Two new important articles on the WHO from Brownstone
Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? By David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh. If it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.
These Amendments Would Open the Door to a Dangerous Global Health Bureaucracy By David Thunder. The Covid pandemic gave the World Health Organisation and its partners unprecedented visibility and a tremendous amount of “soft” power to shape public health law and policies across the world. Over the past year or so, the WHO has been pushing hard to consolidate and expand its power to declare and manage public health emergencies on a global scale.
However, David Thunder has some details wrong while he has a good grasp overall of what is taking place. He states regarding the IHR amendments:
If ratified, they will come into effect two years after their announcement at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (i.e., around June 2026), as stipulated in the annex to Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) agreed to on 28th May 2022.
However, they are unlikely to be ratified by the Senate. The Biden administration has already claimed that the IHRs have been approved by Executive Agreement previously and will be again. Furthermore, if the May 2022 amendments stand (which have been seriously challenged by 12 members of the European Parliament, as noted in an earlier substack by me) it will only take one year for them to come into force, not two.
Since only a handful of writers have picked apart the treaty and amendments up till now, I think it is worth getting another take on their implications, and Professor Thunder does a good job explaining what they would do. Enjoy.
No one -- not the President or Congress -- or any combination thereof, can make any binding agreement that violates Americans' Constitutional rights. The problem is that once the federal government took control of education, it's been re-writing history and citizens are not educated about their fundamental rights. (Example: some text books now say the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow for a National Guard!)
If you do not know about and understand your rights, you cannot stand on them. And if only a tiny percentage of people understand them, their actions against tyranny can be swept away by mobs of the uneducated and misinformed.
In addition to (if not stead of) watching "Game of Thrones," people should have been watching -- and should be -- watching the educational videos available for free at JBS.org. The six-video series, "The Constitution Is the Solution" is a great start. It is full of surprises: the Illuminat is real; it was begun on May 1, 1776, and guess why its members use masonic symbols and hand signs. Watch episode 5 to find out. What percentage of the money that the federal government gives away is unconstitutional? Watch the series and guess: is it 20%? 35%? 72%? 100%? Does the Constitution permit a standing Army? A standing a Navy? Check out ALL the videos at JBS.org -- and see why the answer, state by state, is not a Constitutional Convention, but nullification. Chapters of the John Birch Society exist across the country, and the members are taking back their country county by county.
#ExitTheWHO