17 Comments

Amazing that the UN does this - such a violator of human rights, by and large. Just think of WHO.

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2023Liked by Alex Newman

There are no words to describe this corrupt unelected organization that stands for everything in direct contrast to our Constitution and laws. We need out. NOW. Great work calling out their hypocrisy and hate. Defund the idiots.

Expand full comment
Nov 10, 2023Liked by Alex Newman

Defund the UN and get them and the other corrupt criminal organizations they have their hands in and remove them from our shores now.

Expand full comment

Sadly Congress cannot remove the US from the WHO. They can defund but they cannot remove the US from the WHO. Only the President can do this and then there is a 12 month waiting period. I agree with defunding the WHO and the entire UN and ALL affiliate agencies but keep in mind this is not the needed solution. Time for states to do what TN is doing and pass legislation to create a process in which to invoke Nullification. We have written and sponsored legislation ready to go for 2024. Other states need to jump on board. HB0726 can be found on our website tncss.weebly.com. Sign up on our FREE Substack tncss.substack.com

Expand full comment

Someone needs to clue the UN in on the fact they have no constitutional authority in the Unite States. THIS my dear friend is why we need to start exercising our state authority over the federal government via Nullification. We are doing it here in TN and other states need to jump on board sooner rather than later. The legislation (HB0726) we have is posted on our website and we encourage other states to print it out and work to get it passed in their state. TNCSS.SUBSTACK.COM and the bill is on our website TNCSS.WEEBLY.COM

Expand full comment

Who elected the corrupt UN to rule over us???!

Expand full comment

An entity who only resides in NYC, ONE city in the U.S. has no business making demands on not One American citizen or any other citizen for that matter. Americans have been adamant for years as to the U.S. kowtowing to a corrupt gaggle of world rights failures masquerading as the arbiters of human rights around the world, but then again Americans concerns are ALWAYS put on the back burner as opposed to everyone else. It is the same as getting rid of the ridiculous time changing we have been trying to junk for the last what? 30 years?

our leaders are the top of the crop of the worlds leaders who claim the right to be insulated from the bad decisions they make in every issue through the Burkha of civil service to humanity.

Expand full comment

Great analysis. But if the US signs the 2024 WHO pandemic treaty, it will override the sovereignty of all States (so they want us to believe).

The threat of the WHO sovereignty-grab by the 2024 International PLANdemc Treaty: it’s the definitions!

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-the-international-plandemic

Also:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/system-failure-ai-exposes-zero-government

Expand full comment

Very interesting. I’m hoping our new speaker will defund the WHO. Didn’t Trump remove us from the WHO? Maybe he just defunded? Because if he removed us, I don’t think he waited 12 months? 🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment

The key to understanding U.S. involvement in the U.N., from day one, is not to allege "unconstitutional" actions, since they continue, but to figure out how those unstopped actions could ever not actually violate that supreme Law of the Land, but conform to it.

Thus, for example, your paragraph, "One of the most troubling elements of the report from a constitutional perspective is that it ignored the fact that most of the legal areas in question are under state rather than federal jurisdiction. Under America’s Constitution, which remains the supreme law of the land regardless of any treaties or statutes contradicting it, states only delegated a few clearly defined powers to the feds. All other powers were reserved for the states or the people, as explained clearly in the Tenth Amendment."

For there is one clause of the Constitution wholly different than all others, that explains the highly-unusual exception, to all the normal rules--Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17, for the District of Columbia, and other "exclusive" legislation parcels ceded by particular States, for other special federal purposes ("Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings").

Since these special federal areas were "ceded" by the particular States--both in land and governing ability (so Congress could thereafter exercise "exclusive" legislation "in all Cases whatsoever" as required by Cl. 17), then there are NO LONGER any reserved powers to any State--all governing powers are CONCENTRATED in Congress (even as ratification of the Constitution DIVIDED governing powers into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers everywhere else).

Ratification of the Constitution by any State does not prevent those States from later delegating even more power to Congress and the U.S. Government by formal amendments later ratified by 3/4ths of the States, but neither does ratification of the Constitution ever prohibit any "particular State" (the State wherein a particular parcel of ground is located) from ceding all of its remaining governing authority to Congress.

Therefore, the Tenth Amendment cannot even apply in D.C. or other exclusive legislation areas where no State authorities thus remain.

Therefore, members of Congress in D.C. MAY actually exercise State-like power, yet in conformance with the strictest terms of the U.S. Constitution (so State-like actions therein CANNOT be [facially] "unconstitutional], even as they could be unconstitutional "as applied" BEYOND D.C. and other exclusive legislation parcels [but patriots never correctly argue that point]).

Therefore, you're actually wrong in the letter of the law, even as your comments certainly fit within the spirit of the Constitution.

Since members of Congress may actually exercise a separate State-like power, then they may actually do so, such as agreeing with U.N. parameters and delegating their exclusive legislation authority to foreign delegates who never swear an oath to support the U.S. Constitution (it is just that such actions cannot actually bind the Union of States).

Please realize that the States cannot ever enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, because of Art. I, Sect. 10, Cl. 1, or agreements or compacts with another State or foreign power, because of Art. I, Sect. 10, Cl. 3, BUT THE "DISTRICT" OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A "STATE" and thus it isn't expressly prohibited from doing so.

To understand U.S. involvement in the U.N. and the odd ability of Presidents to engage in war without Congress actually first declaring it, please see my public domain book "Waging War without Congress First Declaring it."

https://archive.org/details/waging_war

Expand full comment

Should throw the UN out of the country! Useless money drain

Expand full comment

So a couple of things. I want International Law to work when it comes to things like international war crimes and genocide, but they whip themselves into irrelevance as a leader in Western conventions when they turn a blind eye to torture, cultural genocide of Tibetans and mass incarceration of Uighyurs etc. etc. to not piss of the PRC. They spit in our eye appointing Iran's Kohmeni to the human rights commission. What a joke! That leaves Nuremburg intiatives in some limbo, but not essentially all regulations be damned. That being said, when the UN's anti-sovereign agendas are less observant of UNDHR for speech and civil rights et al they cancel themselves out legally, somewhere in due process. This annulment of public human rights moralities is never a good thing.

Let's look at biometrics.

UN rights chief: Remote biometric surveillance of protests brings ‘unacceptable risks’ - https://www.biometricupdate.com/202311/un-rights-chief-remote-biometric-surveillance-of-protests-brings-unacceptable-risks

Same week >EU considers some remote biometric identification in a trade-off for prohibitions - https://www.biometricupdate.com/202311/eu-considers-some-remote-biometric-identification-in-a-trade-off-for-prohibitions

What team are they on?

Expand full comment