(Congress Report) – President Joe Biden and his administration are once again proving they are either totally incompetent when it comes to the Constitution, or they simply do not care what it says and how it provides protections for not only our individual rights, but also our nation’s sovereignty. He’s soon to sign up the U.S. to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization that would provide the U.N. subsidiary with the authority to dictate American policy during a pandemic.
Because WHO did such a bang up job with the last one, right? This is a dangerous step toward a one-world government set up, which is what progressives are longing for, believing that would be the ultimate way to move towards the utopian society they truly believe they can create. Of course, this twisted view is what happens when you sincerely think you can perfect the fallen creation of mankind, which is a task only God can complete.
According to a report from The Epoch Times, “Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce ‘the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.’ Together, they developed a ‘platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.'”
Kevin Stocklin, writing for the outlet, continued, “These discussions and others spawned the “zero draft” (pdf) of a pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.”
“Written under the banner of ‘the world together equitably,’ the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations,'” Stocklin noted.
“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer who specializes in epidemic policy, stated during an interview with The Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”
The pandemic treaty cooked up by WHO is part of a two-track effort they have put together that coincides with an initiative created by the World Health Assembly to come up with new global pandemic regulations that would supersede laws of member states. In other words, violate their sovereignty. For those who might not be familiar with how WHO operates, the WHA is its rule making body and is composed of representatives from the various member states.
“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, went on to say during his chat with The Epoch Times. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”
Meryl Nass, a physician, spoke with the Epoch Times and said, “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”
One of the key questions being asked about this whole mess is how the Biden administration and WHO are going to get around the Constitution and somehow manage to bind the country to a treaty without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required by law.
“The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a ‘provisional’ basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures,” Stocklin divulged.
“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle went on to say. Additionally, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”
Unfortunately, several Supreme Court decisions support the Biden administration in this, including the State of Missouri v. Holland, where SCOTUS ruled treaties supersede state laws. Another one is the United States v. Belmont, which ruled that executive agreements without the consent of the Senate can still be legally binding, with the force of treaties.
Stocklin then reported, “There are parallels between the WHO pandemic accord and a recent OECD global tax agreement, which the Biden administration signed on to but which Republicans say has ‘no path forward’ to legislative approval. In the OECD agreement, there are punitive terms built in that allow foreign countries to punish American companies if the deal is not ratified by the United States.”
One of the things the pandemic agreement from WHO demands its member states implement is “One Health surveillance.”
“The term originally meant a way of seeing human and animal health as linked—they sometimes are—so that you could improve human health by acting more broadly,” Bell revealed during his interview. “It has become hijacked and now is used to claim that all human activities, and all issues within the biosphere, affect health, and are therefore within Public Health’s remit. So public health can be deemed to include climate, or racism, or fisheries management, and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon emissions is a health issue and therefore a health ‘emergency.’”
The zero draft of the treaty says that “One Health surveillance means…” “leaving the definition to be worked out in future drafts. Whatever One Health surveillance ultimately entails, however, the signatories must invest in it, implement it, and “strengthen” it. In September 2022, the World Bank approved a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) to finance, among other things, One Health surveillance.”
I think it’s time we pulled out of the World Health Organization.
Copyright 2023. CongressReport.com