Louisiana fights off WEF and WHO. Shame England is locked inside UK.

Even the Netherlands is hearing about the Louisiana Senate victory against the WHO and the WEF (see story below). And a bill to make ivermectin and over-the-counter drug in Louisiana just made it out of committee. Tennessee already passed such a law. New Hampshire got very close but its RINO governor Sununu refused to sign it.

The really good news is that identical bills as Louisiana’s have been introduced in Alabama and Tennessee, and strong legislators are pushing them forward. So keep your fingers crossed, and we should have some firecrackers going off soon as the deep south preserves traditional American freedoms.


Louisiana Senate Approves Bill (37-0) to Ban WEF Agenda in State

April 4, 2024

Louisiana is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill to end the United Nations, World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum in the state and the globalist organizations to ban rules and mandates.

The Louisiana Senate passed a bill with 37-0 votes to end cooperation between the state and local governments with the UN, the WHO and the WEF. The Senate accuses them of committing a globalist coup and trying to impose their rules and mandates around the world, writes Thepeoplesvoice.

Senator Thomas Pressly and two co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 133 (SB133SB-133) on February 29. The proposed law states: “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum have no jurisdiction or power in the state of Louisiana.”

The bill describes practical steps to ensure that rules, regulations and mandates of globalist organizations have no power in the Pelican State.

“No rule, regulation, remuneration, tax, policy or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or carried out by the State of Louisiana or any agency, department, council, committee, political component, state government agency, parish, municipality or any other political entity.”


Tenth Amendment Center report: Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist 46, a “refusal to work with Union officials” is an extremely effective method of effectively making federal laws unenforceable, as most enforcement actions are dependent on help, support and leadership from the states.

Agenda 2030, blueprint for one world under globalism

This is just as true for international institutions – probably even more so. These institutions do not have their own enforcement mechanism. All of their power is based on voluntary compliance and enforcement by local jurisdictions.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed that such an approach would be very effective. In a television discussion about federal gun laws, he noted that a single state that refuses to cooperate in enforcement would make federal gun laws “almost impossible” to enforce.

The federal government is heavily dependent on the cooperation of states to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, rules and laws. By simply renouncing this necessary cooperation, states can in fact negate many federal actions. As the National Governor’s Association noted during the partial government shutdown in 2013, “States are federal government partners for most federal programs.”

This enforcement problem is even greater when it comes to international bodies such as the WHO and the UN.


Some could argue that Louisiana is required to enforce WHO or UN mandates because of treaties, but this does not hold up in any legal investigation.

The Supreme Court has consistently stated that the federal government cannot claim state and local resources for its own purposes. Under the anti-mandate doctrine, states are sovereign entities and can use their resources at their discretion. It follows logically that international organisations cannot claim state and local resources either. Even if the U.S. government is obliged to enforce a U.N. mandate based on a treaty, it does not follow that states must enforce local governments the same.

The ruling elites and the governments they control have clearly shown that they are against us, the people,

The anti-dating doctrine is mainly based on five cases of the Supreme Court dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“In New York, we ruled that Congress cannot force states to establish or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we find that Congress cannot bypass that prohibition by directly engaging the officials of the states. The federal government may not issue guidelines that require the states to address certain problems, nor instruct the officials of the states or their political subdivisions to conduct or enforce a federal regulatory program. It does not matter whether there is policy-making and there is no need to weigh the burden or benefit on a case-by-case basis; such orders are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

No provision of constitutionality is necessary to appeal to the anti-commandeering doctrine. States and local governments may refuse to implement federal laws or implement federal programs, whether they are constitutional or not.


SB133 goes to the House for further treatment. It has been referred to the Commission on Domestic and Government, where it must be heard and adopted by a majority vote before it continues in the legislative process.


You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes