'TOTALITARIAN CONTROLS': Texas, Oklahoma Sue Biden Admin Over Rule That ‘Unlawfully Delegates’ Authority To The WHO? – [your]NEW...
Texas and Oklahoma are suing the Biden administration over a public health rule they argue illegally gives power to the World Health Organization (WHO), according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
weren't you too wondering when states would pull the plug on this ?
This pushback is best news today
Agreed. I was starting to get worried that no one up the food chain was paying attention.
All treaties need to be ratified,by the senate,per the constitution.
This is not a new treaty which would require Senate approval. These are amendment changes to an already existing approved health treaty that will essentially change the WHO from a toothless recommendation entity to a regulatory authority that can lower the hammer. Language is also being removed that would guarantee basic human rights as it exists in the language of the current document. The WHO would be able to dictate global emergencies by their own authority, in fact by the word of the secretary general, and mandate countermeasures without approval of an individual nation state. Sovereignty is bypassed. If the nation state does not comply with the WHO's countermeasures and proposals, the WHO will be given the power to institute coercive punitive measures for compliance. This is some really slimy stuff and they are trying to sneak it through in May. So watch for any number of distractions so people won't be paying attention. This would be a global coup and it needs eyes on.
Was the existing treaty ratified by the senate?
They skip that process a lot.
The WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR) are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR is not a treaty the way we understand treaties. This is part of the WHO regulatory framework that all member states are governed by. Up until now, these regulations have been more like recommendations without the punch of enforcement. This will change if these amendments are allowed to move forward. Basically, the only way to nullify the actions of the WHO is to withdraw - which is exactly what Trump wanted to do. He knew what they were up to.
They have been trying to distract people with a new health treaty which would have to be ratified by the Senate. That is just the shiny object to focus attention away from what they are really trying to do - create their NWO. The real underhanded shenanigans are taking place within the already approved international regulations by way of amendments that essentially move the WHO from an entity that makes recommendations and handles logistics, to a strengthened entity that has the power of enforcement. These amendments have language changes in the existing regulations that will gut all human rights and hand individual national sovereignties over to the WHO. This is why they are trying to keep it on the DL. Why are our own representatives not speaking out?
They already tried to move this forward last year - but enough people were paying attention that is was shot down - at the time. But, these people do not give up and they are back. The amendments were submitted again by the Biden administration over a weekend in secret. They have a certain amount of time for member states to consider the amendments before the vote in May. The wheels of politics and governments move slowly. If most member states are unprepared for these amendments, then they will be unable to mount a coherent objection that emanates from the people. The delegates at the WHO know exactly what the hell is happening here. If the people remain asleep and do not speak out, like we did last year, this travesty will be shoved through. We are already under a form of medial martial law as it is - these amendments will be the nail in the coffin of freedom under the guise of world health. This has been part of the globalist's wet dream that they have planned for decades.
Can a treaty be ratified through the trick where they use a simple majority or does it need 60 votes because its a binding international treaty?
Constitution says 2/3 majority vote.
Here we go!