Skip to main content
HFDF LawsuitsInterviewsNews

HFDF on The American Journal

By April 26, 2022May 16th, 2022No Comments

Harrison Smith, host of Infowars show The American Journal speaks with HFDF president and founder Leslie Manookian, and lead counsel on the federal Travel Mask Mandate lawsuit, HFDF attorney Brant Hadaway. They discuss the massive win for basic American liberties and the overreach of government and its captured agencies.

You can read the conversation between Harrison, Leslie, and Brant below.

Harrison: Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, third hour has begun here on American Journal. You support everything we do here by going to info wars X two is now on sale. Very happy to welcome my next guest Brant Hadaway and Leslie Manookian. Brant Hadaway is a Miami lawyer who is board-certified in international litigation and arbitration. He joined Daviller law group and Health Freedom Defense Fund in early 2021 at the invitation of partner George Wentz in order to help fight the COVID tyranny. He is the lead counsel for plaintiffs in the CDC travel mask case and Leslie is president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund a nonprofit, which seeks to rectify health injustice through education, advocacy, and legal challenges to unjust mandates laws and policies that undermine our health freedoms and human rights. She’s a former successful wall street business, executive award-winning documentary filmmaker and qualified homeopath. Their website can be found at Thank you so much for joining us, Brant and Leslie. 

Leslie: Great to be here with you. 

Harrison: Hopefully I, pronounced that law group name right. I was saying during the break Deval- yay. But I guess that’s not how it fits for announced 

Brant: It’s Daviller.

Harrison: Okay all right, good. Well, thank you so much for being here. I think the work you’re doing is incredibly important. Can you tell us where are these mandates now? Because I think a lot of America is just over COVID. We don’t care about it anymore. We try not to pay attention. We’re just sick of it. But that doesn’t mean the mandates have stopped. That doesn’t mean the government. Isn’t still trying to use COVID as a method of control. So Brant, can you tell us where are the mandates now, in the legal sense. 

Brant: Well, as you know, from Judge Mizelle’s ruling in Tampa, the mask mandate for travel has been vacated. She lifted it. The administration chose not to move for a stay of her ruling. So her order remains in effect. The mandate was originally scheduled to lapse, on May 3rd with the option to extend it. But for now, the travel mass mandate is gone. You are not legally required by federal law to wear a mask while on board of travel conveyance or have a transportation hub.

That’s not to speak to local requirements that may still be in place. 

Harrison: Right. And we know that places like LA and others have imposed a mask on their travel and their public transportation there, but we know that as of last week, the Biden administration said it would appeal the judge’s ruling on ending that mask mandate on airplanes.

And we’ve heard Fauci talk about this and Jen Psaki talk about this, basically saying that they were very concerned that a judge would be able to overrule dictates from the CDC. Leslie, I mean, that is the power of the judge, right? I mean, they’re really trying to impose or usurp power from other branches of government by doing this aren’t they? 

Leslie: It’s actually kind of humorous because yes, we’re supposed to have three equal branches of government. The executive, the legislative and the judicial, and Fauci is coming out and federal health agencies are under the executive so that everybody understands that. But now Fauci is coming out saying that the judiciary shouldn’t be allowed to overrule a public health official.

Yes, they absolutely should. And that was the whole point of the structure of our government from the founding fathers. They believed that we needed three co-equal branches of government in order to check the power of the other branches. And what Fauci is calling for is something that is directly contradictory to what all of the original tenants of what it means to be, you know, what America is right? I think it’s interesting that for decades, a lot of kids have not learned about basic civics and the basic structure of our country. And I think that’s a real problem. And because of that, it’s easier for people like Fauci to come out and make these statements unchallenged and you know, the media isn’t helping either.

So I think that there’s a real failure in our education system and there’s a real failure on so many levels that people don’t understand what their rights are and what this country is supposed to be about. And so this is what’s happening. 

Harrison: Yeah, no, I think you’re right. I think this goes directly to the heart of our Republic. I mean, this is what a Republic is supposed to be. Explicitly for the reason that if you give too much power to one branch of government or one individual or one organization and have no checks or balances on that, they can run, rush out over the rights of the people. I mean, that is the basis of the founding of our country. And that’s exactly what they’re targeting with these types of unconstitutional mandates. And I know there’ve been a few politicians. Senators or Congressmen like Thomas Massey, who constantly have made this point and said, we never passed a law that says this. They’re telling you, this is a law. It’s not a law, but if they’re enforcing it, like it’s a law, it almost becomes a law unto itself. 

Now, Brant, I know that you have helped to lead the fight against this. And were a lead counsel for plaintiffs in the CDC travel mask case. Was this part of your argument was that this was never duly passed as a law should be therefore it shouldn’t be enforceable. Or how did you approach the human rights implications of the way the federal government is acting 

Brant: Well, what we focused on was the statutory authorization aspect of it. As sort of the initial argument. And that’s really what the first part of the judge’s ruling addressed which is that the CDC was never authorized by Congress under the public health service act to enact this sort of mandate. And the judge agreed with us. We did have an alternative argument, which the judge did not address, which was that if the statute was as broad as CDC was claiming, it was, then it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. And, you know, frankly, Fauci’s appeal to science really gets no headway with us because this was a political mandate. It was based on a campaign promise that Joe Biden made to Institute a nationwide mask mandate, and CDC had done nothing of the sort for a year into the pandemic until he issued his executive order. And the CDC dutifully fell in line.

Harrison: Even if it was scientifically sound and founded on scientific principles, it would still be overreach. It would still be unconstitutional, but the whole thing sort of compounded isn’t it by the fact that they don’t have science to back this up, there is no science to back up the forced mask mandate. So, I mean, is that, is that crucial to this issue, or is that just sort of another layer on top of it? Leslie, that just says how wrong all of these mandates are that, they aren’t even scientific. They don’t work. 

Leslie: Yeah. So that’s a really interesting question. You know, the CDC did not support their mandate with a strong body of science. In fact, there was not even a single randomized controlled trial that they submitted. And that’s a really damning point because CDC is own study published in May of 2020, which was a meta-analysis or a review of 14 randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of using masks, enhanced hygiene, and sanitation of the environment found that none of those measures had any material impact on the spread of influenza.

They published that study in May of 2020. So they knew darn well in May of 2020 that none of these measures actually made a material difference. And yet they proceeded on top of that. There’ve been many, many other studies that have found that masks don’t do anything. One was in the US Marines where they took a bunch of recruits and they had them observe extremely stringent strict measures. And the people who didn’t abide by those measures actually had fewer positive COVID tests. So these measures have been shown repeatedly to not have any serious impact on the spread of influenza and SARS-CoV-2. And so the question is why are they persisting in these policies when their own research shows that they don’t have any impact. And I think that is something that every American should be skeptical about. You know, why are they persisting when it’s very, very clear. I mean, there are hundreds of studies now showing the lack of efficacy of masks, and that yet they’re continuing with this. It doesn’t make any sense from a rational standpoint. 

Harrison: Yeah, it really does. And I wish more Americans would just ask themselves that simple question. I also remember very early on in the pandemic a Denmark study did exactly, as you’re saying where they’ve trained people, how to use the mask they use the right mask the N 95 masks.

I mean, it was thorough and it was thousands of people and they come out to the same conclusion masks don’t work. So there’s no scientific basis. There’s no constitutional basis. It’s all fraud. In my opinion, we’ll be right back. 

All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, my guest this hour are Brandt Hadaway and Leslie Manookian they are working with the Health Freedom Defense Fund and Mr. Hadaway is actually the lawyer that helped to end the CDC travel mask mandate in America. It was his plaintiffs that got the ruling that ceased all of the CDC-mandated masking on airplanes. So, we have, him and his legal team and his plaintiff to thank for that.

So it’s really an honor and a privilege to talk to both of you now, Leslie, I know during the last segment, we were talking about the scientific invalidness of the mask mandate that it’s not scientifically valid. It’s not backed up by science. That’s what they resort to because when they say science, it’s almost like invoking a religion. It’s unquestionable. You just have to do whatever they say. But talk to us a little bit more about the way that the CDC is pulling this trick off and telling people that the scientific conclusions about masks are completely at odds with the actual scientific research behind it. 

Leslie: So it’s a very interesting point because even the Washington Post reported, I forget how many years ago that it was known since the Spanish flu, that masks don’t have an impact on the spread of aerosolized diseases and yet they’ve proceeded. So how have they proceeded? And then I mentioned that there was a meta-analysis done by CDC itself published in May of 2020, which reviewed 14 randomized controlled trials. And the authors actually stated that while mechanistic studies may show some impact on the spread of droplets, these other studies review of all of these specific measures don’t show any impact on the kind of public spread. So I’ve had people ask me, well, what’s a mechanistic study. And I think it’s really important that what happened was CDC looked at all these different randomized controlled trials, looking at the spread of viruses by lab-confirmed diagnoses and they found that there was no impact and they published this. So then what happened was in the spring of 2020, they started doing all these different kinds of studies. Remember how the big story was droplets, droplets. It spreads by droplets. So what they started doing was these mechanistic studies.

And what that means is that they shoot some crazy as it sounds, spittle, liquid, mucus, something out of a gun towards a piece of fabric, essentially. And then they see that the fabric stops the mucus and they then claim that that means it stops the spread. But that’s a long jump from stopping a droplet of spit to it stops the spread of a virus. And so what they’re hoping is that the public and the media aren’t going to dig very deep or anywhere beyond what the executive summary says or the abstract says in most of these studies where they admit that these are mechanistic studies that are just showing that droplets are stopped. And so that’s a really, really important point for people to understand. And most of the people don’t that’s the kind of studies that CDC are relying on for the most part. And so that’s very problematic. 

Harrison: Yeah, absolutely. And we’ve seen similar. Sort of things with the vaccine and the way that they claim vaccine effectiveness or vaccine efficacy is also sort of manipulated in that same mechanistic way, where if you really understand the studies, you understand, okay, this really didn’t do much to protect anybody. And in fact, some of the, you know, vaccine groups had higher death rates than the placebo group. So when you look at it in a holistic way you see that it’s not effective just in the same way with the mask, but if you take one specific mechanism and show how that works, then you extrapolate that. But it’s all just a shell game and an illusion that they’re pulling off.

Now I know Mr. Hadaway, your mask lawsuit it was of course about stopping the forced masks, and as ridiculous as it sounds, I know a lot of people go, well, if you don’t want to wear a mask, you just want people to get COVID. You are you’re on the side of the virus in this. What was the impetus behind your plaintiff’s lawsuit or your involvement in the lawsuit? Was it the efficacy of mask, or is it a wider and broader thing about just the freedom of people to take their own health in their own hands? What was sort of the impetus behind the lawsuit in your opinion? 

Brant: Well the broader principle we wanted to vindicate was that the federal government is one of the limited and enumerated powers and that the public health power has been generally reserved to the states. As a general police power of the states and the federal government’s role in public health has been historically very limited to that, of playing a support role to the states. And of course, the more specific thing we were seeking to vindicate in this lawsuit were a number of points. And one was that assuming it was constitutional, which, you know, you can assume for the sake of argument the CDC did not have the legislative authority to do what they were doing. It was completely politically motivated. And the court agreed with that. The second principle was that in implementing rules that are intended to govern our conduct and impose burdens on us and threaten penalties if we don’t comply. Executive agencies are required to go through a formal rule-making process and provide notice and allow for comments in the federal register. And the CDC did not do this. They claim that they didn’t have to, or that it was unwarranted due to the ongoing public health emergency. But at that point, the public health emergencies such as it was, had already been ongoing for a year and an executive agency can’t just sit on things for a year and then claim that there’s suddenly an emergency.

The other point we made, that the judge agreed with was that the rule itself was arbitrary and capricious, the CDC failed to adequately explain its reasoning, including the reasons for the lines that it drew and where it drew them. A couple of other points we raised, that the court did not address but are preserved for appeal, and in case, we should wish to raise them with the appellate court, or what I referred to earlier, which is the non-delegation doctrine, which is that if the statute was as broad as CDC claimed that it would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Harrison: Right. So it’s just corrupt on every level or just wrongheaded on every level. And of course, Leslie, we know that if you allow them to exceed their authority because it’s a public health emergency, suddenly everything becomes a public health emergency. Right. It’s less even about this particular topic in masks, on airplanes, as it is about holding the federal government in check.

Hopefully, bring us back to a place that our founders intended us to be at where the federal government does not have the right to arbitrarily impose these measures. You can talk a little bit about just the foundational aspect of freedom when it comes to these decisions. 

Leslie: Well, I think it’s so important that people remember what our founders had in mind when they created this nation and all the documents that support, this American experiment.

And one of the things that was written in the declaration of independence is that our rights come from our creator. Now, that’s a completely revolutionary notion, no other nation that I’m aware of has such an ideal or a concept in its founding documents. And this is really radical because it means that no government, no human, no entity can take those rights away. They are natural and inherent to us by virtue of being born human. 

Harrison: Right. They can’t be granted. They can only be taken away. They can only be restricted and stolen from you. It’s not a positive thing that the government’s giving you your rights.

\They can only take them away. We’ll get more into that. On the other side, the real implications that this decision has on the wider aspect of America


All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, again, my guests are Brant Hadaway and Leslie Manookian you can find their website at, and of course, you can support everything we do here by going to Now, Mr. Hadaway, I know that you’ve said that the Biden administration is not challenging the decision that was made to eliminate the mask mandate on flights. I mean, do you think that they’re not ever going to try to question this do they have a chance to question this again?

Do you think they’re going to try to take a different route in order to circumvent this? Cause I can’t see them giving up this easily. They really want this mask mandate, even though it scientifically is invalid. What do you think the federal government is going to do? What do you think their game plan is? Or have they thrown up the white flag in this case and are moving on to other things? 

Brant: Well, let me be clear. They have appealed the ruling. What they didn’t do is ask the appellate court for a stay of the ruling, which would have basically maintained the status quo and sort of suspended the effect of the ruling while the appeal is pending.

They didn’t do that. So the ruling is the law of the land they have appealed. In terms of what exactly they’re thinking is they have said publicly that their concern is with the first part of the judge’s ruling, which is that the CDC didn’t have the statutory authority to do what it did.

They’re obviously concerned about the CDCs institutional authority going forward in case they should decide to do something like this in the future or something very much like it, they want to have that option. Exactly what’s going to happen on this appeal remains to be seen, watch this space, after May 3rd and see if they might not try some procedural machinations to essentially undo the ruling. Or if they’re actually going to prosecute this appeal on the merits that remains to be seen. 

Harrison: I see. And of course, this goes to the heart of the matter, exactly what we were talking about in the last segment and the one before that, the fact that it seems to me, the CDC, as well as a number of other federal organizations are exceeding their prescribed responsibility and obligations they are taking for themselves, or really usurping for themselves. Powers and processes and policies that are reserved by the constitution to people other than themselves. And so again, it goes to the heart of the matter. Does the CDC have the right to do this to usurp this type of power? And it seems to me like what they’re trying to do is just set the precedent and go look we did it once now we can do it over and over again. When you’ve got the CDC making rulings on mask mandates and voter fraud, and whether stores can stay open or not. I mean, this is not in the purview of CDC, but if they take it upon the, if they say this is our, you know, order and other people follow it, I guess that’s the precedent they’re setting up, right?

I mean Ms. Manookian this is where your concern is that you know, if they’re allowed to set this precedent, they can really expand on it and exploit it to do a lot of other stuff we don’t want them to do right? 

Leslie: Absolutely. DOJ’s explicitly stated when it released its announcement that it was going to appeal that they wanted to preserve the power and authority of the CDC for future use on these health emergencies 

Harrison: Right.

Leslie: This is why I founded Health Freedom Defense Fund. And this is why we are fighting not only the mask mandates, but we’re also fighting vaccine mandates at the federal level against the Los Angeles Unified School District and against the city of San Francisco, and others.

Right. We’re pushing back as much as we can because it is my belief that we own our bodies, government doesn’t own our bodies. We are not cattle or chattel. We are sovereign human beings and we possess the right. To do whatever we choose with our bodies. It’s not appropriate for government to be intervening or intruding into those private decisions.

How we raise our children, and how we keep ourselves well. It’s up to me to decide, well, I’m not going to eat a lot or I’m not going to eat GMOs or I’m not going to use fluoride on my teeth. We’ve constantly heard the refrain. Oh, trust the experts. Trust the experts. Let us not forget that the experts brought us thalidomide and Vioxx and mercury and jabs and Roundup and GMOs and all these other things.

They are responsible for these and the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA suffer from what is known as agency capture, right. That the industries they are supposed to be regulating, have captured them by paying the money for user fees and things like this. It is vitally important that Americans understand that their rights do not come from government and government shouldn’t be dictating what we do with our bodies. So the mask mandate challenge is just the tip of the spear with respect to this entire fight. And this has been going on for a long time. Some of your viewers may know that I made an award-winning documentary called the greater good, if you want to see it. And it’s all about how some children are being sacrificed in service to the greater good through the whole vaccination program. Now, this is a major problem. And so what’s been going on is that media, the pharmaceutical industry, and these agencies have actually been concealing evidence, which demonstrates that vaccines, injure and kill some children.

And what’s happening is state legislatures like in California and New York are taking away all the exemptions to these shots. We must stand and we must fight back against this. What can only be described as tyranny or else we will be nothing more than serfs to the system, essentially.

Harrison: Right and now they’re saying racism is a public health emergency and climate change as a public health emergency. I mean, when you give them the key that they need to unlock the tyranny that they want, they’re going to use it and they’re gonna use it in whichever way they want.

I think at the end there where you said, you know, we need to stand up. People want to know how they can fight back. Obviously filing this lawsuit and getting it to the point where a judge can actually make this ruling. That is a huge victory. Can an average American do that? I mean, is that what it takes is for every American that’s against this to just start launching lawsuits and start getting involved and start like how would normal people help contribute to the mission that you guys are embodying and that you’re helping to fight? I guess I’ll ask Brant here. How can, how can a normal person fight back against this? Should they be filing lawsuits? If they feel, their rights have been restricted? 

Brant: That’s up to every individual to decide, you know, every American and every resident has the right to sue the government. Whether they have standing to challenge a particular policy is a legal question. And so I would recommend that anybody consult with an attorney when deciding whether to do something like that, in terms of how people can contribute I would turn that over to Leslie. And she’ll direct you to, which is her organization, which has funded this litigation and is funding other litigations, other lawsuits, challenging these various mandates.

It’s her organization and her passion and her guidance that has really made all of this possible. And again, that’s 

Harrison: Yes. So Leslie, you know, I think a lot of people, we just sort of go, oh, we’ll just ignore the rule. And we’ll just like, keep trying to live our lives or do what we can do individually. But what’s the best way to really fight back against this. Cause I think if everybody in America that didn’t like these mask mandates stood up and fought back against it, there’s no way it could have continued as long as it did. 

Leslie: So I think there are a couple of things here. First of all, compliance is complicity as a good friend of mine, likes to say.

Harrison: Right.

Leslie: I think that’s really true. You hear people say well, I just do it because it’s easier. I don’t want to make a scene. That’s really causing a problem number one. Two, the best thing that they can do is join, because we have a membership it’s $10 to join. Support our lawsuits because we are initiating this litigation in order to protect everybody. And we can’t do it without the support of people across the nation who are like-minded and care about these health freedom issues, right. And health freedom isn’t a partisan issue. It shouldn’t be left or right. It should be anybody. And everybody who cares about basic American Liberty. So please join Health Freedom Defense Fund you can get our newsletter, you can get joined as a member and you can follow our lawsuits on our website. 

Harrison: Well, and what other organization has had actual victory like you guys had that have actually made real, tangible change in the law to the United States? I can’t think of very many. There are a lot of great organizations out there, but clearly, Health Freedom Defense is bringing results more on the other side.


All right, folks, the final segment of the American journal here on and I hope you share these links. Especially This interview because we’ve heard about the lawsuit, we’ve heard about the fact that the CDC mask mandate was reversed, but it’s good to know who’s behind it and how we can contribute and help do that. And of course, with me are the lawyer who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs in that CDC travel mask case, Brant Hadaway and Leslie Manookian the founder and president of Health Freedom Defense Fund you can find their website and join their cause at 

Now we could do and we do many shows about just the sheer hypocrisy of the left. It’s been a big topic of today’s show talking about Twitter and the way that they are very mad that somebody other than them is in control. Again, just sort of exposing the rank hypocrisy that pervades their, every belief it seems, but the hypocrisy that was on display as they sort of vitriolically went after the judge, in this case, was something to behold, as Leslie was telling me during the break that they were insulting her appearance and all of the things that they’re outraged about when it’s aimed at them suddenly that’s, you know, arrows in their quiver to fire at their own enemies. Did you notice any of that hypocrisy when it came to the media coverage of this case, Mr. Hadaway?

Brant: Well, absolutely. You know lawyers have a saying that if you don’t have the facts on your side, pound the law. If you don’t have the law on your side, pound the facts. If you don’t know the facts or the law on your side pound the table. What I saw was a lot of pounding the table, these ad hominem attacks on the judge, and it was very disappointing to see how many lawyers and law professors who should know better engaging this.

Sent a very clear message that they don’t really want to engage in the argument. And if you hear somebody engaging in this, ad hominem attack on the judge You should ask what about the opinion do you disagree with? What specifically was the flaw in her reasoning? And you know, people can have good-faith disagreements about that, but you have to really articulate what it was you didn’t like about the opinion rather than attack the judge that I view that is rather inappropriate.

Harrison: Yeah, absolutely. And of course, as corrupted and as fallen as the entire system seems to be at this point, we still get these little nuggets of hope and they almost always come from the judiciary. They almost always come from little victories in courtrooms, somewhere in America where an independent judge or a jury. You know, 12 random citizens is able to stand up against that full force and weight of the media and government establishment. That’s pushing in one direction. They can push back in the opposite direction. And it’s good to know that there’s still some semblance of that freedom left in this country and that system working the way that it’s supposed to. And you guys have obviously had this massive victory with the CDC travel mask case, that was funded at least in part by the Health Freedom Defense, which again can be found at Leslie, what are you doing next? Have you, have you gotten your victory, and now you’re off into the sunset, or is this just the beginning of a larger push to help bring back the most basic freedom, the freedom over your own body in this country?

Leslie: Oh, this is just the beginning because I don’t think that this is going to end with just one victory about a mask. This is a much, much bigger problem that pervades American society today. We are seeing innocent children being kidnapped with the door being broken down at 1:30 in the morning by CPS because the parents didn’t take the child to the hospital because the child had a fever and the fever broke.

This happened in Arizona a couple of years ago. We’ve seen children, who’ve been taken. Babies, and newborn babies taken from parents because the parents refused the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. This has to stop. This is inhumane it’s not just unconstitutional and illegal. It’s immoral. It’s beyond unethical.

On top of that, we are seeing, medical procedures in the form of vaccines pushed on the public. They’re being mandated in many states. You can’t send your children to school unless you do it in some states and no bureaucrat, no legislator, no single individual understands what is best for you and your body or for your child’s body, and is in a position to make decisions about that.

And we must restrain this power and this belief that it’s okay. Where is it going to end? Michael Bloomberg tried to ban big gulps in New York City when he was mayor. Right. And it was struck down by the courts rightfully because even though it’s actually better for public health, it’s not their power.

And so. If it’s acceptable to push on these things, will it be acceptable to force you to give your kidney to somebody? Will it be acceptable to force you to donate blood to others? Where does it end? Where does this bureaucratic creep and this intrusion into our bodily autonomy stop? I think it’s so important to that Americans remember that we supposedly learned from history during the Nuremberg trials that utilitarianism the idea that it’s okay to sacrifice the few in service to the many is patently evil. It is just wrong. It’s never okay to harm one person in order to protect others. And yet we seem to have forgotten that, but we need Americans to wake up and remember that no, a civilized ethical society is based on the principle that every individual matters and that no single individual can be hurt in order to protect another. It’s one thing if they choose, but it can’t be forced on them. So this is what Health Freedom Defense Fund’s mission is to educate as many people as possible about our rights, about the truth of our rights, about the protections in our founding documents of our rights, that the founding documents are a constraint on government, not on us as individuals, and then to advocate for those same principles and litigate when they’re infringed. So I just urge everybody to go and join the different groups around the country, like Health Freedom Defense Fund, which you can find at, support our work, become a member, and follow what we’re doing, because there are a bunch of us who are doing this work and we are doing it for future generations so that they don’t have to live under this dystopian future that’s being foisted upon us, right now. 

And you can see this, Harrison, have you heard about the, WHO pandemic treaty that they’re trying to push? I can talk about that. It’s so important. They want to confer all power and authority to the WHO in future pandemics so that they can dictate policy globally to all member nations and it will be legally binding if this is ratified in the countries. 

[00:33:29] Harrison: Right. Yeah. We’ve talked pretty extensively about that, but it hasn’t gotten nearly the attention that it should. It is certainly not on the mainstream and not on other platforms, but yeah, we’ve talked about the pandemic treaty giving full power over the WHO and if the nation decides to contradict the WHO there are actually sanctions in place, that the country will then be sanctioned. I mean, in sanctions, as we know from Russia, I mean, that’s an act of war, so it is subverting our sovereignty under this international order that we don’t have a say, and we can’t vote for who they are. We can’t question their directives. It is a major violation of our most basic freedoms. And again, I don’t even know what your guy’s politics are. This should not be a political thing. And you made that point earlier, Leslie, but you know, Brant with you as well I don’t know if you’re Republican or Democrat. I don’t know how you voted, but I do know that you’re standing up for basic human rights, which strangely enough, that makes you on the right, in this media divide or the civilizational divide that the media is imposed on everybody. I mean, do you think this is political or is this just something that, you’ve taken on as a basic humanitarian who cares about human sovereignty itself and basic human rights? 

Brant: I think the real underlying issue for me and it’s a broader concern is that we have creeped in, into this sort of post-constitutional order where people have increasingly viewed the executive branch is having all the power and that if something seems like a good idea, then the president should just do it. You know, we had Obama saying, I have a pen and I have a phone. Both parties have been guilty of this to some extent. Biden came in on a campaign promise of exercising executive authority to the maximum extent possible to federalize the response to COVID and several of his efforts have been struck down, but these efforts proceeded Biden.

CDC became very active under the Trump administration. For example, the eviction moratorium was instituted by the CDC under President Trump. There was also another order by the CDC that essentially shut down the cruise lines and prevented them from operating. That was also successfully challenged. Although it didn’t go up to the Supreme Court.

And so what we have here is maybe hopefully a chance to step back for people and say, Okay, look, if you’re so upset and concerned about who’s been elected president or who might be elected president, may you should consider the possibility that we’ve given the president too much power.

Harrison: Wow.

Brant: There was a reason why the framers of our constitution put Congress in article one because that’s the most important of the federal powers. And that’s where the power to legislate should reside 

Harrison: Right. And again this goes across the board, the ability to make war right now, we’re going to war with Ukraine, and the Congress hasn’t been asked for it yet. The mandates didn’t go through the proper channels. thank God we have people like yourselves fighting back. It’s Brant Hadaway and Leslie Manookian again, it’s Thank you so much for being with us and for being champions in this fight.