Further Examination of the Threat of the WHO and the Biden Administration's Attempt to Implement Medical-Political Tyranny
[Updated with comment regarding the withdrawal of 12 of the 13 ominous amendments with one more threat outstanding]
In a reply to my previous article posted here, a commenter at Gab.com—@smallvoice— replied in the “Supply Chain Pain” group:
“Maybe this is too simple an idea, but while the office of the POTUS can make treaties with other countries, those treaties would not permit intrusion into the rights of the States. If all 50 governors decided WHO was going to be the authority in infectious disease crises, there might be less of a legal leg to stand on. If the POTUS decides that WHO is going to make decisions for the US, I guess it would have to be brought to the SCOTUS by the Governors to remind the POTUS his/her office does not have such power.”
My response: This is a thought-provoking comment, and one that deserves a studied response and reflection.
Here are--in Part A--some relevant background tools, which you clearly have already accessed the likes of which, followed by some furtherance of the conversation--in Part B--regarding the items you raised. Possibly newcomers to this question, who might be inclined to take interest in this very critical matter concerning the Biden giveaway of U.S. Sovereignty to the WHO (and beyond), may find the links to the WHO documents to be helpful in removing initial hesitancy to examination of the issue and will find these items useful towards contextualizing our discussion.
Part A. Background Resource Materials.
1. A description, indicated as being from the State Department, regarding the permissible means by which the President of the United States may enter into agreements with foreign States or entities:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc7246487-6fda-415e-861d-9c1a9b3704d2_1131x942.jpeg
2. James Roguski being interviewed by Reiner Füllmich
https://archive.org/details/investigative_corona_committee_date_102?start=3896
3. Also, from James Roguski's site, a simple summary of the problem:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7f3721a2-620e-44ad-9c70-5e97cbb2d1f8_617x969.jpeg
4. The foundational document, 'International Health Regulations (2005), 3rd. Edition':
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496
5. The document under consideration for emendation during the week of Mayy 22-28, 2022: 'Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response
to health emergencies, Proposal for amendments to the International
Health Regulations (2005)'
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
6. The Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) [from the WHO website], 18pp.:
https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1
7. Other founding documents of the WHO, for your possible reference:
https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(As and aside, note for future research, the 1981 document on substitutes for breast milk.)
Part B. Replying to Your Posting.
This issue has caused me, upon reading the Constitution of the Unites States of America (COTUS, to specify separately from the Constitution of the WHO or the various constitutions of other States of the Union or other national states), to appreciate just how much power was afforded the President in the matter of treaties and the consequences for every citizen of the formation of treaties. Specifically, in Article VI, “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State or Laws to the contrary notwithstanding.”
It is almost as if the founders, with the signature of “Go Washington, Presidt and deputy from Virginia",” had from the first instance in the formation of the United States, set it on a path towards its increment absorption into a larger, governmental conglomeration—-that is, yielding to its own absorption into a one-world government.
If this interpretation is true, I had certainly not appreciated it previously. Oh, all of you sly-dog, one-worlder Constitutional Law professors, such as they are (like Barack Obama), you saw this all along and confined this to your discussions in seminars and tight, little colloquia, while letting the general public thinking and prattling on about the sovereignty of the United States and, even, about states’ rights. These things are real enough, but there is clear warrant for the progressives about us—including George Washington and the Founders of the United States—to rest comfortably and to be encouraged by this partially-concealed capacity of COTUS to make way for such a profound transformation, if not transmogrification. This did not bring this author such ease and encouragement. Indeed, this realization presents an understanding that is counter to my own imaginings of possibilities for the permanent existence of separate and geographically- and legally-bordered nations, even though the geographic locations or their boundaries, and their constitutions, may evolve over time. This will require another discussion in a separate article. Hopefully that discussion can point to a better way. Nonetheless, we need to be cognizant of the direction, which might even be characterized as a '“threat,” that the aspirations of the progressives in the United States, along with their allies and collaborators in the international scene of powerful actors, pose to those of us who seek the “firewalls” of national autonomy for not only our country, but for all countries as a means toward our various and mutual developments as individual nations and as nations enjoying amicable and fruitful relations.
Your reference to treaties and the relative powers of the President and the Governors of the States is at the very heart of the matter. Your suggestion for firewalling the States from the stipulations of duly entered-into treaties is precisely what is precluded by Article VI of COTUS as reproduced above. Thus, this situation that you describe can be taken as an aspirational target that we might attempt to achieve in order to construct protective walls against the assaults of progressive advances.
To this end, it might be helpful to digress briefly. I will need to define for the present discussion, at least, several terms: conservatives, progressives, liberals, and authoritarians. Of course, there are subcategories of each and areas of overlap. The four categories named could also each be treated as the poles of different ranges, or axes. The liberals and the authoritarians are contrasted in their approaches for achieving a commodious common life, particularly regarding positive law. The former possesses a subcategory that embraces convincing by intellectual means. The latter by institutional, cultural, social and, even, physical force—-lethal if necessary. Conservatives and progressives differ in how they apprehend social patterns, traditions and public policy as these things relate more deeply than positive law to fundamental descriptions of being (ontology); metaphysics; epistemology; genetic identity; psychosocial biology; existence in an economic-ecological environment; acquisition; use and disposition of matter and energy; individualism and communitarianism; determinism and chance; theism and atheism; and more. Things are made considerably more complicated and difficult given the fact that human beings digress greatly in the degree to which they understand, are interested in, and can employ these definitions and distinctions in practice.
Again, a more detailed and substantial taxonomy of these categories would not fit our resent purposes. The point here is to bring these to the reader’s mind and to let the powers of each one’s mind, consciously and in the background, work their wonders. It is clear that people and their ideologies, as well as those of the vast movements to which they belong, are morphologically changed through time. Liberals become more progressive, and progressives abandon one type of call to “freedom” and adopt the form of authoritarians as it suits their new battlefield position. Cryptic longings for sexual license are, during early phases of a struggle, frequently couched in the language of political and entrepreneurial freedom. Thus, any discussion of “freedom” must begin with a thorough exchange between parties of definitions of ‘freedom’. Closely allied with elaborating upon freedom would be the importance of specifying constitutional rights under different governing systems.
Returning to your aspiration for state and provincial retention of powers and protected rights and implied freedoms, this will require that conservatives and traditionalists interested in preserving political liberties will need to act creatively given that, as noted, unfortunately the present form of COTUS does—in fact—permit a gradual mudslide towards authoritarianism, repression, and tyranny. This was definitively witnessed in the United States during the 2020 till present reign of oppression. More egregiously the tyranny enveloped not only the Chinese regime, but also particular Commonwealth nations of Britain: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as most of the European states.
It has always been a defect of conservatives and traditionalist to think of their preference for preservation as being synonymous with stasis, passivity and inaction. It is understandable that their meritorious enjoyment of life lived virtuously at the scale of the individual, family, neighborhood and local polity is generally concomitant with little reserve for pursuing ideological innovations, especially at national and global scales. This must be reasserted as a flaw, and a grave one at that. Thus, the true conservative—and the effective one at that—must match and surpass in zeal the troublesome progressives, particularly those motivated by neuroticisms and other psychopathies engendered—perhaps—by personal traumas, victimizations, crimes and true injustices, as well as those who are motivated by submission to the deepest of human vices and evil, particularly in the realm of unbridled pride, avarice and will to domination and bloodlust.
Therefore, having distinguished wholesome types of freedoms from decadent license, adaptive strategies and political structuring from usurpation and proto-tyrannical political activism, the traditionalist and conservative will need to engage considerable attention to philosophical and political theory, as well as to shrewd, pre-emptive and diligent political enterprise. The end of such fervent preservationist activity is to protect those future opportunities for oneself, one’s loved ones and for posterity, both individually and collectively as inseparable as those polar identities are. In order to maintain the freedoms necessary for raising a quiet healthy family; organizing local needs in a municipality or county; undertaking academic, scientific, technological and commercial innovation for profit and the good of Mankind; and participating in and establishing true religion, one must be energetic in remaining vigilant and pro-active in instituting new frameworks with a relatively unchanging constitutional government to meet the challenges of both the unfolding of new technologies and the maliciousness of those who are enemies of the Good.
In short, conservatism and traditionalism cannot remain as “inactivisms” if they hope to remain at all.
Reading the proposed amendments, one quickly becomes aware of the deceptive vocabulary that conceals true intentions for force, such as “provide guidance” or “offer assistance as opposed to the struckout ‘collaborate’ ” [read: apply force”]. In other cases, a whole clause of the document must be appreciated in for its Gestalt meaning. Nearly a decade working in government in an area of public health enforcement and emergencies, my previous naïveté was forcibly supplanted by a more astute insight into the meaning of such language as proposed in an item identified in this document in question, in Article 11, as “New 5.” Specifically,
“…sharing information that has not been verified by a State Party on whose territory an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern is or is allegedly occurring in State Parties through alert systems.”
This passage is the real kill shot. Line 6 in Article 12, Section 2 of the “Proposed Amendments” of the IHR (2005) is what enables the Director-General of the WHO (currently Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus) to act as a dictator, but it is “New 5” in Article 11 that will make available essentially any pretext for essentially the complete usurpation of power from the government of the United States (of course, with whom it is colluding) and with whomever is ultimately controlling both.
“[I]nformation that has not been verified” can be read to mean: “Whatever fraudulent story is concocted because you cannot catch us." The powers of government, the Media, corporations and banking have been fused—-with the latter reigning supreme, of course. We have seen this similarly in the case of the “Russian collusion” story that was used to harass President Donald Trump in the United States, and which wasted so much of his administration’s efforts at governing. We also saw it in the fabrication of the Pandemic 2019-2022 story. Witness the phony manner in which the PCR amplification method was used as a so-called “diagnostic test.”
Fluctuating states of a laboratory device, as well as allegations in the semantic realm, do not represent true signals, data or meaningful information unless contextualized in a manner in which both the signal, counts, measurements, objects or events—as well as the contexts—are reliably verified. And yet this egregiously condemnable document would have it that a world medical and political dictator would be afforded compliance based upon easily abused pseudo-justifications.
Next, we read of another inexcusably objectionable, reckless phrase: “on whose territory an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern is or is allegedly occurring in State Parties through alert systems.” Notice the employment of the term, “event.” If we were dealing with honest actors in the realm of public health, they would be more than eager and diligent in confining and defining terms of specific medical diseases and conditions, not even expansive and manipulative language of “health.” I will comment further on this shortly.
Note, too, the use of the word, ‘allegedly’. Again, this explicitly removes the burden of medical, epidemiological and scientific investigation and verification. And what are these “alert systems” that are to be considered acceptable for establishing the actionable state of an “event” of international concern? Facebook? The American and worldwide Media, the likes of CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times?
Regarding this term, “event,” or by obvious and indisputable inference, “alleged event,” what are its limiting boundaries? The answer is, apparently, none. For confirmation of this we turn to the constitution of the WHO itself, entered into agreement by the United States as a signed Treaty on 22 July 1946 and entered into force on 7 April 2948. The preamble states that “THE STATES to this Constitution declare, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, that the following principles are basic to the happiness, harmonious relations and security of all peoples…”
This phrase is already disputable (yet another topic for a future article) and being forced to acknowledge this is tantamount to being compelled to declare that 2 + 2 equals 5.
The preamble immediately continues with a number of clauses. “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease.
This sentence completely ignores the most profound reality that moral freedom and responsibility are foundational to all of the above, the latter of which are secondary goods in practice. Biological systems, human and others, in the Biosphere of the Earth, are completely adequate for the preservation and evolutionary adaptation of that Biomsphere. “Fearporn,” as it is colloquially called, is inappropriate and represents a possible criminal act when engaged in because it predisposes emerging dictatorship-malignantly compliant relationships to form and produce, in actuality, grave moral, physical and political harms.
Furthermore, ‘disease’ (and its absence) in its etymologically most precise sense, refers to the appropriately complete definition of a being being well in mind and body. The rest, matters of virtue and—for some adhering to religious convictions—sanctity, are matters that should not be the concern of a governing agency in terms of its mission, its goals and its jurisdictional empowerment.
The reader will quickly appreciate from witnessing events before, and especially during, the COVID lockdown that a globalist push for Communist-style dictatorship with total surveillance and control of movement and behavior is underway. Under the mantle of “health and wellness issues,” every aspect of human life, morality, freedom and flourishing will be seized as requiring the strict control of government.
Rights to travel, having children, educating children, being educated in a manner of one’s choosing, assembling, associating, owning and using firearms and speaking freely will be curtailed if not completely eliminated. There will be a total monitoring and valving of every monetary transaction. Forced injections and medical procedures will be unavoidable. Gruesome advances toward permanent alteration of the human genetic code in each individual subject to state control will be ruthlessly enforced (the elite exempted) and there will be the establishment of requirements for transhuman transmogrification.
[As this article is about to be concluded on Sunday afternoon, May 22, 2022, I have received a report indicating that 12 of 13 offensive amendments to the IHR (2005) have been withdrawn, according to James Roguski, the activist who has spearheaded much of this alert regarding the Biden Administration’s machinations and collusion with Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and the WHO whom he direct.]
Here is a screen shot from Mr. Roguski’s Substack page:
The last remaining amendment that may be considered by the 75th World Health Assembly is below…
This matters because it has a direct impact on Article 61 [of the proposed amendments—-editor’s note].
This is good news, but not perfect. I agree with Mr. Roguski completely that all of these amendments must be withdrawn. Articles 59 and 61 which involve as you could see above involve periods for rejection and entry into force of law.
For comparison, here are the presently unamended versions of these articles in the IHR (2005):
“Article 59. Entry into force; period for rejection or reservations
1. The period provided in execution of Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO for rejection of, or reservation to, these Regulations or an amendment thereto, shall be 18 months from the date of the notification by the Director-General of the adoption of these Regulations or of an amendment to these Regulations by the Health Assembly. [Italics added for emphasis.] Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no effect.
2. These Regulations shall enter into force 24 months after the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, except for:
(a) a State that has rejected these Regulations or an amendment thereto in accordance with Article 61; 36 Mise_A5 - 4.indd 36 5.6.2008 17:24:52
(b) a State that has made a reservation, for which these Regulations shall enter into force as provided in Article 62;
(c) a State that becomes a Member of WHO after the date of the notification by the DirectorGeneral referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, and which is not already a party to these Regulations, for which these Regulations shall enter into force as provided in Article 60; and
(d) a State not a Member of WHO that accepts these Regulations, for which they shall enter into force in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 64.
3. If a State is not able to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully with these Regulations within the period set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, that State shall submit within the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article a declaration to the Director-General regarding the outstanding adjustments and achieve them no later than 12 months after the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party.
Article 60. New Member States of WHO
Any State which becomes a Member of WHO after the date of the notification by the Director-General referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 59, and which is not already a party to these Regulations, may communicate its rejection of, or any reservation to, these Regulations within a period of twelve months from the date of the notification to it by the Director-General after becoming a Member of WHO. Unless rejected, [Italics added for emphasis.] these Regulations shall enter into force with respect to that State, subject to the provisions of Articles 62 and 63, upon expiry of that period. In no case shall these Regulations enter into force in respect to that State earlier than 24 months after the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 59.
Article 61 Rejection
If a State notifies the Director-General of its rejection of these Regulations or of an amendment thereto within the period provided in paragraph 1 of Article 59, these Regulations or the amendment concerned shall not enter into force with respect to that State. [Italics added for emphasis.] Any international sanitary agreement or regulations listed in Article 58 to which such State is already a party shall remain in force as far as such State is concerned.”
It is clear that the Biden Administration and WHO are desirous of tightening the time periods available for a State Party, relevant experts and the citizenry to mount an objection. This last amendment is a “time bomb provision” which is likely to be intended to enable a second assault by the aforementioned administration and the WHO. Notice in comparing the amended and unamended version of the IHR (2005) Articles 59 and 60 (Article 61 unamended also added above), the shift away from the incremental disempowerment of a State Party’s prerogative for rejection. The screws are tightened in the amended document.
CONCLUSION
Take heart, but much more work is to be done in order to put a stake into the heart of this monster of a power grab by the Biden Administration to utilize the WHO as a medical tyrant with which to usher in an enormous lurch toward global political control. The IHR (2005) and other as of yet undeveloped instruments of bureaucratic tyranny will remain as threats to human integrity, freedom and flourishing as moral beings.
The Biden-WHO collusion has strategically retreated, but they have not by any stretch of the imagination surrendered. We are in the midst of a long, literally life-and-death battle to save humanity in what has acquired every key identifier of an apocalyptic scenario. One of the most important tasks that every individual can do is to find effective manners—some gentle, some bracing, as fitting—for enticing, educating, convincing, lobbying, exposing and legislating for a framework that will permanentize safeguards against this anti-human, malicious threat.
To be continued.
(COTUS)
Further Examination of the Threat of the WHO and the Biden Administration's Attempt to Implement Medical-Political Tyranny
Thank you for sharing. I do share them on a couple of Discords where I'm a member.