Michele Bachmann: WHO Vote Threatens U.S. Sovereignty
- Thread starter Citizen X
- Start date
Thank you
here is the bottom line, if you take God out of the picture, if you take the possibility that this is the system St. John talked about, saying the antichrist would make all great and small to take a mark, without which they could not buy or sell.
even if you beleive none of that,
beleive this:
the men who just used the worst, the most dangerous, the most unknown, risky and debilitating vaccine the world has EVER seen
the men who do not CARE that this vaccine has already caused more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the entire 79 year history of vaccines,
are the SAME MEN they want to put in charge of deciding.
deciding what the herd will get.
because they call us THE HERD,
and they think of us as THEIR HERD
and like cattle, we are to be managed, and even killed if it suits their plans.
not ONE apology has been forthcoming from Fau-xi or Gates, even though hundreds of thousands of young people in their prime have dies, of been eft with permanent heart damage and more.
this is WHO we want to put in charge...folks like this????
WHICH PART OF THE WORLD HAS LOST IT'S MIND
DO WE NOT GET. ?
even if you beleive none of that,
beleive this:
the men who just used the worst, the most dangerous, the most unknown, risky and debilitating vaccine the world has EVER seen
the men who do not CARE that this vaccine has already caused more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the entire 79 year history of vaccines,
are the SAME MEN they want to put in charge of deciding.
deciding what the herd will get.
because they call us THE HERD,
and they think of us as THEIR HERD
and like cattle, we are to be managed, and even killed if it suits their plans.
not ONE apology has been forthcoming from Fau-xi or Gates, even though hundreds of thousands of young people in their prime have dies, of been eft with permanent heart damage and more.
this is WHO we want to put in charge...folks like this????
WHICH PART OF THE WORLD HAS LOST IT'S MIND
DO WE NOT GET. ?
This flyer attached is what I have been passing out to people, groups since Thursday. Not hearing anything on Newsmax, Mark Levin, Wilkow Majority, Stacie on the Right. Are they compromised?
Only warroom, The CommonSense Show are talking about it that I know of.
Michele Bachmann said the only thing we can do (75+ million Trump voters) is call R Reps & Senators to demand they go on strike. That will force national media attention. That must be done before May 22 - the day biden hands over our sovereignty to WHO/CCP.
If biden is allowed to hand over our sovereignty, our only recourse is to decertify 2020 thus rendering everything biden administration has done as null and void. Is that too much to ask? But we have to unite under one org. TrueTheVote .org seems to have the most visibility since 2000 Mules came out. Did Steve Bannon put out the call for action?
It is possible because we have the govt we deserve. The constitution is just a piece of paper but it is backed by the spilled blood of patriots. Knowing that, we can choose to enforce the constitution peacefully now or thru a war later. Most people in current times will not fight so we better stand up now. Hear michele bachmanns solution. Get R congressmen to go on strike so national news would cover it and all voters eould find out.
This should be stopped by any means possible. What is left after that.
The Constitution says treaties MUST have Senate advice and consent before they become law. Bachman and Gaffney say there is no Senate approval requirement for these amendments to change the current treaty and for us to be bound by it once changed. But they NEVER explain the mechanism of why that would be the case. Treaties are (according to SCOTUS) "The law of the land". They have EXACTLY the same affect in law as legislation Congress has passed and the president signed. The President negotiates treaties... so he can recommend amendments to the WHO's by-laws.. but he cannot change US treaty obligations for a ratified treaty, any more than he can change a law once it has been passed. Whatever the WHO does with this, the ONLY treaty that is in effect between the WHO and the US is the treaty that is currently in effect..... unless AND until the Senate ratifies by 2/3 vote. They want to say we have to comply with something we don't care-to, we just point out that the treaty we have in effect with them (the current treaty) doesn't require us to comply. Treaties are contracts. And as with ANY contract, both parties to the contract have to agree before the terms of the contract change. If you take out a fixed-rate loan, the bank can't come back later and say they've decided to raise the interest rate without you agreeing to it. Bachman et al seem to be saying Biden is agreeing to the new terms.... but ONLY the Senate can agree to the new terms. Biden negotiates. The Senate affirms.
And not only can the president not change the terms of a treaty, he cannot nullify a treaty. He simply does not have that authority.
To get the new (amended as proposed by Biden and affirmed by the WHO) treaty to be in effect IN AND WITH THE US, the Senate would have nullify the current treaty and ratify the amended one. Just saying they don't have-to, doesn't make it so. There are NO exceptions to Senate ratification being needed for a treaty to be in effect in the US BECAUSE treaties are considered the law of the land on exactly the same footing as passed legislation. You can draw a parallel with the SCOTUS Justice selection process. The president nominates... but it takes the advice and consent of the Senate to confirm. And once that confirmation is done, the president cannot undo it. Nor can a later president say he wants to amend the Justice selection. Once the deal is done... that's the deal we are stuck with,,, in the case of the SCOTUS Justice, until and unless Congress impeaches. With treaties, we are bound by the currently ratified treaty unless and until the Senate nullifies the current treaty and ratifies an amended treaty... OR it is nullified by the courts through a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Because it is the law of the land and on EXACTLY equal footing with passed legislation, it is subject to review by the courts for Constitutionality. SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional and nullify any and all US government obligation with regards to it. No treaty entered into by the US can abrogate constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens. Period. And the Supreme Court has the legal authority to determine if a treaty is meeting that Constitutional requirement (Marbury v Madison).
So what that amounts-to is the US government CANNOT give away sovereignty..... even if the Senate ratified it (which it never will), the SCOTUS could declare that ratification unconstitutional and nullify any and all US obligation to comply with it if that obligation entailed violating Constitutional guarantees.... like locking down. The states can order lock downs. The federal government cannot. And no treaty can give the federal government OR the other party to the treaty the legal authority to order a lockdown.... or take our guns... or in any other way violate Constitutional rights.
If the WHO tried to lock us down, and we refused, they say the UN could bring sanctions against us. How would that work? Cut us off from the International Monetary Fund? Here's a clue. We don't GET money from the IMF. We give it to it. If the UN wants to cut us off from the IMF, I guess we just won't be donating any more money. Oh well.... I can live with that. Oh... and throw the Bast*rds out of New York while we're at it. They want to make rules that we don;t have to comply-with in Geneva.... let the Swiss foot the bill for the whole sh*teree.
If someone disagrees with this, PLEASE avail us all of the reasoning behind the president being able to modify a treaty. Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in any case law I am aware-of, has he been granted that authority. And by some standard that says we have previously agreed to abide by WHO decisions so we'd have to abide if they totally change their rules, you are essentially saying that since the formation of the UN we have not in actuality had any sovereignty...... that they have always in actuality been in charge of us..... and that is clearly not true.
Let's hear the counter-argument.... 'cause I think this is fundamentally BS, and am frankly disappointed Steve Bannon has apparently fallen for it.
And not only can the president not change the terms of a treaty, he cannot nullify a treaty. He simply does not have that authority.
To get the new (amended as proposed by Biden and affirmed by the WHO) treaty to be in effect IN AND WITH THE US, the Senate would have nullify the current treaty and ratify the amended one. Just saying they don't have-to, doesn't make it so. There are NO exceptions to Senate ratification being needed for a treaty to be in effect in the US BECAUSE treaties are considered the law of the land on exactly the same footing as passed legislation. You can draw a parallel with the SCOTUS Justice selection process. The president nominates... but it takes the advice and consent of the Senate to confirm. And once that confirmation is done, the president cannot undo it. Nor can a later president say he wants to amend the Justice selection. Once the deal is done... that's the deal we are stuck with,,, in the case of the SCOTUS Justice, until and unless Congress impeaches. With treaties, we are bound by the currently ratified treaty unless and until the Senate nullifies the current treaty and ratifies an amended treaty... OR it is nullified by the courts through a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Because it is the law of the land and on EXACTLY equal footing with passed legislation, it is subject to review by the courts for Constitutionality. SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional and nullify any and all US government obligation with regards to it. No treaty entered into by the US can abrogate constitutionally guaranteed rights of US citizens. Period. And the Supreme Court has the legal authority to determine if a treaty is meeting that Constitutional requirement (Marbury v Madison).
So what that amounts-to is the US government CANNOT give away sovereignty..... even if the Senate ratified it (which it never will), the SCOTUS could declare that ratification unconstitutional and nullify any and all US obligation to comply with it if that obligation entailed violating Constitutional guarantees.... like locking down. The states can order lock downs. The federal government cannot. And no treaty can give the federal government OR the other party to the treaty the legal authority to order a lockdown.... or take our guns... or in any other way violate Constitutional rights.
If the WHO tried to lock us down, and we refused, they say the UN could bring sanctions against us. How would that work? Cut us off from the International Monetary Fund? Here's a clue. We don't GET money from the IMF. We give it to it. If the UN wants to cut us off from the IMF, I guess we just won't be donating any more money. Oh well.... I can live with that. Oh... and throw the Bast*rds out of New York while we're at it. They want to make rules that we don;t have to comply-with in Geneva.... let the Swiss foot the bill for the whole sh*teree.
If someone disagrees with this, PLEASE avail us all of the reasoning behind the president being able to modify a treaty. Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in any case law I am aware-of, has he been granted that authority. And by some standard that says we have previously agreed to abide by WHO decisions so we'd have to abide if they totally change their rules, you are essentially saying that since the formation of the UN we have not in actuality had any sovereignty...... that they have always in actuality been in charge of us..... and that is clearly not true.
Let's hear the counter-argument.... 'cause I think this is fundamentally BS, and am frankly disappointed Steve Bannon has apparently fallen for it.
Last edited:
Try reading the Constitution. Do a little research. I asked for the counter argument... the reason some people seem to think Senate ratification of a modified treaty is not required for it to have effect in law (which explanation NOBODY has provided, BTW). I didn't ask for someone who doesn't know me at all to display their ignorance by name calling.you must work work for msn... misquotes, and misrepresentation of the facts....
FYI there are all kinds of law professors and Constitutional lawyers around the country who say this is utter nonsense.... and they are willing to explain why. Not just say, "You must work-for so and so or be such and such......."
There may be a legitimate reason to think Senate ratification isn't needed for this to have effect in US law. I just want someone to tell me what that is. "Cause Frank Gaffney says so" REALLY doesn't cut it. I'm not alone.
And if the WHO said to lockdown, and Biden said as a result we all had to lockdown, I'm sure DeSantis and the rest of the red states' governors would tell Biden to park it neatly where the sun don't shine, because the Senate never ratified Biden's amended treaty. An example of a multilateral treaty (which is the type this one is) that was signed the president but never ratified was when Bill Clinton signed the Tokyo Accords.... which would have put a number of 'climate change' restrictions on the US. The Senate never even brought it up for discussion, much less ratify it. The result? It had zero effect in law whatsoever on the US. It was all noise.... no signal... as Steve would say. So is this.
e.g. “It is utterly untrue that the IHR would interfere with health care decisions or transfer such decisions to the WHO Director-General. The IHR amendments would ask countries to promptly and truthfully report infectious disease outbreaks, and WHO would offer assistance in managing the outbreak. But it could not force a country to allow WHO staff to interfere with its public health decision making,” - Georgetown University law professor Lawrence Gostin.
The WHO will undoubtedly pass these amendments to the current treaty, because in point of fact, there is NOTHING we can do to stop them from passing them. Do you really think that maggot Tedros is going to listen to the the pleas of the War Room Posse? He's not. And the WHO clowns in Geneva won't. They'll pass the treaty amendments. But the first time they try to force the US to do something (like lock down), we'll just laugh at them. You can lock down if you want-to. I won't. MOST Americans won't. And they have NOTHING they can threaten us with to force compliance.
Last edited:
It needs to go before congress, and they should not forget who put them in office. It is not that easy to do. If it is I`ll come now and sign one to get rid of the present regime.
Even if it's not, as soon as the WHO thinks it has power, some new medical emergency will appear..... no doubt just in time for Joe to try and order lockdowns as the election approaches. But the only states that will comply will be the blue states... and they are likely going to find some way to use mail-in ballots and 'Internet accessible' voting machines whether the WHO passes these amendments or not. This WHO amendment thing is just one of the scams the Dems will be using to try and rig the election again.... because unless they cheat... and massively cheat.... they are A$$ Out November 8th and they know it.
May 22: The WHO plans to strip 194 nations, and the US, of sovereignty
May 22: The WHO plans to strip 194 nations, and the US, of sovereignty - Strange Sounds
The WHO is attempting to push through changes to a treaty that would give them global control over health worldwide. This helps fulfill some of the goals of the WEF’s Great Reset. It is a massive power grab that takes away a nation’s sovereign rights to determine its own health standards. Health...
strangesounds.org
I didn’t call you a name
......but
I’m glad to see by your post you pretty well got their dirty little scheme figured out
.
......butI’m glad to see by your post you pretty well got their dirty little scheme figured out.
Last edited:
Proposed US amendments to World Health Organization treaty would erode American sovereignty
If passed, these amendments would sound a death knell to our sovereign independence as a nation.
presentdangerchina.org
From the article you referenced: "Two-thirds of the Senate does not have to vote for it."May 22: The WHO plans to strip 194 nations, and the US, of sovereignty
May 22: The WHO plans to strip 194 nations, and the US, of sovereignty - Strange Sounds
The WHO is attempting to push through changes to a treaty that would give them global control over health worldwide. This helps fulfill some of the goals of the WEF’s Great Reset. It is a massive power grab that takes away a nation’s sovereign rights to determine its own health standards. Health...
To be clear, 2/3 of the Senate does NOT have to vote for it for their rules to be changed. 2/3 of he Senate absolutely has to vote for it for those changes to have any application in law in the US. Just because the WHO says, "We changed our rules. You guys now have to do what we say" doesn't mean squat. They can change their rules all day. We haven't agreed to those new rules until the Senate ratifies the agreement. The president does NOT have the power to bind us to a treaty. Period. ESPECIALLY one that violate constitutionally guaranteed rights.
If we were bound by treaty rules changes other parties to a treaty decided to make, other nations could have changed the rules of any of the several hundred treaties we have had over our history to usurp a bit of US sovereignty. None of our sovereignty has ever been lost in our history because none of it means anything TO US until the Senate ratifies it. The founders designed it that way for exactly that reason.
Example: We have a treaty with Russia right now, to report to each other any UFOs we discover over the Artic (so the other side doesn't think it's a missile launch). If the Russians suddenly said, "Our Duma voted-on and changed the terms of the treaty so that President Putin is now in charge of your government"... do you think we'd surrender the country to Putin just because they "changed the rules of that treaty"? The ONLY treaties we are legally bound-by are treaties the Senate has ratified... and the only terms of ANY treaty that binds us are the specific terms the Senate has ratified.
Technically the president cannot even legally nullify or kill a treaty without Congressional approval... and there has been argument made in treaty case law in the Supreme Court that because treaties once ratified are the law of the land, they cannot be undone without FULL Congressional approval.... though certainly Senatorial approval would be required at a minimum. There were only twice in our history in hundreds of treaty terminations where the president nullified a treaty, and those were during WWI where the president was acting as the Commander in Chief during war, AND nobody in Congress objected. And that would mean no matter what Biden said or did,or what rules changes the WHO passed, the ONLY treaty still in effect between us and the WHO is the treaty that's there now. The who wants to break it, and say other rules apply... fine... but they have then broken the treaty and we have no further obligation under law with regard to it.
Tedros can change the terms of the treaty all day. He can change them fifty different times in fifty different ways. Bachmann is right. He doesn't need our Senate to do that. But let him try and enforce his changes. I'm really NOT at all worried about some blue-helmeted storm trooper enforcing Tedros' whims.
And Trump withdrew us from the WHO (Biden had us reinstated). We could simply withdraw from the WHO again if they tried to impose ANY obligation on us we were not fully willing to let them impose.
And by the way.... Biden could agree with Tedros, and even claim the revised treaty requires he enforce its terms. But the thing is.. Biden can agree with the WHO and enforce its terms now just by issuing an executive order. No treaty change is required for that. This "ordered by Tedros" BS just isn't going to fly, because the Senate will not have ratified it... and even if the Senate DID ratify it, no treaty our government negotiates can cause a violation of citizens' rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled on that several different times in several different treaty cases. Because, contrary to what Biden apparently believes.... he's NOT a king. The people run this government, and the government simply doesn't have the authority to either take away OR GIVE AWAY citizens' rights.
Think about it for a second. I'm sure you'll agree Biden doesn't have the authority to take away your Constitutional rights just because he might want-to. If he did, he'd have taken your guns long ago. Well if he doesn't have the authority to take away your civil rights, he sure as Hell can't give them away. He cannot give away what he cannot take from you. And if/when he tries-to..... THAT is when you are going to see Jefferson's statement "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" being realized.
Last edited:
The Biden administration in January proposed amendments to W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations (IHR) that would eliminate all requirements for W.H.O. to consult with member governments before declaring a disease outbreak.
Both the IHR amendments and the new “global pandemic treaty” are set to be topics of discussion at the upcoming World Health Assembly.
Supporters say this is necessary to improve worldwide pandemic response, while critics warn about the loss of national sovereignty to a globalist organization that did not distinguish itself during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.
Article 9 of the Biden administration’s proposed IHR amendments simply strikes out the existing requirement for W.H.O. to “consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.” Every subsequent reference in the IHR to consulting with the relevant state party is likewise erased, effectively giving the W.H.O. director unilateral authority to declare outbreaks.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...yield-united-states-public-health-powers-u-n/
Both the IHR amendments and the new “global pandemic treaty” are set to be topics of discussion at the upcoming World Health Assembly.
Supporters say this is necessary to improve worldwide pandemic response, while critics warn about the loss of national sovereignty to a globalist organization that did not distinguish itself during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.
Article 9 of the Biden administration’s proposed IHR amendments simply strikes out the existing requirement for W.H.O. to “consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.” Every subsequent reference in the IHR to consulting with the relevant state party is likewise erased, effectively giving the W.H.O. director unilateral authority to declare outbreaks.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...yield-united-states-public-health-powers-u-n/
The whole article tells us what bad guys Tedros and the CCP are and what changes these proposed amendments make to the current treaty, and what kind of damage they could do if we let them. NOBODY is arguing any of that. What I, (and a couple thousand Constitutional lawyers) are arguing is that it is 100% irrelevant what Biden agrees-to. The president can jump up and down and scream, "I'm king and I made this treay and you guys have to follow it" all day. It doesn;t matter. Not in the slightest. The President cannot ratify a treaty. He can agree to the changes all he wants. His agreement means NOTHING, until and unless the Senate ratifies it. The president negotiates treaties. Always has. But they don't become law and WE ARE NOT BOUND TO THEM until and unless the Senate ratifies them.
If the WHO passes these treaty amendments and then tells us to lock down, we just say, "Sorry, Bub. The Senate never ratified these changes you are touting, so they really, really, really don't mean squat to us. Oh, and by the way.... quit bugging us with this crap or we'll quit the WHO again, and you can see if you can get China to make up the billions in funding difference you won't have without our support. Now be a good little boy and go sit in the corner and play with yourself."
Unless, of course, you are now going to contend that the WHO can not only FORCE US comply with changes to a treaty that our Senate never ratified (I can just see those blue-helmeted troopers now!)... but they have the ability to force us to remain members of their phony-baloney CCP front organization whether we want-to or not. I guess when Trump quit them, we weren't really out, and telling them go pound sand, right? Newsflash. We actually were out, and he did tell them to go pound sand, and there wasn't a thing in the world they could do about it but go pound that sand if they wanted-to.
The president cannot take away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights just because he wants to do so.... and he cannot give them away either. And there are actually a dozen or so SCOTUS decisions that say just that. Starting with Marbury v Madison (1803) and going through a bunch of decisions regarding treaty rights and obligations right up to the middle of the 20th Century.
Last edited:
You folks keep arguing that the WHO are bad guys, and are changing their charter to give them control of the world. Nobody is arguing that's not true. It is true. But you are also saying that they will be in control of us because they say they will be in charge of us. Without the Senate ratifying the treaty that defines our relationship with them, they can say they are in charge 'til the cows come home, but we have never agreed with them on that score. Biden can agree with them... but Biden cannot ratify treaties.
Nonsense. The WHO can pass all the laws and changes to their charter they want to. They don't get to control the US just because THEY say they do. Until and unless the 2/3 Senate agrees that they do, they can declare themselves our masters all day long and it means NOTHING.... unless of course they want to send UN troops in to force the issue. THAT would be downright comical.Proposed US amendments to World Health Organization treaty would erode American sovereignty
If passed, these amendments would sound a death knell to our sovereign independence as a nation.
Donate to War Room Forum
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and our support staff to post news and video clips throughout the day.
Trending Today
-
-
-
-
Dr. Naomi Wolf: Moderna Dumps 30M Doses; Vaccine in Pregnancy and Lactation
- Started by Citizen X
- Replies: 0
-
-
Obama's Response to the Texas Elementary School Massacre Is Leaving People Speechless
- Started by Citizen X
- Replies: 0
-
Dr. Robert Malone: Successfully alerting the world to the power grab
- Started by Citizen X
- Replies: 0
-
Texas lawmaker drops mic on biased gun control-pushing CNN host
- Started by Citizen X
- Replies: 2
War Room Podcast
