Posts Tagged ‘world health organization’

The World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty is a smorgasbord of Progressive subterfuges

Posted: March 2, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

In last week’s article, I documented the Biden regime’s scheme to cram the World Health Organization’s Pandemic treaty down the throats of the American people, without submitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification.  In this article I will examine the contents of the treaty in detail.

Like the World Health Organization itself, the Pandemic Treaty is infected with a serious case of Marxism. Clause after clause of the treaty reeks of Progressivism, Socialism, and totalitarianism.  It is a Leftist wet dream.

For this article I have selected the most ludicrous passages.  After each one I will decode the Progressive doublespeak and offer commentary.

3. Recognizing that all lives have equal value, and that therefore equity should be a principle, an indicator and an outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,

The word equity is a one of the most crucial concepts in contemporary Marxist thought.  It is bandied about with great regularity.  In this treaty it appears quite often.  Although it appears to be similar to equality, equity is the opposite.  Equity is equality of outcomes rather than opportunities.   Equity requires government force and coercion.  It is the forced transfer of some type of good.

5. Each Party will take steps to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of health, and vulnerability conditions that contribute to the emergence and spread of pandemics, and prevent or mitigate the socioeconomic impacts of pandemics, including but not limited to, those affecting economic growth, the environment, employment, trade, transport, gender equality, education, social assistance, housing, food insecurity, nutrition and culture, and especially for persons in vulnerable situations.

This treaty will grant the World Health Organization the power and authority to take over just about every aspect of life here in the United States.  It will transform the United States unto a Socialist hell hole.

15. Reaffirming the importance of diverse, gender-balanced and equitable representation and expertise in pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health system recovery decision-making, as well as in the design and implementation of activities.

This treaty is so completely woke it is nauseating.

17. Recognizing the synergies between multisectoral collaboration – through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches at the country and community level – and international, regional and cross-regional collaboration, coordination and global solidarity, and their importance to achieving sustainable improvements in pandemic prevention, preparedness and effective response,

After the treaty is implemented, the WHO will be able to gain control of all aspects of life right down to the most local level.

18. Acknowledging that the repercussions of pandemics, beyond health and mortality, on socioeconomic impacts in a broad array of sectors, including economic growth, employment, trade, transport, gender inequality, food insecurity, education, environment and culture, require a multisectoral whole-of-society approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems,

This is another clause granting the WHO power over all aspects of life here in the US.

29. Recognizing that health is a precondition for, and an outcome and indicator of, the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

This treaty will enact the Green New Deal here, and in every nation that implements it.

34. Reiterating the determination to achieve health equity through resolute action on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health, such as eradicating hunger and poverty, ensuring access to health and proper food, safe drinking water and sanitation, employment and decent work and social protection in a comprehensive intersectoral approach,

Every nation that implements this treaty will be transformed into a socialist wasteland.

(b) conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, which contribute to design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust

After implementation, all dissenting speech and opinions will be monitored and censored.

The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depositary in writing at the time of signature of the instrument, or signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession. Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

That last clause is the justification the Biden Regime is using to implement this treaty without submitting it to the Senate for ratification, in direct violation of the US Constitution.

The American people must be informed about the heinous nature of this odious treaty.  We must stand strong and demand the Biden Regime refrain from implementing this sovereignty destroying farce.

The Biden Regime is planning on surrendering US sovereignty to the World Health Organization

Posted: February 23, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

The latest move by the Biden Regime rises to the level of treason because they are planning on implementing a treaty that would surrender the sovereignty of the United States over to World Health Organization.  To accomplish this they are doing an end run around the Constitution of the United States because they are implementing the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Here is the clause of the treaty that is designed to supposedly grant the United States, and all other nations, the authority to circumnavigate legislative approval.

The WHO CA+ may be applied provisionally, in whole or in part, by a signatory and/or Party that consents to its provisional application by so notifying the Depositary in writing at the time of signature of the instrument, or signature or deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession. Such provisional application shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The despicable and corrupt process is documented in this article from The Epoch Times.

“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 said. In addition, “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.”

There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration’s position. They include State of Missouri v. Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws, while other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.

According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level” that will include national governments, local governments, and private companies.

The author of the article is suffering from several common and dangerous delusions.  The first is the belief that the Supreme Court issues rulings that are in any way based on the Constitution of the United States.  Another is the belief that the Supreme Court has the authority to grant a branch of the federal government the power to completely disregard the plain text of the Constitution.  The final delusion is the belief that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare that a given law or treaty violates the Constitution.

Here is a summary of The United States v. Belmont ruling.

 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States.[

By examining the actual text of Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2, it becomes obvious that the Supreme Court made a grave constitutional error with that ruling.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

From the text of the Supremacy Clause, which is  Article 6 Section 2, you can see that only treaties passed through the formal constitutional process are the law of the land.  Agreements signed by just the president are not listed therefore they are not the law of the land.

 This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in 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 to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Federalist Paper 75 Alexander Hamilton discusses the treaty making power granted in the Constitution.  No president has the constitutional authority to enter into any form of treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate.

The president is to have power “by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” Though this provision has been assailed on different grounds, with no small degree of vehemence, I scruple not to declare my firm persuasion, that it is one of the best digested and most unexceptionable parts of the plan. One ground of objection is, the trite topic of the intermixture of powers; some contending that the president ought alone to possess the power of making treaties; and others, that it ought to have been exclusively deposited in the senate. Another source of objection is derived from the small number of persons by whom a treaty may be made: Of those who espouse this objection, a part are of opinion that the house of representatives ought to have been associated in the business, while another part seem to think that nothing more was necessary than to have substituted two-thirds of all the members of the senate to two-thirds of the members present. As I flatter myself the observations made in a preceding number, upon this part of the plan, must have sufficed to place it to a discerning eye in a very favourable light, I shall here content myself with offering only some supplementary remarks, principally with a view to the objections which have been just stated.

With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the explanations already given, in other places of the true sense of the rule, upon which that objection is founded; and shall take it for granted, as an inference from them, that the union of the executive with the senate, in the article of treaties, is no infringement of that rule. I venture to add that the particular nature of the power of making treaties indicates a peculiar propriety in that union. Though several writers on the subject of government place that power in the class of executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition: For if we attend carefully to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or in other words to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society. While the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is plainly neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed, as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a part of the legislative body in the office of making them.