this treaty is more than just medical freedom it will encompass all freedoms. It will be extremely hard to enforce due to the 2nd ammendment but my guess is there's a plan for that too.
When Biden signs the WHO treaty in 2023 that will be the end of freedom in America
- Thread starter orangeisgay
- Start date
Last edited by a moderator:
lol you believe usa today? wow
WHO health regulations don’t infringe on US decision-making
CLAIM: The Biden administration is proposing amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations that would transfer U.S. sovereign authority over health care decisions to the WHO director-general.
apnews.com
Fact Check-The WHO is not planning to implement a ‘pandemic treaty’ that would strip member states of sovereignty
The World Health Organization (WHO) is not planning to strip member states of their sovereignty by implementing a ‘pandemic treaty’ during an annual meeting.
www.reuters.com
I guess you slept through the last 2 1/2 years. The WHO issued the "guidance" to UN member countries and this was the "science" that the CDC followed. WHO is the medical arm of the UN. The idea of a one world government isn't just some crazy idea and most of the EU wants it. The globalists feel they are close to achieving their goal and anything that weakens the U.S. gets them closer to it.
What reason would any US president have to sign away the rights of their citizens, if not for giving up control to an unelected world government?
What reason would any US president have to sign away the rights of their citizens, if not for giving up control to an unelected world government?
You see these people still believe that COVID is just the flu or common cold and made up by the Dems to get rid of Trump.
I am. Explain to me how relinquishing sovereign rights to an international organization is good for our citizens.
I will wait patiently.
exactly, explain how the world from a Thursday to a Monday completely shut down and then tell me we don't have a form of world government. Please explain how telling businesses to shut down is constitutional, how telling people that they are mandated to take a vaccine that has not been tested properly and is under an emergency authorization because it is experimental (if you disagree with this you disagreeing with Pfizer, Moderna, J and J etc). Here's another question, since the UN tied with the WHO were already able to advise and get the world to lock down so fast why do they need a treaty to be able to give them even more authority? What do they have planned? Why does a foreign organization have authority over the health care of the worlds citizens when they are not even voted on by those citizens? Why are people so naive? Saying that theres no way that this will violate the constitution is absolutely ignorant considering they already violated it blatantly and agregiously with less power than they are reaching for. Wake the F up!
It will also be the start of the civil war people have been talking about. Shortly after, there will some
sort of other “emergency” requiring all the same right cancelling tyranny like lock downs, vaccines, mask mandates we all just experienced. Will provide the ultimate cover for them to usher in their digital currency. Most are so broke now and will be even more so after their next stunt that they will jump at whatever is offered and bear their mark of the beast gladly for an extra 1000 “credits” after our dollars are cancelled. They lose value every day already. Only the prepared people will avoid it.
Our great Republic’s days are numbered to the delight of so many progressives. The who treaty will be the proverbial final straw.
Maybe try reading and dissecting the actual “treaty” instead of relying on 3rd party propaganda and agenda driven “sources” and “fact checkers” to tell you what to think. The sad part with you libbies is that your perception of reality has been so manipulated and distorted that you won’t believe reality until it’s on your doorstep and it’s too late.
I was going to post this above, they need to stop being so damn lazy, dig for the info read the treaty, read the WEF and their plans, read the Rockefeller plans for the world, the UN 2030 agenda etc. None of this is a big mystery or conspiracy theory it's literally in plain site
Ok I read the entire 9 pages of the agreement framework only to conclude your reasoning is now defcon-5-Qanon level of ridiculousness. It’s obvious you just believe whatever the right wing nut job press group feeds you.
The treaty would potentially save millions of lives if a virus comes along with a mortality rate higher than 10%. The only thing I did not like about it is it would not allow US citizens first dibs on any vaccine that would come along, as was the case with COVID.
1. None of this should really matter unless there is bipartisan support for this in the Senate:
2. Please stop the name calling/personal attacks. I've had to remove or edit several posts.
2. Please stop the name calling/personal attacks. I've had to remove or edit several posts.
These arguments sound a bit like the John Birch Society/Trilateral Commission one world government arguments of the 1960's and 1970's where if WE didn't do something THEY were going to take over the world and it was all being controlled by David Rockefeller, who was the George Soros of that time. Well we survived just fine, won the Cold War, had the strongest economy in the world, and most of those screaming about globalists taking over went back to their corners.
And to be fair and balanced, the arguments are also like the Climate Change arguments from the wacko left (including the UN) where if you look back to the 1980's, there were claims that we wouldn't even exist today, so those shrill concerns were equally unfounded.
We do a great job as a country of not swinging too far to the right or left, and when we go too far, we calibrate. We are currently too far left, and the wacko left is in retreat on crime, Soros backed DA's are being recalled, and with a different congress, even the climate lobby won't be as powerful. We should have swung further right earlier this month, but the trend is clear.
I once held out hope that Obamacare was unconstitutional, but that seems so long ago now...
I am not saying you are incorrect in your point number 1, but from the senate's own website it would still be plausible for the "president" to sign the "WHO treaty" and make the argument it was actually an agreement versus a treaty. And then further state that the oval office's interpretation is that the WHO is not a nation, so therefore it is not a treaty and senate approval is not required because it is only an "executive agreement".
This is pretty much what Obama did with the Iran deal. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...ngress-review-obama-deal-was-important-inara/
Unilateral executive action. Sign it and wait and see if the Senate takes action. If the Dem's are in control of the Senate, they control committees as well. It doesn't take a big leap to imagine the knowingly corrupt Bob Menendez, Foreign Relations Committee chair, would sit on taking a vote or possibly even cast the deciding vote to not take this before the full Senate.
Neither is it far fetched to imagine a "mere coincidence in timing" of another pandemic being declared in the interim before the senate took a formal vote and thus the US would be ensnared in the WHO's diktats. The pandemic police are already talking about the "next pandemic", likely before the digital currencies are announced.
U.S. Senate: About Treaties
The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.''
The Senate does not ratify treaties. Following consideration by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
The Senate has considered and approved for ratification all but a small number of treaties negotiated by the president and his representatives. In some cases, when Senate leadership believed a treaty lacked sufficient support for approval, the Senate simply did not vote on the treaty and it was eventually withdrawn by the president. Since pending treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress, they may remain under consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an extended period of time.
In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.
Last edited:
Just sharing some information about DEFCON levels (since everyone misuses them) 😁
