A Threat to Free Speech, National Sovereignty and More

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.

  1. 4 weeks ago

    ok fed, i'll e-mail you later my full address and ID

  2. 4 weeks ago

    I never joined the WHO so this doesn't apply to me.

  3. 4 weeks ago

    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

    • 4 weeks ago

      >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?

      >non-binding agreements
      >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.

      • 4 weeks ago

        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.

        • 4 weeks ago

          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.

          • 4 weeks ago

            you remind me of my grandma
            i like you and hope you continue to make threads
            long live the assembly

      • 4 weeks ago

        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.

  4. 4 weeks ago

    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.

  5. 4 weeks ago

    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.

  6. 4 weeks ago

    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.

  7. 4 weeks ago

    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.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Poster 418377579

    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?

  9. 4 weeks ago

    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.

  10. 4 weeks ago

    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.

    • 4 weeks ago

      I appreciate the thread but I'm curious: you're clearly not from here. What brought you to post this information here?

  11. 4 weeks ago

    To: 1mQ8vYKv,

    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

  12. 4 weeks ago


    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.

    • 4 weeks ago

      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.

  13. 4 weeks ago

    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.

    • 4 weeks ago

      you can just click on someone's post number to reply to them, newfaganon.

      • 4 weeks ago

        : *rolls eyes*: I wish I knew that before.

        • 4 weeks ago

          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.

          • 4 weeks ago

            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.

            • 4 weeks ago

              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.

            • 4 weeks ago

              Boomer-sempai is kawaii! Welcome aboard.

  14. 4 weeks ago

    >National Sovereignty
    That ship has long since passed, Anon.

  15. 4 weeks ago

    Don't argue. Don't dispute, don't even talk to them.
    Just don't fucking comply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *