JON RAPPOPORT

APR 29, 2024

∙ PAID

In this article, I’m not going to detail the contents of the World Health Organization Treaty and their International Health Regulations (IHR).

You can assume either of these documents, if enforced, will torpedo the sovereignty of America, and force the country to accept any World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of a serious disease outbreak or pandemic.

America will be forced to accept WHO strictures that mirror the COVID restrictions—but these new ones will be worse. Even more devastating. Relentless vaccine mandates, deep surveillance and censorship, strict home lockdown imprisonment.

And the WHO could and will declare a pandemic, wholly based on its desire to set up a de facto global medical dictatorship. At any time.

In this piece, I’ll break down the legal factors surrounding the WHO Treaty and the IHR, plus the IHR’s new amendments.

The legal factors are where the rubber meets the road. And digs in, skids, and blows out. Killing the Constitution.

First, the WHO Pandemic Treaty, because it IS a treaty, would have to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the US Senate.

The President couldn’t unilaterally approve it.

Unless, by some underhanded trickery, the Treaty were renamed an Agreement. Watch out for that. Keep reading to see how this switcheroo works.

Getting two-thirds of the Senate to ratify this Treaty won’t be a walk in the park. But with all the RINOS and Democrats in the Senate—now and after the next few elections—it’s a possibility that shouldn’t be ignored.

The IHR and its new amendments are a whole other proposition. The US signed on to the IHR in 2005.

Since it is labeled an Agreement and not a treaty, new amendments are unilaterally approved by the President.

BOOM.

These new pending amendments will be horrendous. They’ll give the WHO the ability to wreak destruction, as I just described above. COVID-type strictures—only worse.

The Congress can override the President’s unilateral approval of the amendments. How? With a straight majority, by withholding necessary funding, or by passing specific laws that basically cancel and nullify the IHR amendments.

How likely is that?

Not very likely.

THERE IS GREAT DANGER HERE.

I have a few key points to make about these international Agreements, like the IHR:

This post is for paid subscribers

Subscribe

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Previous