There's a plan to amend the WHO's International Health Regulations in May this year.
While there's a WHO Pandemic Treaty, that isn't slated for next year and is being mixed up (intentionally most likely) to confuse the public.
It's a modification of a congressional-executive resolution we've been part of since 1948 and modifying such an agreement doesn't require legislative approval.
There are several ways to counter this
1. Lean on Legislators to Demand Investigations & Exit the WHO
2. Spread the Word
3. Form coalitions with people in the US and abroad.
Cont'd in detail owing to text limits.
ok fed, i'll e-mail you later my full address and ID
I never joined the WHO so this doesn't apply to me.
1. Leaning on Legislators: There are legislators who have expressed an interest in exiting the WHO or defunding it. There's been several bills (H.R.419, H.R.7931) introduced to this effect including a new one (H.R.79 on January 17th).
When they last amended the IHR's: The matter was seen as being a 10th Amendment issue (state's rights), and at least one state (Louisiana) flat-out said they wouldn't comply with the Amendments.
Cont'd in detail owing to text limits
>President can enter into agreement based on Presidential authority alone if Congress has previously passed authorizing legislation
Does this apply to significant changes to existing agreements? Does authorizing legislation generally spell out "X agreement of 1974" or something similar to lock Congressional approval to the text that existed a particular moment in time?
>as non-bind on the us, they do not need to be referred to congress
>congressional action may be needed if funding is requested
Could the President operate through existing legislation enabling the FDA, CDC, etc, via an executive order? Like, the US isn't forced to comply, but the White House could order federal bodies to proceed as though it did.
In Canada if existing Canadian law grants the executive all the powers necessary for implementation they can ratify a treaty without going to Parliament for approval.
Technically, the president can direct federal agencies to comply in so far as it doesn't conflict with anything the legislature has already passed. That's why congress writes things that give the executive specific instructions. Presidential executive orders can be undone with a law or the next administration's own EO. This is all against a backdrop of judicial review, where the Supreme Court can take emergency action against the executive. It's only since 2001 that the executive hasn't been the weak bitch of the other branches in the domestic sphere. Now the executive applies national security powers to candy wrappers while congress fundraises endlessly and refuses to be on the record for anything other than Israel.
The problem is that this would be unlikely to face Judicial Review, so the key is to stop it before it ever gets to that stage.
you remind me of my grandma
i like you and hope you continue to make threads
long live the assembly
Oh, and the roberts' court is obsessed with preserving its status as the most trusted institution in government. Which means Robert's plays politics with the law, paradoxically making the court untrustworthy. Nothing is working like it's supposed to, and only the written constitution keeps these monkeys from burning it down any faster.
These guys had the opportunity to do their thing with Covid and they fucked up by the numbers. Probably the only instance where a WHO recommendation should have been followed but wasn't was with Remdesivir, which was partly a coinflip, and partly that the WHO at the time wasn't the organization for the manufacturer to lobby to get the greatest results.
As far as the public knows to this day, Canada's Covid mandates came from WHO the fuck knows where, with zero evidence entered into court of science used by the government to develop their policies. A possible exception might be the Canadian province of Quebec, where it was revealed that McKinsey & co were hired as consultants to run Quebec's Covid strategy, which was even harsher lockdowns than the rest of the country, and even worse results for the public's health. McKinsey's also partnered with Pfizer who's partnered with the WHO so this is all an incestuous orgy of bad authoritarian policy.
2. Spreading the word is easy.
A. Make memes
B. Spread messages using social media and e-mails (SMS I was told could work), as well as flyers where permitted.
C. Contact local radio stations that cover local politics: They often will discuss things that the MSM won't.
3. Forming coalitions with people in the US and abroad.
There's lots of people opposed to the erosion of free-speech online, and many people wouldn't be happy about this.
Australia has a lot of citizens including who are opposed to this: After all, their government went full jackboot on them
This is but one site. https://australiaexitsthewho.com
Never appeal to anybody in China or Russia as it would be used to label all people opposed to this as being traitors and justify censoring people opposed to the WHO amendments.
While the elites might actually attempt to false-flag this, I see no reason to give anybody any ammo.
With activism, I often operate under the principle that when the cause is morally justified, one is permitted to take any action as long as it is legal.
Remember, legal is what gets you arrested (I'd avoid anything that could get you sued too): Immorality doesn't.
Since politicians try and sometimes duck out of their jobs: This infographic is useful to explain why anybody conflating this with a treaty should be called as lying and misleading people.
To poster 418379756: Yes it does apply to significant alterations to existing agreements.
The IHR Amendments require a simple majority agreement of the health ministers (Secretary of HHS in the US) of the 194 nations involved.
The particulars of these amendments make it effective immediately.
I should have put this in my OP: https://www.usa.gov
This link allows you to contact federal, state, and local elected officials, as well as heads of government agencies.
Since Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is the guy who will ultimately decide to vote yes or no to approve the WHO IHR Amendments in May this year (and he has announced an intent to vote yes): Maybe he should get a call too?
I am just not gonna take it, I know I know uhh.
Basically any zogbot trying to force euthanise me with a "vaccine" will be met with deadly force.
To Poster 418381637: Uh, let's cool it on the lethal force stuff.
The WHO IHR Amendments can be opposed: Why else would fact checkers have already attempted to mislabel researchers such as James Roguski (who kind of stumbled onto this whole thing) as spreading fake news?
They wouldn't do that unless he was making a dent...
On, and here's his URL: https://jamesroguski.substack.com
I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes a number of good points and I'd say 90% of what he says is a good idea.
I appreciate the thread but I'm curious: you're clearly not from here. What brought you to post this information here?
I figured it would be an effective way to get the message out faster, and it stood to reason most people here would be opposed to this
Fuck free speech
I can't wait to put all those homosexual enablers and homosexual lovers in prison
Anyone who writes a pro-homosexual book whether it be gay or tranny needs to be locked up where they cannot hurt our little children by subjecting them to homosexualted propaganda.
I think you missed the point of OP's pic entirely.. WHO is entirely on board with gender affirming "care" alongside all the other things they do.
To LfP/CVA+: Correct.
While this is beyond the scope of the matter at hand, I do remember reading about a guy named Jon Stryker who has spearheaded much of this.
you can just click on someone's post number to reply to them, newfaganon.
: *rolls eyes*: I wish I knew that before.
Welcome to this shit hole. I hope you post about this stuff more often. It's far more important than most things that get posted on here.
Yeah, it's very hard to get traction in social media because they limit reach. Gab is somewhat useful because they don't, but even then it's difficult to get that critical mass.
It's almost strange how few people are talking about this. This is a way bigger deal than anything going on in the world right now, including all the Ukraine crap.
Boomer-sempai is kawaii! Welcome aboard.
That ship has long since passed, Anon.
Don't argue. Don't dispute, don't even talk to them.
Just don't fucking comply.