I want to be clear that I don't like these people and I'm on your side. But the word "treason" has been thrown around a tremendous amount in the past few years and the meaning of words- especially words as serious as "treason"- mean something.
Treason is specifically the provision of material support to a hostile power with which we are at war. We are not at war with Russia. We are not at war with China. We are not at war with the WHO. (These are just examples.) Releasing legally classified or secret information to foreign powers (whether we're at war with them or not) is espionage. Releasing non-classified information to foreign powers is not espionage. In any case, espionage is not treason.
"Traitor" is not a legal term and has no legal meaning like espionage or treason. Treason is a form of treachery, but they are not synonymous- "traitor" is a moral and not a legal judgment.
The Founders deliberately framed the definition of "treason" extremely narrowly to avoid the use of this charge to punish political or ideological opponents with the weight of federal law. This is a good thing.
It is not treasonous to be un-American or to act against the interests of the United States in legal ways, such as economically advantaging her rivals through trade or legal information sharing or disseminating propaganda that undermines American values, however repugnant we as patriots might find that behavior.
It depends on what it's a conspiracy to do. A conspiracy to undermine the sovereign authority of the government by legally dismantling democratic systems still isn't treason. It's just evil.
It's also worth mentioning that the WHO proposal doesn't have any specific language that it will unilaterally supersede the authority of national governments; the WHO won't have any authority beyond what member nations agree to respect, just like the utterly meaningless United Nations.
If Brandon or someone equally worthy signs a treaty saying "we will surrender all executive authority to the WHO during a pandemic" (which, even given everything going on, seems extremely unlikely) and the WHO "orders" the US to do something unconstitutional, it carries no force of law, and if the federal government does it, the people can and should take it to the Supreme Court. But it still isn't treason, and it still isn't punishable by death.
Obviously, if the federal government is completely ignoring the Constitution and the people have no redress in the legal system, then all of this is moot, but at that point laws have stopped meaning anything and charges of "treason" are equally meaningless.
Anyone can feel free to share, link, copy, adapt, or include in their own public comments as desired. I include instructions on how to submit comments at the end of the post.
Yours is comprehensive and covers all pertinent topics to the request for public comments, and major likely consequences of such an international agreement. I focused on what I considered most essential, your number 11: the informed consent / autonomy of the individual / pre-eminence of the US Constitution and human rights. Thank you for writing your response to the WHO.
Both letters are excellent and this type of effort will, I hope, pave the way for a new/parallel society that leaves the NWO in the dust. Thanks so much for that.
However from the perspective of the WHO, is this not a “Delphi technique” whereby their conclusion is foregone but they want to be able to claim public hearings and thus that what they are proposing are consensus conclusions?
And yes, you’re absolutely right about the question being framed to presuppose the treaty’s necessity and thus induce compliance with its inevitability, which I address by rejecting that premise in my introduction to the letter.
I added the following at the end. It still comes in under the limit:
As a citizen of the United States, a sovereign nation, whose individual rights and freedoms are lawfully guaranteed by her Constitution, I reject the asserted authority of any foreign entity acting in violation of the aforementioned.
While I should have put more time into figuring out what to say, I just winged it as to get at least say something (I will forward your thoughts to others.
“As a US citizen I cannot agree with extrajudicial agreements which bypass the US Constitution, bypass National sovereignty, bypass states sovereignty, and directly violate individual sovereignty.
While I do appreciate 3rd party insights, voluntary cooperation, and multi-national engagements in multi-national issues; this cannot supersede the sovereignty of the nation, state, or individual.
This being said, any and all preparations must respect the human rights of informed consent, biological integrity, and personal agency. And beyond this preparations must not supersede the laws and customs of the nations agreeing work with the WHO on issues and events going forward.”
I have this image of a lone lion surrounded by wild dogs. Whenever the lion turns there is a dog attacking from the rear and it looks hopeless, like our plight. Then more loins arrive and the wild dogs scatter - be a lion.
“...with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures...”.
Vote on what?
Do you mean
“3. An open and transparent process, on which all people of the world can vote in a manner that includes failsafe protection measures against tampering, that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it, or where any people could be harmed by it”?
Thank you, Colleen, for bringing attention to this timely, and for offering your Notice as an option to copy or use as an outline. I do note that the WCH has stated that the WHO will not accept statements that don’t answer the question of what should be in the law, not whether the treaty should stand. I think you are so right that referenda is necessary for determining whether individuals are in agreement with proposed actions or declarations. We do not want our leaders acting in our stead.
Right. That’s probably our next step. Reminding OUR leaders (if they can be called that) that our Constitution is still in force and We, The People, are still in charge. My cynicism comes into play when I realize many of the people want wolves to given the sheep. Very sadly.
COVID is just the latest incarnation of the Permanent War. It is, for all intents and purposes, WWIII. Ukraine is a smokescreen, and a pretext for mandated food rationing, which will require everyone to submit to having gov't issued wallets tied to blockchain, which will allow the central banks to decide how much money you're allowed to have, and how you get to spend it. If you think Putin is a "good guy", think again. He's bought and paid for, just like every other "global leader". Ditto for Trump. The only thing that can save us is civil disobedience.
Elected officials in the US who try to undermine the constitution which they took an oath to protect are traitors, aren’t they?
Absolutely, punishable by DEATH.
No, absolutely not.
I want to be clear that I don't like these people and I'm on your side. But the word "treason" has been thrown around a tremendous amount in the past few years and the meaning of words- especially words as serious as "treason"- mean something.
Treason is specifically the provision of material support to a hostile power with which we are at war. We are not at war with Russia. We are not at war with China. We are not at war with the WHO. (These are just examples.) Releasing legally classified or secret information to foreign powers (whether we're at war with them or not) is espionage. Releasing non-classified information to foreign powers is not espionage. In any case, espionage is not treason.
"Traitor" is not a legal term and has no legal meaning like espionage or treason. Treason is a form of treachery, but they are not synonymous- "traitor" is a moral and not a legal judgment.
The Founders deliberately framed the definition of "treason" extremely narrowly to avoid the use of this charge to punish political or ideological opponents with the weight of federal law. This is a good thing.
It is not treasonous to be un-American or to act against the interests of the United States in legal ways, such as economically advantaging her rivals through trade or legal information sharing or disseminating propaganda that undermines American values, however repugnant we as patriots might find that behavior.
But the distinction is important.
You are correct, but if there is a "conspiracy ....." it is a different ball game isn't it?
It depends on what it's a conspiracy to do. A conspiracy to undermine the sovereign authority of the government by legally dismantling democratic systems still isn't treason. It's just evil.
It's also worth mentioning that the WHO proposal doesn't have any specific language that it will unilaterally supersede the authority of national governments; the WHO won't have any authority beyond what member nations agree to respect, just like the utterly meaningless United Nations.
If Brandon or someone equally worthy signs a treaty saying "we will surrender all executive authority to the WHO during a pandemic" (which, even given everything going on, seems extremely unlikely) and the WHO "orders" the US to do something unconstitutional, it carries no force of law, and if the federal government does it, the people can and should take it to the Supreme Court. But it still isn't treason, and it still isn't punishable by death.
Obviously, if the federal government is completely ignoring the Constitution and the people have no redress in the legal system, then all of this is moot, but at that point laws have stopped meaning anything and charges of "treason" are equally meaningless.
Thank you for your stellar contributions to this effort, Colleen!
Not sure if you’ve seen it yet, but I published my Letter to the WHO here:
https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-who
Anyone can feel free to share, link, copy, adapt, or include in their own public comments as desired. I include instructions on how to submit comments at the end of the post.
Yours is comprehensive and covers all pertinent topics to the request for public comments, and major likely consequences of such an international agreement. I focused on what I considered most essential, your number 11: the informed consent / autonomy of the individual / pre-eminence of the US Constitution and human rights. Thank you for writing your response to the WHO.
Thank you, Colleen, and you were brilliant to approach it from the legal angle!
Both letters are excellent and this type of effort will, I hope, pave the way for a new/parallel society that leaves the NWO in the dust. Thanks so much for that.
However from the perspective of the WHO, is this not a “Delphi technique” whereby their conclusion is foregone but they want to be able to claim public hearings and thus that what they are proposing are consensus conclusions?
Thanks, Ernie, and I hope so, too!
And yes, you’re absolutely right about the question being framed to presuppose the treaty’s necessity and thus induce compliance with its inevitability, which I address by rejecting that premise in my introduction to the letter.
Finally something worth my effort to send to these cocksuckers.
I added the following at the end. It still comes in under the limit:
As a citizen of the United States, a sovereign nation, whose individual rights and freedoms are lawfully guaranteed by her Constitution, I reject the asserted authority of any foreign entity acting in violation of the aforementioned.
Succinct is best; you nailed it, Guttermouth.
Brevity requirements are often an excellent motivation to clear speech.
Done and I copied your addendum, Guttermouth.
Cheers. Something for the WHO circular file.
😩 We can’t think like that. We have to realize there are more of us than them and my belief is that God is on our side.
Oh, I'm not saying we can't win. I'm just saying a couple hundred/thousand stridently-written emails isn't going to do it.
Excellent!
The WHO does not even provide a receipt of the comments or even an acknowledgment!
My comment was general, along the lines of:
1. It is my body, my choice; quoting the Australian PM
2. Health is a personal matter between an individual and his/her doctor
3. Who care more for me - me or another organisation or temporal being? Me! Therefore I must have the first and final say.
4. Why would govts need to force people, directly and via proxy, to take something if they can prove it is safe, effective, and necessary???
I copied it before sending it. Maybe give it another go?
Nein. I am not a dem - I don't vote more than once.
While I should have put more time into figuring out what to say, I just winged it as to get at least say something (I will forward your thoughts to others.
“As a US citizen I cannot agree with extrajudicial agreements which bypass the US Constitution, bypass National sovereignty, bypass states sovereignty, and directly violate individual sovereignty.
While I do appreciate 3rd party insights, voluntary cooperation, and multi-national engagements in multi-national issues; this cannot supersede the sovereignty of the nation, state, or individual.
This being said, any and all preparations must respect the human rights of informed consent, biological integrity, and personal agency. And beyond this preparations must not supersede the laws and customs of the nations agreeing work with the WHO on issues and events going forward.”
Very well said. I just subscribed to your newsletter.
Excellently worded statement! 👏
My blunt answer, sidestepping a more prolonged and articulate response: This is why we have a right to bear arms. To protect us from tyrants.
I have this image of a lone lion surrounded by wild dogs. Whenever the lion turns there is a dog attacking from the rear and it looks hopeless, like our plight. Then more loins arrive and the wild dogs scatter - be a lion.
My response would be far less civil.
I believe many were. But WHO language tacitly explained these types of replies would probably be deleted.
Thank you so much!
Thank you.
I don't understand this bit:
“...with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures...”.
Vote on what?
Do you mean
“3. An open and transparent process, on which all people of the world can vote in a manner that includes failsafe protection measures against tampering, that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it, or where any people could be harmed by it”?
Yes, that's better. Thank you.
Thank you, Colleen, for bringing attention to this timely, and for offering your Notice as an option to copy or use as an outline. I do note that the WCH has stated that the WHO will not accept statements that don’t answer the question of what should be in the law, not whether the treaty should stand. I think you are so right that referenda is necessary for determining whether individuals are in agreement with proposed actions or declarations. We do not want our leaders acting in our stead.
They're perfectly welcome to write an agreement. What they may not do is attempt to remove human rights or to bulldoze legal protections of the same.
AKA, the opt out clause has already been written.
Right. That’s probably our next step. Reminding OUR leaders (if they can be called that) that our Constitution is still in force and We, The People, are still in charge. My cynicism comes into play when I realize many of the people want wolves to given the sheep. Very sadly.
Note: I did it!
COVID is just the latest incarnation of the Permanent War. It is, for all intents and purposes, WWIII. Ukraine is a smokescreen, and a pretext for mandated food rationing, which will require everyone to submit to having gov't issued wallets tied to blockchain, which will allow the central banks to decide how much money you're allowed to have, and how you get to spend it. If you think Putin is a "good guy", think again. He's bought and paid for, just like every other "global leader". Ditto for Trump. The only thing that can save us is civil disobedience.
Copied and sent.
In the immortal words of the tourist from "The Rock,"
"What kind of fucked-up World Health Organization is this?"
Done. Thank you so much for this. Not only the ability to say no, but knowing there is legal recourse is for this attempted atrocity!