diy solar

diy solar

WHO Pandemic Treaty - Real threat to our freedom they are going overboard to distract you from

Good.. That's good.

Now, remember to write your congressman with the following demands.

1) Term limits for all elected officials and judges.
2) Demand that (Harlow v. Fitzgerald), a ruling by a conservative supreme court in 1982 that put cops above the law, be reversed.
3) Demand that (Kelo v. City of New London), a ruling by a conservative supreme court in 2005 that effectively removed your property rights, also be reversed.
4) Demand that (Citizens United v. FEC 2010), another f*cked up ruling by the conservatives which corrupted this entire country, be reversed.
5) Demand that laws created by republicans which allow the government to take your money (Civil Forfeiture by republican Strom Thurmond R-SC ) without ever charging you with a crime, be nullified.
6) Demand government outlaw and ban all corporate lobbying

Citizens United vs FEC in 2010 was the biggest republican screw up of them all by a long shot. The GOP thought they were going to cheat and sneak one over the line by allowing big corporations to donate unlimited funds to political agendas, except it totally backfired on them and it turned out the Democrats ended up being far better at it once those gloves were off.

So now, thanks to the ignorant and stupid republicans, large corporations can dump unimaginable amounts of money into political pockets, thus owning those politicians.. and since those same "large corporations" are almost universally international conglomerates, it means that foreign nations now have a quantifiable amount of control over the direction of our country.

Way to go greedy republicans.. Now that that cat is out of the bag, I doubt it can be put back in. 50% of democrat voters, and 50% of republican voters, are so ignorant and brainwashed, that they are incapable of voting for the other party or another candidate when their voter demands aren't meant.. and the elected officials who ignore us know it.

That single conservative supreme court decision is going to be responsible for destroying this country.
You are right about all of these issues, what I think you are missing is that both the Republicans and Democrats are on the same uniparty team. There are a few outliers, but most are just there for the power trip and or the money. Don't be fooled by the diguise of their feigned disagreement, it is rarely real and we see it constantly. Look at the voting records of different members of congress to see how different their voting records really are, usually not much.

We are constantly told things like "The Trump appointed Judge ruled...or the Obama appointed judge ruled..." this is supposed to nullify the concerns of one side or the other, but it doesn't.

If some great and just leader (imaginary of course) appoints a judge, does that really mean much as to how they will perform their job? I think not.

In the case of civil asset forfeiture, the court was wrong. This is a violation of our right to due process, plain and simple. Using civil law to claim a crime may have been committed is not even close to constitutional.

Citizens United was wrong as well. The premise that corporations are people is absurd. Corporations are government creations, not people. Our rights are not for corporations they are for humans. I have heard many people say that businesses can run their business however they would like, because they are privately owned, i.e. vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, masks etc. Marsh v Alabama found that a woman passing out religious fliers in the town square of a company owned town absolutely had that right despite corporate ownership. The town square is the town square no matter who owns it and that means the Constitution applies for the human, not the corporation. We agree on many of these important issues, we must work together where we can.
 
This article is a decent summary, the only thing i disagree about is that Spooks have always been corrupt ever since their inception (by the central banksters who they really serve). Obama simply stepped on the pedal to increase the speed of it

 
The premise that corporations are people is absurd. Corporations are government creations, not people
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.
 
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.

Very true.
Whats really amazing is that none of this information is exactly a secret. It is all available straight from the horses mouth, but few bother to read or research. Ofcourse corrupt media will never "advertise" it, in fact exact opposite. But the information, nevertheless IS available for anyone who bothers to look.
Stuff you posted above, information about Central Bank cartels, fiat money, Pandemic Treatey - all of this "crazy conspiracy theory" stuff is right there, on their public facing websites!

This is why i love Corbett so much, he does the research and POINTS OUT things that establishment writes on THEIR OWN public websites!!!

They are telling us EXACTLY what they are going to do, yet few bother to listen.
 
Very true.
Whats really amazing is that none of this information is exactly a secret. It is all available straight from the horses mouth, but few bother to read or research. Ofcourse corrupt media will never "advertise" it, in fact exact opposite. But the information, nevertheless IS available for anyone who bothers to look.
Stuff you posted above, information about Central Bank cartels, fiat money, Pandemic Treatey - all of this "crazy conspiracy theory" stuff is right there, on their public facing websites!

This is why i love Corbett so much, he does the research and POINTS OUT things that establishment writes on THEIR OWN public websites!!!

They are telling us EXACTLY what they are going to do, yet few bother to listen.
I believe that the population is "slowly" waking up, and remember what happens when a sleeping giant awakens.......
 
This is correct. They made corporations "persons". . So a whole other class of "citizenship " was born. So there was freeborn citizens and now persons. Most people give up their "freeborn citizenship " to be classified as a "person" and dont have a clue about when why etc. Congress can make any dang law they want but only their persons have to abide by it. .. a "citizen of congress" its called. Ask the fine folks at the Social Security admin if you are a "citizen of congress" and they will absolutely say yes. Before they made this new class of citizens (us citizen) there were ONLY state Citizens. 99.99999999999% of freeborn state Citizens gave that up to be a person and gain the benefits of personhood. The proverbial THEY have control over you by your own permission . Sounds like some wacko conspiracy theory but its right out there for anyone to see if youre willing to do some studying.
While I don't disagree with the basic premise, when did you or I give up our state citizenship status? I'm not saying that this isn't true in the sense that it is the way that it works, just pointing out that we not choose federal citizenship. I have never chosen to be governed.
 
What they really fear is about 80% of what people typed on here. As well as this entire board.

You need to understand that "misinformation" is anything they do not agree with. One of those things is not relying on them for your every day needs. This extends to food as well. They do not want you to grow your own food.
1713886852749.png
It is also water, currently it is illegal to "harvest" rain water in some locations. The WEF would like to take that a few steps farther.
1713886961328.png

For a real shocker watch one of those WEF videos on it. They want to control the water it is that simple.



1713886733760.png
 
When did we sign that?
Either you or your parents did. Its highly complicated. and meant to be that way. . Unless you think the government is looking out for you best interest and want absolutely no control over you. The interwebs is full of answers about this but takes lots of discernment.
 

Wave Goodbye To Another Set Of Freedoms With The New Digital ID​

“Papers please” used to be the ostinato of totalitarian systems, at least in the movies.




With the passing of the government’s Digital ID bills, Australians will have to become used to the digital equivalent - so what does that say about present-day Australia?

A few things have surprised me over the last few years, not the least the way the famous Aussie spirit of insubordination has been subsumed into a goody-two-shoes compliance with whatever capricious orders the authorities made.

I can’t imagine our forebears accepting lockdowns and forced vaccinations, and I certainly couldn’t see them accepting an identity card linking not just government accounts but private sector ones as well.

While the first proposition is an assertion based on a gut feeling, the second is very much based on fact.

Remember the Australia Card?​

In 1984, the Hawke Labor government introduced the Australia Card, and for the next three years, the government and opposition parties tussled over it to the extent that it triggered a double-dissolution election in 1987.

Objections didn’t just come from the federal Opposition either.

Queensland Labor Senator George Georges resigned from the governing party in 1986 over the issue, and in the lower house, Labor backbencher Lewis Kent said:

“Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to provide one’s identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. It would be more appropriate for the proposed card to be called a Hitlercard or Stalin-card.”

As a result, while the government won the 1987 election, and had the numbers to push the card through, instead, it withdrew the card when a technicality was found that could have affected its operation. One senses this was a relief.

Individual Freedom Chipped Away, One Law at a Time​

Yet, apart from a few senators this time there has been little outcry in response to the Albanese government’s Digital ID, although the Liberal-National Opposition did vote against it.

A form of this ID was recommended by the Murray Inquiry into the Financial System in 2014, but the committee was careful to avoid recommending a full-blown government-issued identity card because of the Australia Card debacle.

The then-Liberal-National government acted on these recommendations, but its version of the bill was to facilitate private organisations to issue their own digital identity cards, rather than the government.

Why has the government now decided to make the card a government-issued one, when the recommendation and the draft legislation was for a competitive system?

At one level one might say it is symptomatic of this Labor government that it wants to control everything and is suspicious of both private enterprise and competition.

At another level, it has been gnawing away at the independence of the citizenry, particularly the independence of thought, so maybe there is a long-term agenda of control here.

Two pieces of draft legislation, and one draft regulation, exemplify this tendency—the proposed draft Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, the Online Safety (Relevant Electronic Services—Class 1A and Class 1B Material) Industry Standard 2024, as well as the Religious Discrimination Bill.

The combination of these is to restrict what citizens can say, teach, and whom they associate with, depending on what is approved by the government, or worse, regulators.

Recent Tragedies Reveal How Eager Authorities Are to ‘Protect’ Us​

Almost as though to prove the dangers of these proposed laws, the Commonwealth “censor” eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant just days ago ordered Meta and X to remove videos showing footage from the stabbing incidents at Westfield Bondi Junction shopping centre, and the Christ the Good Shepherd church at Wakely.

I’ve seen this footage, as have many other Australians, and suffice it to say, were I the eSafety commissioner, they would still be up.

When it comes to horror, the footage I have seen from Gaza and Ukraine, and reproduced in the pages and on the websites of the major news sites, is more horrific than any of this footage.

And where is the justification for censoring the information that individuals can now access for themselves?

For a moment there, we all became citizen journalists, able to view events and make our own decisions, and now the government is trying to take our accreditation away from us.

Indeed, some of these clips are uplifting as they show acts of heroism as men throw themselves between attackers and victims, or tend to the wounded.

Ms. Grant only has powers over commercial entities, so I can still, for the moment, show the videos on my blog.

But should we all have a unique identifier, known to the government and cross-referenced to every other activity that we are involved in, who knows what petty bureaucrat will hold my free will in their hands? And what else might the government interfere with?

Voluntary? Not Really​

In Canada, a country that shares our democratic norms, we saw the Trudeau government bar protestors, and any supporters who donated money to their cause, from using their bank accounts.

Imagine what an interlinking record could allow them to have done.

Is it too far-fetched to think that could happen in Australia?

The government says these concerns are absurd.

The digital ID card is “voluntary” and will only link records to the person, not link them together, and records will be encrypted. It also claims that it will protect against cyber-attacks.

The voluntary aspect is laughable.

You may be able to access your Centrelink welfare benefits without it, but you will need to physically go down to the Centrelink office, even if you live in Oodnadatta—a remote outback town in South Australia—and if the office is in Perth, Western Australia.

And if you are a company director, you will need one, full-stop, because of the now-mandatory “director IDs” introduced by the Morrison government in 2021.

If “voluntary” doesn’t mean voluntary for all people and all activities, then it doesn’t mean voluntary at all.

Believe It or Not, the Slippery Slope Is Real​

So why are we acquiescing to this scheme?

Perhaps it is because we’ve become too compliant—that the irreverent generation were the original immigrants and their sons and daughters, and now we are onto third, fourth, fifth generations and more, the spirit of adventure that brought people here has dissipated.

Or maybe it’s the case that the frog has been swimming in digital waters that have gradually risen in temperature.

First, we allowed social media companies to monetise us in return for the free use of their platforms, and then we allowed them to cross-reference our online activities to create profiles to then be used for other unrelated sites.

And how is that working out? They abuse their power.

We know that, come election time, they will be putting their thumbs on our scales and showing us material that they deem suitable, rather than allowing us to make our own decisions.

We also know that they work hand-in-glove with unscrupulous administrations to sell us lies like “safe and effective” and to suppress embarrassing facts, such as the high probability that viruses escape from laboratories more regularly than from pangolins in a market (particularly when the market didn’t have any pangolins for sale).

I don’t believe that governments are any more trustworthy than social media, especially if they are staffed with Bruce Lehrmanns and Brittany Higgins’s.

Democracy is meant to be government by the people, for the people. And Google’s motto was “Don’t be evil.”

But one seems to be converging on government by anyone but the people, and the other seems to have dropped the motto, maybe ashamed of their hypocrisy.

Either way, human institutions seem inexorably to head towards dissolution, so the less they know about you and can link together, the better.

So I’ll probably pass on my Digital ID.

Whoops, I’m a company director. Looks like they are closing in on me already.

Looks like I’ve already learned the true, government-approved, meaning of “voluntary.”
 

A very brief summary of the new WHO proposal on PABS and One Health​


  1. The WHO International Negotiating Body (INB) for the Pandemic Agreement is unable to move forward with an acceptable version (presumably this means acceptable to the globalists) of the:
    a) “One Health” approach and
    b) the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system.
    Remember that if a vote is taken, passage of the Pandemic Agreement/Treaty will require a 2/3 vote of the 194 member nations, or what you might think is 130 nations in agreement. However, the rules say that the WHO needs a 2/3 vote of members present in the room and voting. So one strategy of the globalists will be to try and turn NO votes into either abstentions or to convince potential NO votes to not show up for the vote. Watch for this strategy.
  2. Both One Health (gaining WHO authority over everything in the world through redefining humans, plants, animals and ecosystems as all critical to “health”) and PABS (to expedite the rollout of pandemics whenever they are desired, without the ability to identify where they came from since they will have been “shared globally”) are central to what the globalists want to achieve. So these two proposals cannot be jettisoned or postponed for very long.
  3. Furthermore, the WHO process of negotiation needs to appear successful (to keep everyone inside the tent and avoid nations jumping off the bandwagon). Also, there will be a huge amount of difficult future negotiations about what exactly nations are committing to do and who will pay for it, how nations will be induced to comply, etc., so they can’t fail at the first stage.
  4. Therefore a Resolution has been floated to essentially create two NEW committees that will perform further negotiations on PABS, and two other new committees that will perform further negotiations on One Health.
  5. IMHO, the main reason for floating the 4 new committees is to create 4 groups with new negotiators who will be more agreeable with going along with the globalist program.
  6. It is a way of emasculating the existing INB committee which reached an impasse and turning the contentious issues over to new people who will be chosen very, very carefully. As will the WHO staff who will ride herd over them. It is simply a way of further gaming the system.
  7. It also looks as if the EU is now negotiating for the 27 individual EU countries, even though there has not been an acknowledgement by its member nations that it has the competence to do so. Below is the language in the resolution and the EU is the only regional economic integration organization on planet earth, and it is likely that this is also an attempt to supercede the lower house of the Dutch parliament’s vote instructing the Dutch government to delay the 2 votes or vote NO. Other European nations are considering similar actions, so allowing the EU to vote for all is yet another end run around national sovereignty.
CALLS UPON all States and regional economic integration organizations entitled to do so, to consider signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, formally confirming or acceding to the Agreement at the earliest opportunity, with a view to bringing the Agreement into force as soon as possible;
 

Instead of the Pandemic Treaty, the draft Pandemic Resolution is being floated as a way of moving past impasses​

And always, the goal is to get a document that includes the most important goals implemented in great haste: 1)the biowarfare agent collection/sharing and 2)One Health​


Apparently I used sloppy language when I wrote this last night.

Here is what I meant to say: It seems agreement has not been reached on “One Health” and the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system (PABS), and so a resolution has been put forward to essentially say that nations remain serious about these two issues and will continue to negotiate them to come to a quick agreement, but that a method is being suggested to do so outside of the Pandemic Treaty. Please read the draft Resolution and feel free to draw your own conclusions about what is happening.


The Geneva Health Files substack has put out a post today that I think confirms what I wrote above. It is behind a paywall but you can access it for free if you download it on the substack app:

Geneva Health Files
Pandemic Agreement Talks: The Final Toss - Access & Benefits Sharing Vs One Health? Health Financing Politics Come into Play as Africa Group Holds the Wild Card
Hi, In the final lap of the negotiations for a new Pandemic Agreement, a lot will depend on how united and determined the Africa Group will be. But the pressure is beginning to build. For much of the last two years, Africa Group has been the engine in powering the equity agenda in these discussions. These countries have defined the expansive boundaries of this negotiation. As crunch time arrives, there are, of course pressures to shrink these aspirations…
Read more
a day ago · Priti Patnaik

________________

Dated April 16, we have instead of a Pandemic Agreement an 8 page Resolution that nations are to sign promising they will move forward with a pandemic agreement. You can read it all at this website. I will include the parts of most interest to me below, with my comments in brackets.

https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/INB-WHA-resolution-771-draft-16.04.pdf

… Considering the need for an additional Main Committee of the Health Assembly to deal predominantly with health emergency-related matters, and thereby promote coherence and complementarity in the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the International Health Regulations (2005), and other work of WHO on health emergencies; [What do coherence and complementarity mean here?]

Emphasizing the need for expeditious entry into force and effective implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement…

CALLS UPON all States and regional economic integration organizations entitled to do so, to consider signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, formally confirming or acceding to the Agreement at the earliest opportunity, with a view to bringing the Agreement into force as soon as possible; [Presumably the WHO, US, globalists are pressuring EU nations to back off and let the EU as a whole sign up for 27 individual nations, even though there are significant reasons to think the EU has no right to do so]…

FURTHER URGES all Member States, regional economic integration organizations, international organizations and other interested parties to support the preparatory activities referred to in this resolution, and to effectively encourage prompt entry into force and implementation of the Agreement;

… 8. DECIDES:

(1) to establish, in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly, an open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group in order to draft and negotiate an international instrument to define the modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (hereinafter PABS IGWG), in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, with a view to adoption by the Health Assembly under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, or under relevant provisions of the Agreement, as may be deemed appropriate; [Creating the BioHub system and becoming a library of potential biological warfare agents is central to the WHO’s “preparedness” agenda. What are they preparing for? It isn’t preventing pandemics.]

(3) to request the Director-General to convene, as early as possible and no later than 15 June 2024, a PABS preparatory committee, composed of independent experts, on terms of reference to be established in accordance with the Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees, to prepare proposals, in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, for the consideration of the PABS IGWG, and to further request that the PABS preparatory committee submit its report to the Director-General no later than 15 September 2024, with the Director-General communicating it without delay to the PABS IGWG;

(4) that the first meeting of the PABS IGWG shall follow the conclusion of the work of the PABS preparatory committee described in paragraph 8(3), and in any event shall be held no later than 1 October 2024, in order to elect two co-chairs, reflecting a balance of developed and developing countries, and to define and agree on its working methods and timelines, consistent with this resolution and based on the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, efficiency, Member State leadership and consensus;

(5) in order to provide that WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System is operational no later than 31 May 2026, that the PABS IGWG shall submit its outcome for consideration by the Seventy-eighth World Health Assembly, or to the Conference of the Parties, as appropriate to the legal nature of the proposed international instrument deemed appropriate by the PABS IGWG;

9. DECIDES:

(1) to establish, in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly, an open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group in order draft and negotiate an international instrument/s to define the modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of a One Health approach (hereinafter OH IGWG), in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Agreement, with a view to adoption under relevant provisions of the WHO Constitution or the Agreement; … [I told you, the One Health concept is the critical underpinning of the plan to centralize global control—and apparently the globalists will need a new treaty (aka “international instrument” to implement it. I think this is good news—it appears they could not reach agreement on One Health as a part of the Pandemic Treaty after all.]

(3) to request the Director-General to convene, as early as possible and no later than 15 June 2024, a One Health preparatory committee, composed of independent experts, on terms of reference to be established in accordance with the Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees, to prepare proposals, in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Agreement, for the consideration of the OH IGWG, and to further request that the One Health preparatory committee submit its report to the Director-General no later than 15 September 2024, with the Director-General communicating it without delay to the OH IGWG;
 

RFK Warns That The WHO Is On The Verge Of Passing Its Pandemic Treaty​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has largely spent the last few months shattering the hope that he presents a viable alternative to the current political establishment. From selecting big tech starlet Nicole Shanahan as his running mate to his utter sycophancy for the state of Israel, it has become clear the premise that an RFK presidency would be paradigm-shifting is nothing short of illusory. Yet, he has remained steadfast in the sole facet of his platform which does challenge the existing order. RFK's unfettered opposition to the medical technocracy behind the COVID-19 plandemic and the consequent large-scale human experiment that was the development and distribution of Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines stands as the only thing somewhat distinguishing him from his opponents in the 2024 election. While Biden and Trump have taken to the campaign trail boasting about how their support for those vaccines helped each of them beat the pandemic, RFK is singing a completely different tune by warning voters of the forthcoming WHO pandemic treaty that would put Americans under the yoke of medical tyranny in a manner much more oppressive than 2020.

Given the absurdity of the dystopian nightmare that the treaty is, it's been thrust into the realm of disbelief. So much so that Reuters itself even had to fact check the claims circulating that the WHO abandoned its efforts to pass the treaty. The fact-check determining that the WHO has not abandoned its pandemic prevention treaty comes as stark juxtaposition to Reuter's previous fact-checking on the issue. The idea that a treaty like that being pursued by the WHO which supersedes national sovereignty in determining a pandemic response effort sounds like something liberal NPCs would label as a conspiratorial fever dream that would wake Alex Jones up in a cold sweat. However, like much of what Jones had forewarned of going into and in the early days of 2020, the globalist takeover that the WHO pandemic treaty represents is very real.


According to Fadéla Chaib, the WHO is set to complete its draft pandemic treaty by May 10th. That deadline marks the conclusion of its 9th session to complete its arduous mission to do so. If passed, the treaty would revise the existing International Health Regulations that the WHO's 194 member states have already adopted. According to the draft of the treaty most recently made available on April 22nd, the new IHR would give the WHO authority to direct and coordinate the pandemic response measures of nations across the globe signatory to it. If the WHO achieves its aims then the treaty would be adopted by the end of the month by the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body.

Changes to the existing IHR have belabored efforts to pass the pandemic treaty over the years. Over the last few years several proposed IHR changes have been dropped from the current draft of the treaty. Those include giving the WHO power to issue binding directives, disregard considerations for humans rights, act on the basis of a potential health emergency, impose digital vaccine passports, and conduct mass censorship to fight what they deem to be misinformation.

The resistance to those totalitarian measures highlights the tyrannical power the treaty would vest in the WHO. That is clearly demonstrated in text remaining in the proposed treaties which qualifies the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. Although some of the most egregious of those IHR changes have been nullified, many existing changes still pose a similar threat. IHR changes that remain in the treaty include giving the WHO Director General sole power to declare a pandemic emergency across member states, early intervention to preempt pandemics from occurring, increased surveillance to monitor emerging pathogens, and efforts to increase censorship other than those which were removed from previous drafts of the treaty, The US would also be required to relinquish 20% of its medical supplies to the WHO for global distribution. That facet of the treaty is emblematic of its stated goal to redistribute resources from richer nations to aid poorer ones. Much like many of the Biden administration's other policies, its adoption would put non-citizens ahead of Americans. Given the US' membership to the WHO, the implementation of the treaty would not even require the Biden administration to involve congress to make the country subservient to its parameters.

The latest attempt to pass the WHO pandemic treaty coinciding with the 2024 Presidential Election adds an increased sense of urgency given that the re-election of Donald Trump poses the risk that the US would not be signatory to future attempts to ratify it. While former president Donald J. Trump had been vehement in his opposition to the WHO's authority over US public health responsiveness, going as far to call to defund it and have the USA withdraw from the UN's global health body, any opposition to the forthcoming pandemic treaty will carry little weight as its ratification is set to come during the time President Biden is still in office. Support for the treaty is one of a litany of issues Biden is diametrically opposed to both Trump and RFK on. Yet despite the fact that signing the treaty would damage the existing US healthcare infrastructure, the fear-mongering of another pandemic is enough for Biden to reawaken the mass formation psychosis from 2020 onward that led to millions of Americans being willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for a false sense of security. The WHO treaty sacrifices that national autonomy in turn.

The political vehicle ceding authority to the WHO creates a framework to amplify the authoritarian framework previously executed during 2020. Like Event 201 which served as a portent for the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO itself has already ominously foreshadowing a forthcoming iteration of another globalist takeover by forewarning the world of the dangers of Disease X in an effort to conjure support for its enhanced authority over nations' public health responses. Those undertones propelling the WHO pandemic treaty come at a time where the most recent novel respiratory virus that is the H5N1 avian flu has spread to its first human host having infected a Texas dairy worker.

The confluence of those events demonstrates that the short memories of opponents to the response to COVID-19 in 2020 have allowed the globalist technocracy they so fervently opposed to reconfigure the weapons at their disposal to be more adept at imposing their tyranny if another next episodic plandemic is determined to be the most advantageous means for them to do so. Like 2020 before it, the presidential election in November of 2024 is being framed as a watershed moment between the clashing interests of nationalism versus globalism. If the WHO get its wish and see its pandemic treaty passed, the same tactics used by globalists to circumvent national sovereignty by creating the social conditions to use a public health crisis to manipulate an election could be deployed once again. Given how little has changed since 2020 in reining in that power, history is poised to repeat itself just 4 short years later.
 

RFK Warns That The WHO Is On The Verge Of Passing Its Pandemic Treaty​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has largely spent the last few months shattering the hope that he presents a viable alternative to the current political establishment. From selecting big tech starlet Nicole Shanahan as his running mate to his utter sycophancy for the state of Israel, it has become clear the premise that an RFK presidency would be paradigm-shifting is nothing short of illusory. Yet, he has remained steadfast in the sole facet of his platform which does challenge the existing order. RFK's unfettered opposition to the medical technocracy behind the COVID-19 plandemic and the consequent large-scale human experiment that was the development and distribution of Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines stands as the only thing somewhat distinguishing him from his opponents in the 2024 election. While Biden and Trump have taken to the campaign trail boasting about how their support for those vaccines helped each of them beat the pandemic, RFK is singing a completely different tune by warning voters of the forthcoming WHO pandemic treaty that would put Americans under the yoke of medical tyranny in a manner much more oppressive than 2020.

Given the absurdity of the dystopian nightmare that the treaty is, it's been thrust into the realm of disbelief. So much so that Reuters itself even had to fact check the claims circulating that the WHO abandoned its efforts to pass the treaty. The fact-check determining that the WHO has not abandoned its pandemic prevention treaty comes as stark juxtaposition to Reuter's previous fact-checking on the issue. The idea that a treaty like that being pursued by the WHO which supersedes national sovereignty in determining a pandemic response effort sounds like something liberal NPCs would label as a conspiratorial fever dream that would wake Alex Jones up in a cold sweat. However, like much of what Jones had forewarned of going into and in the early days of 2020, the globalist takeover that the WHO pandemic treaty represents is very real.


According to Fadéla Chaib, the WHO is set to complete its draft pandemic treaty by May 10th. That deadline marks the conclusion of its 9th session to complete its arduous mission to do so. If passed, the treaty would revise the existing International Health Regulations that the WHO's 194 member states have already adopted. According to the draft of the treaty most recently made available on April 22nd, the new IHR would give the WHO authority to direct and coordinate the pandemic response measures of nations across the globe signatory to it. If the WHO achieves its aims then the treaty would be adopted by the end of the month by the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body.

Changes to the existing IHR have belabored efforts to pass the pandemic treaty over the years. Over the last few years several proposed IHR changes have been dropped from the current draft of the treaty. Those include giving the WHO power to issue binding directives, disregard considerations for humans rights, act on the basis of a potential health emergency, impose digital vaccine passports, and conduct mass censorship to fight what they deem to be misinformation.

The resistance to those totalitarian measures highlights the tyrannical power the treaty would vest in the WHO. That is clearly demonstrated in text remaining in the proposed treaties which qualifies the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. Although some of the most egregious of those IHR changes have been nullified, many existing changes still pose a similar threat. IHR changes that remain in the treaty include giving the WHO Director General sole power to declare a pandemic emergency across member states, early intervention to preempt pandemics from occurring, increased surveillance to monitor emerging pathogens, and efforts to increase censorship other than those which were removed from previous drafts of the treaty, The US would also be required to relinquish 20% of its medical supplies to the WHO for global distribution. That facet of the treaty is emblematic of its stated goal to redistribute resources from richer nations to aid poorer ones. Much like many of the Biden administration's other policies, its adoption would put non-citizens ahead of Americans. Given the US' membership to the WHO, the implementation of the treaty would not even require the Biden administration to involve congress to make the country subservient to its parameters.

The latest attempt to pass the WHO pandemic treaty coinciding with the 2024 Presidential Election adds an increased sense of urgency given that the re-election of Donald Trump poses the risk that the US would not be signatory to future attempts to ratify it. While former president Donald J. Trump had been vehement in his opposition to the WHO's authority over US public health responsiveness, going as far to call to defund it and have the USA withdraw from the UN's global health body, any opposition to the forthcoming pandemic treaty will carry little weight as its ratification is set to come during the time President Biden is still in office. Support for the treaty is one of a litany of issues Biden is diametrically opposed to both Trump and RFK on. Yet despite the fact that signing the treaty would damage the existing US healthcare infrastructure, the fear-mongering of another pandemic is enough for Biden to reawaken the mass formation psychosis from 2020 onward that led to millions of Americans being willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for a false sense of security. The WHO treaty sacrifices that national autonomy in turn.

The political vehicle ceding authority to the WHO creates a framework to amplify the authoritarian framework previously executed during 2020. Like Event 201 which served as a portent for the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO itself has already ominously foreshadowing a forthcoming iteration of another globalist takeover by forewarning the world of the dangers of Disease X in an effort to conjure support for its enhanced authority over nations' public health responses. Those undertones propelling the WHO pandemic treaty come at a time where the most recent novel respiratory virus that is the H5N1 avian flu has spread to its first human host having infected a Texas dairy worker.

The confluence of those events demonstrates that the short memories of opponents to the response to COVID-19 in 2020 have allowed the globalist technocracy they so fervently opposed to reconfigure the weapons at their disposal to be more adept at imposing their tyranny if another next episodic plandemic is determined to be the most advantageous means for them to do so. Like 2020 before it, the presidential election in November of 2024 is being framed as a watershed moment between the clashing interests of nationalism versus globalism. If the WHO get its wish and see its pandemic treaty passed, the same tactics used by globalists to circumvent national sovereignty by creating the social conditions to use a public health crisis to manipulate an election could be deployed once again. Given how little has changed since 2020 in reining in that power, history is poised to repeat itself just 4 short years later.
RFK was WORD assassinated called Antisemite. Say it didn’t happen. Look into what he stated. Was it reasonable and or logical?
 

The WHO Falsely Claims to Have Published Final Pandemic Treaty Draft in Required Time Before Key Vote​

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently put up a defence of its violation of its own legal requirements by submitting draft amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) for a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) this May. This was in response to various concerns raised in parliaments and civil society. It matters, because in ignoring legal requirements and rushing a vote the WHO is putting global health and economies at risk, as well as acting like a spoilt child, which suggests the organisation is no longer fit for its mandate.

A rush without reason​

For over 18 months, negotiations have been underway at the WHO on two documents intended to change the way pandemics and threats of pandemics are managed, centralising coordination and decision-making with the WHO. As of early May, the amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new Pandemic Agreement are still being negotiated at the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) respectively. Despite the WHO being shown to have grossly misrepresented its evidence on the frequency of natural outbreaks and pandemic risk, which have been declining over the past one to two decades, these are proceeding with unusual urgency.

With the COVID-19 outbreak shown to probably result from unnatural means (gain of function research) and a WHO review of the effectiveness of the novel and highly disruptive response not due until 2030, national negotiating teams and the WHO are nonetheless continuing with a paradigm of mass surveillance followed by mass vaccination with vaccines that will not undergo normal clinical trials.

This is clearly inappropriate from a public health standpoint but, perhaps in light of this, is all the stranger in that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements to go forward with a vote on these in just three weeks time. The WHO still plans for its member states to vote on them in the provisional agenda of the 77th WHA without reference documents.

This planned vote does not respect Article 55(2) of the current IHR that provides:

Article 55 Amendments
1. Amendments to these Regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director-General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.
2. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.
Concerns regarding this strange situation have been raised by politicians, academics and grassroots organisations. A recent open letter calling upon the WHO and its member states to halt the planned adoption of both texts has garnered more than 13,000 endorsements of citizens from multiple countries. One European parliament has voted to postpone the votes at WHA and respect legal process (it is, after all, simply sensible to properly review a legally-binding and complex agreement before signing). All 49 Republican Senators signed a strong letter on May 1st calling upon President Biden to withdraw American support to both the draft texts and pointing at the violation of article 55(2).

Perhaps in response to the various concerns raised, the IHR Secretariat recently updated its Q&A online section with a quite imaginative claim that the WHO has fulfilled the requirements of article 55(2), as below:

In fulfilling the Article 55(2) requirement, the WHO Secretariat circulated all proposals for amendments to the IHR on November 16th 2022, some 17 months before the 77th World Health Assembly, which begins on May 27th 2024, when they are proposed for consideration.
In addition, the IHR Secretariat even claimed that it had exceeded the technical requirements under Art. 55(2) IHR by communicating “all proposed changes to these [308] amendments developed by the WGIHR drafting group, to all 196 States Parties, after each WGIHR meeting”.

However, a factual account of the relevant WHO documents easily demonstrates that these claims are flawed. The amendments presented over 17 months ago, by and large, no longer exist. The amendments reached after each round of negotiations have also been largely modified, replaced or deleted. The current amendments are the result of months of revision, bargaining and rewording to change the meanings at the behest of States Parties. To claim that wording that no longer exists and will not be voted on fulfills the requirements for Member States to review a text before a vote, ignoring the text they will actually be held to, calls into question the seriousness of the entire WGIHR process. It is particularly unfortunate and deeply concerning to see a global body like the WHO acting with such disrespect for the people it is supposed to serve, and perhaps says much about the problems that currently beset global public health.

 

WHO circulated the targeted amendments under its obligation from Decision WHA 75(9) and Decision A/WGIHR/1/5​

In reality, when WHO circulated the package of 308 targeted amendments on November 16th 2022, the organisation simply fulfilled its obligation under a Decision of the 75th WHA – Decision WHA 75(9) para 2 (c) – adopted in May 2022.

The 75th World Health Assembly (…) decided (…):
(2) with respect to targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005):
(c) to invite proposed amendments to be submitted by September 30th 2022, with all such proposed amendments being communicated by the Director-General to all States Parties without delay.
This decision invited states to submit their proposals of amendments prior to September 30th 2022. The compilation of the notes verbales (designating an official communication between an international organisation and a state’s Permanent Mission) were published online in both original languages and English, entitled ‘Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022)’. Their cover pages showed that these documents were published pursuant to a decision of the WGIHR at its first meeting on November 14th-15th 2022, as reported in document A/WGIHR/1/5:

3. (a) The Secretariat shall publish the proposed amendments online, as submitted by Member States unless otherwise informed by the submitting Member States; further, the Secretariat shall also publish online an article-by-article compilation of the proposed amendments, as authorised by the submitting Member States, in the six official languages, without attribution of the proposals to the Member States proposing them.
The WGIHR went further than the 65th WHA to detail the mode of communication of targeted amendments – online and in a compilation, in all six official languages. Hence, the online publication of the compilation of the amendments by WHO one day later was the result of these decisions, and not of the application of article 55(2) IHR.

The initial intent of respecting article 55(2) IHR was strangely discarded​

In addition, several key documents indicated that at the very beginning of this process, the WHO, WGIHR and IHR Review Committee (an expert panel set up in accordance with article 47 IHR to review the outcome of the WGIHR) were all mindful of the requirements of article 55(2) and had intended to respect it.

Back in October 2022, at its first meeting on October 14th-15th 2022, the WGIHR adopted its method of work (document A/WGIHR/1/4) which set its own reporting and timeline (para. 6):

Pursuant to decision WHA75(9), the Working Group will propose a package of targeted amendments for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly, in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations (2005).
Separately, the Terms of Reference of the IHR Review Committee also clearly set the expectation for the WGIHR to reach the final package of amendments by January 2024, which would have given states four months to review them prior to the 77th WHA in May 2024.

December 15th 2023: The Review Committee remains ‘dormant’ during 2023, and it will be reconvened in December 2023, to review the package of amendments agreed by the WGIHR, with a view to submit its final technical recommendations to the DG before mid-January 2024.
January 2024: WGIHR submits its final package of proposed amendments to the DG who will communicate them to all States Parties in accordance with Article 55.2, for the consideration of the 77th World Health Assembly.
The Terms of Reference thus undoubtedly refer to the final package of the proposed amendments, that is, the proposed amendments to the IHR in their final wording in which they should be considered by the WHA.

These documents show that the “package of amendments” ready for review and vote should be the final text of any proposed amendments that the WGIHR was mandated to reach. As the guardian organisation tasked to advise and support both the WGIHR and the IHR Review Committee, the WHO has the duty to advise these to respect the rules, procedures, timelines and mandates. However, the negotiations within the WGIHR still continue less than a month before the vote, with the latest draft released on April 16th. If the WHO still intends to advise the WHA to breach legal requirements at the end of May, a breach of trust of both member states and the public at large will be unavoidable. The WHO will be making a mockery of its internal processes.

Appeal to WHO and 196 States Parties to the IHR to respect article 55(2)​

There is currently no increasing frequency of natural outbreaks or pandemics, and the burden of natural outbreaks, relative to other disease burdens, is tiny. Many of the interventions being proposed in the pandemic documents – lockdowns, mass vaccination and widespread ‘whole-of-government, whole-of-society’ economic disruption and human rights removal in response to low burden disease or mere threats – have not been demonstrated to be beneficial. Obvious conflicts of interest that afflict the agreements, with corporate sponsors of WHO being among those who will profit from the proposed approach, have not been dealt with. There is a clear risk that resource diversion will degrade overall health.

Nemo est supra leges – no one is above the law. Our societies are founded on this basis. The respect of the law by leaders and decision-makers must be seen. False claims made in bad faith damage public trust. A sane decision in this case would be to set a new deadline, like end of May, ahead of a new four-month review period. Nothing prevents the WHO from convening an extraordinary session of the WHA later this year to vote on such a final package if reached. What might explain this rush and this contempt to violate article 55(2) IHR? Why does the WHO consider it appropriate that its member states should not have the legally required and expected time to review documents meant to bind them?
 

RFK Warns That The WHO Is On The Verge Of Passing Its Pandemic Treaty​

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has largely spent the last few months shattering the hope that he presents a viable alternative to the current political establishment. From selecting big tech starlet Nicole Shanahan as his running mate to his utter sycophancy for the state of Israel, it has become clear the premise that an RFK presidency would be paradigm-shifting is nothing short of illusory. Yet, he has remained steadfast in the sole facet of his platform which does challenge the existing order. RFK's unfettered opposition to the medical technocracy behind the COVID-19 plandemic and the consequent large-scale human experiment that was the development and distribution of Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines stands as the only thing somewhat distinguishing him from his opponents in the 2024 election. While Biden and Trump have taken to the campaign trail boasting about how their support for those vaccines helped each of them beat the pandemic, RFK is singing a completely different tune by warning voters of the forthcoming WHO pandemic treaty that would put Americans under the yoke of medical tyranny in a manner much more oppressive than 2020.

Given the absurdity of the dystopian nightmare that the treaty is, it's been thrust into the realm of disbelief. So much so that Reuters itself even had to fact check the claims circulating that the WHO abandoned its efforts to pass the treaty. The fact-check determining that the WHO has not abandoned its pandemic prevention treaty comes as stark juxtaposition to Reuter's previous fact-checking on the issue. The idea that a treaty like that being pursued by the WHO which supersedes national sovereignty in determining a pandemic response effort sounds like something liberal NPCs would label as a conspiratorial fever dream that would wake Alex Jones up in a cold sweat. However, like much of what Jones had forewarned of going into and in the early days of 2020, the globalist takeover that the WHO pandemic treaty represents is very real.


According to Fadéla Chaib, the WHO is set to complete its draft pandemic treaty by May 10th. That deadline marks the conclusion of its 9th session to complete its arduous mission to do so. If passed, the treaty would revise the existing International Health Regulations that the WHO's 194 member states have already adopted. According to the draft of the treaty most recently made available on April 22nd, the new IHR would give the WHO authority to direct and coordinate the pandemic response measures of nations across the globe signatory to it. If the WHO achieves its aims then the treaty would be adopted by the end of the month by the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body.

Changes to the existing IHR have belabored efforts to pass the pandemic treaty over the years. Over the last few years several proposed IHR changes have been dropped from the current draft of the treaty. Those include giving the WHO power to issue binding directives, disregard considerations for humans rights, act on the basis of a potential health emergency, impose digital vaccine passports, and conduct mass censorship to fight what they deem to be misinformation.

The resistance to those totalitarian measures highlights the tyrannical power the treaty would vest in the WHO. That is clearly demonstrated in text remaining in the proposed treaties which qualifies the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. Although some of the most egregious of those IHR changes have been nullified, many existing changes still pose a similar threat. IHR changes that remain in the treaty include giving the WHO Director General sole power to declare a pandemic emergency across member states, early intervention to preempt pandemics from occurring, increased surveillance to monitor emerging pathogens, and efforts to increase censorship other than those which were removed from previous drafts of the treaty, The US would also be required to relinquish 20% of its medical supplies to the WHO for global distribution. That facet of the treaty is emblematic of its stated goal to redistribute resources from richer nations to aid poorer ones. Much like many of the Biden administration's other policies, its adoption would put non-citizens ahead of Americans. Given the US' membership to the WHO, the implementation of the treaty would not even require the Biden administration to involve congress to make the country subservient to its parameters.

The latest attempt to pass the WHO pandemic treaty coinciding with the 2024 Presidential Election adds an increased sense of urgency given that the re-election of Donald Trump poses the risk that the US would not be signatory to future attempts to ratify it. While former president Donald J. Trump had been vehement in his opposition to the WHO's authority over US public health responsiveness, going as far to call to defund it and have the USA withdraw from the UN's global health body, any opposition to the forthcoming pandemic treaty will carry little weight as its ratification is set to come during the time President Biden is still in office. Support for the treaty is one of a litany of issues Biden is diametrically opposed to both Trump and RFK on. Yet despite the fact that signing the treaty would damage the existing US healthcare infrastructure, the fear-mongering of another pandemic is enough for Biden to reawaken the mass formation psychosis from 2020 onward that led to millions of Americans being willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for a false sense of security. The WHO treaty sacrifices that national autonomy in turn.

The political vehicle ceding authority to the WHO creates a framework to amplify the authoritarian framework previously executed during 2020. Like Event 201 which served as a portent for the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO itself has already ominously foreshadowing a forthcoming iteration of another globalist takeover by forewarning the world of the dangers of Disease X in an effort to conjure support for its enhanced authority over nations' public health responses. Those undertones propelling the WHO pandemic treaty come at a time where the most recent novel respiratory virus that is the H5N1 avian flu has spread to its first human host having infected a Texas dairy worker.

The confluence of those events demonstrates that the short memories of opponents to the response to COVID-19 in 2020 have allowed the globalist technocracy they so fervently opposed to reconfigure the weapons at their disposal to be more adept at imposing their tyranny if another next episodic plandemic is determined to be the most advantageous means for them to do so. Like 2020 before it, the presidential election in November of 2024 is being framed as a watershed moment between the clashing interests of nationalism versus globalism. If the WHO get its wish and see its pandemic treaty passed, the same tactics used by globalists to circumvent national sovereignty by creating the social conditions to use a public health crisis to manipulate an election could be deployed once again. Given how little has changed since 2020 in reining in that power, history is poised to repeat itself just 4 short years later.
Still waiting for you to explain RFK and the antisemitism attack on him.

Come on you can do it.
 
@D71 dont bother. Your jewhate is getting old.
Attack issues and groups, not nationalities.
Come on aenyc …. Are you saying them calling RFK antisemitic is jew hate. That is most twisted thing ever read. Remember you saying don’t hate the messenger? No? 🤣
 
Back
Top