Saying no to W.H.O. ? - 727Sky - 05-26-2024
Quote:[/url]
24 GOP Governors Tell Biden Not to Sign WHO Pandemic Agreement
‘These agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health,’ the Republican governors wrote in a letter.
The World Health Organization (WHO) logo is seen at the entrance of their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on March 9, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
Governors from 24 states have joined together to speak out against treaty negotiations being conducted by the Biden administration, which “would purport to grant” the World Health Organisation (WHO) “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”
In a March 22 letter, the governors stated that they “stand united in opposition to two proposed instruments” currently under negotiation.
“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote. “If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global authority in public health.”
The documents they refer to are a new treaty called the WHO pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHRs), which together would centralize a significant amount of authority within this United Nations subsidiary if the WHO declares a state of “health emergency.”
Governors from the following states signed the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
As the negotiations among member nations move into their final phase before the start of the voting session at the World Health Assembly, scheduled to begin on May 27, the WHO appears to have scaled back some of the powers it had sought in hopes of finalizing a deal.
Related Stories
States Move to Reject WHO Treaty, Federal Health Diktats
4/25/2024
Lockdowns a ‘Red Line’ on WHO Treaty, Says Health Minister
[url=https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/lockdowns-a-red-line-on-who-treaty-says-health-minister-5650326?ea_src=author_manual&ea_med=related_stories]
5/15/2024
The latest IHR draft has deleted a prior provision that member nations “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response” and commit to following the WHO’s directives during a health emergency. The latest draft also states that WHO recommendations are non-binding.
The WHO had attempted in previous drafts to obtain powers over “all risks with the potential to impact public health,” which could include environmental and climate issues. The latest draft seeks to limit the WHO’s authority to diseases.
The WHO has simultaneously launched a public relations campaign, using politicians, celebrities, and religious leaders, to encourage member states to sign the agreements.
Sovereignty Coalition Holds Summit on ‘Global Governance’ Treaties at WHO
On March 20, WHO ambassador and Britain’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the efforts of a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” that have come to the WHO’s defense.
“A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organization, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics,” Mr. Brown stated in a press release.
He called for an international effort to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”
“No country will cede any sovereignty, and no country will see their national laws set aside,” he declared.
The issue of whether or not to grant the WHO additional powers has become a partisan issue, with Democrats generally supporting the plan and Republicans generally opposing it.
GOP Senators Demand Right to Approve Treaty
On May 1, all 49 GOP senators signed a letter to President Biden urging him either not to sign the WHO Pandemic Agreement and IHR amendments or, if he does, to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, as required by the Constitution. Senate Democrats have thus far not supported efforts to require Senate approval for the treaty.
“The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country,” the Republican senators wrote.
“The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic functions and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations or any new pandemic related treaty that would increase WHO authority,” they continued. “We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.”
In the United States, the authority to deal with health issues is largely in the domain of states and outside the grasp of the federal government. States with Republican majorities have been active in opposing the WHO agreements.
Louisiana and Florida recently passed laws stating that state officials will not obey WHO directives, and other states, such as Oklahoma, are considering similar legislation.
Attorneys general from 22 U.S. states also signed a May 8 letter to President Biden urging him not to sign the WHO agreements and stating that they will resist any attempts by the WHO to set public health policy in their states.
“Although the latest iteration is far better than previous versions, it’s still highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote. “The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return. Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health,” they stated.
“It’s to cede authority to the WHO—specifically its director-general—to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders), and informed consent.”
After watching the WHO be the lap dog of China during the COVID scare they can pound sand without water for a few weeks for all I care https://lists.theepochtimes.com/links/q2Dn13Cb8/sPLsIDpr1R/aa2an41Ga/TfIGNoX9FpV
RE: Saying no to W.H.O. ? - xuenchen - 05-26-2024
Communist Tedros = Communist Turdros
RE: Saying no to W.H.O. ? - Ninurta - 05-27-2024
Quote:On March 20, WHO ambassador and Britain’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the efforts of a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” that have come to the WHO’s defense.
I don't much care for the way Mr. Brown worded that - "pantheon" is from Greek, and literally means "all gods" ("pan-" = "all" and "theon" = "gods"). Those bastards are definitely not gods... I ain't even sure they rise to the level of "men"!
Fact is, the US Constitution REQUIRES that any international treaties signed by the US MUST be passed through the Senate for confirmation, else they are null and void, of no effect, and not legally binding. Lately there has been a disturbing trend of not putting international treaties to a Senate vote for confirmation or refutation, and so many of them have no legal standing in the US... yet they just keep signing them, hoping no one will notice.
I will not comply with any illegal "laws". Never have, never will. They can kiss my rosy red ass - I'M not the one that signed their stupid treaty, so it doesn't bind me in any way.
Back during the Indian Wars, a few chiefs would get together and sign a treaty with the US, and promptly get told to fuck off by other tribal members, who used the same rationale - THEY didn't sing the treaty, so it didn't apply to them. That treaty was someone else's promise, not theirs, and they'd be damned if they would keep promises they never made. Same here. I think a lot of that got precipitated by chiefs of foreign tribes trying to make promises on behalf of tribes they had nothing to do with - for example, the way the Iroquois and Cherokees had a habit of selling or giving up lands that were not theirs to give up, but belonged to other tribes. In any event, "treaties" came to be seen as not worth the parchments they were written on.
And they still aren't.
.
|