Better! But I suggest that the first time you use the acronym, WHO, you just spell it out. That’s because too many people are just totally ignorant of this issue.
I would prefer that we stop using the acronym "WHO" altogether and start using "World Health Organization" and then start mocking the name of the organization by calling it some other name, for instance: "World Stealth Organization" or worse, like: "World Health Decimation Organization", or "World Health Destruction Organization".
And I would advise always prefixing it with 'unelected and unaccountable', thus appealing to the Left / Democrats who value democracy but maybe don't realise it's being taken from them.
This is why France has already passed a law criminalizing criticism of the country's medical policies, to the tune of 45,000 euros and one to three years in prison. And Canada is on the verge of passing a hate speech law, that in all probability will encompass any criticism of the government as hate speech, to the tune of life imprisonment. Gulag, anyone?
That is similar to the "lazy reader" one they did in Germany. They made two versions, the simple one with about 10 sentences that could be read in 2 minutes but with a QR code on the bottom. The more detailed & complicated one was a fold-able flyer with 4 small pages of info always with a QR code for quick access to the website where thorough info could be found.
I've been wanting to switch over. What's the best 3G or 4G (((((NOT 5G!))))) flip phone that is reasonably priced? BTW, remind me of why they're better--I have short-term memory problems--don't they attract just as much cell signals, or do they primarily (or only) use internet calling? Also, it makes me think that if they are better than "smart" phones, the PsTB and the manufacturers will purposely make them just as bad, like only 5(or6+)G flip phones.
I can't definitively answer your question, because I was already using a Consumer Cellular 3G flip phone when I was forced to either switch to 4G or 5G, because 3G was being discontinued. I chose to stay with Consumer Cellular but had to get a new 4G flip phone. I would not go to 5G because it is more dangerous to one's health. I also had no desire to get a smart phone, because they are much more expensive; and, from my experience, I really don't need internet access via a phone, except for maybe once every month or so when I'm shopping; and, there are always plenty of smart phone users more than willing to use their smart phone to quickly answer my question <g>. Plus, for an additional $10 per month, plus the cost of what's called a "home phone base", I can have a separate phone number for all of my original land line phones in my home and there are no additional charges beside the one time cost for the home phone base, which I can either purchase online used, or from Consumer Cellular ($89).
"...Ain't that the way they say it goes. Forget all that and give me the number so I can call her, just to tell her I'm fine. And to show, I've overcome the blow (breakup). I've learned to take it well... But that's not the way it feels...". (Jim Croce; yet I may not have some of it completely correct.)
I guess I'll go down to Metro by T-Mobile and see if I can exchange my used $200.00 smart phone from them, for a flip phone; or, if not, if I can just purchase a flip phone for a decent price.
What about burner phones? Can one only get burner flip phones with pay-as-you-go? I don't know anything about them. Can one not transfer their cellphone number to them, or can one?
:o) That great song popped in my head as soon as I read your previous comment (perhaps I was hearing it from all of the cell and wireless radar microwave signals flying all around us and frying us from the inside out?).
On flip phones, I keep hearing that they're healthier (or as safer as anything that can't be completely safe can be), if for no other reason(s) than that they're less surveilled? Or there's less that they're being used for to surveil. True or not? At least I turn much of it off at night. I don't turn the cellphones off though, which I should, but they're about twenty to twenty-five feet away from where I sleep. I turn the Alternating Current in the front of my apartment, and the wireless, off completely, and put the tablet right near me in Airplane Mode, shutting of wireless receival (unless it's not really shut off).
You know what I probably shouldn't consider odd at all, but which I do in a sense? I am able to get a "decent" hotspot in my fourth floor apartment with comcast/xfinity, with my modem turned off. Where are my devices getting the signal from, from the repeaters that I've noticed my apartment management has on the ceiling of every floor, likely for the many cameras in the building (that the tenants are not supposed to have any direct access to), or from an adjacent tenant's modem? Or are the devices getting the signal from cell signals, aka "data", even though the devices don't have SIM cards (unless they're secretly put in all the "smart" devices now---like I've heard hidden cameras and/or microphones are put in computers, particularly laptops. I mean, why wouldn't they put SIM chips in everything? I'm sure that's one of their goals; although, with their seeking to as rapidly as probable exterminate most of humanity from the face of the globe, I don't know why they're bothering to monitor everything we do, except to prevent us from stopping their absolute despotism, aka tyranny, takeover/takedown. But, if we don't stop it, we're frakked.
The thing is, think about it, if I can get a hotspot in my apartment, the apartments are being bathed in wireless whether I have the other things turned completely off or not (although, obviously, it IS better that I have the other things turned off at night while I'm sleeping, and when our immune systems are seeking to restore themselves). On the plus side, the hotspot signal is not "all-bars", which I'm glad for (though it's still strong enough to stream 4k, which is a bad sign):
"...Born under a bad sign...". Can't think of the rest of it. Who did that song, the great band, Steppenworf? Yeah, it was, wasn't it? Or was it The Doors? [BTW, I know I can look things up, but I don't like to do it---I still do so often enough, so I keep it to a minimum usually (everything we do, and/or look up, will be used against us, "perceived threatening conduct" under the oxymoronic "U.S.A. {Un}P.A.T.R.I.O.T.{ic} Act").] (I just looked it up, and I was way off, as it was Albert King, and Cream {Eric Clapton, et al.}, who did that song. And Albert King & Stevie Ray Vaughn performed it together, too. Among others.)
Recently, James O'Keefe of O'Keefe Media Group, was promoting a mobile phone that cannot track or trace you. It is from a company called Unplugged (www.unplugged.com). I don't know anything more about it, but may be worth checking out.
Also, I was "reading-deeper" into that website, and the phone is manufactured in Indonesia, a totalitarian Muslim country. Does anybody with any true sense want to trust that?! Me thinks not, Mademoiselle. That's as bad as China, for God's sake!!
The plant that makes them is probably owned by the U.S. government and/or a globalist oligarch(y). We truly can't trust much of anything, and almost anyone, anymore; if we ever should have been. God help us, 'cause we're gonna need it.
Thank you! It sounds too good to be true though, and it makes me wonder if it may or may not be an "al CIAduh(!)" front company; and, even if it is legit, the gub'ment would either shut them down, buy it up and make it the opposite, or quickly find a way to hack their devices (likely already can). But $949.00 dollars?! Seriously?!
Frak that!! Sincerely, though, thank you anyway, Debra. Get rid of cellphones.
You think I'm going to trust that "kazillionaire" with anything?! If he wasn't part of the globalist oligarchy as controlled "opposition", he wouldn't still be around.
Also, I just read yesterday how he supports a satellite panopticon (absolute) surveillance system, and is bringing it about. And yet he's supposedly for free speech?? Uh huh, and I've got some swampland in California to sell you. In other words, he's okay with with everyone being completely mass-surveilled everywhere they go, 24/7, so his so-called support for freedom of speech, without censorship, just doesn't jibe with the "Big Brother" absolute surveillance. Thus, the latter is a bunch of bullshit, typical "look over here, not over there" misdirection, and makes it abundantly clear that Musk is nothing but a fraud. How many people has he truly pulled out of poverty? How many people has he truly sacrificed a significant portion of his riches to save from poverty? I don't see him truly "Good Samariting" and not "Bad Samariting" (passing the poor by and not helping them much if at all) much of anywhere, if anywhere. If he truly stood for the good that he often claims he "does", he would give away most of his riches. That's what Jesus the Messiah called Nicodemus to do, which the latter did. So, what is all this willfully-ignorant (not just from you, "Turaluralura"), misplaced liking of this guy, and what's with much of society being enamored with narcissistic, self-centered, selfish rich people like him?? He's soldout to the world, making him, according to the Word(s) of God in James 4:4, an enemy of God, so what are we doing liking any enemies of God?! Doing so simply doesn't make any sane sense, at all.
I think this is exactly the level you want to hit. Well done. A few specifics:
I agree with David Bundrick about spelling out WHO.
Avoid the use of Dictator. It's too argumentative, too early in the document. Move it to second place.
Replacement text: "The WHO Director-General (who isn't a physician) would decide which treatments you will get, which you will be prevented from getting, and what information you and your doctor will be allowed to see."
Put quotes around "human rights." change "in" to "from."
I wasn't a fan of the two graphics in the heading of the previous draft: They made it too cluttered.
Be sure to include the web addresses of the two organizations.
I hope this flyer will educate people far and wide.
We are not just ANY nation. We are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, each state is sovereign and we do not have to allow the former terrorist Tedros, to tell us what we can or cannot do. We are a free nation, not Biden’s slaves.
Jacquie - See my reply to KB above. I think that's why people are not worried much about this issue. If 2/3 of the Senate sign it, we have to abide by it.
MUCH BETTER than the first rendition - EXCELLENT improvements.
But: "7. The WHO removed human rights in the International Health Regulations amendments. The WHO thinks our basic human rights are negotiable!"
I think you are being way too kind here. I do not think The WHO gives a damn about our rights whatsoever and instead feels they do not exist and that those individuals and groups that hold the power (such as The WHO) can dictate to the people of the world as they so choose. Remember, The WHO 'one health' approach puts wild animals and plants on the same plane as humans.
Re: Last sentence, I disagree with. Globalists view us as insects, not humans. I do agree with lines 4 and 5. They have no desire to negotiate anything with us; they just want to dictate.
Could replace the second sentence with a question to promote thinking: "The WHO removed human rights in the International Health Regulations amendments. What does that tell you about how much you can trust them with your welfare?"
"Our Mission is to bring awareness of the W.H.O.’s pandemic treaties and to get them rejected by Australia. Our Mission is to have both of these documents rejected by March 2025.
We understand that the next election may be as early as August 2024 or March 2025. Whatever the month, we have until May 2025 to get the W.H.O. treaties rejected by March 2025.":
If your country ratifies and joins the pandemic treaty, you have a minimum two years or three years before you can get out according to the treaty draft. However, a new government can simply say we’re out of here.
Dr. Nass - That's good to hear! Our US, Inc. is bankrupt, and we'll be getting our Republic restored from the Crown & the Rothschild bankers via the Act of 1871 (a secret deal was made by them and our Congress, which was really a fraud on the American people). If we can get Trump voted in instead of Biden, or whoever the Dem candidate will be, we'll finally get our Republic & our original Constitution in play. And even if the corrupt leaders sign the treaty, the new government will be in place.
Remember Robert F Kennedy Jr running as an Independent. He intends to drain the swamp of the 3-letter agencies. I've no doubt he is far more clued up on the need for that and how to do it than Trump.
I like this version a lot better for people who don't know anything about it. Only thing, I would emphasize earlier in the document and vehemently, that individual countries must comply and this "treaty" will override their rights to rely on with their own constitutions.
7) restrict information available to you and physicians
8) surveil online activities and censor disagreement with WHO narratives
The WHO plans to achieve this through ...
1) a Pandemic Treaty voted on this May by its 194 member states including the
United States
2) Amendments to International Health Regulations voted on this May by these parties.
(These Amendments are being negotiated in secret and might not be
revealed until after ratification. Why?)
The Amendments will go into effect for countries that ratify them by the end of May, 2025.
The Treaty will go into effect for countries that ratify it as early as July, 2024. The Treaty gives the WHO free reign to create rules for "pandemic preparedness." The WHO's current budget is $3.6 billion per year. It projects funding of $31 billion per year for its future bureaucracy.
The WHO is building a biowarfare agent library that requires member nations to share "potential pandemic pathogens" (biological warfare agents), decode their genomes and place their sequences online in public databases--virtually guaranteeing lab escapes and future pandemics.
This agenda attacks the U.S. Constitution, our national sovereignty, and our individual autonomies.
Click these links to Door to Freedom and the Sovereignty Coalition for actions to take and more info: xxxxx and xxxxx
Brought to you by Dr. Meryl Nass [titles and qualifications]
Put in a link to the group that has more info... Talk about who is funding who..and US relationship to WHO, explaining why the US would acquise to WHO and why it would be legally binding on US citizens... maybe overlap with this new anti-tik tok bill that gives the president of the US all sorts of power.
I like it but think you need to be even more direct about how it will destroy our Constitution-it isn't just a "massive attack." Basically our God given rights will be completely gone, if I understand this WHO stuff correctly.
I believe that people aren't as worried as they should be about the Treaty b/c they think our Constitution would "trump" a treaty. Under the Supremacy Clause, treaties and federal statutes are regarded equally as "supreme law of the land" with "no superior efficacy... given to either over the other". So if 2/3 of Senate sign the WHO's Treaty, we're giving up our ability to "trump" it. This needs to be ironed out.
We created a poster to prove it near the bottom of the home page--but this is a complicated legal discussion that does not fit on one size of a handout
I edited my comment and added the Supremacy Clause. So, if 2/3 of the Senate agree to sign it, then we have basically stated that we ARE placing the WHO's treaty above our Constitution, and thus have to abide by it.
¨In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.
Under the United States Constitution, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution.” The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution. However, let’s delve into this topic a bit more.
The treaty-making power is outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It grants the President the authority, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties. For a treaty to be valid, two-thirds of the Senators present must concur. Additionally, the President can nominate and appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, subject to Senate approval.
While treaties can preempt contradictory state laws and supplant earlier-in-time federal legislation, their power is not so broad as to override the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated in dicta (legal commentary) that treaties may not alter the Constitution or authorize acts that the Constitution expressly prohibits. Although the Court has never invalidated a treaty itself on constitutional grounds, it has held that courts may not give treaties domestic effect in a way that interferes with individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
For example:
In Boos v. Berry, the Court ruled that a treaty-based obligation to protect foreign embassies did not authorize Congress to enact legislation that infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In Reid v. Covert, the Court determined that the United States could not rely on international agreements as authority to conduct criminal proceedings that did not comply with the grand-jury and jury-trial guarantees in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.¨
I was replying that I edited my comment and added the Supremacy Clause as you were writing. LOL. You must be a lawyer or a law clerk. Given what you've written, then we should have no worry that 2/3 of Senate will sign the WHO's treaty b/c the tenets of their treaty certainly does usurp our freedom and sovereignty. Having said that, I do not trust many of our corrupt leaders, and they still may get 2/3 to sign it. That means We-the-People are screwed.
Write to your Senators and tell them with explanation that the WHO treaty is against the United States Constitution. Everybody should do the same.
You may add this quote :
¨“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.” - William Wilberforce
¨William Wilberforce was an MP, a committed Christian and a vanguard in the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. He campaigned all his life, despite opposition and ill health and championed reform in many areas of society. He was founder of the Church Mission Society and what would later come to be known as the RSPCA.¨ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/191362.William_Wilberforce
Mario, I edited comment, but added the Supremacy Clause Sec 2 Art 2. It seems to me that if 2/3 of Senate sign it, then we have agreed to its tenets. And the tenets certainly do seem to throw out our sovereignty. Dr. Nass says it's complicated and it's addressed on one of the other pages, but if people think our sovereignty will "trump" the WHO's tenets, they're wrong.
¨While treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.
Under the United States Constitution, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution.” The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution. However, let’s delve into this topic a bit more.
The treaty-making power is outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It grants the President the authority, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties. For a treaty to be valid, two-thirds of the Senators present must concur. Additionally, the President can nominate and appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, subject to Senate approval.
While treaties can preempt contradictory state laws and supplant earlier-in-time federal legislation, their power is not so broad as to override the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated in dicta (legal commentary) that treaties may not alter the Constitution or authorize acts that the Constitution expressly prohibits. Although the Court has never invalidated a treaty itself on constitutional grounds, it has held that courts may not give treaties domestic effect in a way that interferes with individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
For example:
In Boos v. Berry, the Court ruled that a treaty-based obligation to protect foreign embassies did not authorize Congress to enact legislation that infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In Reid v. Covert, the Court determined that the United States could not rely on international agreements as authority to conduct criminal proceedings that did not comply with the grand-jury and jury-trial guarantees in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.¨
Better! But I suggest that the first time you use the acronym, WHO, you just spell it out. That’s because too many people are just totally ignorant of this issue.
I would prefer that we stop using the acronym "WHO" altogether and start using "World Health Organization" and then start mocking the name of the organization by calling it some other name, for instance: "World Stealth Organization" or worse, like: "World Health Decimation Organization", or "World Health Destruction Organization".
I like the World Stealth Organization - works for me!
World Hell Organ ?
World Hell(th) Organization
World HOMICIDE Organization (@wideawake_media) had t-shirts with this
GREAT IDEA
World Harm Organization ...
WHO?!?!?!
And I would advise always prefixing it with 'unelected and unaccountable', thus appealing to the Left / Democrats who value democracy but maybe don't realise it's being taken from them.
Agree
This is why France has already passed a law criminalizing criticism of the country's medical policies, to the tune of 45,000 euros and one to three years in prison. And Canada is on the verge of passing a hate speech law, that in all probability will encompass any criticism of the government as hate speech, to the tune of life imprisonment. Gulag, anyone?
It is not done yet in France but indeed, they want to do that.
That is similar to the "lazy reader" one they did in Germany. They made two versions, the simple one with about 10 sentences that could be read in 2 minutes but with a QR code on the bottom. The more detailed & complicated one was a fold-able flyer with 4 small pages of info always with a QR code for quick access to the website where thorough info could be found.
Remember there are a lot of us still using flip phones, who don't give a damn about smart phones and QR codes. (-:
I've been wanting to switch over. What's the best 3G or 4G (((((NOT 5G!))))) flip phone that is reasonably priced? BTW, remind me of why they're better--I have short-term memory problems--don't they attract just as much cell signals, or do they primarily (or only) use internet calling? Also, it makes me think that if they are better than "smart" phones, the PsTB and the manufacturers will purposely make them just as bad, like only 5(or6+)G flip phones.
I can't definitively answer your question, because I was already using a Consumer Cellular 3G flip phone when I was forced to either switch to 4G or 5G, because 3G was being discontinued. I chose to stay with Consumer Cellular but had to get a new 4G flip phone. I would not go to 5G because it is more dangerous to one's health. I also had no desire to get a smart phone, because they are much more expensive; and, from my experience, I really don't need internet access via a phone, except for maybe once every month or so when I'm shopping; and, there are always plenty of smart phone users more than willing to use their smart phone to quickly answer my question <g>. Plus, for an additional $10 per month, plus the cost of what's called a "home phone base", I can have a separate phone number for all of my original land line phones in my home and there are no additional charges beside the one time cost for the home phone base, which I can either purchase online used, or from Consumer Cellular ($89).
"...Ain't that the way they say it goes. Forget all that and give me the number so I can call her, just to tell her I'm fine. And to show, I've overcome the blow (breakup). I've learned to take it well... But that's not the way it feels...". (Jim Croce; yet I may not have some of it completely correct.)
I guess I'll go down to Metro by T-Mobile and see if I can exchange my used $200.00 smart phone from them, for a flip phone; or, if not, if I can just purchase a flip phone for a decent price.
What about burner phones? Can one only get burner flip phones with pay-as-you-go? I don't know anything about them. Can one not transfer their cellphone number to them, or can one?
Good song. You should be able to check those lyrics on your smart phone. <g>
Why do you want to change to a flip phone?
:o) That great song popped in my head as soon as I read your previous comment (perhaps I was hearing it from all of the cell and wireless radar microwave signals flying all around us and frying us from the inside out?).
On flip phones, I keep hearing that they're healthier (or as safer as anything that can't be completely safe can be), if for no other reason(s) than that they're less surveilled? Or there's less that they're being used for to surveil. True or not? At least I turn much of it off at night. I don't turn the cellphones off though, which I should, but they're about twenty to twenty-five feet away from where I sleep. I turn the Alternating Current in the front of my apartment, and the wireless, off completely, and put the tablet right near me in Airplane Mode, shutting of wireless receival (unless it's not really shut off).
You know what I probably shouldn't consider odd at all, but which I do in a sense? I am able to get a "decent" hotspot in my fourth floor apartment with comcast/xfinity, with my modem turned off. Where are my devices getting the signal from, from the repeaters that I've noticed my apartment management has on the ceiling of every floor, likely for the many cameras in the building (that the tenants are not supposed to have any direct access to), or from an adjacent tenant's modem? Or are the devices getting the signal from cell signals, aka "data", even though the devices don't have SIM cards (unless they're secretly put in all the "smart" devices now---like I've heard hidden cameras and/or microphones are put in computers, particularly laptops. I mean, why wouldn't they put SIM chips in everything? I'm sure that's one of their goals; although, with their seeking to as rapidly as probable exterminate most of humanity from the face of the globe, I don't know why they're bothering to monitor everything we do, except to prevent us from stopping their absolute despotism, aka tyranny, takeover/takedown. But, if we don't stop it, we're frakked.
The thing is, think about it, if I can get a hotspot in my apartment, the apartments are being bathed in wireless whether I have the other things turned completely off or not (although, obviously, it IS better that I have the other things turned off at night while I'm sleeping, and when our immune systems are seeking to restore themselves). On the plus side, the hotspot signal is not "all-bars", which I'm glad for (though it's still strong enough to stream 4k, which is a bad sign):
"...Born under a bad sign...". Can't think of the rest of it. Who did that song, the great band, Steppenworf? Yeah, it was, wasn't it? Or was it The Doors? [BTW, I know I can look things up, but I don't like to do it---I still do so often enough, so I keep it to a minimum usually (everything we do, and/or look up, will be used against us, "perceived threatening conduct" under the oxymoronic "U.S.A. {Un}P.A.T.R.I.O.T.{ic} Act").] (I just looked it up, and I was way off, as it was Albert King, and Cream {Eric Clapton, et al.}, who did that song. And Albert King & Stevie Ray Vaughn performed it together, too. Among others.)
Cheers!!
Recently, James O'Keefe of O'Keefe Media Group, was promoting a mobile phone that cannot track or trace you. It is from a company called Unplugged (www.unplugged.com). I don't know anything more about it, but may be worth checking out.
Also, I was "reading-deeper" into that website, and the phone is manufactured in Indonesia, a totalitarian Muslim country. Does anybody with any true sense want to trust that?! Me thinks not, Mademoiselle. That's as bad as China, for God's sake!!
The plant that makes them is probably owned by the U.S. government and/or a globalist oligarch(y). We truly can't trust much of anything, and almost anyone, anymore; if we ever should have been. God help us, 'cause we're gonna need it.
Agreed. Glad you did some research. Not sure why James O'Keefe would promote it.
Thank you! It sounds too good to be true though, and it makes me wonder if it may or may not be an "al CIAduh(!)" front company; and, even if it is legit, the gub'ment would either shut them down, buy it up and make it the opposite, or quickly find a way to hack their devices (likely already can). But $949.00 dollars?! Seriously?!
Frak that!! Sincerely, though, thank you anyway, Debra. Get rid of cellphones.
Elon Musk is in beta testing of cell phones through TMobile (not discounting politics involved but might also be worth research)
You think I'm going to trust that "kazillionaire" with anything?! If he wasn't part of the globalist oligarchy as controlled "opposition", he wouldn't still be around.
Also, I just read yesterday how he supports a satellite panopticon (absolute) surveillance system, and is bringing it about. And yet he's supposedly for free speech?? Uh huh, and I've got some swampland in California to sell you. In other words, he's okay with with everyone being completely mass-surveilled everywhere they go, 24/7, so his so-called support for freedom of speech, without censorship, just doesn't jibe with the "Big Brother" absolute surveillance. Thus, the latter is a bunch of bullshit, typical "look over here, not over there" misdirection, and makes it abundantly clear that Musk is nothing but a fraud. How many people has he truly pulled out of poverty? How many people has he truly sacrificed a significant portion of his riches to save from poverty? I don't see him truly "Good Samariting" and not "Bad Samariting" (passing the poor by and not helping them much if at all) much of anywhere, if anywhere. If he truly stood for the good that he often claims he "does", he would give away most of his riches. That's what Jesus the Messiah called Nicodemus to do, which the latter did. So, what is all this willfully-ignorant (not just from you, "Turaluralura"), misplaced liking of this guy, and what's with much of society being enamored with narcissistic, self-centered, selfish rich people like him?? He's soldout to the world, making him, according to the Word(s) of God in James 4:4, an enemy of God, so what are we doing liking any enemies of God?! Doing so simply doesn't make any sane sense, at all.
They are both good Meryl. Do not discard the first one.
I think this is exactly the level you want to hit. Well done. A few specifics:
I agree with David Bundrick about spelling out WHO.
Avoid the use of Dictator. It's too argumentative, too early in the document. Move it to second place.
Replacement text: "The WHO Director-General (who isn't a physician) would decide which treatments you will get, which you will be prevented from getting, and what information you and your doctor will be allowed to see."
Put quotes around "human rights." change "in" to "from."
I wasn't a fan of the two graphics in the heading of the previous draft: They made it too cluttered.
Be sure to include the web addresses of the two organizations.
I hope this flyer will educate people far and wide.
We are not just ANY nation. We are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, each state is sovereign and we do not have to allow the former terrorist Tedros, to tell us what we can or cannot do. We are a free nation, not Biden’s slaves.
Jacquie - See my reply to KB above. I think that's why people are not worried much about this issue. If 2/3 of the Senate sign it, we have to abide by it.
MUCH BETTER than the first rendition - EXCELLENT improvements.
But: "7. The WHO removed human rights in the International Health Regulations amendments. The WHO thinks our basic human rights are negotiable!"
I think you are being way too kind here. I do not think The WHO gives a damn about our rights whatsoever and instead feels they do not exist and that those individuals and groups that hold the power (such as The WHO) can dictate to the people of the world as they so choose. Remember, The WHO 'one health' approach puts wild animals and plants on the same plane as humans.
Re: Last sentence, I disagree with. Globalists view us as insects, not humans. I do agree with lines 4 and 5. They have no desire to negotiate anything with us; they just want to dictate.
Could replace the second sentence with a question to promote thinking: "The WHO removed human rights in the International Health Regulations amendments. What does that tell you about how much you can trust them with your welfare?"
"Our Mission is to bring awareness of the W.H.O.’s pandemic treaties and to get them rejected by Australia. Our Mission is to have both of these documents rejected by March 2025.
We understand that the next election may be as early as August 2024 or March 2025. Whatever the month, we have until May 2025 to get the W.H.O. treaties rejected by March 2025.":
https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/the-aligned-council-of-australia?
https://youtu.be/e_38iPdiPaY
If your country ratifies and joins the pandemic treaty, you have a minimum two years or three years before you can get out according to the treaty draft. However, a new government can simply say we’re out of here.
Dr. Nass - That's good to hear! Our US, Inc. is bankrupt, and we'll be getting our Republic restored from the Crown & the Rothschild bankers via the Act of 1871 (a secret deal was made by them and our Congress, which was really a fraud on the American people). If we can get Trump voted in instead of Biden, or whoever the Dem candidate will be, we'll finally get our Republic & our original Constitution in play. And even if the corrupt leaders sign the treaty, the new government will be in place.
Remember Robert F Kennedy Jr running as an Independent. He intends to drain the swamp of the 3-letter agencies. I've no doubt he is far more clued up on the need for that and how to do it than Trump.
I am thankful for your response.
- Luc
I like this version a lot better for people who don't know anything about it. Only thing, I would emphasize earlier in the document and vehemently, that individual countries must comply and this "treaty" will override their rights to rely on with their own constitutions.
This is cool because it passes the zero attention span test, I got the message scrolling thru without having to read every word. Or any of the words.
If we had time to read maybe we wouldnt be in this messy pickled messy
We're inundated with handouts. I immediately want to know the issue, action expected, and the source of the handout. Okay, if I may:
CITIZENS ALERT!! By July of this year, the World Health Organization (the WHO) may dictate health care in America. The WHO seeks power to ...
1) legalize liability-free, experimental, unlicensed vaccines
2) impose vaccine mandates
3) impose quarantines
4) impose lockdowns
5) impose border closures
6) restrict treatments
7) restrict information available to you and physicians
8) surveil online activities and censor disagreement with WHO narratives
The WHO plans to achieve this through ...
1) a Pandemic Treaty voted on this May by its 194 member states including the
United States
2) Amendments to International Health Regulations voted on this May by these parties.
(These Amendments are being negotiated in secret and might not be
revealed until after ratification. Why?)
The Amendments will go into effect for countries that ratify them by the end of May, 2025.
The Treaty will go into effect for countries that ratify it as early as July, 2024. The Treaty gives the WHO free reign to create rules for "pandemic preparedness." The WHO's current budget is $3.6 billion per year. It projects funding of $31 billion per year for its future bureaucracy.
The WHO is building a biowarfare agent library that requires member nations to share "potential pandemic pathogens" (biological warfare agents), decode their genomes and place their sequences online in public databases--virtually guaranteeing lab escapes and future pandemics.
This agenda attacks the U.S. Constitution, our national sovereignty, and our individual autonomies.
Click these links to Door to Freedom and the Sovereignty Coalition for actions to take and more info: xxxxx and xxxxx
Brought to you by Dr. Meryl Nass [titles and qualifications]
BOOM! Straight to the point, clear and incredibly succinct!
Thanks. Comes with a jaundiced eye gone gimlet from hours of reading proposals, lol.
Put in a link to the group that has more info... Talk about who is funding who..and US relationship to WHO, explaining why the US would acquise to WHO and why it would be legally binding on US citizens... maybe overlap with this new anti-tik tok bill that gives the president of the US all sorts of power.
I like it but think you need to be even more direct about how it will destroy our Constitution-it isn't just a "massive attack." Basically our God given rights will be completely gone, if I understand this WHO stuff correctly.
I believe that people aren't as worried as they should be about the Treaty b/c they think our Constitution would "trump" a treaty. Under the Supremacy Clause, treaties and federal statutes are regarded equally as "supreme law of the land" with "no superior efficacy... given to either over the other". So if 2/3 of Senate sign the WHO's Treaty, we're giving up our ability to "trump" it. This needs to be ironed out.
We created a poster to prove it near the bottom of the home page--but this is a complicated legal discussion that does not fit on one size of a handout
I edited my comment and added the Supremacy Clause. So, if 2/3 of the Senate agree to sign it, then we have basically stated that we ARE placing the WHO's treaty above our Constitution, and thus have to abide by it.
No.
¨In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.
Under the United States Constitution, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution.” The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution. However, let’s delve into this topic a bit more.
The treaty-making power is outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It grants the President the authority, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties. For a treaty to be valid, two-thirds of the Senators present must concur. Additionally, the President can nominate and appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, subject to Senate approval.
While treaties can preempt contradictory state laws and supplant earlier-in-time federal legislation, their power is not so broad as to override the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated in dicta (legal commentary) that treaties may not alter the Constitution or authorize acts that the Constitution expressly prohibits. Although the Court has never invalidated a treaty itself on constitutional grounds, it has held that courts may not give treaties domestic effect in a way that interferes with individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
For example:
In Boos v. Berry, the Court ruled that a treaty-based obligation to protect foreign embassies did not authorize Congress to enact legislation that infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In Reid v. Covert, the Court determined that the United States could not rely on international agreements as authority to conduct criminal proceedings that did not comply with the grand-jury and jury-trial guarantees in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.¨
I was replying that I edited my comment and added the Supremacy Clause as you were writing. LOL. You must be a lawyer or a law clerk. Given what you've written, then we should have no worry that 2/3 of Senate will sign the WHO's treaty b/c the tenets of their treaty certainly does usurp our freedom and sovereignty. Having said that, I do not trust many of our corrupt leaders, and they still may get 2/3 to sign it. That means We-the-People are screwed.
Write to your Senators and tell them with explanation that the WHO treaty is against the United States Constitution. Everybody should do the same.
You may add this quote :
¨“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.” - William Wilberforce
¨William Wilberforce was an MP, a committed Christian and a vanguard in the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. He campaigned all his life, despite opposition and ill health and championed reform in many areas of society. He was founder of the Church Mission Society and what would later come to be known as the RSPCA.¨ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/191362.William_Wilberforce
Bonnie - Where do you see in the United States Constitution that ¨Treaty takes 1st place over the Constitution?¨ I doubt that is the case.
Mario, I edited comment, but added the Supremacy Clause Sec 2 Art 2. It seems to me that if 2/3 of Senate sign it, then we have agreed to its tenets. And the tenets certainly do seem to throw out our sovereignty. Dr. Nass says it's complicated and it's addressed on one of the other pages, but if people think our sovereignty will "trump" the WHO's tenets, they're wrong.
NO. Do your own research Bonnie. :
¨While treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.
Under the United States Constitution, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution.” The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution. However, let’s delve into this topic a bit more.
The treaty-making power is outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. It grants the President the authority, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties. For a treaty to be valid, two-thirds of the Senators present must concur. Additionally, the President can nominate and appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, subject to Senate approval.
While treaties can preempt contradictory state laws and supplant earlier-in-time federal legislation, their power is not so broad as to override the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated in dicta (legal commentary) that treaties may not alter the Constitution or authorize acts that the Constitution expressly prohibits. Although the Court has never invalidated a treaty itself on constitutional grounds, it has held that courts may not give treaties domestic effect in a way that interferes with individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
For example:
In Boos v. Berry, the Court ruled that a treaty-based obligation to protect foreign embassies did not authorize Congress to enact legislation that infringed on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In Reid v. Covert, the Court determined that the United States could not rely on international agreements as authority to conduct criminal proceedings that did not comply with the grand-jury and jury-trial guarantees in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In summary, while treaties play a significant role in international relations, they cannot alter the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution or override its protections for individual rights. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and treaties must operate within its bounds.¨
David Martin drills into the roots of the WHO and Treaty…
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/exposing-the-origins-of-the-who-and-dangers-of-the-new-global-treaty-facts-matter-5602985?&utm_medium=FactsMatter&utm_source=SocialM&utm_campaign=PandemicTreatyDystopia&utm_content=03-09-2024
Says it like it is, Dr David Martin is incredible and a hero for all of us
I saw the video. Martin is a walking encyclopedia! Saved it as: Great videos in my PC files.
Very nice. Clear and concise!
Excellent. Please tell us what else we can do.
We now have a take action button on the door to freedom website, and the sovereignty coalition also has a take action button both with things to do