The Sons of Liberty is a politically neutral organization. We believe that the Judeo christian ethic has provided the principles upon which this nation was founded. It is our belief that these principles provide not only the foundation and framework for american government and society, but are also essential to the maintenance of a fair and just society. All program content is based on a christian biblical worldview. One of you said to me recently, we shouldn't rock the boat. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you I am a boat. Rock, rock, rock. Good day, America. Welcome Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists, liberals, libertarians, communists, Islamists, LGBTQRs tv to be XYZ people, all the boat rockers in the house, and anybody else I may have missed to the Sons of Liberty radio show here on red state talk radio, where we use the Bible and the constitution not to see who's on the right or the left, but who is on the straight and narrow. 

I'm your host, Tim Brown, coming to you live from the US occupied state of South Carolina, the editor at sun ##Media com, and for our muslim friends, I'm the infidel allah one's about. I hold to the book the Bible as the authoritative word of God. Glad that you guys have joined us this morning. If you'd like to check us out online, please do so sonsoflibertyradio. com and also sonsoflibertymedia. 

com. If you're listening by way of the radio and you want to watch the video portion of the radio show, that's right, you can see the face that's made for radio, head over to sonsolibertymedia. com. There you're going to see two videos at the top of the page. The one on the left side is Bradley show from the previous day, so you can catch that up until 03:00 p. 

m. , Eastern, at which time he'll be live. In that little area on the right side of the page is where we're at. You guys watch on the video platform, you'll recognize that this is not the picture that we have up for the show today. That's because we are pre recording. I'm not fibbing. We are live right now, but we are pre recording the show. And so just click on the play button, blow it up. 

On advice you got, look for the rumble icon, bottom right hand corner. Click on that and you can join us in the chat on Rumble. We have a lot of friends over there in the morning, so good morning to you guys. And while you're over there, please subscribe to the channel at Sons of Liberty Radio Live. Sons of Liberty Radio Live on Rumble. And then finally, we're live over on beforetsnews. 

com, top of the page. And appreciate those guys giving us a spot on their platform as they have a lot of people who come, even though they're being censored as well. They end up having a lot of people come over there. And that's good. Right up under where we're streaming live on sonsoflibertymedia. com is where you can sign up for email newsletter. Again, that's all the articles we put out each day for Sonsoflibertymedia. 

com, including the morning show archive. So all the stuff we're going to talk about today, the links and all that, that will be in the archive later on today@sonsoflibertymedia. com. Along with the video and podcast, in case you don't want to see the faces made for radio, that's okay. You can listen to the podcast and that'll be great. But be sure and check that out. And then finally, if you'll check out our store, Bradley's book is out, soldier of the cross. 

We've been highlighting that. Now we're highlighting the second one, which is all of the prophets. We're pointing to the front. That book is available $10 in the store. You can get there by the store link on sonsolibertymedia. com or going there directly at the sonsofliberty. Don't forget the in front of it, thesunsofalibity squarespace. com. You can find them right there. Okay. All right. So we got a special show again today. 

Our friend James Rugusky is going to join us, and we're going to hit this thing at least one more time. We might hit it one more time before they do something, before we get to the deadline here. But coming up at the end of January is when all of this stuff we've been talking about, about the who and about the international regulations, all this kind of stuff, this is when it kind of comes to a head. 

And several countries that I've read in the news have openly rejected those kinds of things, which I'm glad to see. But I'm wondering the US who should be leading in this measure and of your we don't want you in our business, especially our healthcare. They're silent because the ones who are the puppets in the district of criminals up there want this. Their handlers want it. And so they're going along with it. 

So James had sent me an email, and he know we need to get this stuff out again. We need to remind people. I agree. As one who forgets a lot of stuff, I've probably forgotten more stuff than I've learned. And I know this is the nature of man. We are forgetful. We have to be put into remembrance is what the scripture says. And so that's what we're wanting to do. 

So we're wanting to remind you, in case you've forgotten, we're wanting to let you know in case you haven't been instructed about what's coming or what's really on the line here. Coming up in 2024 and help me do that is my friend James Fraguski. And James, it's great to have you back on the Sons of Liberty, man. Well, I appreciate know I'm actually going to slow it down a little bit. 

Please. It's the holidays. We are approximately a month away from a deadline. That is a deadline not for you or I, but it's a deadline for the working group that has been negotiating in secret for more than a year. So let me give everyone a conversation starter, an icebreaker, a meme, an email that you can send to people, a text message. If you want to have some fun with your family, friends, associates, social media and all that sort of stuff, just put out there. 

Hey, what do you know about January 27, 2024? Now, I'm going to guess that most people listening to this are going, I don't know. That's why I'm listening. Tell me what that's all about. Now, the point of it is there's a different way to approach other people. You can try to shove something down their throat or you can. Whoops, I think we're locked up here just a little. 

Hmm. Okay. I'm not sure what has gone on here. We'll hold on here. James is frozen up, so we're going to see what's going on. In the meantime, while we're waiting on James to be unfrozen here, let me go ahead and point you over to his website, which is on substack, and it's called Jamesrogusky roguski substack. com. Jamesrogusky substack. com. Now, I don't know why. Okay, so James is there. 

James, you froze up there a little bit. I was just telling people how they can get to your website. You froze up. You started out and then you froze right up. So I don't know if that was on my end or your end, but go ahead. I was checking my Internet. I think it may be on your end, but it may be. Hopefully you got my fundamental presentation, which is January 27, 2024 is an important date to put on your calendar. 

But there's nothing that you or I or anyone needs to do prior to that date other than raise everyone's awareness of why that date is important. And so the purpose of raising this issue is the working group for amendments to the international Health regulations has been secretly negotiating changes to international law, and we're not allowed to see what they've been negotiating. We were given the originally submitted proposals from 94 nations submitted 197 pages, a total of 300 plus amendments. 

Now, we're aware of what was originally submitted, but that was well over a year ago. So one would have to imagine that after a year of secret negotiations, it's a little bit different than what we were shown a year ago. Their deadline to get that final package amendments together and submit it to the WHO is earlier than January 27, 2024. Now, the reason for that is article 55 of the international health regulations says very clearly that nations can submit amendments that they wish to have considered, but they have to do so four months in advance of the World Health assembly. 

Well, the 77th World Health assembly is scheduled to begin on May 27. So four months in advance of that is January 27. That's a Saturday, about four weeks from now. And prior to that, whatever nations want to submit any amendments, they need to do that. Well, the reason for bringing this up is on October 2, about three months ago, the working group held a public meeting. It's recorded. 

I reported on it that day, and I've reported on it many days, many times since then. Their co chair, Dr. Abdullah Asiri, said very clearly, we're not going to make the deadline. They know they're having difficulty in the negotiations. They're not able to take 94 nations and 197 pages with 300 different amendments and come to an agreement. So they're not going to submit a final version prior to the deadline. 

Now, if they had been honorable people, they were honorable people, they would have said, sorry, you're asking us to get all of these nations together with all of these many different things in a short period of time. We just didn't make it. So we'll keep working on it and we'll see you maybe in 2025. That's what an honorable group of people would have done, but that's not what they did. 

They continued to have conversations in October and they literally are conspiring, and I am using that word, it's a conspiracy. They are conspiring to cheat. They feel that it's within their rights to just ignore that deadline. They've scheduled meetings for February and April and they've said, well, they just want to keep negotiating right up to the very last minute and drop a big surprise on the world and try to get it passed. 

Well, the rules are very, very clear and it's kind of like watching a slow motion train wreck. Right? They have told us that they're going to fail to meet a deadline that they know they're obligated to meet. They have said in public that they plan to ignore the rules and continue negotiating. We, the people have to spread the word to as many people as possible and just put your eyeballs on what they're doing. 

They're failing. And we have to call them out on their failure and demand that absolutely no agreements are allowed to happen with these amendments in 2024. If they want to continue negotiating, that's all fine and dandy, but they'll have to come back in 2025. And so I'm not really talking about the details of what's in the amendments because they're not letting us see the current state of the mess that they're currently negotiating because they're not able to reach agreement. 

This nation wants that. Some other nation wants something different. Many of the nations are very unhappy that what they wanted to put in has been ignored and rejected. The rule is very clear. Article 55 of the International Health Regulation says each nation has to get four months prior to the assembly to look over what they're being asked to consider if it's not presented. Sorry. See you in 2025. 

Okay, let's ask a couple of questions here. The first one I want to ask, and I know you don't want to get into amendments and stuff like that, but do you know how many amendments have been proposed and by how many countries that this has gone on? Can you give us kind of a flavor of who's actually spoken up and said, we're paying attention and we don't like this, we want this corrected? How many have been put forward? How many countries? Well, there's a total of 94 nations that have submitted as either individually or as part of a group of nations. 

There's 194 nations that are members. Two nations are party to the regulations. Liechtenstein and the Vatican are party to the regulations, but they're not members of the WHO. So out of that 196 total, 94 nations were involved in submitting amendments. There was 197 pages and a total by their count, 307 separate amendments. Now, that's all been in the public domain. I first reported on that December 14 or 15th or 16th, 2022. 

Right. So there's been a lot of people talking about what was originally proposed. Now, be happy to talk about a couple of things that I am concerned about, because I think they're going to hang around right now. Everybody can go to rejectdigitalenslavement. com. Rejectdigitalenslavement. com. It's a website that I put up over a year ago because one of the things that they are negotiating are amendments to put forth a global digital health certification network. 

Fancy name for a vaccine passport, but much more. Not just a vaccine certificate. They also want a prophylaxis certificate, a testing certificate, a recovery certificate. And all of those certificates are not defined in any way, shape, or form. And quite frankly, just to be blunt, they're all bogus. I mean, what good is a vaccine certificate if the vaccine doesn't stop the transmission, infection, or any of the other things that a vaccine is supposed to do? What good is a testing certificate when the tests give you 90 some percent false positives? What in the world is a prophylaxis certificate and a recovery certificate? Well, what they're trying to do is set up a digital system that certifies whether or not the person seeking to travel is actually certified compliant. 

Right. I was going to say it's to see if you're complying with whatever man made rules they want to set up. That's exactly what it is. It's not a certification of anyone's health because the testing and the vaccines and the prophylaxis and recovery, what does that even mean? Well, they haven't published any clearly defined standards for what that might be. Which brings me down a whole nother rabbit hole. 

Now, under the WHO constitution, which many people don't even know that that exists, which I don't feel is valid in regards to. It has no authority over me. Whatever is in the WHO constitution, they can believe whatever they want in terms of what they feel they have authority in regards to. But when the United States joined the WHO in the law, or I should say the joint resolution that Congress adopted back on June 14, 1948, it very clearly said that nothing that the WHO says or does should have any ruling over people in the United States. 

It's advisory, and we're here to help, but they're not authorized to tell us to do anything. Okay, so let's ask a question about that. If that is the case, why do Americans need to worry about it if it's not binding on us or anything like that why should we be worried about it? Well, I often refer to the World Health Organization, the WHO, as the world hypnosis Organization, because what the truth may be and what is right and just and proper is different than what is in practice. 

Okay, so with the WHO and the WHO constitution, if we just allow ourselves to assume that they're playing in this game that they're playing, it says in article 21 that they have the authority to craft regulations. Now, this is the World Health assembly, not the bureaucracy, not the WHO. The assembly of all of the delegates from all of the many nations that meet once a year. They're supposed to be writing standards on a number of things that had they actually done that at any point in their 76, 77 year history, what happened over the last four years might have been a little bit avoided. 

Now, one of the things that they are supposed to be negotiating, they do have authority under their constitution to define terms. Well, it would be nice if there was a legal definition for the word pandemic or vaccine or safe or effective. But those words, if you hear anyone use those words, they're lying because there is no legal definition. It means whatever they want it to mean. They also have the authority to set standards for death certificates. 

Well, it would have been nice if there was a standard to determine whether somebody died from or with COVID They have the right or the authority to set standards for diagnostics. If anybody's done any studying into the PCR, I refuse to call it a test. It's a process and it's useful in laboratory work, but it's not a valid diagnostic. That's right. They're supposed to set standards for things like that. 

They've failed to ever do any such thing in 76 or 77 years, they have the authority to set standards for the purity of pharmaceutical and biological products. Well, if you've been paying attention to the impurities that found their way into the injectables, it would have been nice if there were some standards and testing and some control over this garbage that's being injected to people all around the world. 

And last but not least, they're supposed to be able to set standards for advertising and labeling. Well, advertising with the government saying that these bioweapons are safe and effective is bogus. And the blank inserts that were in the jabs, how is that properly giving anyone information that they can use to make a reasonable decision for themselves whether or not to do any of these measures? And so for 76 years, the WHO has absolutely completely failed to ever include standards for any of the things that I mentioned in the international health regulations. 

Knock yourself out. Go download the international health regulations and see if you can find any standards for the things that I just mentioned. Well, they should be doing exactly that right now, but they're not. And so when and if we ever get to see whatever it is they're negotiating, realize that they're going to fail for the 77th time in a row to do the things that they're supposedly authorized to do. 

So what the heck are they doing? Well, you have to understand what these negotiations are really all about. And big surprise, really, it's about money. Because the purpose of these negotiations started about two years ago. Many of the nations who are relatively not wealthy were unhappy. And you got to change your frame of reference because I know a lot of your audience is probably aware of a lot of information that is counter to the prevailing narrative. 

If you go back two years and you erase all of the things that you've come to know, and you pretend you believe what was being preached. Two years ago, the nations called for a special session of the World Health assembly because all of the wealthy nations were getting large contracts to get ten times what they needed in terms of all the jabs. And the poor nations who believed that those jabs would be life saving were upset that they weren't able to get what they were promised. 

And so the directive that was given by this World Health assembly on December 1, 2021, was for the WHO to negotiate a treaty or an agreement, or whatever other international instrument, regulations, whatever it might be, to ensure equitable access to pandemic related products. So what you're really witnessing here are negotiations that really are a trade dispute. It's not about health. They're not looking into cause of death, or diagnostics, or purity of products, or advertising and labeling. 

They're not talking about any of that. They're basically trying to divvy up how to profiteer from the next pandemic. And what is going on is they're not having doctors testify about how to treat patients or what the best way to deal with the next pandemic to figure out how to do that would be. There's actually a lot of wonderful information out there in the world as to how you would respond in a better way. 

No, that's not what they're talking about. They're arguing over intellectual property and who is going to control the information and the manufacturing of more and more mrna jabs. Now, at this point, the people who are involved in these negotiations appear to still truly believe that what has been injected into several billion people is something that they want more of. And so you just can't fix insanity. They are negotiating to have the intellectual property rights and the financial investments to build manufacturing facilities in our nation so that they don't get shortchanged the next time they find a pathogen that has pandemic potential. 

They want to immediately turn that around, manufacture more jabs to do more of what I believe is biological warfare on their own people. Now, thankfully, in a strange twist of events, the wealthier nations don't want to give them those investments, and they don't want to give them the intellectual property because they don't want to miss out on the profit. So what we're dealing with here, it's very strange. 

It's not about health. It's a trade dispute where they're having difficulty reaching agreement because everybody's freaking insane and they're greedy. Well, let's ask something, because again, our foundations are the Bible and the constitution. That's what we talk about here. That's the straight stick that we lay up against these people when they're doing this, to find out if they're straight or they're crooked. And we've got two sections of our constitution that bring these things out. 

And I understand this treaty is 70 something years old, and I get it, but I still think it's a practice of education that we need in the people to understand something. So I want to take you to two places and then ask you why you're kind of laying it out to people. But maybe some people are scratching their head, okay, this is a trade dispute and all this stuff. 

What does this have to do with me? That's the question I want to go to you with. What does it have to do with the listeners here? If this is something that's not going to be binding, if it's going to be this, and if the people who are going to go, who haven't learned in the past, what, three or four years about the deadly poisons they're getting shot in their bodies, the whole medical industry, how it's really not there to keep you healthy, it's there to keep you sick as a returning customer kind of deal and charge you for the thrill of going along with them. 

This is what article one, section ten tells us as far as treaties, just so people understand. It says, no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. Then there's some other things. But this is article one. This is a power that Congress has, is to make sure that the states are not engaging with foreign entities as far as any kind of a treaty, alliance or confederation with them. 

Okay. That's the first thing. Then the second one comes up and they do have certain things that they can do as far as certain things that they deal with with foreign entities. But this is the second place we see it, and this is under the presidential powers, article two, section two, clause two. It says he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. 

And then he goes on with some other duties that he has. And one of the things that gets me here is when you start reading about this, James, what you see is when they were talking about treaties, they were talking about with nations themselves, how do you form a treaty with an organization that is not a nation? And I guess my first question is, I don't think that's constitutional. 

I don't think that falls under there. But nevertheless, that's the ideal, what you were saying a minute ago. And the reality is they just run roughshot over this and they've just been doing it. I get it. How does that affect the people who are listening to this show? And why should they care if they're going to put these things on all these other people who are going to that? Because I know a vast majority at least that come into the chat I don't know about on the radio themselves. 

They have rejected these shots. They have rejected the mass mandates. They have rejected this thing of you have to bow before the state and submit to it as God in order to get on a plane or drive here or go there or walk in this building or go in this shopping center? Why is this a big thing if it's not going to be binding on them? Is it that they're going to do the roughshod thing and even though they're saying we don't really have power, they're just going to go with it and say, well, these are the authority and we're going to press it on you anyway. 

Is that what's going on? There's a world of detail that I'm happy to get into. We've got about another half hour. We'll dive deep into the detail. But what I'm trying to do is keep this as simple as possible because while a lot of people love to talk about the detail and everybody can give me a phone call if you've got questions. 310-619-3055 I make myself available to anybody who wants to talk about this. 

310-619-3055 the simple version is by their cockamamie rules, by their international health regulations. Article 55. If any nation or group of nations wants to submit amendments to the international health regulations as illegitimate as I believe them to be, but still playing the game with their rules, their deadline to submit a final package of amendments is four months before their May meeting, which is January 27, 2024. The meeting is May 27. 

So my point is, I want people to be paying attention watching this slow motion train wreck where the WHO and very specifically the working group for amendments to the international health regulations is failing. If we do not see a document that we can review by January 20 eigth, 2024, we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have no authority whatsoever by their own rules to come to any agreement on these amendments in 2024. 

They can come back in 2025 if they want to. Now that is understanding their rules. Okay? Now they're not even living up to their own rules, let alone take it deeper. Now, happy to have this conversation with anybody about the points that you made with the US constitution. Now here's the point. Go back to 1969. We may have had this conversation. I don't know if we did or not. 

Can you recall what you were doing in July of 1969? I was probably breastfeeding at the time. I don't know, because I was born in January of that year. Okay, so I was born in 1960 and I was nine years old. And I can remember sitting on the couch watching black and white feed from. Maybe it was from the moon, maybe it was from a Hollywood soundstage, who knows? But at the same time, seriously, while that moonshot was going on, the 22nd World Health assembly was happening in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Interesting. July 25 of 1969 is when a bunch of delegates hanging out in Boston agreed to the international health regulations. Now, what's in there is. Know how many people have read it? Probably not many. What's not in that agreement is even more important. It did not. Okay, hey, we're just a bunch of delegates, and we've come to this agreement on behalf of our nation. Now, everybody should go home and have their parliament or Congress or senate or whatever, have a referendum vote on it, whatever you want to do. 

If your nation agrees to this, then you should proactively ratify. That's not how they set this up. And this is the problem. They set it up so they gave everybody nine months. And if nobody rejected it, that was considered to be consent. Every nation's silence in late 1969, early 1970 was considered to be their acceptance of it. This is the problem now, it went into legally binding effect on the first day of January, 1971. 

I challenge anybody. Go find a record in the Senate history where the Senate gave two thirds consent. It didn't happen. Fast forward to 2005. They made massive amounts of changes. I challenge everybody. Go find in the federal register where the Senate voted to give two thirds consent to those changes. They did it again in 2022. Find where the Senate even said a single word. Not one senator or one member of Congress said a word about the amendments that were adopted by the 75th World Health assembly in May of 2022. 

So what is supposed to be has been broken for our entire life. And I agree with anyone who says that that is broken. The reality of it is they're not following the law in our country. Senate has not weighed in on this. They're not following the law in many other countries. Now, in some countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, very specifically. And I recently found out also Japan, their parliament has nothing to say. 

They have no legal authority to say anything. The executive branch of those governments has 100% of the authority to enter into international agreements. And so we, the people, have to speak up, because what we're allowing to happen will continue to happen as long as we don't speak up and say no. So in my personal view, and I believe it's a legal view as well, show me where the international health regulations have ever been legitimate. 

Okay, so let's ask a question about that. You make a good point about these other years. What about 1948, when this started? Is there a records? I haven't looked at it either. Was there a record where the Congress got behind that? The Senate got behind it as the way we see in article two, section two, and two thirds of them actually voted for the original treaty. And I understand what you're saying. 

If they did do that, that one would be, I guess, considered in effect. But any changes don't just automatically happen. They still would have to come behind them and do it. And I think that's what you're saying. Was there an original two thirds of the Senate that went along with the 1948 deal in 1948? That did not happen. Okay. What did happen was a joint resolution with both houses of Congress was adopted. 

Not two thirds consent of the Senate, but a simple joint resolution. Wow. Signed by Harry Truman on June 14, 1948. But if you go to exitthehoo. com, you can actually read that document. And what it said in there, very simply, is whatever the who says is not an obligation for us. It was an agreement to help out. It was an agreement to participate, to take part in these yearly meetings. 

But it very clearly said, whatever the who may decide. If you scroll down a little bit, I mean, we'll dig this up. We have a few moments here. Scroll down, down. And at some point it'll talk about a little bit further, maybe. Okay, that's a bill to get out of the WHO. Bunch of reasons why I think it's actually up above. There we go. Is that it right there? It says, section number five. 

No obligation to enact legislation. Section number right there. That should open up in a new window. And this is the law from 1948. Might need to make it bigger so that people can see it. No, you went down way too far. It's very near the top. Section five says, in adopting this resolution, Congress does so with the understanding that nothing in the constitution of the world health organization in any manner commits the United States to enact any specific legislative program regarding any matters referred to in said constitution. 

Okay, interesting. So, all right, I'll cut Harry Truman and Congress a little bit of slack back said, you know, hey, we'll join your fancy little World Health Organization, but you can't tell us to do anything. I will blame Richard Nixon in 1969 for allowing and facilitating the negotiating of a different agreement. And this is what people need to understand. The thing that you just looked at was 1948. 

What happened in 1969? If I could get people to take a visual view of this, imagine a big negotiating table, right? And there's 196 parties to the international health regulations. Imagine a big coronavirus with 196 spike proteins sticking off the edge of it, right? Big negotiating table with 196 delegates at that table. Truman, or whatever other president assigns the delegate to go participate. Our main delegate is the secretary of health and Human Services, Javier Becerra. 

Behind each of those delegates is the head of state of each nation. President, prime minister, premier, King, Queen, literally even the pope, right? So if you could envision this circular table with all of these bureaucrats around it and then put a big dome over it, we, the people don't get to say anything about what goes on in that leadership council. They have their meetings once a year. Our head of state chooses a delegate to go and have these discussions. 

And whatever they might agree for amendments to the international health regulations, our president, or whatever name the head of state might go by in other countries has the sovereign right to reject any of those amendments. But who asks the people? Who asks Congress or the Senate? What has happened all the way back to 1969 is not a loss of sovereignty, because our head of state sends a delegate and has the authority to reject whatever they decide. 

What happened in 1969 is the will of the people and the will of our representatives in Congress or senate or parliament or whatever it may be called in any given nation has been separated wrongly from these high level negotiations. And this is the part that when I brought some of these points up to people in other nations, when they look at their constitution and their laws, they are shocked that their parliament doesn't even have in their constitution any say whatsoever. 

In many nations, they already live in a health dictatorship. Their head of state has all of the authority to get into negotiations with the who and lawfully in their constitution or in their statutes. Many nations parliament has no say whatsoever. Now, in the United States, if you do a word search on the Constitution for the word health, you're going to come up empty. That's exactly right. And even Javier Becerra said a number of months ago he was interviewed and the interviewer asked him, he's the secretary of health and human services. 

They said, what would you like the people of America to know about your department? He said, oh, I want everybody to know that the federal government does not have any authority over on, hang on. And this is what we say here. They don't, article one doesn't give any authority to Congress to write legislation on this issue. Therefore they can't fund it. They don't write law or any of that. 

But yet here's a guy who takes the position of health and Human services secretary, something not mentioned in the constitution. Neither is department. If he's admitting that, why doesn't he just resign and shut down the department? Because he went on to say, and I've reported on this several times, he went on to say, but we do have a lot of money. And so all of this is predicated on, quite frankly, greed. 

Right? Of course it know, Obamacare, whatever else programs there might be, it's appealing to the states to get this federal money that is given voluntarily and accepted voluntarily, but it has strings attached. It always does. So let me ask you something about that, and I know you're going through a thing. It sounds to me like what you're saying is this whole thing that's going on with the who, with these international regulations and even their treaty and stuff, it sounds to me like they have to pass it before we can find out what's in it. 

It's kind of the Obamacare kind of thing. Am I hearing you right? That's what it sounds like what you're saying to me. Yes and no. In the sense that unlike Congress, which should have an article 55. Okay, there should be a rule in Congress that says, okay, if you submit some legislation, it has to be broadcast in the newspaper and on tv and radio. That would be a wise thing. 

Yeah. Everybody should have, I don't know, two weeks to read it or whatever. Okay, well, the international health regulations do have that rule. It's four months. If you all want to make some amendments, you got to submit it four months in advance. Now they are openly conspiring. I've reported on this several times, going all the way back to October 2. The working group is openly conspiring. They've scheduled meetings in February and April, and they have stated, oh, we're just going to keep on negotiating unless we, the people, put our eyeballs on them and point to them very clearly and say no. 

Now, let me use maybe a simplistic example. I may have spoken to you about this before, because I have been talking about this for quite some time. If you had a party and you ordered a bunch of pizzas, and there's a box of pizza with a couple of pizzas still in it on the coffee table, and you've got a pretty good sized dog, and he sees the pizza and he's eyeing it, and nobody else is paying attention, everybody's having a good time. 

You make eye contact with the dog, then do one or two things. They're going to try to snatch the pizza and run, or they're going to slink away because they know that you're watching them. Right. We need to do that to the who. No, you don't get to make any changes in May. If we don't get to see what those changes are on January 27, 2024. Now, everybody in the world needs to know that it's not the most important thing in the world. 

There are many other more important things in the world, but if we don't stop them from cheating, then it's on us. The rules are simple. We know what the rules are. We know that they know what the rules are. It's all documented. I've published this many times. Just have some fun with this for the next four weeks. Ask your friends, what do you know about January 27, 2024? And then walk away and let them stew on it for a little bit. 

They might not care, but what we need to do is trigger people's curiosity. Right? Ask them, have you seen the amendments to the International Health regulation? Have you seen the final version? Well, you know, it's supposed to be submitted so that we get four months to look at it by January 27, 2024. What are you all going to do if they don't submit it and they keep negotiating? How often do we have to allow rules to be broken by people who purport to have power, but they don't have the authority to do what they're doing? I've been reporting on this since October. 

Nobody in the alternative media has said much about this at all. They announced to the world that they were not going to meet their deadlines, meaning the working group, and they announced that they were going to try to cheat. What do you got to do to get people to pay attention when cheaters tell you they're planning on cheating? If you don't stop that, what do you do? Yeah, you become complicit in that. 

Okay, so let's get to that solution. It's good that we let people know what's going on. How do the people speak out? Because I know what people think. They think, well, we can't call or represent this because they're not going to listen to us. They're not going to listen to us in the Senate. We're going to get a form letter if we get any kind of response to these people. 

What are the people to do in this besides to educate themselves and to educate others on what's going on? What's some things? That's always the starting point. If you were trying to play some board game, if you're trying to play monopoly, right. If you don't know the rules, you're going to get creamed. That's right. Yes. But if you're playing monopoly and you know the rules and some of the other players around the board are cheating, are you just going to sit there and let them cheat? No, you called it out. 

At some point you go, hey, read the rules. You missed the deadline. You can come back in 2025 and try this again. But whatever you think you're going to do in 2024 is null and void, and we know it. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the rules? There's a difference between being unaware and being ignorant. Right. I encourage everyone to raise your friend's awareness of this slow motion train wreck that we get to watch. 

The working group has told us that they are failing. They are going to not achieve what they need to achieve to make anything happen in May of 2024. We get to watch them fail. Now, the more eyeballs if everybody at the party who has pizza on the table is busy watching the dog to make sure that he doesn't get any pizza, he's not getting any pizza unless somebody gives it to him. 

Right. We have to watch the who like a hog. Everybody should be saying very clearly, get out your camera, record a little video and say, hey, working group, sorry to hear about your failure. Feel really bad for you. See you again next year. Shame them. Put it out on social media, put it out on instagram. Let it be known that you've caught them attempting to cheat. They're scheduling meetings in February and April, and they have said they're going to try to pull a Nancy Pelosi and say, oh, just vote for know. 

You can see it after it's all done. No, the rules are you have to present it four months in advance, and we're not letting you pull that bullshit. Okay, very simple. Spread the word. Take this video, share it with everybody you know. Sure, let's do this. Because again, our foundations are constitution, the Bible. Jesus says that we're to be the light of the world. We're to expose those who do evil. 

Ephesians 511. We're to expose their evil works. And that's what this is. This is an evil working to undermine our sovereignty, our health, a number of things that I can think of right off the bat. So let's do this. We got about three minutes here. James. I want you to tell people where they can go. Find out more about your work as what you're doing on your substac. 

But also I want to see if we can make a plan to be back here, you and I, on January the 27th. And see. Have they put this out yet? If they have, what do we talk about then? If they haven't, let's call them out right here on the air at that time. As to when they do that, I'm sure you're up for that. I don't know that we can do it live because you're on the west coast over there, but we can obviously do it maybe the day before on the 26th. 

We can record it and any day in between on any platform, all day long, every day. Okay, you can go to Jamesrogusky substac. com. The pinned article is the deadline is November 27, 2024. That's going to sit there until the deadline, right? So you can get all of the information, share that information with. It doesn't matter who you share it with. Everybody should be aware that this is what their schedule is. 

Exactly. Now I get it. There are many more important and horrible things going on in the world. This one's easy. And you can actually have some fun with it. Now, if you have any questions, just give me a phone call. 310-619-3055 by all means, share this with anybody in politics. But that's not the point. The point is to raise the awareness of your family, your friends, your business associates, social media, however you communicate with anybody and everybody. 

Hey, are you aware of the November, I'm sorry, the January 27, 2024 deadline? Do you know what that's all about? If somebody says, oh, yeah, who? Great. Hey, buddy, you're on my team. You found an ally, somebody who knew about it before you told them otherwise, share the information with them, engage their response. If their response is whatever, I don't care. Okay, fine. Log that in your memory banks. 

Put them on Santa's naughty list. Yeah, okay. If they go, oh, no, what is that all about? Oh, yeah, I heard about that. Got any information? Tell me about it. They go right straight to the nice list. And this is just a way of, we're not asking anybody really. There's nothing to do other than observe and spread the word, but it is to be aware, and you were making mention of that. 

Ignore ant people who know and they know it's there, but they ignore it and hoping it's going to go away and it's not going to go away on its own. We have to be the people to shine the light on it. And that's what you're saying. Become educated about it. Shine the light, show it to your friends and everything else. James, thank you so much for coming on. 

And we're going to air this. Well, you guys know we're airing it today, but we're going to make people aware of that so that they can do exactly what we've got. Still a month here. A lot of people have been doing that based on you coming on the show as well. Hang on and I'll say goodbye to you off air. Bradley, be with you guys at three and lord willing, will be back with you in the morning, bright and early. 

06:00 a. m. Talk to you then. Bye. .