prioritized
• Providers demonstrating compliance with federal labor and employment laws or that have no track record but commit to doing so should be prioritized

The NOFO also lays out rules for “secondary criterion” in making awards, including:

• Prioritizing providers that commit to completing deployments in advance of the four-year deadline
• NTIA “encourages” states to prioritize providers that commit to advancing equitable workforce development and job quality objectives and to prioritize open access projects and projects involving local and tribal coordination

Selection Criteria for Other Reliable Broadband Projects

There are similar but slightly different rules for project selection in cases where there are no applications for fiber broadband for an area but there are multiple applications for some other type of “reliable” broadband. The most important criteria are:

• The amount of funding requested
• The provider’s commitment to provide the most affordable total price to the customer for 100/20 Mbps service
• Providers demonstrating compliance with federal labor and employment laws or that have no track record but commit to doing so should be prioritized

Secondary award criteria include:

• Speed to deployment
• Network speed and other technical capabilities, including use of more scalable technologies and whose capital assets have longer useable lives
• Here, too, NTIA encourages states to prioritize providers that commit to advancing equitable workforce development and job quality objectives and to prioritize open access projects and projects involving local and tribal coordination

Another open issue involving the BEAD program that is addressed in the NOFO: The state can seek proposals to serve unserved and underserved locations (as well as third-level priority community anchor institutions) collectively or separately. However, funding cannot be made available for underserved locations unless all unserved locations in the state are addressed.

Additional information about BEAD program rules can be found in the full 98-page BEAD funding notice at this link. A new website, InternetForAll.gov is a central location for the entire broadband infrastructure program.

This is a developing story. Look for more coverage from Telecompetitor.

By Brittany Polito, May 11, 2022 | Original iBerkshires article here.

Read Verizon’s Legal Filing here.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Verizon is asking for a declaratory judgment from the from the U.S. Federal District Court in Springfield, MA against the city of Pittsfield after the Pittsfield Board of Health issued an emergency cease-and-desist order against the company for the operation of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) that the Board has determined to be adversely affecting the health of numerous Pittsfield residents.

Verizon claims that federal law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996-TCA) prohibits state and local governments from regulating the environmental effects of RF microwave radiation emissions from WTFs as long as the RF microwave radiation levels comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations.

Verizon claims:

“The Emergency Order stems from the Board’s conclusion that ‘RF/EMF [RF microwave radiation/Electromagnetic Fields] – even if emitted at levels within the FCC emissions guidelines – can be injurious to health or cause common injury to the significant portion of the public who are electromagnetically sensitive’ and that such emissions are ‘a cause of sickness’ (emphasis added). Simply stated, the Board’s conclusion is both contrary to applicable federal law and specifically preempted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.”

---

The City Council was to take up a request from the Board of Health on Tuesday for $84,000 to hire legal counsel against the telecommunications company but this was sidelined when the council was informed of the lawsuit. Verizon claims that the board violated Section 332 of the federal Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 that prohibits state and local governments from regulating a personal wireless service facility because of perceived health effects from radiofrequency emissions that comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations.

Verizon’s complaint reads.

“The defendant Pittsfield Board of Health (“Board”) violated this section of the TCA by issuing an order (the “Emergency Order”) to plaintiff Pittsfield Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and its landlord requiring that Verizon cease and desist operating its lawfully constructed and lawfully operating PWSF at 877 South Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (the “Facility”). The Board improperly based its order on the premise that the RF [microwave radiation] emissions from the facility have health effects and that state and local law give the Board authority to address those effects by requiring Verizon to shut down its tower, even though the Board recognized that the Facility complies with the TCA and the FCC regulations. In fact, however, the TCA preempts the Board’s authority to regulate the Facility on the basis of RF emissions. Therefore, the Emergency Order is unlawful, improper, and the relief this complaint requests in the form of a declaratory judgment is appropriate.”

The complaint was filed on Tue, May 11, 2022.

After more than an hour in executive session during Tuesday’s City Council meeting, a request for $84,000 from the city for legal counsel to shut down a Verizon cell tower at 877 South St. was tabled.

Council President Peter Marchetti then reported that Verizon had filed a case against the city of Pittsfield in federal court. In early April, the board voted to act on the order nearly two months after first approving it. This vote was conditioned on the order being withdrawn without prejudice if the board is unable to retain legal counsel prior to an administrative or judicial proceeding.

The order stated that the cellular company had one week to respond or come to the table with a solution that pleases the panel, which would be to remove or turn off the tower. The Board of Health had planned on meeting on April 20 to follow up on the order but never met.

Since the tower’s erection in August 2020, Alma Street resident Courtney Gilardi and her daughter have spoken during open microphone about negative health effects they say are from electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by the antennae on the 115-foot pole. She says her family has had to leave their home and has provided documentation from a physician to the board. Other residents have joined her protests, with four other residents speaking at Tuesday’s meeting.

Gilardi saw the cease-and-desist order as a beacon of hope and asked that the council approve funding for legal counsel to allow her family to go home:

“For 644 days we have been harmed, we have been forced to move from our homes, we have been forced to pay relocation and renovation bills and expenses on two properties, we have had out-of-pocket medical bills. Not to mention the pain of seeing my children’s sick and vomit in their own beds, the pain of good neighbors moving away from homes that they love, the pain of people not here tonight because they have been ignored and they feel like they are a waste of your time and taxpayers dollars and they are not. Tonight you can change this. Tonight all of this can change.”

The city and Verizon commissioned RF microwave radiation emissions studies in June and October of 2021 both studies showed that the RF emissions are “well below” Federal Communications Commission regulatory standards, Verizon’s complaint reads.

The wireless company also said it has informed the board on more than one occasion in the last year that the facility is within FCC guidelines and also reported reminding the board that TCA preempts it from regulating the tower on the basis of alleged environmental or health effects of its RF emissions.

After the issuance of the emergency order, Verizon reported responding to the order by submitting a letter to the Board of Health reminding it of the federal law that preempts the order and claiming it to be unlawful.

The complaint says:

“The Board’s conclusions and the Emergency Order are a direct challenge to the adequacy and supremacy of the FCC’s RF emissions regulations. The Emergency Order stems from the Board’s conclusion that ‘RF/EMF – even if emitted at levels within the FCC emissions guidelines – can be injurious to health or cause common injury to the significant portion of the public who are electromagnetic sensitive’ and that such emissions are ‘a cause of sickness’ (emphasis added). Simply stated, the Board’s conclusion is both contrary to applicable federal law and specifically preempted by the TCA.”

Verizon is asking that the court expedite the case and find that the emergency order violates the Federal Communications Act of 1996 and therefore is void and null.

By Peter Breggin, MD and Ginger Ross Breggin, May 7, 2022 | Original Breggin.com article here

First read this.

Stop the World Health Organization

• Link to World Council for Health.
• The WHO is making a power grab over our health sovereignty by changing the International Health Regulations

In May 2022, World Health Organization (WHO) intends to amend the International Health Regulations to give greater control to itself and Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director-General of WHO. This pushes our world towards a centralized governance model of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management, where the people have no say.

Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR

The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59.

1. Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
2. 48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
3. Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
4. Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
5. Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.

May 16, 2022 Zoominar: Stop the Sellout of US Sovereignty to the WHO

It is appalling that the Biden administration has actually initiated the greatest voluntary surrender of our national sovereignty since our Republic was founded.

As things stand now, at a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland between the 22nd and 28th of May, U.S.-proposed amendments will be adopted that would make the Director-General of the WHO the sole arbiter of what is a “public health emergency of international concern” and dictate how our government and others must respond to it.

The WHO seriously mishandled the Covid-19 pandemic, promoting the lies of the Chinese Communist Party, which lies caused the deaths of millions. Do you want these same non-elected incompetents telling the U.S. how to handle the next pandemic? The WHO could force the U.S. to vaccinate everyone, force mask mandates, lockdowns, and quarantines.

Also, the term, “Public Health Emergency,” is ill-defined and could include not only a viral pandemic, but also a rise in crime rates, climate change, or any other issue that arguably may affect “public health.” Further, the attempt to slip this surrender of sovereignty through quietly as a series of amendments to the current International Health Regulations constitutes an attempt to subvert the treaty process, thus performing an end-run around our legislature and the legislatures of the world.

Join our panel discussion and encourage others to sign up too!

HOSTS & PANELISTS:

• Frank Gaffney: Co-Chair of the Stop Vax Passports Task Force, Vice Chair of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, Host of Securing America TV on Real America’s Voice Network, and founder and executive chair of the Center for Security Policy
• Reggie Littlejohn, Esq. – the Amendments Endanger U.S. Sovereignty Attorney; Co-Chair of the Stop Vax Passports Task Force, founder and president of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Member of the Committee on the Present Danger: China
• Pam Pryor, re: Who is the W.H.O? . . . Senior Bureau Official for International Organizational Affairs, a role overseeing U.S. engagement in the United Nations and other international organizations, during the Trump administration. Before the Bureau, Pryor served as Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. Senior Fellow for the Center for Security Policy. [Brief BIO]
• Dr. Peter Breggin, MD . . . W.H.O. and the Global Predators; Acclaimed American Psychiatrist, Medical Health Watchdog and anti-Corruption Defender, Author of COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey | Breggin.com | [Brief BIO]
• Joe Roguski re: Giving U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO; Researcher and analyst who broke the story on pending U.S. amendments to the International Health Regulations [Substack]
• Leo Hohmann re: Media Blackout, Exposing the Threat; Veteran investigative reporter and blogger at Leo Hohmann.com and author of Stealth Invasion
• Trevor Loudon re: *Enemies within the U.S. HHS and the W.H.O; Trevor Loudon is a public speaker, filmmaker and author from New Zealand. Author of “The Enemies Within” and “The Enemies within the Church.” He is an expert on the US and international Left—particularly in relation to infiltration of the Democratic party and the Biden Administration. He is affiliated with the Epoch Times, NTDTV and the Committee for the present Danger-China.
• Michele Bachmann re: *Why Should Americans be Concerned; U.S. Congress (2007-2015), first Republican woman from Minnesota elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Intrepid defender of American’s civil liberties [Interview on Victory News]
• Hon. Pete Hoekstra re: W.H.O.’s Death Trap for the U.S.;Chairman of the Advisory Board at the Center for Security Policy. He previously served as the United States Ambassador to the Netherlands (2018-2021). He represented the 2nd district of Michigan in the United States House of Representatives (1993-2011). Hoekstra was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (2004-2007). [Gatestone]
• Faith McDonnell re: A Call to Action;Director of Advocacy at Katartismos Global. She has been an advocate for persecuted believers and for wider human rights issues for over 30 years. She is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children. Faith helped draft the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, organized rallies and protests, and helped draft legislation on religious persecution and trafficking victims. She is co-leader of the Anglican Persecuted Church Network and the Global Anglican Suffering Church Network.

Peter Breggin, MD Article

Please take seriously the severity of this existential threat to everything free people hold dear. Do everything in your power to pass this report on to others and to find ways to communicate with and to influence people to stop empowering WHO to take over our national sovereignty and freedom.

On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America’s healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization’s governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).

This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as “Provisional agenda item 16.2” at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022.¹

These amendments will empower WHO’s Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations.

If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States. The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population.²

These regulations are a “binding instrument of international law entered into force on 15 June 2007.”³ U.N. members states can be required by law to obey or acquiesce to them.

How It Became Official

On January 18, 2022, with no public awareness, officials from the Biden Administration sent the World Health Organization these extensive amendments to strengthen WHO’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations.⁴ The U.S. amendments cross out a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…”.⁵ By eliminating that, and other clauses (see below), all the shackles will be removed from the Director-General of WHO, enabling him to declare health emergencies at will.

The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes. The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation.

Although sponsored by an American administration, WHO’s most significant use of this arbitrary authority to declare national emergencies will be used against the United States if our government ever again dares to take anti-globalist stands as it did under the Trump administration.

How Much Time Do We Have to Stop the Amendments?

The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022.⁶, leaving little time to protest before the scheduled vote. As noted, the amendments are scheduled and almost certainly will be enacted May 22-28, 2022.

The existing WHO regulations then provide for an 18-month grace period during which a nation may withdraw its “yes” vote for amendments, but the current proposed amendments would reduce that opportunity to six months. If the U.S.-sponsored amendments are passed, a majority of the nations could, in the next six months, change their individual votes and reverse the approval. But this is a much more difficult proposition than stopping the whole process now.

We must act now to prevent the passage of the amendments, including putting sufficient pressure on the United States to withdraw them from consideration. If that fails, and the amendments are approved at the May meeting of the WHO governing body, we must then make the effort to influence a majority of the nations to change their votes to “no.”

Without Organized Resistance, the Amendments Will Definitely Pass

On January 26, 2022, the same U. S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva sent a one-page memo to WHO confirming that the amendments had been sent. It also contained a brief report by the same Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs HHS.⁷ Most importantly, the memo listed all the nations backing the U.S. amendments. The size and power of the group guarantee that the amendments will be passed if unopposed by significant outside pressure.

Here are the 20 nations, plus the European Union, listed by the U.S. as supporting the amendments:

Albania, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Japan, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Member States of the European Union (EU).

The European Union, a globalist organization, has been among the biggest backers of increasing WHO’s global power. The EU includes the following 27 Western nations:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

That’s a total of 47 nations supporting the U.S.-authored amendments. All of them have endorsed empowering WHO to declare a possible or potential health emergency or crisis within any nation despite its objections and refusal to cooperate. To repeat, these amendments will pass unless American citizens, as well as citizens worldwide, mount a very strong opposition.

Defining “Health” and WHO’s Domain of Authority

According to the Foreward to WHO’s regulations, there is no specific limit to what constitutes a health emergency, and it is certainly not limited to pandemics. WHO’s domain includes:⁸

a scope not limited to any specific disease or manner of transmission, but covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…

WHO’s powerful reach is also defined by the number of other organizations it is authorized to cooperate with once it has declared an emergency or health crisis: “other competent intergovernmental organizations or international bodies with which WHO is expected to cooperate and coordinate its activities, as appropriate, include the following: United Nations, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Air Transport Association, International Shipping Federation, and Office International des Epizooties.”⁹

The Preamble to the WHO Constitution (separate from the International Health Regulations) summarizes WHO’s concept of what is included under its mandate of improving, guiding, and organizing world health:¹⁰

WHO remains firmly committed to the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution

• Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
• The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
• The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent on the fullest cooperation of individuals and States.
• The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.
• Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of diseases, especially communicable diseases, is a common danger.
• Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.
• The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological, and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.
• Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.
• Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

Given WHO’s assessment of the breadth of its health concerns, mandates, and goals — almost any kind of problematic situation that affects the people of a nation could be considered a health problem. Indeed, under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem. With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.

WHO’s Sweeping New Powers

The sweeping new powers will be invested in the Director-General of WHO to act on his own. The Director-General is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, commonly known as Tedros. Tedros, the first non-physician director-general of WHO, is an extremely controversial Marxist activist and politician from Ethiopia installed by the Chinese Communist Party. Despite the fact that his role as the cover-up apologist for the Chinese Communists at the onset of COVID-19, this “dear friend of Anthony Fauci” was re-elected without opposition in 2022 to a second five-year term.¹¹ His original election in 2017, followed by his re-election without opposition in 2022, is an ominous display of Chinese Communist influence over WHO,¹² which makes further empowering the U.N. agency extremely dangerous.

Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to “verify” the event before taking action. This requirement is stricken by the U.S. amendments (Article 9.1). The amendments require a response in 24 hours from the identified nation, or WHO will identify it as “rejection” and act independently (Article 10.3). If the identified nation “does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall … immediately share with the other State Parties the information available to it…” (Article 10.4).

Indicating the breadth of WHO’s scope of power, the agency will be given the right to involve multiple other U.N. agencies, including those related to food and agriculture, animal health, environmental programs, “or other relevant entities” (Article 6.1). This, too will not require the permission of the identified nation. The targeted nation is also required to send to WHO any relevant genetic sequence data. And as we have seen, the Foreward to these regulations presents a much larger array of potential collaborating agencies.

Under the proposed regulations, WHO itself would develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…” (New article 5). Notice that the health-endangering event may be so nonspecific as to have “unknown causes or sources.” Thus, Tedros and any future Director-Generals of WHO will be given unrestricted powers to define and then implement their interventions.

The proposed regulations, in combination with existing ones, allow action to be taken by WHO, “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring…” (Article 12.2). That is, Tedros need only “consider” that a “potential or actual” risk is occurring.

Global Supporters of WHO

WHO is not a global powerhouse by itself. Early in the pandemic, it acted as a front group for the international exploiters of humanity, whom we describe in our new book COVID-19 and the Global Predators. In particular, it made certain the Chinese Communists could hide the seriousness of the pandemic while spreading to the world on passenger airplanes from its major cities, including Wuhan itself. We have already noted and documented that the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping have enormous influence over WHO.

Even after Donald Trump slashed the U.S. contribution to WHO in February 2020, the U.S. remained the largest donor to WHO. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. contribution was $115.8 million, followed by China at approximately one-half that amount, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Brazil.¹³

Then in early July 2020, Trump notified Congress and the U.N. that it was formally withdrawing from WHO. Bill Gates quickly announced he was increasing his contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to $250 million.¹⁴

After the Communist Chinese Party, Bill Gates probably has the most influence over WHO. In our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey, we describe in Chapter 15 how Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and the giant medical foundation Wellcome Trust created CEPI — The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. This became the center of global predatory activities in preparation for the anticipated pandemic. It brought together key U.S. agencies, including the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, the U.N., WHO, giant pharmaceutical companies, banks, and multiple other sources of wealth and power.

In 2017, or earlier, CEPI made an agreement called a memorandum of understanding with WHO. CEPI then presented a PowerPoint presentation to WHO in July 2017, in effect dividing up the world between the Gates’ CEPI and WHO in the coming pandemic. Gates would handle the financing, supply, and distribution of the vaccines, and WHO would control and monitor the scientific and medical community. Among the stipulations of the PowerPoint, which the Gates-created foundation presented, was that the pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed for all direct and indirect costs by the government for developing their high-speed manufacturing platforms.

WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies. This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.

Europeans Call for Additional Further Increases in WHO’s Power

There is a growing debate over further increasing the power of WHO to punish uncooperative or dissident nations.¹⁵ Some “have sounded the alarm about giving the WHO too much power at the expense of national sovereignty.” Some have voiced concern about China’s influence on WHO: “Not only has it increased its payment to the WHO in recent years, but it also enjoys a special relationship with its leader.”

But others are calling for increasing WHO’s ability to sanction non-compliant nations. Echoing recent plans publicized by the Biden administration, some nations are calling for “national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization that undermine public health.” German Health Minister Jens Spahn has proposed “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” Tedros has said, “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.”

Treaties with WHO: Another Enormous Threat to Sovereignty — With a Longer Timeline

Before we learned about this current and more immediate threat to U.S. sovereignty, we were focusing on WHO’s plans to begin making treaties with individual nations to take over their general healthcare structures, making WHO the guiding and central authority for the world’s healthcare. In addition to many radio, TV, and public appearances giving the details about this threat, we have written a column on America Out Loud, dated February 18, 2022, “Tedros Introduces Globalist Plan to Take Over World’s Health Systems.”¹⁶

If implemented, the treaties become an even greater threat than the amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations, but we have more time to deal with the treaties than with the amendments.

We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion. Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.

Why Would the U.S. Government Surrender Its Sovereignty

Why would the U.S. give away its sovereignty to other nations? In reality, that process has been going on at least since President Wilson’s failed attempt to get the Senate to approve U.S. membership in the League of Nations. It has escalated since World War II, often under the umbrella and authority of the United Nations, with which many global predators are enamored and use as the cover story for their predations. As documented in our book, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab have both worked out cooperative agreements for their versions of the New World Order with the U.N.

President Biden has recently told the Business Round Table — the presidents and CEOs of the wealthiest 200 corporations in America — that they must lead the growing New World Order:¹⁷

“And now is a time when things are shifting. We’re going to — there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it. And we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.”

John Kerry, the President’s climate czar, had announced that when Americans elected Biden, they voted for the Great Reset, whether they knew it or not.¹⁸

Discussion and Conclusions

The planning for these devastating U.S.-sponsored amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations has been so stealthy that it might have escaped attention except for the efforts of one individual, James Roguski. He was the first to recognize this threat, and on March 31, 2022, he published a report headlined, “WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution.”¹⁹ He also helped us by reviewing the material and this report with us. Fortunately, our courageous medical colleague Robert Yoho originally alerted us to Roguski’s work and its importance.²⁰

We are facing an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignty by these legally-binding amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations that — without stiff opposition — will almost certainly be passed during the upcoming meeting of WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, May 22-28, 2022. As noted earlier, there is a six-month grace period following approval of amendments during which countries may withdraw their approval, but a majority doing so seems highly unlikely. Right now, we must focus on preventing the WHA from approving the amendments.

We must immediately mount an international campaign, especially focused within America, to force the U.S. to withdraw these amendments before they come to a vote. Otherwise, America and the nations of the world will take a giant stride toward forfeiting national sovereignty to WHO and the U.N. In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the U.N. and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations. Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.

Primary Author Peter R Breggin MD

References:

---

1. /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf Top lefthand corner provides the date and proposal ID.  ↩
2. https://www.worlddata.info/alliances/un-united-nations.php  ↩
3. International Health Regulations (2005) (who. int) These are the original WHO International Health Regulations before the proposed amendments by the U.S.A. The Overview on this page (before going to the link to the Regulations) in the second sentence contains the statement about their legally binding nature.  ↩
4. /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf The document dated January 18, 2022, is found on pages 3-4, From the “Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.” It lists the Amendments as an enclosure, along with a “Letter from HHS Assistant Secretary Loyce Pace.”  ↩
5. /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf See p. 6 of the amendments, Article 9 (1.).  ↩
6. /WHO/U.S.-proposed-amendments-to-WHO-International-Health-Regulations-with-cover-materials_1.pdf The date is in the upper righthand corner.  ↩
7. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2022/01/26/strengthening-who-preparedness-for-and-response-to-health-emergencies/ This is a One-page statement from U.S. to WHO about amendments. Lists supporting nations and DHHS support.  ↩
8. International Health Regulations (2005) (who.int). Download the Regulations and go to the Foreward.  ↩
9. International Health Regulations (2005) (who.int). International Health Regulations, Section on Revision Of The International Health Regulations, pp. 3-4.  ↩
10. https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution  ↩
11. https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-health-organization-chief-tedros-unopposed-second-term. Even The New York Times had serious reservations about Tedros’ initial nomination, citing allegations of his covering up epidemics in his home country of Ethiopia: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-director-general-ethiopia-cholera-outbreaks.html  ↩
12. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/  ↩
13. https://www.statista.com/chart/21372/assessed-contributions-to-the-world-health-organization/  ↩
14. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/gates-foundation-donations-to-who-nearly-match-those-from-us-government  ↩
15. Swab, Petr. Proposal to Sanction Countries Disobeying WHO Pandemic Response Rules is Concerning: Author. The Epoch Times, April 14, Updated April 19, 2022. Swab’s report is the source for all the quotes in this section is https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposal-of-sanctions-on-countries-disobeying-who-pandemic-response-rules-concerning-author_4405091.html  ↩
16. https://www.americaoutloud.com/tedros-introduces-globalist-plan-to-take-over-worlds-health-systems/  ↩
17. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/21/remarks-by-president-biden-before-business-roundtables-ceo-quarterly-meeting/  ↩
18. https://redstate.com/heartlandinstitute/2020/11/30/john-kerry-great-reset-will-happen-n286949 We have also checked a video of Kerry’s remarks.  ↩
19. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/wake-up-and-smell-the-burning-of?s=r  ↩
20. https://www.buzzsprout.com/1718994/10489421-the-world-health-organization-who-is-trying-to-take-over-the-world  ↩

By Brittany Polito, April 25, 2022 | Original iBerkshires article here.

PITTSFIELD, MA. — The Pittsfield Board of Health is requesting $84,000 from the city for legal counsel to shut down a Verizon cell tower at 877 South Street.

The City Council will vote Tuesday on a request to acquire attorneys Andrew Rainer of Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP in Boston and Robert J. Berg of Robert J. Berg, PLLC in Scarsdale, N.Y., to assist in legal action following the issuance of a cease-and-desist order for the tower.

In early April, the board voted to act on the order nearly two months after first approving it. This vote was conditioned on the order being withdrawn without prejudice if the board is unable to retain legal counsel prior to an administrative or judicial proceeding.

The order states that the cellular company has one week to respond or come to the table with a solution that pleases the panel, which would be to remove or turn off the tower. The board had planned on meeting on April 20 to follow up on the order but never met.

Since the tower’s erection in August 2020, Alma Street resident Courtney Gilardi and her daughter have spoken during open microphone about negative health effects they say are from electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by the antennae on the 115-foot pole.

Gilardi says her family has had to leave their home and has provided documentation from a physician to the board. Other residents have joined her protests.

“The Board of Health is responsible for disease prevention and control, for protecting human health and the environment, and for promoting a healthy community. Based upon this responsibility, and the evidence presented of the harm to public health being done by the 877 South Street Cell Tower, the Board of Health voted 4-0 on April 6, 2022 to unanimously issue a cease-and-desist order to Verizon Wireless requiring suspension of the operation of the cell tower,” Chair Bobbie Orsi wrote to the council.

“Thus, as a formal response to the original petition, the Board of Health reports that there is harm being done to the residents in the vicinity of the 877 South Street Cell Tower, that the Board has taken action to protect those residents, and that the Board anticipates it may require legal assistance to defend that action. Specifically, the Board of Health requests the petitioner (City Council) to allocate funds in the event that there is litigation by Verizon, and also place the City’s liability insurer on notice of a possible claim. The Board of Health has done preliminary work in seeking expert legal representation. The Board of Health has identified two attorneys who have extensive experience in environmental law, and who are prepared to enter into a contract to represent the Board of Health with the approval of the City Council.”

Reported side effects have included nausea, dizziness, tinnitus, sleep disruption, irritability, headaches, extreme fatigue, brain “fog,” difficulty concentrating, heart palpitations, skin rashes, and memory problems.
The board received medical records from three members of the Gilardi household from Dr. Sharon Goldberg, a physician in the study of electromagnetic sensitivity, and the three have been diagnosed with the condition.

The board met with Mayor Linda Tyer in mid-April to request the funds. Because it is for city dollars, the allocation has to be passed by the council. Information has not been released on how the meeting went or if Verizon has responded to the order.

Joint Statement Between the United States, Belize, Germany, Indonesia, and Senegal on the Announcement of the Second Global COVID-⁠19 Summit

White House Statements and Releases, April 18, 2022 | Original Statement here

The truth that extinguishes this propaganda can be found in the April 18 Episode of This Week with Mary and Polly and from the Doctors of Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance, the Unity Project & the Global Covid Summit here. View for about 30 minutes from 1:57:30 to 2:48:30

The United States as first COVID Summit Chair, Belize, as CARICOM Chair; Germany, holding the G7 Presidency; Indonesia, holding the G20 Presidency; and Senegal as African Union Chair, are pleased to announce we will co-host the second Global COVID-19 Summit, which will be held virtually on May 12, 2022. The Summit will redouble our collective efforts to end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future health threats.

This Summit follows the first Global COVID-19 Summit convened by the United States on September 22, 2021. In advance of the May 12 Summit, we are calling on world leaders, members of civil society, non-governmental organizations, philanthropists, and the private sector to make new commitments and bring solutions to vaccinate the world, save lives now, and build better health security — for everyone, everywhere.

The emergence and spread of new variants, like Omicron, have reinforced the need for a strategy aimed at controlling COVID-19 worldwide. Together, we can mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and protect those at the highest risk with vaccinations, testing, and treatments, actions to minimize disruption to routine health services, and through support for the ACT-Accelerator multilateral mechanism. We know we must prepare now to build, sustain, and finance the global capacity we need, not only for emerging COVID-19 variants, but also future health crises. To help achieve these goals, we urge all countries and stakeholders to pledge to take urgent actions to create the systems we need to end the acute phase of COVID-19, save lives, and build better health security and health systems.

The Summit will build on the themes and commitments made at the first Summit and will place an emphasis on supporting locally-led solutions to both immediate and long-term challenges, including:

• Getting shots into arms;
• Deploying tests and treatments, especially for the highest-risk populations;
• Expanding and protecting the health workforce and minimizing disruptions to routine and essential health services;
• Enhancing access to medical countermeasures, including research and development and scaling and diversifying local and regional manufacturing; and
• Generating sustainable financing for pandemic preparedness, health security, and health systems

We look forward to another successful Summit to continue the international effort in the fight against COVID-19 and to advance global pandemic preparedness.

By Bruce Kushnick Apr 29. 2022 | Original Medium article here.

How much money does it take to block a proposed FCC Commissioner from getting appointed? How much money does it take to corrupt our democratic process by the telecommunications companies, AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink that caused the Digital Divide and now want to get rewarded with the new wave of over $100 billion in state and federal government subsidies?

And where are any calls for investigations of these companies by those who would attempt to subvert the process of having a long-standing telecom/internet advocate from potentially holding these companies accountable as FCC Commissioner?

As I sit here reading the daily dose of telecommunications, broadband and internet stories and, of course, about the Digital Divide, I find two headlines of interest, which describe attempts to halt the confirmation of Gigi Sohn as an FCC Commissioner.

The first, by Broadband World News states that a former Democratic senator from North Dakota, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, is leading the charge and is using a group called One Country to block Ms. Sohn’s nomination.

“Former Dem senator launches campaign to squash Gigi Sohn’s FCC confirmation”,Apr 25,2022

The article details the campaign:

“One Country Project — a Democratic political action committee led by former North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, that lobbies federal lawmakers on rural issues — announced that it is launching a ‘six-figure ad campaign aimed at raising awareness that the Biden administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nominee, Gigi Sohn, is the wrong choice for the FCC and rural America’.”

The second article is from MarketWatch. It adds that there are other groups on the attack, — including an Hispanic group named “LULAC”, which has stepped in to stop the process. The headline states:

“Broadband companies are spending an ‘unseemly amount of money’ to sink key nominee to FCC, critics allege”, April 26, 2022

Before I continue, let me be very clear: The Biden Plan will fail because of the massive financial takeover of the process by AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, and the cable companies. They have already lined many of states’ new Digital Divide agencies with their own lobbyists, nonprofits — and all paid to make sure that these companies get paid, even though they created the Digital Divide by not upgrading their territories over the last 30 years and have been working as a cartel to keep prices inflated.

In fact, we must ‘un-capture’ the FCC, the state agencies, and remove this capturing of regulators. Period. The end.

How bad is it? This should cause the hairs on the back of your head to stand up.

The original Communications Act of 1934 was enacted to, in large part, create the FCC to act as a balancing force to the corporate takeover of our communications by the first AT&T, previously known as Ma Bell (circa turn of the 20th Century through 1984). (This Act was modified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

Senator Sam Rayburn, one of the authors of the 1934 Act stated:

“The American Telephone and Telegraph Company is more powerful and skilled than any state government with which it has to deal.” (1936)

Cybertelecom, a respected telecommunications, internet web site, added this detail about why the FCC was created:

“Government officials, however, wanted a strong expert agency that could counter the size and power of AT&T, Western Union, and other communications firms with significant market power. State governments had become overwhelmed by the resources of AT&T. Communications companies were using their deep pockets to litigate every dispute, repeatedly taking issues that they had lost on up to the Supreme Court — as a means of leveraging their position and extracting what they wanted from local authorities.”

Sound Familiar? This is about 1934, not 2022. They never thought that their new agency, the FCC, would get captured.

In 2022, the attack to block this long-standing advocate, who might start to clean out the regulatory capture we have now — is just another corporate snow job. And based on history, AT&T et al. have always been able to use their resources to get what they wanted, while the public gets shortchanged.

Let’s start with LULAC, who has been sucking on the teat of AT&T et al. for decades and has done everything from attempting to block Net Neutrality to helping the Verizon and AT&T create bogus state-based broadband plans that never upgraded the states to fiber optics, even after they were paid to do so.

According to MarketWatch, LULAC’s opposition started in 2009.

“LULAC CEO Sindy Benavides told MarketWatch that her organization’s opposition to Sohn dates back to 2009, when she was president of Public Knowledge, for comments made by the organization’s director of communications criticizing minority groups for their opposition to net neutrality regulations.”

Back in 2010, Stop the Cap’s article titled Dollar-a-holler-advocacy laid out that LULAC and others groups that should have been fighting for Net Neutrality, betrayed their own Hispanic constituents — because AT&T and Verizon were against it.

Back in 2006 we detailed in Harvard Nieman Watchdog: how the companies had paid off this “Hispanic” minority group, and many others to help push through a series of broadband plans that were nothing more than gifts to the telcos. This is why there is a Digital Divide. AT&T and Verizon were never held accountable and so they left most the rural areas to deteriorate — or to have a bait-and-switch with wireless.

As we wrote, about the deregulation plans in New Jersey to roll out fiber optic services around 2006.

“Verizon New Jersey even set up its own site for this campaign but it seems to have been taken down after Verizon got the laws changed in its favor.

League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, wrote rave reviews for Verizon in various op eds.

“The current marketplace for video, without real competition, adversely impacts Latinos,” states one op ed in a Spanish language weekly. LULAC had op-eds and testified in Massachusetts, Texas, New Jersey, and California. And they are very friendly with Verizon and AT&T.

AT&T gave LULAC $1.5 million: ”AT&T Foundation Provides $1.5 Million Technology Access Grant to League of United Latin American Citizens. Grant Builds on Success of LULAC Empower Hispanic America with Technology Initiative,” — June 30, 2006.

The grants are for LULAC in California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Arkansas and Missouri.

Instead of helping the Hispanic community, LULAC and the other nonprofits, claiming they work for minorities or seniors or low-income families, sold America out and helped the Big Telcos cause the Digital Divide.

The state-based broadband fiber optic networks announced by Verizon and AT&T never showed up. These groups never called for investigations as to why billions of dollars had been charged to low income or Hispanic groups — and it doesn’t do it now.

Then we have One Country and former Senator Heitkamp.

According to Marketwatch, Time Magazine found that One Country’s funding is ‘leftover campaign cash’, and that AT&T and Comcast were top contributors to parts of her political ambitions.

“One Country doesn’t disclose its donors, but Time Magazine reported that Heitkamp used “leftover campaign cash” to start the organization, while AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. were two of the former senators’ top contributors while she was serving in the upper house. One Country didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.”

But what is really telling is that former senator Heitkamp’s 2018 campaign themes as told by the campaign website, mentioned energy, agriculture, seniors and roads — but never mentioned the ‘Digital Divide’.

One Country even has a press releases talking about a 6-figure campaign to block Sohn:

“One Country Project Launches Six-Figure Ad Campaign to Ensure FCC Prioritizes Rural Broadband Expansion and Communities”

And it claims it will do advertisements in West Virginia, a Verizon state, Nevada, an AT&T state, and Colorado and Arizona, a CenturyLink (Lumen) state. Ironically, Heitkamp’s state, North Dakota, isn’t mentioned. But here’s the rub — where is any statement by Heitkamp pertaining to how the Digital Divide was created in the first place? Where are the calls for investigations of how these companies gamed the regulatory system to not properly upgrade their state public telecommunications utilities?

The Digital Divide is also about the fact that the communications prices in America are out of control. Why are we paying 5–20 times more for our wireless and broadband services as compared to overseas? One Country has a rubber-stamped statement that there are all these government subsidies.

The idea that groups are coming out of the woodwork — all of whom want government subsidies to be given instead of actually holding the AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon, and the cable companies accountable — is one of the problems.

But real problem is the corporate takeover of the FCC, the state government agencies and then rewarding the companies that screwed us over and over — is in full swing.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed legislation to stop new anti-competitive mergers.

“Today, a handful of giant corporations are dominating countless industries to the detriment of consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs of all backgrounds. This worsening economic concentration also distorts our political processes, allowing the biggest and wealthiest firms to rig the rules in their favor.

“Without robust competition, large opportunistic corporations are able to use inflation as a pretext to abuse their pricing power and jack up prices for American consumers at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and at the pharmacy.”

The damage has already been done in telecom. AT&T, Verizon and Centurylink are three non-competing holding companies that were created via incest — the mergers of the ‘Baby Bell siblings’, that should never have been allowed to happen as every merger harmed the states and the citizens in them.

AT&T now controls 21 states and it left their entire wireline telecommunications infrastructure to deteriorate — and along with Verizon, they took over the wireless business. But worse, they also used the budgets of the state utilities to illegally build their wireless and other lines of business — and that is billions per state that should have been used for fiber optic network upgrades.

We need someone at the FCC that is going to make a difference, like Gigi Sohn.

And to LULAC and the other nonprofits — we need to expose your funding sources and remove your non-profit status as you are just another lobbying group funded by the corporations.

If these groups and persons are serious about solving the Digital Divide they should call for investigations in every state of all the billions of dollars collected for broadband that was charged to low income families, rural customers and call to halt all the cross-subsidies.

By Brittany Polito Thu, April 7, 2022 | Original article here.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — More than two months after voting to issue a cease-and-desist order on the Verizon cell tower at 877 South St., the Board of Health has decided to act on it. That’s if the mayor agrees.

This vote was conditioned on the order being withdrawn without prejudice if the board is unable to retain legal counsel prior to any administrative or judicial proceeding. The order will be sent out by Fri Apr 8 and Verizon will have one week to respond. The board will meet with Mayor Linda Tyer on April 13 to request the funds needed for legal counsel.

Because it would be city monies, the allocation would also have to be approved by the City Council.

“It’s been a really complicated process,” Chair Bobbie Orsi said at Wednesday’s meeting.

Orsi and member Brad Gordon debated on whether to send the order without first securing funds and a contracted attorney or to take a leap of faith and figure things out as they go along.

This decision was a compromise between the two arguments.

Orsi believes that it is the board’s obligation to protect the health of residents before worrying about finances and legality.

“I think that our authority is not any of the other things except to say, ‘Do we have a problem in this neighborhood, yes or no?’ And that’s what we’re saying, we think we have a problem in this neighborhood,” she said.

“And so I know it’s an uncomfortable situation to be in because I feel like we have a responsibility and at every point, our hands have been tied, it’s been six weeks since we decided that we were going to issue the order, it took quite a few weeks to actually find a couple of attorneys who would even help us to get this order on paper, we have a really good order on paper, those attorneys are willing to represent us for whatever would happen and at any point, we can say ‘stop.'”

Gordon felt like the board would not be prepared to do its best job with the order if they didn’t have a solid backing of legal counsel. As an attorney, he found it reckless to go forward without obtaining the money from the city to pay an attorney. For the record, he noted that the board has already agreed on the cease-and-desist order and that it is not in question.

“We will be doing a tremendous disservice to those that are most aggrieved if we do not have a counsel, a plan to implement the cease-and-desist order, revenue to support legal counsel that we’re talking about, and because this could be a pretty arduous process, it’s novel, I’m going to be hyperbolic to say that it even possibly end up in Supreme Court,” he said.

“So my thought has always been that we can’t just put it out there and hope for the best, we have to make sure that we are well-positioned because otherwise, we’re not going get multiple bites of the apple, we get one bite of the apple probably and then if we fail, it will be a pretty colossal failure first and foremost for the people that are aggrieved but also for the community as a whole, both in terms of what it could mean for the community if there already similar issues.

“Fiscally, because there are provisions within the nuisance statute that we cite, that empowers us to issue a cease and desist and if we were to lose in court, that the other party can look to recover damages in costs, which I have no idea what those are, I don’t know what the monthly revenue is on the tower, I know none those things and these are all the kinds of things we should know that are part of our due diligence to move this forward.”

Since the tower’s erection in August 2020, Alma Street resident Courtney Gilardi and her daughter have spoken during open microphone about negative health effects they say are from electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by the antennas on the 115-foot pole.

Gilardi says her family has had to leave their home and has provided documentation from a physician to the board.

Other residents have joined her protests and they filled the room during Wednesday’s meeting.

“For over 18 months, we’ve had to publicly come before you and share our personal symptoms, my seven-page health report gets passed around the table with details of my health history in public, people have had to move, people are ignored,” Gilardi said.

“We can provide you with letters and testimony but not everyone wants to turn up here as I do and share publicly and disclose because that’s a hard thing to do and it’s a hard thing to do to be ridiculed.”

Without specifying the source, she added that her neighborhood was called “collateral damage” and a “waste of taxpayers’ dollars.”

Her daughter Amelia said she has lost her health, childhood, and mother to EMF because Gilardi devotes most of her time to the cause and getting her family back in their home.

In early February, the board voted to send Verizon a cease-and-desist order to remove its cell tower at 877 South St.

It was to be held in abeyance for seven days and if the wireless provider did not agree to have a meeting with the board and demonstrate a desire to cooperate to the board’s satisfaction, it would go into effect.

Later that month, an executive session was held to discuss the process and in March, the board spoke to an attorney during an executive session.

Based on that conversation, the order was updated and an attempt was made to line up some financials. The recommendation was to plan for every possible scenario to see if the board can get a budget around it and go to the city council.

Orsi said they couldn’t go to the council before a meeting with Tyer, which she described as being “very difficult” to obtain. The board has set a tentative meeting date of April 20 to reconvene on the situation.

DRAFT — Adapted version will be complete by Noon . . .

Adapted from an article by Lyle Laver, Mar 29, 2022 | Original National Business Post article here

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” might bring better reception to a section of a city, but also negative health consequences and lowered property values. Increasing numbers of people don’t want to live near WTFs. In some areas with new WTFs, property values have decreased by up to 20%.¹

Cell towers and so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) antennas now sit as close as 12 feet of some homes. And they are not just sitting there looking like trees. These full-power Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) are emitting pulsed, modulated, radiofrequency (RF) microwave radiation that transmits huge peaks of electromagnetic power through the air in order to deliver gigabytes of data (and RF microwave radiation) to wireless devices. This has severe consequences.

There is no getting away from it. You can’t see it. Most can’t feel it. But the next buyer of your million dollar home will assess it and devalue your home accordingly. On a million-dollar home, that could be a loss of $200,000 in home value.

At a city council meeting in April 2019, Mayor Janice Parvin of Moorpark, Calif. (a suburb of Los Angeles) said,

“Can you imagine having street lights on both sides of a corner, and one house has this configuration (small cell antenna) attached to it – the value of the house that has the Wireless Telecommunications Facility next to it versus the one that doesn’t and how that could negatively impact your home value.”

In 2022, with smart phones and iPads instantly accessing the latest news and excessive data collection and AI infiltrating and monetizing our privacy, the FCC is still trying to spin a tale that is unravelling at its very core. Its regulations have been proven to not be based on scientific data.

---

1. Examining invisible urban pollution and its effect on real estate value in New York City, William Gati, New York Real Estate Journal, September 2017  ↩

By Brittany Polito, Mar 21, 2022 | Original article here.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Board of Health Chair Bobbie Orsi says the panel is continuing its “thoughtful forward process” in trying to remove the Verizon cell tower at 877 South Street.

The board last week interviewed one of two potential attorneys to assist with a cease and desist order that was approved in early February. Since the tower’s erection in August 2020, Alma Street resident Courtney Gilardi and her daughter, Amelia Gilardi, have claimed that they are suffering from negative health effects from electromagnetic fields generated by the antennae on the 115-foot pole.

Other residents have joined the protests, holding up signs at February’s meeting to advocate for the cease-and-desist order. Orsi on Wednesday said City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta gave recommendations on what needed to be presented to the City Council in terms of rates and retainers, relevant experience, and what the attorney would provide for the city.

There was also a recommendation that the attorneys understand the preemption and administrative law, be knowledgeable with the federal government and Federal Communications Commission guidelines, and be sympathetic and really just want to help people in the neighborhood.

When the cease-and-desist order was approved, board members acknowledged that this action is a long shot and would be expensive to the city if it has to go to court, but they said they felt it is their duty to do everything they can to protect the health of residents.

The potential attorneys that Orsi identified were not named and the interview was conducted in executive session.

Orsi said to the board:

“The other thing that I did want to bring up with regard to the cease-and-desist order, is that I’ve done a little more research and did compile some studies specifically that address, electromagnetic health sensitivity. There was this whole body of information from the science that says that it is a real thing, I thought that was helpful, there is a lot of additional information out there, scientific evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies to support the direction that we’re moving in to keep that neighborhood safe.”

Orsi also reported correspondence that was received early in the week from Special Projects Manager Deanna Ruffer — former director of community development — and from Pagnotta that recommended the board consider asking Verizon to employ a data system to monitor emissions from the cell tower.

Orsi said in response:

“I think the challenge is that we believe that the FCC guidelines are inherently not protective of people who are sensitive . . . I’m not sure necessarily that looking at an emission number is going to help at all.”

That method is similar to a previously conducted study that found the tower was within FCC guidelines, board member Brad Gordon pointed out, but that measurement is more thermal than biological.

Orsi added:

“I just wanted to make you aware that I did receive that communication and that that is an option out there. Having said that, I do think that it’s a good next step to continue our thoughtful forward process in doing what we need to do to be successful with the cease-and-desist order.”