…or immediately drop to my knees.….

Then again… maybe I will drop to my knees. :-)

RFK Warns That The WHO Is On The Verge Of Passing Its Pandemic Treaty
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2024-05-08/rfk-warns-who-verge-passing-its-pandemic-treaty

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has largely spent the last few months shattering the hope that he presents a viable alternative to the current political establishment. From selecting big tech starlet Nicole Shanahan as his running mate to his utter sycophancy for the state of Israel, it has become clear the premise that an RFK presidency would be paradigm-shifting is nothing short of illusory. Yet, he has remained steadfast in the sole facet of his platform which does challenge the existing order. RFK's unfettered opposition to the medical technocracy behind the COVID-19 plandemic and the consequent large-scale human experiment that was the development and distribution of Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccines stands as the only thing somewhat distinguishing him from his opponents in the 2024 election. While Biden and Trump have taken to the campaign trail boasting about how their support for those vaccines helped each of them beat the pandemic, RFK is singing a completely different tune by warning voters of the forthcoming WHO pandemic treaty. If passed, the treaty would put Americans under the yoke of medical tyranny in a manner much more oppressive than in 2020. …

Given the absurdity of the dystopian nightmare that the treaty is, it's been thrust into the realm of disbelief. So much so that Reuters itself even had to fact-check the claims circulating that the WHO abandoned its efforts to pass the treaty which is ironic considering its [own] fact-checkers stated that the WHO was planning no such treaty less than 2 years ago. The idea that a treaty like that being pursued by the WHO which supersedes national sovereignty in determining a pandemic response effort sounds like something liberal NPCs would label as a conspiratorial fever dream that would wake Alex Jones up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night. However, like much of what Jones had forewarned of going into and in the early days of 2020, the globalist takeover that the WHO pandemic treaty represents is very real.


According to Fadéla Chaib, the WHO is set to complete the latest draft of its pandemic treaty by May 10th. That deadline marks the conclusion of its 9th session to complete its arduous mission to do so. If passed, the treaty would revise the existing International Health Regulations that the WHO's 194 member states have already adopted. According to the draft of the treaty most recently made available on April 22nd, the new IHR would give the WHO authority to direct and coordinate the pandemic response measures of nations across the globe signatory to it. If the WHO achieves its aims then the treaty would be adopted by the end of the month by the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body.


Changes to the existing IHR have belabored efforts to pass the pandemic treaty over the years. Over the last few years several proposed IHR changes have been dropped from the current draft of the treaty. Previous editions of the treaty included giving the WHO power to issue binding directives, disregard considerations for humans rights, act on the basis of a potential health emergency, impose digital vaccine passports, and conduct mass censorship to fight what they deem to be misinformation. …



The resistance to those totalitarian measures highlights the tyrannical power the treaty would vest in the WHO. That is clearly demonstrated in text remaining in the proposed treaty which qualifies the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. Although some of the most egregious of those IHR changes have been nullified, many existing changes still pose a similar threat.


IHR changes that remain in the treaty include giving the WHO Director General sole power to declare a pandemic emergency across member states, early intervention to preempt pandemics from occurring, increased surveillance to monitor emerging pathogens, and efforts to increase censorship similar to those which were removed from previous drafts of the treaty, The US would also be required to relinquish 20% of its medical supplies to the WHO for global distribution. That facet of the treaty is emblematic of its stated goal to redistribute resources from richer nations to aid poorer ones. Much like many of the Biden administration's other policies, its adoption would put non-citizens ahead of Americans. Given the US' membership to the WHO, the implementation of the treaty would not even require the Biden administration to involve congress to make the country subservient to its parameters.



The latest attempt to pass the WHO pandemic treaty coinciding with the 2024 Presidential Election adds an increased sense of urgency given that the re-election of Donald Trump poses the risk that the US would not be signatory to future attempts to ratify it. While former president Donald J. Trump had been vehement in his opposition to the WHO's authority over US public health responsiveness, going as far to call to defund it and have the USA withdraw from the UN's global health body, any opposition to the forthcoming pandemic treaty will carry little weight as its ratification is set to come during the time President Biden is still in office. Support for the treaty is one of a litany of issues Biden is diametrically opposed to both Trump and RFK on. Yet despite the fact that signing the treaty would damage the existing US healthcare infrastructure, the fear-mongering of another pandemic is enough for Biden to reawaken the mass formation psychosis from 2020 onward that led to millions of Americans being willing to sacrifice their personal autonomy for a false sense of security. The WHO treaty sacrifices that national autonomy in turn.



The political vehicle ceding authority to the WHO creates a framework to amplify the authoritarian framework previously executed during 2020. Like Event 201 which served as a portent for the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO itself has already ominously foreshadowing a forthcoming iteration of another globalist takeover by forewarning the world of the dangers of Disease X in an effort to conjure support for its enhanced authority over nations' public health responses. Those undertones propelling the WHO pandemic treaty come at a time where the most recent novel respiratory virus that is the H5N1 avian flu has spread to its first human host having infected a Texas dairy worker.


The confluence of those events demonstrates that the short memories of opponents to the response to COVID-19 in 2020 have allowed the globalist technocracy they so fervently opposed to reconfigure the weapons at their disposal to be more adept at imposing their tyranny if another next episodic plandemic is determined to be the most advantageous means for them to do so. Like 2020 before it, the presidential election in November of 2024 is being framed as a watershed moment between the clashing interests of nationalism versus globalism. If the WHO get its wish and see its pandemic treaty passed, the same tactics used by globalists to circuмvent national sovereignty by creating the social conditions to use a public health crisis to manipulate an election could be deployed once again. Given how little has changed since 2020 in reining in that power, history is poised to repeat itself just 4 short years later.

Far be it from me to have opinions [as if!]… BUT… I think you are right about the AR15 being the better choice over the AK platforms. Current ammunition pricing and availability is only one of several reasons. In the US, AR parts and upgrades are ubiquitous; AK parts and upgrades are not. The AR is far more modular than the AK. The AR is far more suited to modern optics (e.g., LPVOs and RDSs).

Probably depends on the scenario you envision.  I've seen experts compare the two online, but the drawbacks of shotguns listed are offset by the semi-auto Komrad, with the 20-round drum magazine, and right type of rounds (something like Hornady Critical Defense).  I envision a tense scenario of a home invasion rather than people attacking your home from outside.  I imagine that I would be under stress and pressure where I'd be unlikely to get into a shoulder-fire position but would be shooting from the side/hip ... and the shotgun is more forgiving in terms of accuracy of shot (which I'd likely need under pressure in a fast-moving situation).  Yes, ammo is more expensive, but again I'm not talking about warding off the ATF but about home invadors.  You're talking about shooting 500 yards ... which is not the type of home defense situation I had in mind.  Drawback of the AR would be that it would be less forgiving of inaccuracy and louder (possibly causing disorientation in the shooter when fired indoors), but that could be offset by some kind of noise suppressor.

Yes, if I envision a crowd coming to attack my home, I'd likely rather use an AR (or, I have a relative who's modified one and an Uzi to full-auto), but I'm talking more about a few home invadors types getting into your home.

Even after suffering non-central nervous system (brain/spinal cord) hits, an attacker can still kill you before he/she/it dies.

Agree 100%. File "less lethal" with are the rest of the "warning shot" and "shoot to wound" bullshit.