Hidden Tyranny: The W.H.O. is NOT The Greatest Threat To American Sovereignty
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." (James Madison 1787).
By Summer Black, President & Director of Armor of Truth
Part 1: Ideas Have Consequences
Bill HR 1425 To Require Senate Ratification of WHO Pandemic Treaty
Since 2021, negotiators have worked feverishly, mostly sub-rosa, to drum up an unprecedented accord to address an imaginary future pathogen they call “Disease X.” Plying the people with fear to justify their existence, WHO officials say, “It’s not a matter of if, but when the next pandemic strikes.”
Vigorous and sustained outrage over this Machiavellian scheme has come from a significantly astute movement of WHO critics and sovereignty watchmen. However, there is some confusion about what would happen if the so-called “pandemic treaty” were ratified by the World Health Assembly.
UPDATE: Pandemic Treaty ‘Fails’ (for now).
May 24: The WHO announced on Friday that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) of 194 Member States failed to agree on a final draft of the pandemic treaty. Director-General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, "This is not a failure. We will try everything — believing that anything is possible — and make this happen because the world still needs a pandemic treaty."
May 27 - June1: The 77th World Health Assembly, the governing body of the WHO, meets in Geneva, Switzerland. Even though the pandemic agreement has failed to be drafted for this WHA, keep a close eye on this meeting.
It was revealed on Tuesday, the second day of the WHA, that, in violation of their own bylaws and regulations, negotiators (WGIHR) are still working for agreement on the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005). The goal, to push it through for ratification before the end of the WHA.
Do not assume that this is a victory. These Geneva-based agencies and organizations employ some of the most sophisticated and wily social engineers and propagandists the world has ever seen. They know how to make people feel things. It is impossible that they were not prepared for this contingency, and a designed failure as a pretext for some other goal (more funding, obfuscation, etc.) is plausible.
*A timeline of events from March 2020 to the present 77th WHA is available in the “Resources” section at the end of this article.
You’ve probably heard podcasters, bloggers, or even health experts present one or more conflicting assessments of the threat and various suggested responses. Some say the pandemic treaty directly threatens the United States' sovereignty. Others say that for the “pandemic treaty” to have any legal force, it must first be voted on by the United States Senate.
END OF AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: Biden Regime Negotiates “Legally Binding” Deal To Give Chinese-Backed W.H.O. Authority Over US Pandemic Policies – No Senate Approval Needed (The Gateway Pundit, February 19, 2023)
Dr. Meryl Nass has rightly assessed that the Senate does not have to vote on the pandemic accord. However, she has wrongly asserted that the President would have to “sign us onto the pandemic treaty.” No debates, votes, signatures, or otherwise are required by our government.
Dr. Nass is an M.D. Board Certified in Internal Medicine since 1986. She has been attacked by both the medical industry, its regulating bodies, and the media for taking the unpopular position that the COVID jabs were experimental and dangerous. Most of her advice, documentation, and website documentation to raise awareness are very helpful.
However, Dr Nass, and many others are advocating support for a bill that would require Senate ratification of the pandemic treaty/Convention if it were to be ratified by the WHA, saying that this bill will “save us” from the WHO and protect our sovereignty.
December 1, 2021: The World Health Assembly (WHA) established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft a pandemic agreement (or convention) on “pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.”
January 2023: The first draft of the agreement/convention, with broad and binding provisions, was sent to WHO member states and formally introduced on March 3.
March 7, 2023: H.R. 1425 (IH) - No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany introduces a bill to require Senate ratification of any “pandemic treaty” or agreements from the WHO.
The full text of HR 1425 is available here:
Congress.gov. "H.R.1425 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act." March 7, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1425.
In a recent interview with Michael Welch on Global Research.ca, Dr. Nass was asked to explain the pandemic accord's global impact. She said, “The WHO would transition to a governing body.” When asked to tell listeners what can be done to fight back. Dr. Nass said,
So we’ve had amazing victories in the U.S. So first off, 49 senators, every Republican senator has sent a letter to the president and co-sponsored a bill demanding that these treaties be put before the Senate for ratification.
https://sovereigntycoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WHO-letter-to-Biden-signed_5-1-24.pdf
Have you read this letter that 49 Senators sent to Joe Biden? They asked President Biden to shift his attention to “reform” the World Health Organization. This is a problem. Reforming the WHO is not a viable solution because the organization is fundamentally corrupt and has vacated its stated mission. At best “reforming” the WHO accomplishes nothing, at worst, and more likely, it would make a bad situation even worse, perhaps with a higher funded WHO with even more authority.
The 22 State Attorneys General who recently sent a similar letter to President Biden, stated the same thing, WHO was in need of “reform.”
This indicates either a gaping chasm in their grasp of the situation, or an unwillingness to go far enough to do what must be done to remove the influence of the WHO’s bad advice and nefarious plots from the lives of Americans.
Reform is not a solution. The WHO must be Abolished.
Dr. Nass explains that at least 50 House members have co-sponsored HR 1425 and only two more Senators are needed to “pass this law.” She said,
They have been signed off by the executive branch. So this would demand that [the pandemic agreement/Convention] go before the Senate [for ratification].And then we can kill these treaties, at least for the United States…
…It is absolutely necessary when we’re talking about transferring sovereignty, transferring governance to this unaccountable international organization.
Dr. Nass is a very popular and respected voice in this fight who can influence many people and we certainly appreciate anyone’s willingness to risk their career to stand publicly against globalist organizations that mean us harm. But there are severe problems with her assessment.
If the threat assessment is incomplete, the response to the threat will be insufficient and could do far more harm than good. Therefore, we must answer two crucial questions:
(1) Is Dr. Nass's threat assessment regarding the nature of the relationship between the United States and the WHO accurate?
…the treaties need to be ratified, even if the United States signs up to them, we can still have the Senate ratify.
This is simply incorrect. The US has a representative, Ambassador to the negotiating body, Pamela K. Hamamoto, negotiating the pandemic accord on behalf of The United States. The US is already involved in the negotiating process and if the accord/Convention is ratified at any time, it will require no further action by the US. FYI: Ms. Hamamoto has been working with The UN, The WHO and other Geneva-based international organizations for many years on sustainable development, climate change, surveillance, and LGBTQ “gender-affirming” issues.
Read for yourself this October 12, 2022 statement by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra:
By virtue of the United States’ original membership with the WHO, the goals of the WHO are the “shared goals” of the US, and the US has “committed cooperation” with these shared goals. (more on this below)
Additionally, we believe the sovereignty argument is a red herring. That is to say, it is a distraction from the trail of evidence that leads to the right solution. There are effectively no legal consequences for signatories who fail to adhere to it or violate its terms. That doesn’t mean it is not bad, its just bad in a different way.
Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response document, May 27, 2024. VIEW HERE
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_10-en.pdf
As we have just seen with the breaking news that the negotiators have failed to agree on the terms of the pandemic accord, we should remain vigilant, but not allow our focus to be locked onto the WHO negotiations at the expense of minding our own home. The draft will likely undergo many revisions over a multi-year process, if passed at all. Vigilance, yes. But we must keep our focus on the state of our own governments, especially our local governments.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." (Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address. January 27, 1838)
Dr. Nass is adamant that HR 1425 is the right course of action to ensure the sovereignty of the United States,
…It’s really critically important for our freedoms going forward… beg your reps to co-sponsor bill HR1425, Tom Tiffany’s bill, to require Senate ratification, and vote in favor.
Because if we can get this in front of the Senate for ratification, it dies and we are saved here in the United States.
(2) Is bill HR 1425 in our best interest?
We understand that bills like this are sometimes introduced as a way of gauging or demonstrating a swell of support among the people for an idea or desired change. But, if the goal is to protect the sovereignty of the United States, HR 1425 could very likely have the opposite effect by opening the door to the potential dilution of our sovereignty.
Rather than clarifying our sovereignty, if passed, the bill would confuse and fundamentally alter the nature of both the pandemic agreement and the US relationship with the WHO, effectively undermining US sovereignty by removing the intended flexibility and voluntary nature of our membership with the WHO.
Let’s take a deep dive into this and examine the ways bill HR 1425 endangers rather than protects our sovereignty.
Bill HR 1425 Does More Harm Than Good
To begin with, requiring Senate ratification for the WHO’s pandemic accord could fundamentally alter its legal scope and impact, setting up a far worse problem by:
Causing confusion about the legal status and obligations of such agreements
Inadvertently commiting the U.S. to mechanisms typically reserved for binding legal treaties
Adding a major bureaucratic burden to the process of international cooperation, slowing down otherwise beneficial initiatives
Establishing the same expectation for all future agreements
International organizations badly complicating foreign policy and international collaborations
Transforming policies of the WHO (the UN, or any other specialized agency) into de facto legally binding agreements
*Potentially undermining national sovereignty and legislative autonomy*
Senate ratification is the process typically reserved for binding treaties. The pandemic accord is NOT a legal treaty. It is a “non-binding agreement.”
Note: “non-binding” does not mean harmless. In fact, in many ways, non-binding agreements can give far more latitude for infiltrating the lives of citizens than binding agreements.
For example, the policies of Agenda 21, 2030, AKA the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, are non-binding agreements. They have been easily implemented in the U.S. at the level of local governments for over 30 years. The WHO is a specialized agency of the UN. Their goals are one and the same (more on this later).
What about those 49 Senators already supporting the bill?
Dr. Nass and her compatriots assume that a vote on ratification of the pandemic accord would go in their favor. That is in no way a guarantee.
The pharmaceutical and medical industries are among the largest lobbies in Washington, D.C. There is more than a good chance that most, if not all, of those 49 Senators supporting HR 1425 now are to some degree funded by the pharmaceutical and/or medical industry. This is most assuredly a major influence.
It costs these Senators nothing to support a bill when it exists as a resolution only. However, when the time comes to cast publicly recorded vote, influence from activists, media, and industry lobbies will be very persuasive, even coercive. Reps are not likely to be willing to end their careers in Washington by cutting their own funding by 10, 20, or 30%, or more. That is precisely what would happen if they were to offend their largest donors.
Even if HR 1425 was passed, it would most likely be transformed by additions and compromises into an unrecognizable law that could potentially end up giving the WHO legal authority it did not have before. That’s politics in Washington, D.C. and Big Pharma is a big player. That is the reality. But, that’s not the worst possible outcome.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." (George Washington. Farewell Address, September 19, 1796)
Worse yet, if such a bill were ratified (“legalized”) by the Senate, courts would have to view the pandemic agreement with more legal authority as it does fully binding legal treaties. Likewise, it could potentially subject American citizens to unforeseen international norms beyond US law, that are enforceable by international courts.
Guidelines could quickly become international legal disputes and obligations that the US had no intention to undertake. It could also exacerbate political divisions leading to greater domestic and international tensions.
Perhaps one of the worst consequences for requiring Senate ratification of WHO polices would be the complication of the withdrawal process. As it stands now, withdrawing from the WHO is a simple and straightforward process of notification and a one-year waiting period. In 2020, Donald Trump notified the WHO that the US would be withdrawing, and nothing more was required. If HR 1425 were ratified, withdrawal from the WHO would likely require a formal legislative action, including debates and navigating the influence of the lobbies in Washington, making withdrawal virtually impossible.
(Full citations that provide foundational support for our argument against HR 1425 are below in the resources section.)
WATCH (at 1 min. 20 sec. mark): Trump Withdraws US From The WHO
May 29, 2020: President Trump announced the US would withdraw from The WHO.
June 30, 2020: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally notified the UN the United States’ decision to withdraw from WHO, effective July 6, 2021.
January 20, 2021: As one of his first acts as president, Joe Biden retracted the notice of withdrawal from The WHO.
HR 79 The Bill To Exit and Defund The WHO
Several bills have been introduced at the state and federal levels aiming to protect America's sovereignty from potential WHO mandates. There is only one bill that addresses the WHO problem appropriately.
On January 9, 2023, Congressman Andy Biggs from the 5th District in Arizona submitted House Resolution 79 (The WHO Withdrawal Act). If the WHO were a disease, this bill would address the cure rather than masking the symptoms like so many other bills.
The proposed legislation in HR 79 is very simple. It would:
stop all United States funding of the World Health Organization
repeal the Act of June 14, 1948, that got the United States into the WHO
and begin the one-year process to enable the United States to Exit The WHO
Full text of House Resolution (HR) 79: The WHO Withdrawal Act can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/79/text.
What causes tyranny to imbed itself and begin to spread like rust on an old ship is citizens who’ve become fat, happy, lazy, incurious, uninterested barnacles.
YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT — until you’re not. Don’t let that happen. Find your representative now at ExitTheWHO.com and follow the two or three easy steps to send him or her a letter that tells them exactly what is at stake.
ExitTheWHO.com
Contact your United States Senators and demand that they take immediate action to get the United States OUT of the World Health Organization READ HERE
Scroll down to find your state. You will find your Senator, his or her contact info and a pre-written, cut-and-paste message informing them about HR 79 and explaining why the only viable action is to start withdrawing the United States from the WHO immediately.
This is the easiest form of resistance imaginable. James Roguski has fool-proofed the process of defending our freedoms. So, don't be “THAT GUY,” a complainer who talks about how bad everything is, always lamenting what’s gone wrong in the world while you do nothing.
If you are an American, by the Constitution’s directive and God’s command to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful world of darkness, but rather expose them,” it is your duty as a free man or free woman to inform your leaders on how to do their job properly.
They work for YOU! So, remind them of that fact.
It's your turn to defend America. And you don’t even have to load a weapon. Not yet, at least. So, don’t let it come to that because it just might. It’s time to speak out.
To move forward, the bill needs 218 co-sponsors.
As of May 22, 2024, we have 60 co-sponsors, so we need 158 more co-sponsors to make this happen.
218 – 60 = 158
There it is! Your objective is clear. That is something you can do right now to fight the NWO. It’s very simple. What will you do?
Because we really have a chance at thwarting this thing — this New World Order.
And when we’re successful — and we will be, we’ll withdraw from the WHO immediately.
We can — and We must.
PART 2: The Truth About The UN and The WHO
The Hidden Tyranny: Executive Agreement
A key feature of this relationship is the “nonbinding agreement,” (defined as) a commitment to cooperate on specifically enumerated shared goals and policies that are not enacted by federal or state law.
Much of what the WHO and UN have implemented in their tenures has been “nonbinding agreements.” The latest version of the “draft pandemic agreement” states that WHO recommendations are nonbinding. Sounds harmless, right? Surely, I’m not bound by something nonbinding if I don't want to be.
If you’re familiar with Agenda 21 (the agenda for the 21st century), what has come to be referred to as Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal, and so forth, it is mostly a constellation of so-called non-binding agreements that have become laws all over America vis the influence of stakeholders, NGOs, corporations, activists, advocates, etc.
The amendments to the IHR, whatever they might say, and the principles proposed in the negotiations of the “draft pandemic agreement” are also “nonbinding agreements.”
That means once the package is presented and ratified at the World Health Assembly, the United States will be committed to cooperation on the so-called “shared goals” of the amendments to the IHR and the pandemic agreement, and no Senate ratification is required.
The United States Senate ratified these things over 70 years ago when the federal government entered this Executive Agreement with the WHO.
An example of “nonbinding agreements” for comparison is The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit, which outlined principles for sustainable development. There are no legal penalties for non-compliance. Implementation relies on the goodwill and voluntary actions of the states and is often supported by NGOs and other stakeholders.
Such an arrangement can easily subvert the legal system and bring real binding policies, statutes, laws, and restrictions into effect without the due process of debate, deliberation, transparency, informed consent of the governed, a vote, or, in most cases, without anyone even realizing the new laws are in effect. If they do realize it, they don’t know where they came from until it’s too late.
As you may have noticed, the term “treaty” has been avoided by The WHO, the negotiators of the draft pandemic agreement, and the WGIHR (2005). Avoiding the term “treaty” is key because treaties are “binding agreements” that must be ratified by the Senate. Accord, agreement, guidelines, etc., is the language of “nonbinding agreements.” Very important difference.
Binding agreements create enforceable legal obligations. States that sign and ratify these treaties can face potential legal consequences, sanctions, or other measures. Binding agreements usually require formal ratification through national legislative processes, often involving significant debate and approval by the legislative branch (e.g., the U.S. Senate).
The Paris Agreement is an example of a binding international treaty within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While the agreement does not impose penalties for non-compliance, it establishes an extreme monitoring, reporting, and review framework. Peer pressure, transparency, and accountability mechanisms are intended to encourage compliance and ambition.
When the language of “nonbinding agreements” (accord, agreements, etc.) is used, the mandates, policies, and restrictions bypass legislative approval and simply emerge at the local level via the influence of NGOs, advocacy groups, corporations, or other bodies that support the WHO's “shared goals” at the local level.
Eventually, these so-called “shared goals” find their way into local law at the municipal level. These advocacy groups influence legislation and ensure mandates or policies are honored or obeyed, and that is how an international organization subverts due process and the will of the people without ever even being debated by the legislative branch of the federal government.
What is The Plan for the New World Order?
Alex Newman, for The New American, writes, “The Deep State’s globalist plan for what insiders refer to as the “New World Order,” basically, a global government… begins with submerging the sovereignty of nation-states into regional “orders” … regional governments… with the European Union serving as the premier example.” This is called “regionalization.”
Newman continues, “…Eventually, these regional orders will be interwoven into an overlapping patchwork of multilateral regimes on the road to creating a truly global authority, perhaps under the United Nations or some less-discredited future global body.… In his book War or Peace, global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations co-founder John Foster Dulles spelled it out clearly, “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage…Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” …Dulles went on to argue that the existing UN Charter was strong enough to serve as the foundation for a world government.
In a 1962 report headlined “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” financed by the U.S. State Department, CFR member and longtime State Department official Lincoln Bloomfield argued, … “[E]ver larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella.” Sound familiar?”
The WHO and The UN are working hard to implement their goals at the local level, bypassing federal legislation — regionalism.
Even more egregious are the presuppositions made by the WHO and its advocates:
The best response to illness is always a shot.
The right response to the presence of a virus *every time* is to restrict of individual liberties and violate human rights.
The right way to lift people out of poverty is to bind them to an international organization.
Corporate elites are sufficiently qualified and necessarily trustworthy to guide the world through any and all crises.
They are aspiring elites, and aspiring elites are always convinced that it's their right to take advantage of every opportunity, especially crises, and to create circumstances that will accumulate and preserve more wealth and power for themselves.
What is The WHO, and How Much Authority Do They Have?
At the end of World War I, the Allies created the League of Nations at the Treaty of Versailles and founded it on January 10, 1920, as “an organization for international cooperation.”
In 1943, the major Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, the USSR, and China—called for a new international organization to replace the toothless League of Nations. They met in Washington, D.C., to draft the framework “for international collaboration in peace and security.” Roosevelt coined the name “United Nations” to honor the Allied nations' triumph over the Axis powers.
After World War II, delegates from 50 countries met in San Francisco to save “succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” On October 24, 1945, the required number of nations ratified the UN Charter, and the second international organization of the 20th century was officially founded.
On the same day, the United States Senate ratified the Act to join the UN, and President Harry S. Truman signed the UN Charter, committing the United States to a permanent agreement to cooperate with and enforce the United Nations' goals and policies. The United Nations was formally established in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and the first U.N. General Assembly met in London on January 10, 1946.
Soon after, on April 7, 1948, The World Health Organization (WHO) was created as a specialized agency of the United Nations. The WHO’s constitution mandates promoting “the highest possible level of health” for all, defining health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease.”
Take note of these facts when you consider whether or not the United States government is likely to offer any resistance to the WHO, the United States is:
One of the original member states that signed the WHO constitution
A major contributor to the WHO financially
A major influence on WHO policy making
A substantial supporter of the WHO’s initiatives
Aligned with the WHO in terms of its broader foreign policy objectives
Other specialized agencies of the UN that would be formed include UNICEF, UNESCO, and the World Bank. It is important to note that WHO was established to serve the public health administrations of Member States in an advisory role only, to encourage, advise, survey, train, and offer aid in relief. They have tried for many years to expand their role and influence over the world.
Who is Funding the WHO? WE ARE.
“Member States contribute directly nearly 60% of the programme budget, and another 14% comes from other organizations in the United Nations system, partnerships and development banks which are themselves largely funded by governments. Nearly 10% of WHO’s funds come from philanthropic foundations, predominantly the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Pg 29
“The quantifiable return on investment in WHO is very substantial. The cost of WHO in net present value terms over the coming 10-year period, 2022–2031, is US$ 33 billion and the public value created as a result of this investment in the most conservative estimation possible is likely to be between US$ 1.155 trillion and US$ 1.46 trillion. The resulting return on investment is US$ 35 for every US$ 1 invested in WHO.” Pg 17
SOURCE: A Healthy Return - Investment case for a sustainably financed WHO, 2022 - View WHO Document, Click Here
Audited financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2023 VIEW DOCUMENT
Sustainable financing: WHO investment round April 2024 VIEW DOCUMENT
Voluntary contributions by fund and by contributor May 2023 VIEW DOCUMENT
WHO “Pandemic Treaty” Actually A Global Venture Capital Proposal
“Sustainable” Financing: W.H.O. promises 35:1 return on investment for all contributing members READ HERE for our full analysis on the video below.
UN-Health-Y WHO’s
The first Director-General of the WHO (1948 to 1953) was Canadian physician Brock Chisholm, who was also known for spearheading the World Federation for Mental Health. His public health doctrine aimed to establish a homogenous global order by infiltrating every educational activity of national life to “reform the public psyche.”
Chisolm is infamous for his rather severe view that the minds of the masses are merely raw material for psychiatrists to shape to serve the interests of the ruling class, which effectively weaponized psychiatry against humanity. In his lecture “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Psychiatry,” Chisholm argued,
“If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of (the concept of) good and evil, it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”
His radical views included a militant push for world government, stating,
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious doctrines.”
This striking antihuman worldview of the WHO’s first Director-General casts a dark pall over the organization, contradicting its supposed mission of humanitarianism and diversity. Chisholm’s influence paved the way for authoritarianism on a global scale and provides concrete historical evidence for modern-day suspicions of Geneva-based international organizations.
The succession of Directors-General at the WHO has been a cavalcade of mostly Malthusian activists who’s worldviews seemed to be drawn directly from chiseled epithets on the Georgia Guidestones, openly promoting world courts, population reduction through abortion and food control, and keeping human beings off the land and out of nature because we’re “a cancer on the earth.”
Another disturbing D-G was Gro Harlem Brundtland (1998–2003), a physician and former prime minister of Norway. The Brundtland Commission, AKA the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), introduced the concept of "sustainable development" in its seminal report, Our Common Future (1987), which laid the groundwork for global population reduction policies through food control, promoting abortion, and coercive sterilization of women in developing nations like India and the continent of Africa.
The WHO's views are fundamentally opposed to the dignity and worth of every human being (Genesis 1:27) and the divine mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" as part of God's creative purpose for humanity (Genesis 1:28). Are they humanitarian? No. They are decidedly anti human.
Ethiopian radical communist Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the current Director-General of the WHO, and the receipts are on Tedros’s corruption, too. And it’s not good. James Roguski has a recent article on his Substack that details the charges.
Maybe you have heard somewhere that due to widespread and harsh public criticisms, the WHO has softened some of its controversial language in the proposed amendments to the IHR and backtracked on its most egregiously tyrannical aspirations in the draft pandemic agreement.
Softening their language means nothing. They almost certainly anticipated these objections and have a far worse plan in the chamber, hidden from sight and ready to launch.
The only answer to the sticky obligations of the Executive Agreement and the “non-binding agreement” is to withdraw from and defund the WHO immediately. If we don’t, we could see something far more egregious and tyrannical than what has been publicly released.
The fact that these negotiations have been largely secret and the fact that you’re not allowed to criticize them or call them out without being called a conspiracy theorist, bigot, xenophobe, or perhaps even a racist indicates that there is something far more sinister working beneath the surface of this movement.
For example, some of the language has indeed been softened. However, the concept of One Health is still there. The draft pandemic agreement defines One Health as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems.”
That would expand the WHO’s authority beyond healthcare and virus surveillance into global warming, environmentalism, farming, and the food supply.
The latest draft has removed the severe verbiage that member nations shall “recognize WHO as the guiding and coordinating authority of international public health response.”
Likewise, the language that placed equity above respect for personal liberty, “the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence,” is also gone. The newest draft says the WHO will respect individual liberties and pursue the collective goals of “equity and solidarity.”
The Hidden Tyranny At Home
There is a threat hiding in plain sight that almost no one is talking about. It affects us all directly right now, not later. If we don’t identify the threat correctly, the goals and policies of the WHO will be implemented throughout America whether the pandemic agreement is ratified or not.
A far greater threat to the sovereignty of the United States is a passive, uninformed, uninterested, lazy, entitled citizenry. Long before any international organization takes it, the love of convenience will be the death of Liberty for Americans. The most effective antidote to tyranny is strong local self government.
Moral character, civic virtue, and active participation of American citizens is fundamental to maintaining liberty.
"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the Republican model of government are [...] staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." (George Washington. First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)
To know how to protect ourselves, we need to know two things: the true nature of the relationship between the US government, the UN, and the WHO, and that the enemy of our freedoms is more insidious, subversive, and immanent than even the Geneva death cult.
The greatest threat to American sovereignty is Americans. Almost nobody is talking about the fact that the WHO’s policies are the policies of The United States Government. Our government is and has been in lockstep with The WHO for over 70 years. Here are few reasons to support that claim:
(1) The United States is a founding member of the WHO and a State Party of the International Health Regulations.
(2) The WHO “pandemic treaty” and UN Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development Goals) share the same overall objectives of full spectrum dominance from the cellular to the planetary levels.
(3) The Biden administration’s public stance supports pursuing the establishment of an agreement that “establishes sustainable financing, governance, and accountability to ultimately break the cycle of panic and neglect.”
(4) In 2021 the Biden administration proposed a successful amendment to the IHR that expanded the WHO’s authority to declare public health emergencies by removing the requirement for the agency to “consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.”
The so-called pandemic treaty, while certainly a diabolical framework for the acquisition of immense wealth and control over global markets and human beings, is an extension of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), policies which have been almost effortlessly implemented in the United States at the local level for over 30 years by other Americans, not the United Nations.
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." (Thomas Jefferson, various letters 1800-1809)
In 1992, President George Herbert Walker Bush signed the United States onto United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development (now known as Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals, etc.). Bush’s action in signing the U.S. onto the agreement is called an Executive Agreement, it requires no ratification by Congress. Since Agenda 21 (2030, SGDs) are non-binding agreements, they require no debate, vote, or ratification. This is also known as a “soft law.”
In 1993, President Bill Clinton began the process of implementing Bush’s Executive Agreement with the UN by establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This council was responsible for setting up most of the agencies and non governmental organizations that have been influencing the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals into every single county and city in the United States. These initiates are bipartisan. Do not be distracted by the Left/Right paradigm. That is one of the sleepiest pills Americans take.
In July of 2023 the White House launched the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy. The official press release reads: “Maj. Gen. (ret) Paul Friedrichs will serve as the Inaugural Director. As part of the President’s commitment to ensure that our country is more prepared for a pandemic… the Administration has established: the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR). This will be a permanent office in: the Executive Office of the President (EOP). The office will lead, coordinate, and implement actions related to preparedness for and response to known and unknown biological threats or pathogens that could lead to a pandemic or to significant public health-related disruptions in the United States. As of August 7, 2023, Major General (ret) Paul Friedrichs will serve as the inaugural Director of OPPR and Principal Advisor on Pandemic Preparedness and Response… He is currently Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council (NSC). Maj. Gen. (ret) Friedrichs previously served as a Joint Staff Surgeon at the Pentagon, where he coordinated all issues related to health services, provided medical advice to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and advised the Department of Defense (DoD) COVID-19 Task Force.”
Are you beginning to get it?
The policies of the WHO pandemic treaty, whether ratified by any governing body, will likely be implemented in the exact same way, right under the noses of sleepy Americans — unless we wake up fast!
Consider this example from this October 12, 2022 statement by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra:
We are pleased to announce that Ambassador Pamela K. Hamamoto has been selected to be lead U.S. Pandemic Negotiator on the proposed accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response currently being discussed at the World Health Organization. …[we] look forward to supporting her efforts to develop and achieve a pandemic accord…
This announcement reflects the commitment by the United States to take a whole-of-government approach to the negotiating process…
Ambassador Hamamoto served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva (2014-2017), where she engaged regularly with international leaders on a wide range of global issues, including… sustainable development, global health, …women’s empowerment, internet governance, and climate change.
In 2015, she co-founded International Gender Champions, a global network of leaders committed to advancing gender equality through specific actions and policy changes. She was also instrumental in the 2014 launch of the Global Health Security Agenda, a global effort that has grown to more than 70 partners focused on strengthening the world’s ability to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats.
If you’re looking for the enemy, the call is coming from inside the house. The greatest threat to American sovereignty is Americans.
PART 3: Hidden Tyranny: Who is the Greatest Threat To Our Sovereignty?
Quiet Weapons For Soft Despotism
Love of convenience threatens to erode the very foundations of freedom. To preserve liberty, it is imperative to cultivate a culture of active citizenship and moral responsibility.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 — 1859)was a French aristocrat, lawyer, magistrate, and an advocate for political and social reforms. In 1831, Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont traveled to the United States on behalf of the French government. During their nine-month stay, the men traveled extensively observing various aspects of American society, politics, and culture.
Tocqueville gathered insights that would eventually frame his famous two volume work, Democracy in America (1835 and 1840), a comprehensive analysis of American political life and the strengths and weaknesses of democracy. It remains a foundational text in political science and sociology to this day.
"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." (Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. 1835 and 1840)
Tocqueville provided valuable reflections on the balance between liberty and equality in civil society, the importance of local governance, and the dangers of centralization. At the core of Tocqueville’s assessments lies the charge that soft despotism can emerge in democratic societies and erode the very foundations of liberty.
Soft despotism, as described by Tocqueville, refers to a form of tyranny that is mild yet pervasive. Unlike overt tyranny, which relies on fear and oppression, soft despotism functions through the overextension of state control into the minutiae of daily life under the guise of providing convenience and security.
Tocqueville feared that democratic societies might sacrifice their freedom for comfort, resulting in a passive citizenry content with temporary, superficial satisfaction while incrementally relinquishing their liberty.
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville articulates his concern that democratic societies are particularly vulnerable to soft despotism. He observed that an overemphasis on equality and individualism could lead to a culture of isolation and disengagement from public life. This disengagement, in turn, makes it easier for the state to expand its influence, as citizens increasingly depend on it for their needs.
“It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.”
This statement underscores how an overreaching government can stifle individual initiative and liberty by micromanaging daily life under the pretext of providing safety and convenience.
Tocqueville believed that true religion provides the moral framework necessary for individuals to govern themselves and resist the encroachments of soft despotism. Nurturing virtues such as self-restraint, community involvement, and the pursuit of higher purposes beyond mere material comfort, true religion is essential to the health and longevity of democracy, safeguarding liberty, and counteracting the complacency and materialism of modern society.
“Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot.”
America in 2024 is in grave danger, much less from international organizations, and much more so from ourselves. Spiritual, political, and moral apathy has caused a decline in ethical standards, where the pursuit of convenience and personal satisfaction justifies compromise and complacency.
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education... the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint.”
Tocqueville warned that this erosion of self-restraint and civic virtue directly threatens liberty because it results in a dependence on the state. As individuals seek greater comfort and ease, they may willingly cede more power to the government, expecting it to provide for their needs and solve their problems.
This dependency is insidious because it feels benign and even feels right, even beneficial. However, the cumulative effect is the erosion of personal responsibility which is the precursor to the gradual loss of freedoms. Once it has become embedded, this trend is difficult to reverse.
“It is in vain to summon a people, who have grown so quickly used to this tranquil and comfortable servitude, to make some sudden and striking efforts to free themselves.”
The first steps to fight back against the WHO or any despotic government is vigilance and active citizenship. A robust civil society, where individuals engage in community affairs and exercise their civic responsibilities eagerly, even joyfully, is essential to maintaining liberty. A sense of moral duty and commitment to the true common good comes only from faithful grounding in the Word of God.
Tocqueville’s warnings are particularly relevant today as a form of soft despotism has gradually crept into American society undermining the principles of liberty and self-governance.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." (John Adams. From a letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814)
The only way to defend our lives is to found our lives upon eternal truth — truth that does not change, has never changed, and will never change. The only foundation you can trust. We must begin with the image of God, the underlying corpus of truth that gives our argument real force as a viable, defendable, truly righteous opposition to any tyranny, and is the only truly just standard by which man can practice self-government
"The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens." (Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America, 1835 and 1840)
Wake Up! YOU Are The Government
It is a common bipartisan misconception that someone else is responsible for protecting our freedoms. Outsourcing the protection of our freedoms and the duties of caring for and maintaining the needs of our communities is an open door to aspiring despots and tyrants.
Safely nestled within the imaginary borders of the American Dream, for many decades now Americans have become comfortably numb. Our great obsession with comfort, convenience, and entitlement has blurred our vision to a skewed view of freedom that could be defined as blissful ignorance.
Extended ages of freedom seem to have had the effect of suppressing our sense of vigilance to a latent fear of tyranny so that we no longer clearly see the greatest threats to our way of life.
That unconscious fear covered over by layers upon layers of prosperity, comfort, convenience, and apathy has compelled Americans to accept more and more encroachments on our freedoms by those who have convinced us they have our best interests at heart.
The result of this blind complacency is that Americans have become passive citizens. We are like defenseless sheep who have wandered far away from our shepherd. The many substitute shepherds encircling us, promising peace and safety from the unseen threats, are actually wolves who have only one intention; To fatten themselves on our flesh, and they have us surrounded.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." (George Washington. From a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816)
Silence is Consent
In the American governmental system of Popular Sovereignty or "consent of the governed," the concept "silence is consent" implies that the absence of active opposition or vocal objection from the people can be interpreted as tacit approval or agreement with a particular action, operation, or policy. It suggests that if the general public remains silent or passive when decisions affecting their well-being are being made, their silence can be perceived as consent or acceptance of those decisions.
In a democratic system like the United States, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, but that consent is typically understood as being expressed through formal processes such as voting, public input, or participation in civic affairs. A well-informed and engaged citizenry means actively voicing concerns, holding representatives accountable, and participating in the decision-making process to ensure our well-being is protected. It’s our duty.
In the case of bad actors who seek to push through actions or policies that impact the well-being of the people in secret or without adequate public scrutiny, the concept of "silence is consent" may be viewed as an attempt to exploit the lack of awareness or active opposition.
Being made in God’s image is the only foundation from which any movement to stop such authoritarianism can be ultimately successful and lasting because it presents the only truly just alternative. Not just any “god.” We must argue for the sovereignty and supremacy of the only true and living God as the authority who establishes kingdoms and brings kingdoms down.
It is only within this eternal context that we can find the proper platform from which to argue for the inherent worth and value of a human life, liberty, and the right to be treated with respect and fairness. Being made in God’s image gives man inherent dignity, and is the only true worldview that can logically and ethically defeat this tyranny. Otherwise, any argument against the WHO and the ideologies of those pushing this paradigm of mandatory “peace and safety”
PART 4: INSPIRATION
Wait! Should A Christian Get Involved?
Some criticize us for taking up a position against these organizations. They say we shouldn’t get involved because it’s not our place; it’s God’s business. They say all we should do is preach the gospel and wait on Christ.
There is certainly nothing wrong with preaching the gospel and waiting on Christ. But, Scripture teaches that we are to be engaged with the world, not part of the world system, but like salt that preserves the good things and purifies rotten corruption. We are to be the light of the world that exposes wickedness in high places and illuminates the path to God.
Is it right to thwart an international organization bent on world domination?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a German pastor, theologian, and anti-Nazi dissident known for his staunch resistance and participation in the plot to assassinate Hitler.
Bonhoeffer's theological works, including "The Cost of Discipleship" and "Letters and Papers from Prison," tell the inspiring story of how important it truly is to live out our faith through active resistance to evil.
Bonhoeffer was arrested in 1943 for his opposition to the Nazi regime and executed in 1945 at the Flossenbürg concentration camp mere weeks before the end of World War II. Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought standing up against evil was right, even unto death.
Our Ultimate Duty: Grace and Mercy
God also believes that thwarting evil is a just act and demonstrates it when He prevents the city and tower project at Babel from progressing. However, the greater application to take from this example is grace.
God was merciful to those who hated Him. He did not destroy those rebels but merely halted their evil progress and dispersed them over the face of the earth. Those ancient globalists who were unwilling to obey God's command were forced to do so, fulfilling what He had commanded in the first place, giving them another chance to repent.
God has given us a lesson from the ages when, in grace, He showed mercy to an evil group of globalists who hated Him. We should be more like Him.
To be clear, the imposition of a homogenous global order governed by a centralized elite that shreds national sovereignty and individual rights is antithetical to the biblical principle of subsidiarity, which says that people should make appeals about legal issues to the most immediate level of authority rather than nationally or globally centralized governments.
Such a system is inherently prone to corruption and abuse. History has shown time and time again that concentrated power tends to lead to concentrated evil and the exploitation and oppression of the vulnerable.
In the narrative of Genesis 11, mankind seeks to make a name for itself. The project of one world global government at the great Tower of Babel, like the UN and the WHO, is globalization by domination and force and is neither humanitarian nor philanthropic.
The Babelites were rebellious and provoked God to judgment (Gen 11:5-7). As an act of mercy, God does not vaporize them where they stand but halts their progress to limit the damage their hardened hearts would cause.
The place where they built the tower to "make a name for themselves” was given the Hebrew name “Babel,” which translates to "Confusion." What they meant for evil, God turned for good. That should be our prayer today! That God would turn these evil movements for good.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Watch Armor of Truth’s LIVE show discussing the findings of this report:
“Who enforces the ‘Pandemic Treaty’? You NEED TO KNOW this!”
Links, Resources, Citations, and Notes
Timeline of events 2020 to 77th WHA
WATCH (at 1 min. 20 sec. mark):
https://youtu.be/R6H-fasUIRs?si=Wvme-JlWZeEwshKf
May 29, 2020: President Trump announced the US would withdraw from The WHO.
June 30, 2020: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally notified the UN the United States’ decision to withdraw from WHO, which would have taken effect on July 6, 2021.
June 2020: A Pew Research Center survey indicated that 51 percent of Americans felt that WHO had done a poor or fair job in managing the COVID–19 pandemic.
January 20, 2021: As one of his first acts as president, Joe Biden retracted the notice of withdrawal from The WHO.
December 1, 2021: The World Health Assembly (WHA) established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft a pandemic agreement (or convention) on “pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response”
January 2023: The first draft of the agreement/convention, with broad and binding provisions, was sent to WHO member states and formally introduced on March 3.
March 7, 2023: H.R. 1425 (IH) - No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany introduces a bill to require Senate ratification of any “pandemic treaty” or agreements from the WHO. Is passed this bill would make it possible for the now “nonbinding” agreements of the WHO to become law. (more on this below).
May 8, 2024: 22 US attorneys general signed a letter to the Biden regime urging him not to sign the WHO agreements, saying, “Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health. 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.”
May 8: Britain refused to sign the pandemic accord. The apparent bone of contention being that they were required to share 20% “pandemic products” seems to be a deal breaker.
May 10: Slovakia says it will not support new pandemic treaty
(Radio Slovakia International) Head of the Ministry of Health, Peter Kotlár, said Slovakia would not support the current draft pandemic agreement or the proposed IHR amendments. He said Slovakia would not support any documents weakening Slovakia's position as a sovereign state.
May 11, 2023: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Signed the “Strongest Legislation in the Nation for Medical Freedom.” Four bills were passed into law:
Senate Bill 252 prohibits businesses, governments, and employers from requiring proof of vaccination or immunity to access services and prohibits firing employees or discriminating based on vaccination or immunity.
House Bill 1387 prohibits “gain of function” research.
Senate Bill 1580 provides that healthcare providers and customers/patients have the right to opt out of vaccinations or other treatments based on conscience-based objections and free speech protections for healthcare providers and whistle-blowers.
Senate Bill 238 provides Public Records Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.
May 15: Louisiana Senate Bill 133 bans WHO, WEF, and other international organizations declaring the state’s sovereignty. The bill would prohibit the enforcement or implementation of any “rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations and the World Economic Forum” in the state of Louisiana. The local media coverage touts this legislation as “protecting the sovereignty of Louisiana.” The Louisiana Senate voted unanimously (37 - 0) and the bill passed the House with a vote of 69 - 22.
May 16: Oklahoma Senate Bill 426 bans WHO, WEF, and other international organizations declaring the state’s sovereignty, thereby letting it be known that it reserves the right NOT to participate in any contracts or treaties the federal government enters into with foreign nations or international organizations. It becomes law on June 1st.
The text of the Oklahoma Senate Bill 426 reads almost identically to Louisiana Senate Bill 133 with some notable expansions:
Allows WHO recommendations, not WHO dictates. Sets a firm boundary against international control over Oklahoma’s laws and freedoms.
Specifically, it addresses the threat of WHO “treaties.”
https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2024/05/20/pandemic-treaty-judiciary-committee
May 20: Republicans criticize the treaty and send a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken requesting information on treaty negotiations, and urging Biden not to sign off.
May 24: Congressman Chris Smith, ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, delivered a letter to Director-General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Friday (endorsed by over 120 elected officials) charging that The WHO chief and negotiators rushed the agreement, flouted regulations and the rule of law, disregarded national sovereignty, and kept crucial details secret only to be revealed at some future date (kind of like: pass the law first, then you can see what’s in it).
Notable statements in the letter:
Using potential pandemics as a pretext to violate the principles of good governance erodes trust and undermines international cooperation when it is most needed.
Proceeding with the adoption of new amendments to the IHR or the proposed pandemic treaty at the upcoming 77th World Health Assembly would be contrary to law. Should you proceed, any resulting agreement will immediately be null and void.
May 24: UPDATE: Pandemic Treaty ‘Fails’ (for now). The WHO announced on Friday that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) of 194 Member States failed to agree on a final draft of the pandemic treaty. Director-General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, "This is not a failure. We will try everything — believing that anything is possible — and make this happen because the world still needs a pandemic treaty."
May 27 - June 1: The 77th World Health Assembly, the governing body of the WHO, meets in Geneva, Switzerland. Even though the pandemic agreement has failed to be drafted for this WHA, we intend to keep an eye on this meeting.
Links to Legislation
House Resolution (HR) 79: to exit The WHO
Text - H.R.79: WHO Withdrawal Act." January 9, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/79/text.Text - "H.R.1425 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act." March 7, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1425.Louisiana: Senate Bill 133 full text:
https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1376456Oklahoma: Senate Bill 426 full text:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2023-24%20AMENDMENTS/Amendment%20&%20Engr/SB426%20HASB%20&%20ENGR.PDF
For more information, contact Senator Dusty Deevers (405)521-5567 or Dusty.Deevers@oksenate.gov.Florida: Governor Ron DeSantis Signs the Strongest Legislation in the Nation for Medical Freedom
https://www.flgov.com/2023/05/11/governor-ron-desantis-signs-the-strongest-legislation-in-the-nation-for-medical-freedom/
News Articles
Breitbart News, By Frances Martel. Antony Blinken Does Not Commit to Submitting W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty to Senate. May 23,2024. https://www.breitbart.com/health/2024/05/23/antony-blinken-does-not-commit-to-submitting-w-h-o-pandemic-treaty-to-senate/
Britain refuses to sign global vaccine treaty… Joe Pinkstone, May 8, 2024.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandemic-vaccines-therapeutics-global-treaty-sovereignty/Dr. Meryl Nass’ website: https://doortofreedom.org/
Gateway Pundit. End of American Sovereignty:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/end-of-american-sovereignty-biden-regime-negotiates-legally-binding-deal-to-give-chinese-backed-world-health-organization-full-authority-over-us-pandemic-policies-no-senate-approval-needed/The Rise of COVID 2.0? Beware the WHO’s Pandemic Industrial Complex - Global Research.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rise-of-covid-2-0-beware-the-whos-pandemic-industrial-complex/5858013WHO Makes Key Concessions Ahead of Pandemic Treaty Vote.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/who-makes-key-concessions-ahead-of-pandemic-treaty-vote-5647276
World Health Organization: Relevant Documents
(WHO Media Relations) There are two parts to this package:
Amendments To The IHR (2005)
Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR) Proposed Bureau’s text (as of April 17, 2024).
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr8/WGIHR8_Proposed_Bureau_text-en.pdf
(Additions to and deletions of the current IHR text appear in bold and strike-through, respectively.)
(From the WHO)—The International Health Regulations, which were first adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1969 and last revised in 2005, were conceived to “maximize collective efforts to manage public health events while at the same time minimizing their disruption to travel and trade.” There are 196 State Parties to the IHR. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have made over 300 proposals for amendments to the IHR through the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).
The IHR has legally binding obligations, such as quickly reporting outbreaks. However, African countries and China regularly disregard these.Draft Pandemic Agreement AKA “Treaty, Accord”
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Pandemic-Agreement-Draft-Reflecting-progress-up-to-10-May.pdf
(From the WHO)—Parallel to the IHR amendments (WGIHR) is an “intergovernmental process to develop an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” This “pandemic agreement” process has its own negotiating process led by Member States.
The WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the accord will address the gap between COVID-19 vaccines in rich and poorer countries, which amounted to “a catastrophic moral failure.”
Citations for our argument against HR 1425:
United Nations, "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties," 1969.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law" (Article 2). Non Binding agreements, by contrast, do not fall under this definition and are not subject to the same legal obligations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdfAmerican Law Institute, "Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States," 1987.
The Restatement highlights that treaties (binding agreements) require Senate ratification and create legally enforceable obligations, whereas nonbinding agreements are political commitments that do not necessitate such processes.Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, "Treaties, Human Rights, and Conditional Consent," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 149, No. 2 (2000): 399-468.
An analysis by scholars Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith emphasizes that the U.S. constitutional process for treaty ratification is designed for agreements with significant legal obligations and that conflating nonbinding agreements with binding ones could undermine this process. Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=faculty_scholarshipCongressional Research Service, "International Agreements and U.S. Law," March 1, 2018.
The CRS report discusses the importance of maintaining the distinction between binding and nonbinding agreements, emphasizing that nonbinding agreements allow the U.S. to engage in international cooperation without formal legal obligations, preserving flexibility in policy implementation. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/RL32528Kal Raustiala, "Form and Substance in International Agreements," American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 3 (2005): 581-614.
An article in this journal explores the risks associated with treating nonbinding agreements as binding, including potential unintended legal commitments and the erosion of legislative oversight. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1602296
Citations for history and legal status of the UN and the WHO
Brundtland, Gro Harlem, et al. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, 1987.
Lambert, Frank. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2003.
Schaeffer, Francis A. A Christian Manifesto. Crossway, 2005.
Scruton, Roger. How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism.
Oxford University Press, 2012.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve, edited by Francis Bowen,
Cambridge: Sever and Francis, 1862.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. The Old Regime and the Revolution. Translated by John Bonner, New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1856.
Wiker, Benjamin. 10 Books That Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor.
Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2010.
For a free Bible and tracts (available to ship in the U.S.A. only) please email us
Download the Armor of Truth Mobile App Free
Armor of Truth, Inc is a 501(c)(3) Non Profit Organization
Donations are tax deductible
By supporting Armor of Truth you are helping to reach thousands of people daily with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and encouragement to persevere in a world that is hostile to the gospel. Please consider making a donation to help support this mission.
Support Armor of Truth, official donation page: Donate
CashApp $aotmin
Brilliant. To God be the glory! Thank you Summer! Thank you Brad!
“The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.”
Numbers 6:24-26 ESV