Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO

[Skye1300]

"Officials from the Biden Administration are working to give the World Health Organization the power to unilaterally declare a health emergency in any country, thereby giving them emergency powers. The message from the administration and the vote are going unreported by the heritage media, but former Congressman Michele Bachmann is working hard at sounding the alarm.
Bachmann: “Biggest global power grab in our lifetimes”
Bachmann has stated that the upcoming vote in Geneva over the Biden Administration’s amendments would cede U.S. sovereignty to the WHO over national healthcare decisions in what she described as “the biggest global power grab that we have seen in our lifetimes.”"
On May 22: WHO will have authority to lock down all of America
(italics added)

The text of these ammendments--> A75_18-en.pdf

Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO
May 12, 2022
"The contents of the proposed amendments were not made public until April 12, 2022. The existing WHO regulations provide for an 18-month grace period during which a nation may withdraw its "yes" vote for amendments. However, the current proposed amendments would reduce that opportunity to six months."
Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO - Liberty Counsel

It's only 13 pages... and they start off with the usual list of unfunded mandates...
"If the notification received by WHO involves the competency of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) or other relevant entities, WHO shall immediately notify the {IAEA,strikeout} relevant entities." ... huh?
"... where possible including genetic sequence data,"

wow... Maybe I'm not paranoid enough.

What!? I hope that's not true!

 

[Tom 1]

The WHO is giving me indigestion in an attempt to make me stop drinking coffee. I think they are using space lasers. Communists!!

 

[Ligurian]

How did rejoining WHO affect US sovereignty? What sovereign rights did we hand over?

The right to decide our own national health emergencies, for one. Please read the link below, and think about what this means, in terms of local government and the international oversight thereof.

From the Ammendments... A75_18-en.pdf (copy this into your search engine)

"Article 9: Other reports

1. WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications or consultations and shall assess these reports according to established epidemiological principles and then communicate information on the event to the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. Before taking any action based on such reports, {strikeout--WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 10. To this end,--strikeout} WHO shall make the information received available to the States Parties and only where it is duly justified may WHO maintain the confidentiality of the source. This information will be used in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 11."--[Page 6]


"These proposed amendments are written to strengthen the organization’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations. If these amendments are approved, the WHO will have the power to declare an “international health emergency,” nullifying the powers of nation states. ...
The U.S. amendments delete a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…” This enables the Director-General to declare health emergencies at will and can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation."
Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO - Liberty Counsel

Unless we're the most beloved nation on the planet, this is a risk...

 

[Arcangl86]

The right to decide our own national health emergencies, for one. Please read the link below, and think about what this means, in terms of local government and the international oversight thereof.

From the Ammendments... A75_18-en.pdf (copy this into your search engine)

"Article 9: Other reports

1. WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications or consultations and shall assess these reports according to established epidemiological principles and then communicate information on the event to the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. Before taking any action based on such reports, {strikeout--WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 10. To this end,--strikeout} WHO shall make the information received available to the States Parties and only where it is duly justified may WHO maintain the confidentiality of the source. This information will be used in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 11."--[Page 6]


"These proposed amendments are written to strengthen the organization’s ability to unilaterally intervene into the affairs of nations merely suspected of having a “health emergency” of possible concern to other nations. If these amendments are approved, the WHO will have the power to declare an “international health emergency,” nullifying the powers of nation states. ...
The U.S. amendments delete a critical existing restriction in the regulations: “WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring…” This enables the Director-General to declare health emergencies at will and can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation."
Biden’s Amendments Hand U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO - Liberty Counsel

Unless we're the most beloved nation on the planet, this is a risk...

What effect does WHO declaring an "international health emergency" have. If they were to declare one right now for say AIDS, what effect would it have on the US or any other state?

 

[Ligurian]

Like I said and I will say it again...there is absolutely nothing that cedes US sovereignty to the WHO in any way whatsoever. Nothing in the report, nothing in the ammendments and nothing in what you have just posted or highlighted. It's not even implied. It's not even some obscure legalise that could be misinterpreted. It's not possible, it's not legal and it simply doesn't exist.

You seem to be saying... if it's not legal, then it's not possible, and therefore it doesn't exist.

____________________________
As enlightening as the deletions are... the additions are equally so.

[I've greyed-out the deletions and underlined the additions.]

"Article 6.2
genetic sequence data," (DNA gathering? in WHO's database?!!)

"Article 9
4. If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall may, when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned."

So... if the State Party rejects collaboration with the WHO, the views of the State Party are dismissed... Collaborate or else?

"Article 11
2. WHO shall use information received under Articles 6, and 8 and paragraph 2 of Article 9 for verification, assessment and assistance purposes under these Regulations and, unless otherwise agreed with the States Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, when until such time as:
(e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.
3. WHO shall inform consult with the State Party in whose territory the event is occurring as to its intent to make information available under this Article."

Not even going to consult with the nation involved... again.

The upside is... that all future events can be totally blamed on the WHO.

 

[Arcangl86]

You seem to be saying... if it's not legal, then it's not possible, and therefore it doesn't exist.

_________________
As enlightening as the deletions are... the additions are equally so.

[I've greyed-out the deletions and underlined the additions.]

"Article 6.2
genetic sequence data," (DNA gathering? in WHO's database?!!)

They aren't talking about DNA. They are talking about genetic sequences of diseases. COVID is a good example of this, because of how quickly it mutates. So having access to as many different genome information from all over the world can help in deepening understanding of how the virus works and how to stop it.

"Article 9
4. If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO shall may, when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned."

So... if the State Party rejects collaboration with the WHO, the views of the State Party are dismissed... Collaborate or else?

This was probably meant to address what happened with China at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, where it tried to handle it on it's own and allowed the virus to spread.

"Article 11
2. WHO shall use information received under Articles 6, and 8 and paragraph 2 of Article 9 for verification, assessment and assistance purposes under these Regulations and, unless otherwise agreed with the States Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, when until such time as:
(e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.
3. WHO shall inform consult with the State Party in whose territory the event is occurring as to its intent to make information available under this Article."

Not even going to consult with the nation involved.

Which means, that all future events will be entirely blamed on the WHO.

See above.

 

[Ligurian]

What effect does WHO declaring an "international health emergency" have. If they were to declare one right now for say AIDS, what effect would it have on the US or any other state?

Do you want any other nation telling the USA to lockdown its businesses?
Which nations wouldn't benefit from that?

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you want any other nation telling the USA to lockdown its businesses?
Which nations wouldn't benefit from that?

ANd where would they get that power from?

 

[Ligurian]

They aren't talking about DNA. They are talking about genetic sequences of diseases.

That's not what it says in context.

And since they're already using human genome studies re: Covid-19...

"Scientists think that for some people the answer lies in the genes, the blueprints we inherit from our parents that play a role in determining everything from our eye color to our risk of having a heart attack. Our genes also play a role in how our immune system responds to invaders and the characteristics of our lung cells, which can be attacked during the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection."
Decoding the Genetics Behind COVID-19 Infection | NIH COVID-19 Research

"We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19."
Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19 | Nature

 

[Mark Quayle]

ANd where would they get that power from?

Either from a more powerful number of nations demanding it, more powerful by arms or by political noise, (and probably the latter), AND/OR, and most likely it would go like this, that the liberal party in power would cede the point to the WHO, rather gladly, in fact, with the cooperation of most of the Republicans, preferring Globalism to Patriotism. I don't think it is an unwarranted fear, seeing how political correctness works, and how anyone labeled as the "Extreme Radical Right Wing" is even being taught to America as dangerous, and it is already the handle being given to those who are proponents of the Constitution as written, particularly if they are insistent and public about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Either from a more powerful number of nations demanding it, more powerful by arms or by political noise, (and probably the latter), AND/OR, and most likely it would go like this, that the liberal party in power would cede the point to the WHO, rather gladly, in fact, with the cooperation of most of the Republicans, preferring Globalism to Patriotism. I don't think it is an unwarranted fear, seeing how political correctness works, and how anyone labeled as the "Extreme Radical Right Wing" is even being taught to America as dangerous, and it is already the handle being given to those who are proponents of the Constitution as written, particularly if they are insistent and public about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Let me add what I had meant to lead up to. More than once it has been suggested that the religious are mentally ill and needing of health services. I'll leave it there.

 

[Ligurian]

ANd where would they get that power from?

Article 12.2. If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring, the Director-General shall notify all States Parties and seek to consult with the State Party in whose territory the event arises regarding this preliminary determination and may, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49, seek the views of the Committee established under Article 48 (hereinafter the “Emergency Committee”). If the Director-General determines and the State Party are in agreement regarding this determination that the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, the Director-General shall, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49, seek the views of the Committee established under Article 48 (hereinafter the “Emergency Committee”) on appropriate temporary recommendations.
3. If, following the consultation in paragraph 2 above, the Director-General and the State Party in whose territory the event arises do not come to a consensus within 48 hours on whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, a determination shall be made in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 49.

Article 59:2. These Regulations shall enter into force 24 months after the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, and amendments to these Regulations shall enter into force six months after the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1bis of this Article, except for:
(a) a State that has rejected these Regulations or an amendment thereto in accordance with Article 61;

"Article 61
Rejection
If a State notifies the Director-General of its rejection of these Regulations or of an amendment thereto within the period provided in paragraph 1 of Article 59, these Regulations or the amendment concerned shall not enter into force with respect to that State. Any international sanitary agreement or regulations listed in Article 58 to which such State is already a party shall remain in force as far as such State is concerned."
International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) - The Faculty of Law


Doesn't it take an Act of Congress to RE-accept a Treaty?

"International law is derived from two primary sources—international agreements and customary practice. Under the U.S. legal system, international agreements can be entered into by means of a treaty or an executive agreement. The Constitution allocates primary responsibility for entering into such agreements to the executive branch, but Congress also plays an essential role. First, in order for a treaty (but not an executive agreement) to become binding upon the United States, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds majority. Secondly, Congress may authorize congressional-executive agreements. Thirdly, many treaties and executive agreements are not self-executing, meaning that implementing legislation is required to render the agreement's provisions judicially enforceable in the United States."
International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law

___________________
"Executive Agreement:
--an agreement, usually pertaining to administrative matters and less formal than an international treaty, made between chiefs of state without senatorial approval."

"Treaty:
--a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.
--the formal document embodying such an international agreement.
--any agreement or compact."
Executive agreement vs. Treaty: See the Difference | Dictionary.com

 

[Bradskii]

You seem to be saying...

I've unwatched this thread. Thank you for not responding to this post.

 

[Ligurian]

I've unwatched this thread. Thank you for not responding to this post.

You're welcome.

 

[Ligurian]

Either from a more powerful number of nations demanding it, more powerful by arms or by political noise, (and probably the latter), AND/OR, and most likely it would go like this, that the liberal party in power would cede the point to the WHO, rather gladly, in fact, with the cooperation of most of the Republicans, preferring Globalism to Patriotism. I don't think it is an unwarranted fear, seeing how political correctness works, and how anyone labeled as the "Extreme Radical Right Wing" is even being taught to America as dangerous, and it is already the handle being given to those who are proponents of the Constitution as written, particularly if they are insistent and public about the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

I've found the document about Trump getting us out of that money-pit.
But nothing about Congress making it law in the first place.
Is it all the way back in 1948... and just grand-fathered in, ever since?
Don't Ammendments require an Act of Congess?

 

[JustOneWay]

Do you know the name/number of the bill that Bush signed to join us up with the WHO? I don't generally have much trouble finding these things...
I've found the document about Trump getting us out of that money-pit.
But nothing about Congress making it law.

The United States has been been a part of the World Health Organization since the 1940's.

Trump was pretending that we were immune to the worlds health issues. What a terrible President he turned out to be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've found the document about Trump getting us out of that money-pit.
But nothing about Congress making it law in the first place.
Is it all the way back in 1948... and just grand-fathered in, ever since?
Don't Ammendments require an Act of Congess?

More and more, the method of getting around law has become, "Nobody has the time or money or media to prosecute this event/ practice. And if they do, we will keep it in the courts until the statute of limitations (or fading public interest) takes over."

They just do what they decide to do, and law doesn't apply to their greasy souls, because it doesn't get prosecuted / enforced. The only president lately that seemed to really give a flying flip about America is the only one that got called on abandoning his oath of office. What does that tell you?

 

[JustOneWay]

The only president lately that seemed to really give a flying flip about America is the only one that got called on abandoning his oath of office. What does that tell you?

Is that the same President who staged a coup on the United States government?
Trump attempt at a coup to be a focus of U.S. House hearings, lawmaker Raskin says

 

[Ligurian]

The United States has been been a part of the World Health Organization since the 1940's.

Trump was pretending that we were immune to the worlds health issues. What a terrible President he turned out to be.

Charity begins at home.
Your freedom ends where mine begins.
America's health issues start and end at the border.

Since there is no world governor...
the all-encompassing "world's health issues"...
needs to be broken down into its separate governments...
and the governers of each section will control their own... everything.
.........
Oh, wait... that's already been done.

 

[Ligurian]

Is that the same President who staged a coup on the United States government?
Trump attempt at a coup to be a focus of U.S. House hearings, lawmaker Raskin says

Quite the gem, your boy.

"By the time Raskin was finished with Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, the carnage was so bad Reschenthaler demanded that Raskin’s word “be taken down.” That’s a House rule disciplining members who use “inappropriate words in debate.”
(In this case it was over passage of the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend Lease Act, a $33 billion aid package requested by the president to continue helping Ukraine fight and repel the invading Russian army.)"
Jamie Raskin boxes in Republicans before stomping the box

wait ...Lend Lease Act... are they kidding?

“Without Lend-Lease, the Red Army would not have had about one-third of its ammunition, half of its aircraft, or half of its tanks. In addition, there would have been constant shortages of transportation and fuel. The railroads would have periodically come to a halt. And Soviet forces would have been much more poorly coordinated by a lack of radio equipment. And they would have been perpetually hungry without American canned meat and fats.”
Lend Lease For Ukraine: It was not a Good Deal for US Taxpayers in WWII.

wow... Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.