The article above states, "At the end of the day, Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate to the world what they must do to make Gates a ton of money. As noted by The Counter Signal: “Gates’ announcement of the GERM team coincides with the World Health Organization’s drafting of a global pandemic treaty …"

This definition of a megalomaniac in Wikipedia was provided by Dr. Robert Malone in one of his recent articles:
“Megalomania” is an obsession with power and wealth, and a passion for grand schemes.” It also relates this term to the following psychological terms: Narcissistic personality disorder, Grandiose delusions , and Omnipotence (psychoanalysis), a stage of child development. Malone adds, "Davos Man (Schwab, Gates et al.) fits the definition of megalomania and has acquired what he believes are the financial and political resources to try to force his obsession and grand schemes on the world, and to force you, your family, and the world to comply with his vision."

Rampant mental illness!!

This goes way beyond mental illness, they're all Evil, it's God vs Satan.

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
But this is who the true victor is....

A big Italian salute to Bill Gates. I will not turn my body (God's creation) over to Satan's destruction.

Then they will cut your head off. They have it all in place the WHO placed a law in to say they can do this

WHO cannot create law per our constitution Article II, any law, rule, regulation repugnant to the constitution is null and void.

Dude; Do you HEAR yourself? You're speaking as if the W.H.O. is some distant God we Dare Not Anger. They have zero legal authority in any nation on Earth. Nor does Gates have any.
The fact of the matter is, all laws are passed by http://allaregreen.us/. & since none of THOSE people are exempt from ANY laws in any Western nations, the Great News is that taking private $ while in public office as well as mandating untested products are 100% illegal.
Unfortunately, the only people capable of bringing charges, prosecuting or arresting them are utter cowards; The American People.
You'll bomb innocent Brown Children abroad on command for any excuse, but can't stand up for anything Right without Daddy-Government telling you that you can. Sorry. I guess in that sense they all ARE distant Gods; Because you're all absolutely terrified of angering them, & just the thought of one constipated-looking scowl of disapproval from Nancy Pelosi is enough to keep you from acting to save any children's lives. Even of ones in Your Own Family.
"But Nancy might Get Angry."

You're all Utterly Worthless Cowards.

Money and Wealth comes to an end. The U.A. Emirates president has just died and left behind about 120m dollar wealth.

I will die fighting them rather than take their poisons
I hope mankind rises up and destroys these demons

We have got to stop this from happening.

Maybe by uprisings everywhere. Demonstrations have not worked

An impostor president submitting amendments contrary to the best interests of the country his minders seized in a stolen election? No way such amendments nor the participation of the USA will stand legally!

The US Constitution is The Law of the Land. This WHO globalist UN crap is an underhanded, illegal usurpation of sovereignty and will not be tolerated by We The People. WHO and Bill Gates, take your vaxx passports and SHOVE IT!

Agreed but if this becomes "law", we will have no choice, I'm afraid. We won't be able to work, buy food, etc. This is some scary stuff.

Time to read the Book of Revelation....
It tells us that a One World Government will usher in the Anti-christ.
Time to accept the Lord Jesus as your Savior, while there's time.
He's the one who will defeat the Globalist Cabal.
He's coming soon...
God bless

Our parellel community will not comply with Satanists.

Then you's better be self-sufficient, live off grid on land you own & pay taxes on, and stay healthy.

Done that

I've done that quite easily.

And if we accept it we are digging our own gravess. Which is better?

For starters we have to get rid of the Socialism thats in the Whitehouse and the so called "Sqaud "
OMAR,TLIEB, AOC

AMEN!!

THIS is the nightmare! THIS is the goal! From the very beginning it has been about the vax passports to control the human “livestock!” Resist as if your life depends upon it, because it DOES!

This will definitely start a war, and I'll be more than happy to assist.

It will end like Waco.

Considering that the B&M Gates Foundation is the major funder of the WHO since the USA pulled out, it should be clearly obvious to anyone having this information, that as BGates has massive investments in the pharma industry and petroleum (used in the manufacture of many drugs) besides any other investments such as giving most generously to major newspapers and universities such as Oxford in the UK (who produced a 'free' vaccine against covid), he and the others backing this proposed Pandemic Preparedness effort by the WHO can only be viewed with immense suspicion and as a move towards planetary control. The track record of the WHO is as abysmal as that of Fauchis' (in the US) in keeping the planets people healthy...planetary health at all levels has deteriorated drastically over the last hundred years, mismanaged as it has been by the very people now promoting this move to 'control' the planets health. Such arrogance and CRAZY!

Does anyone really think public comment is going to stop this? That's like public hearings for zoning and utility rate increases. Big bucks always get what they want.

There are so many more of us than them. Public commenting is simply the very first step. We speak out, we inform, we petition, and then we mass and show our numbers. It still works. But our power is in our numbers willing to take a public stand. I'm in. You?

Always. They want us to never know that. (Don't help them.)

The link to the comments page is presently not accepting comments having been . As stated above, they will again in June 16 and 17. Here is contact information for the WHO other by region (Africa, the Americas, Europe, etc.).
https://www.who.int/about/c...

And here is their contact information for general inquiries in Switzerland.
WHO Headquarters in Geneva
Avenue Appia 20
1211 Geneva
Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 791 21 11

This is important information as stated in the article: “To this end, the WHO has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems (headquarted in Frankfurt am Main, CEO Adel Al-Saleh [images online]) to develop a global vaccine passport system, with plans to link every person on the planet to a QR code digital ID … Thus, there will be one pandemic treaty, one GERM team, one global vaccine passport and one World Health Organization to monitor every person on the planet.”

I predict there will be blood shed and it will not be just in our country.

The states have the power. We will never let this happen here. 2A is here precisely for reasons like this. And joey bribes is not the duly elected president. No document or "treaty" can take precedent over our Constitution. It is the ONLY rule of law in our land. Anything else is an another attempt at treason against our country. The WHO/UN will get wiped out if they step foot on our land and try to do anything. I'm sure of it. Thank God for 2A!

“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government
https://off-guardian.org/20...

Cecil Rhodes the millionaire who made his money off the backs of coerced black workers, apparently, when near to death, said he had a wish...to form a secret society that would aim, long term, towards creating a world RID of 'inferior' races. Looks like that society came into being...The Rockefellers, Gates, Bush's, Rothschilds (such philanthropists) and probably a few more, like various royals (?) well invested in things like 'family planning', vaccinate the poor in Africa, Eugenic aspirations, 'over' population fears, GM type control of food production, dimming the sun to counteract global warming, Geo-engineering with all kinds of toxic dusts in order to 'control' the weather...their insanities are endless. Let's hope the majority of the people on our planet are saner than these 'leaders'.

None of the agencies are fit for purpose, and quite clearly show that they have a different agenda to what is expected of them!

This is too much concentrated power in the hands of people no one knows or trusts. The backers of WHO are also suspect. I don't want a computer geek who made enormous money seeded by his family to influence that much power. This will cause war.

Bill Gates new book: "How to Prevent the Next Pandemic" is essentially the blue print/script for the WHO.
I just have ONE advice, instead of writing the whole book: Place him in a hoosegow, and this world will be free of pandemics.

Enjoy your world of corporate monarchies and corporate funded mercenary armies. Protest all you want. The beatings, maiming's, and killings will go on until the populace quits producing morons who join the military.

This is their plan to reduce the population by 75%. They plan to kill 75% of us and make the remainder into slaves. These will not be vaccines to prevent illness, they will be poison to kill.

An Illegal Treaty with the WHO asserting power OVER the Constitution is
ILLEGAL. Any Treaty that gives away US Sovereignty WITHOUT Amending the
US Constitution to that effect first, is ILLEGAL!!! This should be Constitutional Law 101, and proclaimed throughout the Media. Those wishing answers merely can interview the Court justices on one case quote and lead with

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." and example the need for any Treaty to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Amendments especially, and the reporter or interviewer can drill them on many quotes of past case decisions that support the fact that any Treaty must NOT exert supremacy over what is termed the Supreme Law / the Constitution itself, as it describes itself in Article 6 of its text. Use it. Ram it home. Make the New World Order choke on it and black out over it.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
"... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution,
have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An offence created by it is not a crime.
A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void,
and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”

Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322,
"The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent
with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?"

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160
The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...it
is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in
attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a
legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act
which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the
Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment,
comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution,
and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative
character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his
individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any
immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United
States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) @ 87
“The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy to the Constitution
is at all times a question of much delicacy... The Court, when
impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its
station could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that
station imposes. … The opposition between the Constitution and the law
should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of
their incompatibility with each other.”

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528-29
@ 495 “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary
remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”
@528 “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument
necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies
outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions
do not create or enlarge constitutional power. [Case
Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121;
Home Building &; Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S.
426. ]
The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be
adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these
powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional
grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend
the

Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary.
Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and
precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." “
…Second.
The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had
occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles
which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v.
Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that "All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers.
Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to
transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is
thus vested. “

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
“…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
“But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the
States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted
powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be
exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the
Constitution.”

Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) @ 290
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet
it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is
attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the
state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say
and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made
so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the
word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those
individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "

Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws;
and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)
“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws
or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President
has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make
treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And
the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of
the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is
therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice
have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."

The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is
in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that
instrument against the action of the government or of its departments,
and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that
of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or
a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the
states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter,
without its consent." [Case citations omitted]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes,
treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind
that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the
President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of
the Constitution."

State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that
there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one
such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in
derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
@ 433 . Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."

Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
"A treaty made under the authority of the United States
"shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state
shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..." [Case citations omitted]

United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded
treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually
subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."

And again, as at the beginning:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
Thus ANY sovereignty given away to violate even 1 provision or right in the US Constitution is automatically illegal, even if a fully rigged U.S. Senate passes it 100 - 0. FACT. Exclamation point it, and proclaim it.

You should be more concerned they created a law to act on that allows them to cut peoples heads off for non compliance. It’s all there for u to see https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Bill is playing god and wanting to do everything HIS way to lower the population/control and monitor everyone. Fauci/Gates need to be stopped. They think they can get away with Crimes against Humanity and kill people. NO treaty. Bill wants to be the richest person in the world. He doesn't care about your health. He just wants to make money in a sneaky way.

The WHO, funded in great part by one individual...BGates, cannot possibly be fit for purpose or representative of the planets population, as they already proved over many years, (even before the gates man was it's biggest funder) they had NOT in any way helped to make the world a healthier place. With greater opioid addiction in the US and quite a few too many elsewhere in the western world. They did NOT in any way succeed in getting any legislation passed in the US to stop doctors dishing out these opioids. They have had absolutely NO effect on stopping the use of pesticides on the food people eat, despite it being a widespread piece of knowledge how poisonous it is to HEALTH. They have had NO effect on the amount of toxins the fish we eat absorb due to industrial effluences and sewage poured into the seas. They have NOT insisted, for our health sake, on the removal of fluoride in the US water supply, in fact the lobbyist are busy trying to get the UK to fluoridate drinking water, but not a peep out of the WHO, All this despite it being well documented how damaging the stuff is to peoples bodies!! So what on earth are they being paid for??? It's taxpayers monies that go to support them, that is other than what they get from BG. What are our politicians doing about this? Are they fast asleep at the wheel whilst this useless organisation now wants to have control of ALL the worlds approach to health! ???
I could go on, but suffice to say once again, they are obviously NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
Rather than defunding the police who actually often are fit for purpose, lets rather (politicians of the world) defund the WHO!!!

I missed the part about enforcement. How many armed enforcers does the WHO have? In America, our Constitution states that government power is awarded only by the consent of the governed. Treaties must be ratified by the senate with a 2/3 majority. Article II, Section 2, clause 2. This "treaty" is therefore dead in the water.

The UN has since Clinton infiltrated plainclothes "peacekeepers" into the USA. The military was vaxxed to weaken, / cull it, so that when martial law is declared to enforce the WHO Treaty, UN "peacekeepers" (unlike American soldiers) will have no compunction firing on people who are not their compatriots.

This is one time mercola misfires. Our input should be to our own Congress demanding retention of our national sovereignty rather than feeding our emails to Mordor.

Why not do both, hit them with double barrel shot gun.

This sounds like pure fear porn. Our constitution cannot be overridden by some outside force claiming they have sovereignty over us. No one in this country will submit to these dictates, in addition to the judicial and legislative branches of many states.

Problem is that it's inside already. I'm still reeling over the number of Democrat friends who are still pro-jab-mandate, and who think My Body/ My Choice isn't in effect for said mandates. MANY in this country have shunned friends, neighbors, relatives over refusal to submit, and have supported forced unemployment and even removing children from their (informed and caring) parents.