New World Odor: Stinky Joe Tanking USA
Europe should take care of Europe; USA should focus inward, deter China and Iran
On Fox Business “Mornings with Maria.” Kama-lama-ding-dong is the last person you want to see in a crisis. Video: https://bit.ly/3MBDzOa
There is an easy way to tell that the Ukraine war involves no vital U.S. national interests and that America will be worse off for its involvement: the international Left is in favor of our participation.
The last time the Left truly wanted America’s side to win a war was World War II. In that instance, the Left wanted to dispose of fascism, which was the leading totalitarian competitor to communism in the early 20th century. Subsequently the Left rooted against the USA in Vietnam, the Cold War, Kuwait, and Iraq. Only when no U.S. interests are involved does the Left want American war, such as pointless “humanitarian interventions” in places like Haiti.
Watch This Later:
https://odysee.com/ep417-globaltreaty:25b67d31f813d34fd0738af390c3159d6cf9514a?src=embed
This is a big problem. The biggest one facing us right now, which is why you’re being misdirected and mislead by the manufactured war in Ukraine, Elon taking over twitter, and a lame Roe v Wade leak that will eventually change NOTHING
(more below the remainder of the article already in progress…)
Today, the Left wants America to carry the burden that Europe is once again shirking in deterring Russia militarily. How else can the failing neoliberal, globalist world view of the Davos crowd be saved?
Consider past instances when America has been called on to save Europe. In World War I, the British and French armies were badly bloodied by Germany, and newly Bolshevik Moscow was concluding a separate peace with Berlin. In the first day of the Battle of the Somme, Germans killed 20,000 British soldiers, and allied casualties in the battle alone would eventually exceed half a million. Britain and France were exhausted.
The situation was even more grim in World War II. By mid-1941, only Britain and the Soviet Union stood fighting Nazi Germany and both desperately needed and received American help to continue the resistance. The risk to America was that the entire rest of the industrialized world would be completely controlled by a hostile, expansionist axis.
Then came the third desperate call to America. In the early Cold War, when NATO was formed, the democracies of Western Europe had been liberated from the Nazis, but lay in ruins from the war and needed help even to feed their populations, much less rebuild their militaries. Only American assistance stood between them and Soviet domination. We defended them and accepted a trade arrangement that allowed higher European tariffs on U.S. goods than we had on theirs—a system that inexplicably continues to this day.
Unlike those three instances, no such dire need for American blood and treasure exists today. Europe is rich and stable. It has 400 million people and a $21 trillion economy compared to Russia’s 150 million people and $1.5 trillion economy. Germany alone has an economy twice the size of Russia’s. France and Britain have their own nuclear arsenals. Europe is as technologically advanced as America and can afford well armed, trained, and networked militaries. It should no longer need America to play any major role in its defense.
But America is playing a major role—in fact the predominant role in helping Ukraine. The Biden administration, not Europe, rushed unprecedented but sloppily designed sanctions out the door so quickly the weekend after Russia invaded that they caused an unintended energy crisis. Then Congress threw another $14 billion on the credit card to aid Ukraine without any real debate over the structure of aid or the risks that overtly sending materiel to the foes of nuclear-armed Russia could pose to the United States. (Recall that U.S. aid to Afghans resisting the Soviets in the 1980s was covert.) One of the risks of overt supply became more apparent on Saturday when Russia began targeting supply nodes in western Ukraine close to Poland. It is in our interest to increase the cost to Russia of conquering or dominating Ukraine, but not to the point that it risks a wider war.
This is what economists call creating a “moral hazard”—where other parties (the Europeans) increase their exposure to risk because they do not have to bear the costs of that risk. By paying for the military that Europeans could easily afford themselves, we have encouraged reckless conduct like adding parts of the former Soviet Union to NATO. Europe’s militaries are deficient because they can count on the Americans they otherwise disdain while stabbing us in the back on trade.
By all indications, Washington is just getting warmed up—both Democrats and Republicans, few of whom seem to have any idea of how to put America first. Biden has rushed more U.S. troops to NATO members like Poland and a plus-up for the militarily difficult-to-defend Baltics is likely next. If China was worried that the U.S. loss in Afghanistan would free Washington to focus on fielding the ships, planes, and missiles necessary to deter that rising power with more than one billion people, a $15 trillion economy, and a plan to topple American power, it can put its mind to rest.
Europe is deploying promising talking points that it has finally gotten religion about defending itself and accepting that the world is not run exclusively by postmodern metrosexuals. Germany has announced a 100 billion euro plan to rearm and says it will wean itself from Russian oil and gas. I have my doubts: the spending plan is fuzzy and will be spread over many years. I’ll bet that before long Berlin activates the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. This will happen even faster if Russia and Ukraine reach a peace deal, which seems increasingly likely. Socialism isn’t cheap and who wants to pay higher prices for gas from America or the Gulf if Russia offers the best deal? Germany already prevented the expulsion of two major Russian banks from the SWIFT mechanism of cross-border banking. Why? In order to buy Russian oil and gas of course. The German government, which relies on the Greens to stay in power, has also refused to reverse plans to close the last three perfectly good nuclear power plants in Germany.
France never even said its companies would pull out of Russia, and by and large they haven’t. Turkey, which isn’t part of the European Union but is a part of NATO, with the grouping’s second-largest military behind the USA, is keeping its options open and will facilitate trade with Russia that does not depend on the U.S. dollar.
We are spending money we don’t have, subjecting the American people and our financial standing to extreme and unnecessary risks, killing our middle class with high energy costs and other inflation, and neglecting actual dangers like China and Iran (for which Europe is useless to us)—all because our bipartisan elite still thinks it is 1991 when we are the sole superpower, our government is on sound financial ground, and China is irrelevant.
Fox Business Tonight. Europe should take the key role in defending Europe. Video: https://bit.ly/3CItiek
The Coming Crisis
If those delusions were the only problem, the situation would merely be lamentable, presuming we don’t end up in a nuclear war. But Joe Biden and the rest of the ruling class have planted the seeds for an economic crisis that could rival the intense shocks of the 1970s.
With oil now well above $100 per barrel and overall inflation running at a 7.9% annual rate, the U.S. economy may very well be entering recession. This is compounded by the government’s intrusions in the economy, paying people not to work, destruction of tens of thousands of small businesses, and assault on meritocracy in business in order to achieve a woke society ordered on politics and race.
Furthermore, the Fed has no leeway to bail out the politicians who have caused this crisis. Unlike the front-end of most recessions when the Fed can cut interest rates, the Fed already has negative real rates (i.e., rates just above zero with inflation running 7.9%) and has clearly discovered the point at which expanding the money supply (creating dollars out of thin air) causes severe inflation. Fed action and government spending has created clear bubbles in housing, the stock market, and other assets.
In a piece worth reading, “A Recession Unlike Any Other,” ZeroHedge observes:
The following historical data indicates the level of the Fed Funds Rate just prior to the outset of all 10 U.S. recessions since WWII: 1957 3.5 percent, 1960 4.0 percent, 1969 10.5 percent, 1973 13.0 percent, 1979 16.01 percent, 1981 20.61 percent, 1989 10.71 percent, 2000 6.86 percent, 2007 5.31 percent, and 2019 2.45 percent.
In addition, the [coming] swoon in GDP will occur after the Fed has just finished printing $4.5 trillion over the past two years and with the national debt vaulting over $30 trillion due to the massive increase in government deficits in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such borrowing helped send the government’s debt to GDP ratio soaring to 125 percent. For perspective, that ratio was just 53 percent back in 1960, and only 58 percent as recently as 2000.
In other words, our big government, Keynesian methods of escaping the last two economic crises in 2008 and 2020—cutting interest rates, printing dollars, and increasing government spending—are already maxed out. Any more will lead to higher inflation. All of these activities should have been wound down when the initial shock and shutdowns of the pandemic ebbed in Q3 of 2020. But they have continued. We are approaching the part of the movie when the guy shooting the zombie runs out of bullets and prepares to throw the gun.
There is another alternative, which is to stimulate the private-sector economy by cutting taxes and regulations while holding the line on wasteful government spending. This created the Reagan and Trump booms. But it is against the Left’s religion and has no chance of being allowed as long as Democrats control anything.
What this means is that the downside risk to the stock market is severe. The market is overvalued. The price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of the S&P 500 stands at 24—still high despite the recent decline in stocks. To reach its historical mean of 16 P/E, the S&P would have to drop 33% to about 2800. If one reasons that a P/E ratio of 20 is more appropriate given changes to the economy in recent decades when American business focused less on difficult manufacturing and more on higher-margin tech, financial services, and films about gay cowboys, the S&P would still need to decline 17% to a level of about 3500. However, in bear markets when new recessions become apparent, seldom does the market simply revert from overvalued to a historical average.
New World Odor
There is a new world order afoot, but it is not the one about which the media and our ruling class fantasize. They see the Ukraine war as a grand vindication of Europe, Atlanticism, and the use of U.S. financial sanctions. Writing in the Wall Street Urinal, former John McCain staffer Richard Fontaine captured the fantasy:
By attacking Ukraine, Vladimir Putin may have brought about what he wanted least: a galvanized West, determined to act together to preserve a liberal world order.
Recent events more likely mark the death of globalism and post-Cold War neoliberalism. They are a harbinger of worse things to come, perhaps like the Spanish Civil War.
Consider the overall trends and emerging factors of power:
America is heavily indebted, suffering economically, and headed for recession and popping asset bubbles.
Europe will achieve the worst of all outcomes, paying much higher costs for energy in the near term while still depending on Russian energy in the long term. Europe’s long-term choice of decadent decline will be less decadent.
America will go from being distracted by fighting in Middle East backwaters to being distracted defending Europe. China and Iran will benefit.
Not only adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran but also India, Turkey, the Gulf states, and others that have declined to join Biden’s sanction program now have a motivation to end the U.S. dollar’s supremacy, which has existed since 1944. China, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are already experimenting with cross-border finance that does not use the dollar. This creates the risk of future financial crisis for the USA.
Oil has stabilized and may decline as it becomes clearer that Russian crude is reaching markets, even if to different customers. U.S. recession may tank oil prices, but they will rebound quickly because the ruling elite has talked down hydrocarbon investment in furtherance of their pagan religion, climate change alarmism. Energy-exporting Gulf states will be even richer.
Dubai and Singapore will gain as financial capitals, potentially growing beyond regional plays. London will suffer in reputation from seizing assets from private Russian citizens without due process.
Russia’s energy and commodity-focused economy will be restored within a few years, oriented more toward China, Turkey, and India.
Putin and Xi Jinping will probably outlast each of the western fools who populate the G7. Putin does not draw his support from oligarchs or liberal urbanites in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Russia’s difficulties in rapidly conquering Ukraine will discourage future moves against the Baltics. It will invade Georgia if Tbilisi tries to join NATO. Moscow doesn’t need to move against the former Soviet stans since it already dominates them politically.
Washington under Biden won’t help Taiwan arm itself adequately. Taiwan needs a government more focused on capitalism and less focused on joining the globalist neoliberal clown show. Only the American Right and Japan will lift a finger for Taiwan.
Taiwan is not the only possible recipient of Chinese aggression.
Much of this is pessimistic for the USA, which is to be expected as the progressive side of the boomers exit the stage with a final flurry of failure, having previously undermined every institution in America. What began with Bill Clinton playing his saxophone ends with senile Joe Biden crapping his pants in an audience with the Pope.
But there is hope. American malaise will create a political opportunity for the New Right even greater than 2016. Like communism, progressivism just doesn’t work and its adherents seem to be creating the crisis that could shift our politics to a degree not seen since 1980 or even 1932. The Trump administration could end up as a just a poorly run foreshadow of a far-more effective movement by the New Right that will cut government, restore color-blind meritocracy, teach patriotism, and take our foreign policy back to the successful 19th century model of speaking softly, carrying a big stick, and intervening decisively only when America itself is clearly threatened.
An increasing portion of reporters in English-speaking countries are stupid and lazy. This reality reflects the trajectory of journalism from answering key questions about an event (who, what, when, where, why) to running political errands for the ruling elite. The latest example is reporting that Biden’s attempt to rejoin the flawed Iran nuclear deal is in trouble. The deal depends on Russia and has been negotiated in large part with Moscow acting as an intermediary with Tehran, which refuses to speak with us directly. Shockingly, the Russians are using this as leverage against us. They want trade with Iran, which is required by the deal, to be exempt from U.S. sanctions. Being Russian, of course they will negotiate for more than that. Since Washington says it will grant Russia no reprieve, the deal is supposedly in danger, although I am confident in Biden’s ability to get to yes eventually with the mullahs. Some are suggesting Russia be replaced in the deal.
But what exactly is this trade? That is a question no journalist seems to want to ask. The reason is because the answer is atrocious. Biden has included a poison pill in the deal at Iran’s request to try to prevent the next American president from pulling out of the agreement, as Donald Trump did in 2018. The trade involves Russia receiving uranium that Iran has enriched beyond acceptable levels, but agreeing to send it back immediately if the USA withdraws from the deal.
Pretty nifty eh? Our own diplomats have devised a plan for one of our adversaries to send another adversary enriched uranium if a future president doesn’t like a deal that allows Tehran to keep its advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapons grade and otherwise enshrines Iran’s nuclear program. The give-back would also be triggered should a future president or Congress sanction Iran for any number of its malevolent activities like exporting terrorism, undermining friendly monarchies, planning a second Holocaust, or taking Americans hostage. But you won’t read that in the New York Times or the Wall Street Urinal, the latter of which is now running puff pieces on unfunny leftist Stephen Colbert.
Perhaps Biden can get North Korea to step in for Russia?
Ukraine and the Democrats
Speaking of choosing bad political partners, check out the bombshell report by RealClearInvestigations about Ukraine’s long-running collusion with the Democrat Party. In contrast to Russia’s picayune and ineffective foray into social media ahead of the 2016 presidential election, which made no difference, Ukraine has made several big and effective plays. You may have previously heard of some highlights like putting Hunter Biden on the state payroll and having people like the Fat Colonel, Ukrainian-born Alexander Vindman, in position at the White House to collude with a phony CIA whistleblower to get Donald Trump impeached. (Vindman was later offered the job of defense minister by Ukrainian leader Zelensky.) As it turns out, there is more. Have a look at the report. Given its predicament today, did Kiev choose poorly?
Government Hates Competition
Like most people, I’ve never bought or used cryptocurrency, but do keep an eye on it as a possible alternative to fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve or other governments. Last week, the Biden administration issued an order to federal agencies to come up with new regulations for the industry. Writing in the Daily Caller, I argue that will lead to little more than a government shakedown of competition. Will it work? Take a look.
Story at-a-glance
The World Health Organization has started drafting a global pandemic treaty on pandemic preparedness that would grant it absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities/vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, standardized medical care and more
The WHO is not qualified to make global health decisions. As just one example, the WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021, yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared. The WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission
More importantly, a one-size-fits-all approach to pandemic response simply does not work, because pandemic threats are not identical in all parts of the world. Even people in the same region do not have identical risk and may not need or benefit from identical treatment
The WHO will accept two more days of public comment on the treaty, June 16 and 17, 2022,
So prepare your statements now.
The World Health Assembly will also vote on amendments to the International Health Regulations, May 22-28, 2022, which may also strip away more individual rights and liberties
The globalists that brought us the wildly exaggerated COVID pandemic in an effort to cement a biosecurity grid into place is now hard at work on the next phase of this New World Order.
The World Health Organization has started drafting a global pandemic treaty on pandemic preparedness that would grant it absolute power over global biosecurity, such as the power to implement digital identities/vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, standardized medical care and more.
In “The Corbett Report”1,2 above, independent journalist James Corbett reviews what this treaty is, how it will change the global landscape and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms. Make no mistake, the WHO pandemic treaty is a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.
A Backdoor to Global Governance
As noted by anti-extremism activist Maajid Nawaz in an April 28, 2022, Twitter post,3 the “WHO pandemic treaty serves as a backdoor to global empire.”
COVID-19, while potentially deadly to certain vulnerable groups, simply isn’t a valid justification for handing over more power to the WHO, especially in light of its many inexplicable “mistakes” in this and previous pandemics.
As just one example, the WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021,4 yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared.5 The WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission.6
So, it seems clear that the effort to now hand over more power to the WHO is about something other than them being the most qualified to make health decisions that benefit and protect everyone.
It seems far more likely that the WHO is being installed as a de facto governing body for the global Deep State.7 Through the WHO, under the guise of biosecurity, the globalist cabal who seek to own everything and control everyone, will then be able to implement their wishes across the whole world in one fell swoop.
With this treaty in place, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates. If the WHO says every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and digital identity to ensure vaccination compliance, then that’s what every country will be forced to implement, even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.
As noted by Corbett, these negotiations are already well underway,8 and the treaty is expected to be fully implemented in 2024 — that is, unless the people of the world wake up to what’s happening and beat back this monstrosity.
WHO Likely Seeking to Monopolize Health Care Worldwide
Under the guise of a global pandemic, the WHO, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and all its installed leaders in government and private business, were able to roll out a plan that had already been decades in the making. The pandemic was a perfect cover.
In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment.
Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, extend it into the health care systems of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.
While this is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.9
And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”10 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,11,12 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.
Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.
The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere, yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region, person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed. Without doubt, this can only result in needless suffering, not to mention the loss of individual freedom.
How the WHO Has Wielded Previous Pandemic Instruments
To give us an idea of how the WHO might end up misusing this new proposed international “instrument” on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, we can look at the International Health Regulations (IHR),13 which the U.S. signed on to in 2005.
The IHR is what empowered the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).14 This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts.
As noted by Corbett, the IHR allows the unelected director-general of the WHO to simply declare a PHEIC and, suddenly, all member states have to dance to his tune. It basically grants the WHO dictatorial powers over health policy.
PHEICs have included the phony H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009, the inconsequential Zika outbreak in 2016, the overhyped Ebola outbreak in 2019, and, of course, the massively exaggerated COVID pandemic in 2020. All of these PHEICs were poorly handled and the WHO was criticized as inept and corrupt15 in their wake.
So, to summarize, through the IHR, the WHO has already been significantly empowered to dictate global health policy with regard to pandemics, and they used that power to bamboozle the nations of the world into spending billions of dollars on countermeasures, especially drugs and vaccines, that didn’t work very well.
In that sense, the WHO is really just another wealth-transfer instrument. The WHO’s Big Pharma collaborators make billions on the taxpayers’ dime, while the people of the world are left to suffer the consequences of fast-tracked vaccines. Its handling of the COVID pandemic in particular has been unprecedentedly bad, as they were behind the withholding of early treatment with safe medicines worldwide.
As noted by ivermectin advocate Dr. Tess Lawrie,16 the WHO has also claimed the mRNA shots as safe as conventional vaccines, which is nowhere near the truth. Most all available data prove they are the most dangerous drugs ever created. Why would anyone expect the WHO to become less corrupt if given even more power and control?
IHR Amendments May Also Restrict Rights and Freedoms
Now, the IHR overrode and superseded the U.S. Constitution from the start, but in January 2022, the U.S. also submitted regulatory amendments17 that will give the WHO even more power to restrict your rights and freedoms.
May 22 through 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will gather and vote on these amendments to the IHR and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law. These submitted amendments are in addition to the WHO pandemic treaty currently under discussion. As reported by Health Policy Watch, February 23, 2022:18
“Washington wants to fast track a series of nitty-gritty, but far-reaching changes in the existing International Health Regulations that govern WHO and member state emergency alert and response — for consideration at this year’s World Health Assembly, 22-28 May.
The U.S. proposal19 for major IHR rule changes, obtained by Health Policy Watch, has been a topic of discussion in a series of closed-door meetings of WHO member states, which are considering ways to reform the existing IHR, as well as advancing a whole new WHO convention or other international instrument20 on pandemic prevention and response ...
The U.S. is expected to lead a parallel track of tightly-paced ‘informal’ member state negotiations to reach consensus on an IHR reform resolution for approval at this year’s 75th WHA [World Health Assembly] ...”
The “new WHO convention or other international instrument” mentioned here refers to the WHO treaty currently under discussion. An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health Assembly in December 2021,21 for the purpose of drafting and negotiating this new pandemic treaty. And, as mentioned, this INB has begun that work.
However, as noted by Corbett, this is only the second time in the WHO’s history that an INB has been established. The first one was the INB of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,22 22 years ago. So, this is not a well-established process, and it’s hard to predict how it will play out.
Bill Gates Builds GERM Team for the WHO
Another clue about what the WHO intends to do with more power comes from its primary funder, Bill Gates. Gates recently announced he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, which he would like to be called the "Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization" or GERM Team.
This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and “decide when they need to suspend civil liberties, force populations to wear masks and close borders,” The Counter Signal reports.23
Of course, Gates is also the largest funder of the WHO (when you combine the donations from both his foundation and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance). This and other relationships speak volumes about the corruption still ruling the WHO. At the end of the day, Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate to the world what they must do to make Gates a ton of money. As noted by The Counter Signal:24
“Gates’ announcement of the GERM team coincides with the World Health Organization’s drafting of a global pandemic treaty ... In the future, the pandemic treaty will not only ensure that member states abide by International Health Regulations but will also put the WHO in the driver’s seat, so to speak. Member states, including the US and Canada, will take their orders directly from the organization. As Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis explains:
‘The treaty includes 190 countries and would be legally binding. The treaty defines and classifies what is considered a pandemic, and this could consist of broad classifications, including an increase in cancers, heart conditions, strokes, etc. If a pandemic is declared, the WHO takes over the global health management of the pandemic.
Of even more concern, if this treaty is enshrined, the WHO would be in full control over what gets called a pandemic. They could dictate how our doctors can respond, which drugs can and can’t be used, or which vaccines are approved. We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world … A one-size-fits-all response to a health crisis doesn’t even work across Canada, let alone the entire globe’ ...
It isn’t unreasonable to assume that the GERM team, as a new branch of the WHO, would oversee making sure member states comply with the pandemic treaty after the draft is finalized and member states sign-on.
The next question, then, is how the WHO and Bill Gates would be able to monitor every individual in every country to determine whether enough people are sick to justify locking a region down.
To this end, the WHO has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems to develop a global vaccine passport system,25 with plans to link every person on the planet to a QR code digital ID ... Thus, there will be one pandemic treaty, one GERM team, one global vaccine passport, and one World Health Organization to monitor every person on the planet.”
Under WHO Control, Vaccine Passports Are a Given
Indeed, while countries around the world have scrubbed their COVID measures and backed away from vaccine passports, the WHO is still moving ahead with a global vaccine passport program.26
So, if the WHO is given the authority to dictate biosecurity rules for the world, you can bet they’ll insist on vaccine passports with built-in digital identity and readiness for a centralized programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC). As reported by the Western Standard:27
“The WHO fully intends to provide support to its 194 member states to facilitate the implementation of the digital verification technology for countries’ national and regional verification of vaccine status.
‘COVID-19 affects everyone. Countries will therefore only emerge from the pandemic together. Vaccination certificates that are tamper-proof and digitally verifiable build trust. WHO is therefore supporting member states in building national and regional trust networks and verification technology.
The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems. It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records,’ said Garrett Mehl, unit head of the WHO’s Department of Digital Health and Innovation, on Deutsche Telekom’s website.”
Can We Stop the International Pandemic Treaty?
The question now is, can we stop this “international pandemic instrument” that the WHO is seeking? With short notice, the WHO announced it would accept public comment on the treaty for a total of five days.28 The World Council for Health (WCH) was among the few that acted quickly enough to submit a comment in opposition of the treaty. Lawrie delivered the WCH’s submission.29
The proposal to take control of pandemics at a central WHO level is untenable and threatens a global society ... It is foolhardy to even suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ response to a pandemic crisis across geographic zones characterized by hugely different parameters, could possibly be covered by a central bureaucratic process — the need for local decision making is of prime importance. ~ Robert Clancy, Ph.D.
In an April 26, 2022, update on Substack, Lawrie wrote:30
“Despite the lack of notice, many grassroots organizations did what they could to spread the word and the World Council for Health’s #stopthetreaty campaign reached an astonishing 415 million people. Many of you made written submissions expressing your concerns. So many of you in fact, that I hear the WHO’s website crashed on the last day.”
One person who missed the deadline was professor Robert Clancy, a leading clinical immunologist in Canada. He sent the comment he would have wanted to submit to Lawrie, who included it in her post:31
“The proposal to take control of pandemics at a central WHO level is untenable and threatens a global society. I am in receipt of the World Council for Health response, and the superbly summarized view by Dr. Tess Lawrie. These concerns reflect the ‘across the board’ view of most Australian doctors ...
The failure to understand the restrictions of systemic vaccination for mucosal infection and the dangers of accumulated suppression that follows mindless booster programs, and failure to interrogate the massive databases regarding adverse events of genetic vaccines are but two of the serious mistakes perpetuated by the WHO ...
It is foolhardy to even suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ response to a pandemic crisis across geographic zones characterized by hugely different parameters, could possibly be covered by a central bureaucratic process — the need for local decision making is of prime importance.
The rule of science and the rule of the doctor-patient relationship must determine any response to a pandemic, and current experience where the rule of the narrative has so distorted disease outcomes — supported by the WHO — must make very clear the foolishness of rewarding incompetence and corruption with even greater powers.
I write this as the most experienced Clinical Immunologist in Australia, and a leading research scientist in Mucosal Immunology with a focus on ‘host-parasite relationship.’ Professor Robert Clancy AM FRS(N) MB BS BSc(Med) PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) FRCP(C)”
Make Your Voice Heard in June
While many, like Clancy, didn’t get a chance to participate, the WHO has announced it will allow for two more days of public comment, June 16 and 17, 2022. As noted by Lawrie:32
“Please also be aware of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, to be voted on this May at the World Health Assembly.
Like the pandemic treaty, this is another move to seize greater powers and override the sovereign laws of individual nations. Some say this is more significant than the pandemic treaty: if voted in, it means the loss of our sovereignty from this November. James Roguski has written extensively about this on his Substack.33
There seems to be a concerted effort by the WHO and its controllers to attack our sovereignty from all angles. It is important we make it clear that we do not recognize the WHO as an authority over us and that we will not tolerate this abuse of power.
We are sovereign and will not be bound by the undertakings of corrupt officials who pretend to act on our behalf when signing away the inherent rights of the World's People. They do not act for us and we will not be bound.”
I encourage you to make plans to have your voice heard June 16 and 17, 2022. Unfortunately, the WHO has not yet released any submission details. Your best bet right now is to sign up for the WCH’s newsletter. The last time, they issued links and instructions on how to submit your comment, and are sure to do the same for the June submission window. You can subscribe at the bottom of this page, or on the WCH’s home page.
To block the IHR amendments at the May 2022 World Health Assembly, we need to flood our respective delegations with opposition. A list of U.S. delegates can be found in Roguski’s Substack article, “Speaking Truth to Power.”
For contact information for other nations’ delegates, I would suggest contacting the regional office and ask for a list (see “Regions” in the blue section at the bottom of the World Health Assembly’s webpage). It’s also possible that the WCH will publish guidance on it, so be sure to sign up for their newsletter.
Sources and References:
4 World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted? December 23, 2021
10 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured September 2, 2009 (PDF)
12 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured May 1, 2009 (PDF)
16, 28, 29 Tess Lawrie Substack April 13, 2022
19 WHO Proposal for Amendments to the International Health Regulations January 20, 2022
30, 31, 32 Tess Lawrie Substack April 26, 2022