Short version: Today, the Sovereignty Coalition wants you to roll up on your elected representative’s office and hand them (or their staff) this.
Slightly more robust version:
The WHO is working on a “pandemic treaty” titled the WHO CA+, as well as amending the existing International Health Regulations in tandem.
The WHO CA+ will serve to massively increase the funding and role of the World Health Organization. Where money is power, this will effectively give this corrupt organization a slush fund to brandish outsized influence as never before in recent history. However, the CA+, despite calling for the legitimization of the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority” such that the WHO becomes the recognized authority of “global health governance”, does pay lip service to respecting national sovereignty, and has therefore allowed the WHO Director-General and lapdog media to repeatedly gaslight the public about whether the WHO is working to undermine national sovereignty by specifically referring to the WHO CA+ in their statements.
This is the height of duplicity. The Director-General knows full well of the concurrent motion to amend the existing International Health Regulations. Before one even gets past the definitions listed on the second page, one sees “non-binding” stricken through for temporary and standing recommendations. (The Legend, prominently displayed at the top of the same page denotes that “Strikethrough = delete existing text”)
Needless to say, there’s a ripple effect from the removal of “non-binding” throughout the rest of the document.
For example, Article 18 expresses various items that the temporary and standing recommendations described in Articles 15 and 16 could include. One of those items is that the WHO can recommend that nations "require vaccination or other prophylaxis”. In 2005, when the IHR document was published, this may have seemed innocuous to many. However, if the “recommendations” cease to be non-binding, as will be the case if the Amendments go through, in a legal sense they cease to be mere recommendations, instead becoming legal mandates.
Other items on that list include quarantining, isolation, contact tracing, and proof of vaccination, e.g. global health certificates, which subsequent amendments are written to express a preference for being digitized. As the Health Minister of Indonesia said at the G20 meeting, “G20 countr[ies] ha[ve] agreed to have this digital certificate using WHO standard, and we will sub[mit] it into the next World Health Assembly in Geneva as the revision to the International Health Regulations.”
Not only is the mobilization to amend the International Health Regulations lesser-known than the “treaty” (WHO CA+ or Accord), it is easier to pass, requiring a simple majority of (unelected, unaccountable, and largely unknown) World Health Assembly delegates, as opposed to the 2/3 majority required to pass a the new Accord. (One prolific researcher even dubbed the WHO CA+ the comparative “decoy”)
For a quick video synopsis of the situation by a couple of experts, readers can check out the first 14 minutes of a recent Sovereignty Coalition presentation featuring Yale-trained litigator Reggie Littlejohn and former medical officer at the WHO, Dr. David Bell. At roughly 57 minutes, Stephanie Scruggs of Liberty Council speaks of the precedents for enforcement, citing a billion dollar punishment incurred by the US under NAFTA:
“Canada and Mexico decided to sue the US in the international court under the NAFTA agreement about country of origin laws in meat. The court found that they could levy financial penalties and sanctions against us for a billion dollars. On December 15 of 2015 US congress was forced to pass a law changing our COOL [country of origin labelling] laws.
…The WHO works the same way; bill goes to an international court for arbitration, and we’re held accountable for it.”
In short, it’s past time to call up your representatives and demand an exit from the World Health Organization. Congress controls the budget, and predicating lifting the debt ceiling on an ultimatum to exit the WHO (mentioned in the Sovereignty Coalition presentation at around an hour and twelve minutes) should be something that representatives should gently, kindly, politely, and supportively be guided to understand as a requirement for having a political career in the future. (Treat him or her like a teammate; after all, you need this person on your side.)
This has to happen now. Even if the final ratification is not until the 2024 World Health Assembly, as is sometimes claimed, it takes a year to withdraw from the WHO, so there’s no time to waste. Furthermore, as host Frank Gaffney states elsewhere in the Sovereignty Coalition presentation, “in the event that there is another pandemic… you can imagine the pressure that will be put on those of us who believe we must extricate us from the WHO to just go along, that the emergency requires it.”
In sum, by the time we realize the overreach of the next crisis, it will plausibly be too late. The US has to exit the WHO now.
So call your reps. Write them. If you can, as the Sovereignty Coalition suggests, show up. Hold yourself to doing it as soon as possible, and follow up. Make sure they or their staffer knows this is imperative to you.
And pray.
Godspeed.
PS
If your representative asks about relevant legislation, you can bring up the bills drafted by Congressmen Chip Roy and Andy Biggs:
No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act (Roy)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/419?s=1&r=12
WHO Withdrawal Act (Biggs)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/79?s=1&r=43
However, the urgency of the situation requires real strong-arming and proactiveness, and the debt ceiling ultimatum is something that representatives need to start rallying behind, as the US has once again hit its debt limit.
PPS
Don’t let your legislators get away with thinking that either of these gambits by the WHO require congressional approval. They are an “Accord” and amendments to existing International Health Regulations, respectively, technically not treaties, and as such, do not require ratification by congress.
Sample letter:
Dear [Rep.],
The WHO’s Director-General and a slew of bureaucrats have seen fit to call for it to be equipped with unprecedented binding powers over member nations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYRQ9BD4OZM
The two-pronged approach involves (1) the more public, ostensibly more sovereignty-amenable WHO CA+ which nonetheless calls for legitimizing the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority” such that the WHO becomes the recognized authority of “global health governance”, dramatically increasing funding and the role of the WHO worldwide and (2) the far more pernicious concurrently proposed amendments to the existing International Health Regulations. These amendments include proposals to remove “non-binding” from article 1 definitions, allowing recommendable items for Articles 15 and 16, specified in Article 18, including that member nations "require vaccination or other prophylaxis”, to become international law. Other items on that list include quarantining, isolation, contact tracing, and proof of vaccination, e.g. global health certificates, which subsequent amendments are written to express a preference for being digitized.
(This is just the short version; there’s much more to unpack. For example, India’s submission astonishingly proposes the removal of “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” from article 3.)
Both proposals (IHR amendments and WHO CA+) call for increased suppression of whatever the bureaucrats deem “misinformation” (which often turns out to be right). This is antithetical to the role of open discourse in both science and in a free society, and the clear intent of the First Amendment.
For its part, the mainstream press has been virtually silent on the subject, only further underlining the egregious lack of informed consent of the public (a public which has no more appetite to learn that their rights and freedoms have been further swept out from under them on the pretense of warding off an emergency).
Relevant legislation has already been drafted by Congressmen Chip Roy and Andy Biggs:
No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/419?s=1&r=12
WHO Withdrawal Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/79?s=1&r=43
However, this is extremely urgent, as it takes a year to pull out of the WHO, and these proposals are expected to be ratified May of 2024 or even potentially May of this year. Thankfully, congress can use leverage arising from the administration’s impending need for the approval of an increase in the national Debt Ceiling to secure the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, presenting it as an ultimatum.
This is what I’m imploring you to do. There’s no time to waste.
With gratitude,