LOUISIANA PUBLICLY OPPOSES ‘GREAT RESET’
THE BILL BOLDLY DECLARES:
The World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum
shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana. No rule,
regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health
Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or
implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board,
commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish,
municipality, or any other political entity.
(EDITORS NOTE - MN CAN DO SIMILAR WORK BUT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. SEE HOW AT :
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMON LAW – SAVE YOUR CITIES
-------------------------------
Louisiana Says ‘No Way’ to the Great Reset’s Latest Power Grab, and the
Next One That’s Coming
Guest Editorial by Jason Jones
In a first, the Louisiana Senate has passed a bill that would block
international political organizations and the Federal government from imposing
tyrannical policies upon the people. In our resistance struggle against the
globalists and their “Great Reset,” Louisiana’s bold move is historic. It will
either inspire or shame legislators in other states to do the same, in defense
of their voters’ rights.
The Global Power Grab
Remember the COVID panic? How “saving lives” was used as a club to knock out and
render useless key Constitutional protections, from freedom of religion and
speech to freedom of assembly and our right to choose our own medical
treatments? The globalists haven’t forgotten. That panic was meant to serve as a
test run and a precedent for dismantling every barrier to the direct rule over
Americans by unelected foreign bureaucrats. Just wait for the next “accidental,”
purely “natural” pandemic to suddenly strike us, just before some crucial election.
We won’t be silenced again, the way Woke corporations working with the Biden
regime strangled honest debate over COVID, the vaccine, and potential methods of
treatment — giving WHO appointees the power to censor prominent epidemiologists
and ordinary citizens on social media. No, now we’re speaking up, and fighting
back, writing into law renewed protections against the next global power grab,
whatever pretext its architects use.
The next pretext is already here, and doesn’t require bioengineering in China.
It’s the Climate Cult. Elites in Europe and America are using the very same
strategies and rhetoric that were test-driven during the COVID panic to argue
that “climate change” is a “public health emergency” which equally trumps our
basic rights and freedoms. They’re using every lever and gear of state coercion
to force citizens to abandon cheap, clean, reliable fossil fuels in favor of
costly, polluting, or intermittent technologies such as wind, solar, and
electric vehicles.
Elites are seizing farmers’ land, ordering cuts to food production, and nudging
us to look at ground-up insects as our protein of the future. In collusion with
capture media, they’re stoking panic based on speculative models which claim to
predict the weather in future decades — and justify tyrannical policies now.
Louisiana Leads the Way
While we’ve seen considerable grass roots resentment and inchoate pushback
against these power-grabs, what we’ve needed has been a robust legal framework —
solid lines in black letter law that protect us now and in the future. Louisiana
now leads the way in providing exactly that.
On March 26, 2024, the Louisiana senate passed a bill (37-0) that would curtail
the unrestricted authority that international authoritarian organizations like
World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and the World Economic
Forum (WEF) would have within the jurisdiction of the state. Senate Bill 133
(SB133) is the first of its kind, addressing the unique challenge posed by a
global political apparatus that has grossly undermined U.S. constitution and the
power of the states.
*The bill boldly declares:*
*The World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum
shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana. No rule,
regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health
Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or
implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board,
commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish,
municipality, or any other political entity.*
Speaking to Blaze News, State Sen. Hodges, explained why the bill was needed:
We have watched a horror story unfold in front of us as time has shown that
the 'recommendations' and coercive regulations from outside organizations
such as the WHO have harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans who took a
vaccine that they were told was safe and effective … . These organizations
coerced and strong-armed Americans into medical decisions without clinical
trials or long-term studies.
One of the main drivers of this bill is the callous attitude of the federal
government in blindly accepting the recommendations of the UN and the WHO.
Immunity Against Federal Enforcement
This palpable tension between federal government and the states is not new. In
America (unlike most European countries) our federalist framework apportions
authority between the national government and state entities. States have real
sovereignty. Our elites and the left resent this, and use every opportunity to
strip away power from governments that are closer to the people, and surrender
it to unelected, unaccountable administrators. This is an ongoing threat to our
very system of government — and as the COVID panic proved, to our liberty and
our safety.
*It is imperative, now more than ever, to reaffirm the rights of states and
resist against the overweening ambitions of the permanent government and the
Deep State.*And that is where SB133 really comes into play. States can interpose
themselves between their citizens and the federal government to block or resist
unconstitutional actions. This can take various forms, including legal
challenges, executive orders, and legislative measures aimed at nullifying
federal laws or regulations. By standing up to federal overreach, states can
send a powerful message that they will not shred their sovereignty, nor leave
their citizens’ rights undefended.
The Supreme Court consistently maintains that it is not mandatory for states to
engage in the implementation or execution of federal statutes or regulatory
schemes. This is generally known by a term called “anti-commandeering.” The high
court court’s commitment to this principle was affirmed in multiple precedents,
such as/Murphy v. NCCA/(2018),/Printz v. United States/(1997),/New York v.
United States/(1992), and/Prigg v. Pennsylvania/(1842).
In the/Printz v. United States/case for example, the majority ruled that the
federal government violated the Tenth Amendment when Congress required state and
local officials to perform background checks on people buying guns.
We held in/New York/that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or
enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot
circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly.
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to
address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of
their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory
program. … [S]uch commands are fundamentally incompatible with our
constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
*In view of this long history of the highest court favoring state autonomy, it
is likely that the SB133 will prevail when it comes into effect later this year,
and with it, start a prairie fire in other red states where citizens still love
liberty.*