Category: Globalism

The Mandating of Digital IDs and CBDCs

As technology continues to deliver information at the tap of a screen, there appears to be increasing pressure from various governmental institutions to design and implement a uniform method of digital identification as well as the utilization of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Governmental agencies, financial establishments, business enterprises, and the like often tout these supposed innovations as tools of efficiency and security.

However, beneath the virtual veneer lies a frightening reality.

Digital IDs and CBDCs pose a grave threat to personal privacy, economic autonomy, and individual freedom.

Case in point: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Keir Starmer recently announced a plan to implement a national compulsory digital ID.

“You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that,” the prime minister and leader of the Labour Party stated.

The mandatory digital IDs are set to be fully rolled out by August 2029.

Interestingly, over 2.4 million Brits have already signed a petition on the UK Parliament’s website, voicing their opposition to the digital ID policy.

Wise on the part of these Brits. The digital IDs actually tie an individual’s identity to a government or corporate-managed database.

So what effect would this have?

Well, first of all the technology provides governmental agencies with unprecedented monitoring capabilities. Additionally, with the assistance of AI, the technology also allows every single transaction, movement, and interaction to be tracked, stored, and analyzed.

Centralizing this type of personal data (including names, addresses, biometrics, and transaction histories) into a single digital profile causes 1984’s “Big Brother” to become a reality.

Digital IDs will be required for day-to-day activities, such as shopping, banking, or even browsing the web. Data that are collected will create a digital footprint on each individual, which can be monitored, analyzed, and even weaponized, allowing government noses to be poked into every facet of a person’s life.

China is already using digital IDs to monitor citizens and assign social credit scores, leading to the restriction of access to services and/or travel for those individuals deemed non-compliant.

In 2023, reports emerged indicating that Chinese citizens were being denied train tickets as a result of low social credit scores, a foreboding preview of the way digital ID technology can be weaponized to force compliance with government mandates.

History illustrates that centralized data systems can be manipulated to punish dissent or enforce conformity.

Digital IDs that are capable of monitoring every aspect of human life are destined to become instruments of tyrannical control. When combined with CBDCs, the digital trajectory becomes supercharged.

The reality is CBDCs are fully traceable and programmable. Central banks will have the ability to dictate how, when, and where each individual’s money can be spent.

Currency itself will exist in a digital wallet, and purchases will be restricted based on the whims of government central planners.

The Bank of England and the Federal Reserve have discussed the embedding of programmable features within CBDCs, including alignment with state-approved priorities and assignment of expiration dates.

A 2021 Bank of International Settlements paper revealed that 86% of central banks are exploring CBDCs, with many designed to include such heavy-handed programmable features.

This means that purchases could be limited to government-approved goods and services. It also means the money of individuals could literally be turned off or rendered valueless at the direction of government.

The fact of the matter is digital IDs and CBDCs work together to concentrate unprecedented control in the hands of governments and technocrats. For those so inclined, the temptation to amass power is overwhelming.

During Canada’s 2022 trucker protests, bank accounts were frozen without due process, an ominous preview of what programmable currencies may potentially facilitate.

Anyone who truly values personal liberty needs to think long and hard about surrendering personal privacy and economic independence to systems that, once implemented, are nearly impossible to dismantle.

The risks about which our forbears warned, particularly with regard to the loss of economic sovereignty and self-determination, need to be examined in liberty’s light.

May the unceasing pursuit of freedom define our future path.

Transhumanism and the Abolition of Free Will

What is free will?

It is the ability to act at one’s own discretion, to make choices of one’s own volition.

Within the earthly realm, it is actually a prerequisite to human rights, to the pursuit of happiness, and to true liberty.

In America we have oftentimes taken the gift of free will for granted. However, when we experience the loss of this treasure, in ways great or small, we are suddenly cognizant of how crucial it is for us to safeguard it always.

Elite leaders, who are part of influential global organizations, dream of a future in which the world is no longer populated by human beings as they are currently known.

Instead “new human beings” would consist of an amalgam of human as well as high-tech components. This would likely result in the manufacturing of synthetic creatures devoid of the remnants of free will.

The notion of a super-humanity, i.e., one that is theoretically enhanced via the merger of people with technological parts, is known as transhumanism.

Transhumanists are supposedly looking to convert human beings into creatures with amplified intellects and increased vigor.

More than anything, though, transhumanists seek to extend human life indefinitely.

In other words, they are on a quest for immortality.

Transhumanists see their form of eternal life being brought to fruition via the uploading of themselves into Artificial Intelligence hardware.

Oxford professor Nick Bostrom wrote that transhumanism is “a loosely defined movement…that can be viewed as an outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment.”

Many transhumanists are actually enamored with the whole notion of an immortal cyber-being, one in which the human intellect has been separated from the physical body and the “person” has been uploaded into computer hardware to achieve the ultimate end-goal.

Transhumanists refer to this state as the “posthuman” one.

Ray Kurzweil, a leading transhumanist, forecasts a world in which humans are extinct and the only “life” on earth will be computers.

Like many other transhumanists, Kurzweil’s view is that the universe is merely matter in motion. Our souls and minds are nothing more than bio-computers.

He further posits that his perspective leads to the logical conclusion that there is no essential difference between human brains and computers.

“We’re going to become increasingly non-biological, to the point where the biological part isn’t that important anymore,” Kurzweil stated at a conference about the coming 2045 world.

“Even if the biological part went away, it wouldn’t make any difference,” he remarked.

The pursuit of immortality is happening in plain sight.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and others are spending enormous amounts of money on anti-aging technology and treatments that they purportedly believe will allow humans to live forever.

In order to reach their goal of living forever, transhumanists are willing to give up everything it means to be human, including free will.

Yuval Noah Harari of the World Economic Forum stated, “Humans are now hackable animals. You know the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit or free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will – that’s over.”

The idea of humanity devoid of free will was featured in the 1948 novel, Walden Two, written by father of behaviorist psychology B.F. Skinner.

Skinner’s utopia was inhabited by people who were completely under the control of operant conditioning. In this fictional community, everyone is content because all have been fully conditioned to respond to their constraints with pleasure.

Individuals are ruled by elite experts who program them to pursue entertainment and leisure in controlled harmony. Of course, it is a world that is devoid of free will as well as representative government.

Similarly, Brave New World, the 1932 dystopian novel by Aldous Huxley, imagines a global government whose citizens are environmentally engineered into a blissful servitude. This is accomplished through reproductive technology, bioengineered drugs, and psychological conditioning.

Skinner’s Waldensians and Huxley’s 26th Century Londoners lack some very basic human attributes. Since they have become automatons they no can longer experience the transcendence of friendship, courage, self-sacrifice, love, and more.

Ironically, the folks who are pushing the transhumanist agenda are engaging in an intellectual sleight of hand.

They substitute a counterfeit faith in place of a genuine one.

Transhumanists desire to scan and transfer human consciousness into a machine. But in order for this to be accomplished, they must first come to believe in what could be called “a digital soul.”

Somehow a machine would have to possess the spiritual cognizance that human beings instinctively understand are not a part of the physical world.

Transhumanists have channeled their hope for salvation into an irrational belief.

Contrary to the religious wisdom of the ages concerning the sacredness and dignity of life, they cling to the idea that all of the mysteries of human consciousness can be reduced to mere algorithms.

Caution: If you go down this path, there’s no turning back.

Instead I recommend following the road where free will is the norm, happiness abounds, and life everlasting is waiting for you.

AI Plays God

Certain writings have always been considered sacred.

Such writings are, always have been, and always will be revered and treasured by the people who view them as foundational to their core spiritual beliefs.

Many of those who adhere to Judeo-Christian religious tradition consider the Holy Scriptures to be the epitome of such sacred writings. Furthermore, it is resolutely held by adherents that the writings originate from God himself.

The Jewish people have traditionally maintained a respect for scripture, displaying a reverence so deep that they have seen fit to place the Torah, i.e., the five books of Moses, in a carefully constructed ark.

Whenever the Torah is taken out of the ark and exhibited in the synagogue, veneration is offered and the entire congregation stands for the duration of the devotion.

Christians likewise regard the Bible as a supremely sacred text. Christian liturgies feature ceremonial readings of passages from scripture, and the Christian faith upholds the Bible as the Word of God.

If someone were to propose a fundamental alteration of the aforementioned sacred writings, it would be extremely disturbing and highly offensive to members of religious congregations.

As it turns out someone has done just that; proposed a fundamental alteration of the Holy Scriptures.

Yuval Noah Harari, a contributor and advisor to the World Economic Forum, is pushing a new global bible, one that would purportedly be AI-generated.

When Harari was being interviewed by journalist Pedro Pinto in Lisbon, Portugal, he touted AI as different from all other technologies, because, in his words, it is “the first technology ever that can create new ideas.”

Harari went on to compare and contrast AI with an age-old innovation, saying, “The Gutenberg printing press printed as many Bibles as it was ordered to do. But it could not write a single new page.”

He added, “AI can do that. It can even write a new Bible.”

“In a few years, there may be religions that are actually correct,” he opined.

What he meant by “correct” is left to the imagination.

In any event, he seemed to be attempting to describe a socially acceptable scripture that would be suitable for a supposed one world religion.

He asserted that “throughout history, religions dreamed about having a book written by a superhuman intelligence, by a non-human entity.”

It goes without saying that people of faith already know the authentic non-AI Bible already has a supreme author who is far beyond human.

Harari has made it perfectly clear that he is no fan of the Bible or of its adherents.

In an interview with Google, he disparaged Christian beliefs, including the pinnacle belief of the Resurrection of Jesus, which he proceeded to characterize as “fake news.”

A few years ago Harari wrote a commentary in The Globe and Mail that was derisive of the Bible.

“Centuries ago, millions of Christians locked themselves inside a self-reinforcing mythological bubble, never daring to question the factual veracity of the Bible…,” he wrote.

He again linked faith-based beliefs to “fake news.”

“I am aware that many people might be upset by my equating religion with fake news, but that’s exactly the point. When 1,000 people believe some made-up story for one month, that’s fake news. When a billion people believe it for 1,000 years, that’s a religion…”

He belittled those who view the Bible as sacred, stating that “billions of people have believed in these stories for thousands of years. Some fake news lasts forever.”

In a column for the British newspaper The Guardian, Harari blamed the Bible for environmental problems.

“It’s possible to trace a direct line from the Genesis decree of ‘fill the earth and subdue it…’ to the Industrial Revolution and today’s ecological crisis,” he wrote.

In the very book that Harari disparages, the words of Holy Scripture warn about those who view themselves as God.

Google co-founder Larry Page once shared with Elon Musk that he hoped to build an AI super-intelligence that would be a “digital god.”

Many elites see AI as a path to becoming godlike.

The advent of a super-intelligence, which would exceed present human intellectual capacity, would evidently be heralded by Harari and many other globalists as a defining moment.

Harari envisions the future of humanity as containing people who become new types of beings infused with a supposed technologically superior intellect.

He explained that individuals such as these would be “almost like gods.”

The key word in Harari’s musings is almost.

Pray that he doesn’t have to find out the hard way that there is, always has been, and always will be one true God.

The BRICS Problem for America

The American dollar has long enjoyed a prominent position in the world, one that has allowed the United States to retain its superpower status and to elevate the quality of life for her people.

Unfortunately, all of this preeminence and prosperity may be coming to a disturbingly unpleasant end.

The BRICS alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is a group of nations that has assembled together. A newly emerging goal of the alliance is to move away from the US dollar and move towards the creation of a new global currency.

The ramifications of the BRICS coalition are profound, not only for America’s place on the international economic stage, but for the potential future of international relations.

Speaking at a recent economic event in New Delhi, India, Russian Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Alexander Babakov urged India and Russia to form a financial relationship that would include the establishment of a new common currency.

Babakov placed particular emphasis on the notion that both nations should work to obtain a new medium for facilitating payments.

“New Delhi, Moscow should institute a new economic association with a new shared currency, which could be a digital ruble or the Indian rupee,” Babakov said.

He also stressed that China would be a major player in developing a common currency for India, Russia, and China itself.

“New Delhi, Beijing and Moscow are the nations that now institute a multipolar world that is endorsed by the majority of governments,” the Russian official said.

He additionally emphasized the need for a new currency that does not rely on the US dollar or the euro.

“Its composition should be based on inducting new monetary ties established on a strategy that does not defend the US’s dollar or euro, but rather forms a new currency competent of benefiting our shared objectives,” he remarked.

Jim O’Neill, a British economist and a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is recognized for having coined the acronym BRIC, which initially stood for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. He used the term to describe rapidly growing economies that he felt would eventually dominate the global economy.

When South Africa was added in 2010, the set of initials was altered to read as BRICS.

The five BRICS nations have a combined area of 15,346,100 sq. miles (about 27% of the world’s land surface), and an estimated total population of about 3.2 billion (approximately 42% of the global population).

Russia, India, and China are included among the world’s largest countries by population, area, and GDP.

Since 2009, BRICS representatives have met annually at formal summits, where multilateral policies have been coordinated. China hosted the most recent BRICS summit in July of 2022. The next one is scheduled for this coming August.

In a paper that was published in the Global Policy journal in late March of 2023, O’Neill, urged the BRICS bloc to challenge the US dollar’s dominance. He stated that “the U.S. dollar plays a far too dominant role in global finance.”

The effect of the BRICS alliance on international finance and geopolitics is yet to be determined. However, it is clear that the current BRICS nations are attempting to position themselves as an alternative model to the G7.

The G7 is comprised of the world’s most advanced economies, including the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada, and the EU.

As a likely consequence of the war in Ukraine, the BRICS countries have distanced themselves from the efforts of the United States and its allies to aid Ukraine. BRICS nations have refused to take part in any of the sanctions against Russia.

Many European and US policymakers are rightly concerned that this group of nations may become less of an economically-oriented institution and more of a geopolitical alliance.

In 2014, with $50 billion in seed money, the BRICS nations launched the New Development Bank as an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They additionally created a liquidity mechanism called the “Contingent Reserve Arrangement” to assist member states with payments.

The alternatives appear to be attractive to many other developing and emerging economies, and a large number of them have expressed interest in joining.

The BRICS bank has brought in new member nations. In 2021, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Bangladesh became shareholders.

Worldwide interest from other nations in joining the BRICS group is on the rise. The bloc is formulating criteria for new member states and may decide by the end of this year on whether to admit some additional countries.

South Africa is the 2023 chair of BRICS, and South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor recently revealed that a number of countries have approached the previous chair, China, about joining.

“The world is changing in very worrying ways. Countries are searching for like-minded partners around the world,” Pandor said at a press conference in Johannesburg.

“Many countries are finding that the approach of BRICS is one [in which] they would like to take part,” she added.

Reportedly, the list of potential new BRICS members includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria, Argentina, Mexico, and Nigeria. By brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China paved the way for both nations to join BRICS.

A multipolar economic order seems to be advancing quickly, which is expected to have serious implications for America.

If the US dollar loses its position as the reserve currency of the world, this would mean a loss of more than just economic power and influence.

A new global currency could make it even more difficult for the US to enforce sanctions, which it uses regularly as an alternative to military action.

A global shift away from the US dollar may lead to far less geopolitical power for the United States.

It may also constitute a grave threat to the geopolitical stability the world has experienced up until now.

Texas Congressman Takes on the World Health Organization

January of 2023 marked the beginning of the 118th Congress.

The process that led up to the election of the Speaker of the House turned out to be pretty high drama. It was also quite revealing, particularly when it comes to a pivotal Capitol Hill character, Congressman Chip Roy, R-Texas.

Rep. Roy played a key role in the negotiations that helped Kevin McCarthy ultimately take the gavel.

In addition to being a top negotiator, the congressman is a true idea man. One recent idea of his is particularly noteworthy. He has introduced legislation to stop sending taxpayer dollars to the World Health Organization (WHO).

There are plenty of good reasons to stop spending money that we don’t have. Sending gobs of cash to a highly questionable international organization is way up there on the list.

A glaring example of exactly the kind of group WHO has devolved into occurred in January 2020. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the organization, issued a statement on the then-emerging COVID outbreak.

“As I have said repeatedly since my return from Beijing, the Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak, despite the severe social and economic impact those measures are having on the Chinese people,” the statement read.

The WHO official wasn’t done praising the CCP yet.

“The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries,” the statement further read.

America didn’t agree. Neither did then-President Donald Trump, who promptly halted our nation’s financial support for the organization.

However, the Biden administration later reversed the decision and reinstated the WHO funding.

A significant reason why Congressman Roy and President Trump agree on defunding the WHO is the global group’s incessant promotion of abortion.

“Funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to the corrupt World Health Organization that serves the Chinese Communist Party is a slap in the face to hardworking American families struggling under record high inflation, and to all those whose lives and livelihoods were ruined and destroyed by the COVID pandemic,” Congressman Roy recently stated.

During the COVID pandemic, the WHO indicated in its statement that “services related to reproductive health are considered to be part of essential services during the COVID-19 outbreak,” adding, “Women’s choices and rights to sexual and reproductive health care should be respected, irrespective of whether or not she has a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.”

Rep. Roy shared that his political philosophy took root as a result of his early Baptist faith and Reagan-era values upbringing.

As a young man he took field trips to the nation’s capital and Civil War battlefields, and enjoyed watching John Wayne and World War II movies alongside his parents.

“Fairly early on I had a belief in limited government being good for freedom,” he said. “I was raised on the idea of rugged individualism.”

The House member, who was once Senator Ted Cruz’s chief of staff as well as assistant attorney general of Texas, has been guided by his Christian faith into a deeper commitment to the pro-life cause.

Several years ago he co-wrote a piece for the National Review about the annual Women’s March.

“In their zeal to shock and to trumpet a convoluted notion of freedom to have their bodies ‘left alone,’ these marchers exclude the bodies of the unborn. What about the rights of an unborn child? What about the safety of an unborn child?” Rep. Roy wrote.

Motivated by his pro-life sensibilities, he introduced the subject bill to disallow any federal funding for the WHO. The legislation is titled “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act.”

Congressman Roy’s House colleagues, Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Jeff Duncan, R- S.C., Mary Miller, R-Ill., Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Dan Bishop, R-N.C., John Moolenaar, R-Mich., Pat Fallon, R-Texas, Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, Clay Higgins, R-La., and Greg Steube, R-Fla., have joined with him in introducing the legislation.

In 2022, the WHO went on record seeking global abortion on demand and calling for pro-life nations to allow abortions without limits.

The WHO is also seeking to restrict medical conscience rights, eliminate physician approval, allow abortion pills via mail, and permit abortions for sex-selection.

Congressman Roy told the truth about the dishonest anti-life organization.

“The WHO not only regularly promotes abortion and radical gender ideology but also…has done nothing to hold the CCP accountable for the spread of COVID-19. It is far past time for Congress to use its power of the purse to cut off US funding to this corrupt international body…,” he stated.

The Dangers of a Digitally Controlled Dollar

There’s a trend going on in the U.S., and for that matter in the whole wide world.

It’s one that people for the most part, both here and abroad, haven’t had the time or inclination of late to focus their energies on.

The trend is toward a completely cashless society.

There is good reason to be afraid. The timeline for its arrival is on an accelerated trajectory.

Recently in our own country, the Biden administration moved America closer to the death knell of physical money by its exploration and potential implementation of a government-created digital currency.

Ever since the advent of cryptocurrencies, government officials around the globe have longed to get in on the digital money action.

The best known crypto is Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by a software engineer who used the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Numerous other digital coins followed, including the second-most popular, Ethereum.

The exchange of cryptos occurs on decentralized computer networks and takes place between individuals who use their virtual accounts.

Cryptocurrencies are shared on tamper-proof records known as “blockchains.”

As most folks are aware, computers and devices hold gobs of information in the form of data. A blockchain provides a specialized manner in which to hold data. It records information in a way that prohibits hacking or alteration.

Blockchain data are not contained within a central server, but instead are shared across a vast network of computer systems.

The Biden administration is pursuing something called a central bank digital currency (CBDC), also sometimes referred to as the “digital dollar.”

In March 2022 an executive order was issued, calling on federal agencies to research a number of topics that include the pros and cons of the digital dollar.

The Treasury, Justice Department, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Securities and Exchange Commission as well as other agencies were asked to contribute to the reports.

After the agencies came up with their reports, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen publicly cited a Treasury Department recommendation that the United States “advance policy and technical work on a potential central bank digital currency, or CBDC, so that the United States is prepared if CBDC is determined to be in the national interest.”

On the current necessity for digital dollars, Yellen explained, “Right now, some aspects of our current payment system are too slow or too expensive.”

So here we are on our way to a world in which everyday money will be held in the form of CBDCs.

According to the nonpartisan think tank Atlantic Council, 105 countries, representing more than 95 percent of global gross domestic product, are currently in the process or have already created a CBDC.

With regard to the inherent dangers of these developments, there is a whole lot to be concerned about.

CBDCs are very different from cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are private and untraceable. CBDCs are controlled by government.

Not only are CBDCs able to collect personally identifiable financial information and track the transactions of each and every individual, they are also programmable.

Programmable digital currency gives government leaders something they have never had before – the ability to limit or even stop altogether the purchases of all persons engaged in the digital currency’s use.

Money spent on things that for whatever reasons are deemed by government as “inappropriate” could be restricted, or said purchases could be totally halted.

How could a plan such as this be implemented? With the flick of a virtual switch.

Programmable currency has the capacity to have a built-in off switch. The government powers that be could then de-activate such digital currency and render it worthless, if they so choose.

Additionally, use of CBDCs would enable all shopping records to be stored in government databanks. Records could then be evaluated and measured against government created standards.

The stored data on purchases could also be used to establish a social credit system much like the one already in place in China.

Thankfully, some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are paying attention to the issue and have submitted various pieces of legislation regarding cryptocurrency and other digital assets.

One championed by Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, stands out.

Sen. Cruz has introduced legislation to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs directly to individuals. The Texas senator’s bill is co-sponsored by Senators Braun, R-Indiana, and Grassley, R-Iowa.

The legislation prohibits the Federal Reserve from developing a direct-to-consumer CBDC, which could be used by the federal government as a financial surveillance tool, among other things.

Should the digital dollar arrive in our virtual wallets, the longstanding U.S. motto that has graced our coin and paper currency is unlikely to be visible.

But it will prove to be more important than ever.

WHO’s In Charge?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently requested that governments from around the globe send in their input on what should be included in a new international agreement, which is currently being drafted.

The new document is being referred to as “the pandemic treaty.” By obtaining political commitments from potential signer-nations, the WHO is evidently seeking to bolster support for the latest addition to an already sizable body of existing global law.

Concerns are being raised by organizations and informed citizens about the sovereignty of established nations, as well as the public health care systems located within their purviews.

In a simultaneous unfolding of events, another international agreement is undergoing a substantial revision. It’s called the International Health Regulations (IHR), and it has been around for more than five decades. However, the United States didn’t sign on to it until 2005.

The purported role of the IHR is to provide public health guidance to the governments of nations throughout the world.

This past January the Biden administration submitted new amendments to the IHR, which will likely be subsumed within the proposed pandemic treaty. This would result in a global governance apparatus that would be tailor-made for the WHO.

Back in December 2021something called an “intergovernmental negotiating body” was established, the purpose of which was to draft and negotiate the pandemic treaty that is currently being designed.

The WHO’s primary funder is Bill Gates. Gates is reportedly forming a pandemic response team made up of thousands of disease experts who would work with the WHO.

The United States had withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, due to the organization’s failed leadership and loss of trust in parts of the world, especially with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Biden administration rejoined the WHO and is now looking to strengthen the organization’s ability to direct health-related decisions internationally.

Despite the fact that the final text of the treaty has not yet been completed, documents from groups that are working on the international agreement indicate a significant expansion of the term “pandemic.” The WHO had already transformed the word’s definition to an “epidemic of a disease” that affects the world population, without requirements of high morbidity.

The treaty’s drafters are seeking to broaden the categorization of what would constitute a “pandemic.” If they succeed, it would allow the WHO to classify just about any potential malady as a “pandemic,” in effect granting the organization the power to direct the administration of health care responses worldwide.

Proposed amendments from the United States to the IHR would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, without having to obtain agreement from the government of an affected country.

Former WHO legal consultant Silvia Behrendt, along with University College Dublin law lecturer Amrei Müller, criticized the Biden administration’s proposals.

“The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralize this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party,” the authors wrote.

The World Health Assembly (WHA) is meeting to vote on the IHR amendments, with the apparent hopes of making them an established part of international law.

The authors of the above referenced article call upon the members of the WHA to carefully consider the implications of the U.S.’s proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them.

The following rhetorical question was posed by Behrendt and Müller:

“Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralization of global emergency powers at WHO?”

The authors also asked whether mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that the WHO complies with its “responsibilities for human rights that derive from international human rights law.”

The ultimate goal of the WHO and WHA appears to be a desire to make the proposed pandemic treaty enforceable in the United States and throughout the entire planet.

The Treaty Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, spells out the process by which a treaty becomes domestic law. The primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other nations is the president. The agreements become binding federal laws after they have been ratified by a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate.

Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2, grants to ratified treaties the status of being the equivalent of duly passed statutes, i.e., the “supreme law of the land.”

The most compelling issue for the American people right now can be summed up in two questions:

Do you want an alphabet of international agencies controlling your personal health care destiny? Or do you want to control your own?

Better look both ways before crossing this street.