Pouring Cement Into The Wound

     The COVID-19 affair was arguably the worst thing to happen to the United States since the Civil War. The disease aside, the “remedy:”

  • Closure of schools;
  • Closure of businesses;
  • Closure of places of worship;
  • Nationwide lockdowns of healthy Americans;
  • Suppression of dissent from the official narrative;
  • Coerced administration of experimental, untested vaccines;

     …did enormous, entirely objective damage to the economy, the education of children, and the morale of the public. It very nearly destroyed the country. Yet even today, with the results as plain as 72-point type, the architects of this self-inflicted catastrophe – not one of whom has even lost his job – want to institutionalize it as a worldwide policy under United Nations control:

     The head of the World Health Organization on Friday urged countries to agree to an accord to help fight future pandemics as negotiations approach a deadline this month.
     The new pact and a series of updates to existing rules on dealing with pandemics are intended to shore up the world’s defenses against new pathogens after the COVID-19 pandemic killed millions of people.
     Countries are due to finalise negotiations on the accord on May 10, with a view to adopting it at the WHO’s annual meeting later this month, but sources involved say that big differences remain.
     “Give the people of the world, the people of your countries, the people you represent, a safer future,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a Geneva meeting.
     “So I have one simple request: please, get this done, for them,” he said. He encouraged countries who did not fully agree with the text to at least refrain from blocking consensus among WHO’s 194 member states.
     One of the main points of disagreement between wealthy countries and developing states is the vexed issue of sharing drugs and vaccines fairly to avoid a repeat of COVID-era failures.

     But what are these “new rules on dealing with pandemics” – ? As of a year ago, despite the compilation of a 208-page framework-agreement, they were still largely undefined. However, on one thing they were clear: the ultimate authority would rest in the hands of the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). National governments would cede their sovereignty in this regard.

     The great majority of the fatalities from COVID-19 were among the elderly and the already-morbid: the usual victims of a flu outbreak. Most of the others were victims of the “treatment” they received for that 99.7%-survivable disease. Reflect on that – and on the use of this engineered disease to justify a cession of U.S. sovereignty to a supra-national organization that seeks to invade our system of drug patents “for the greater good.”

     We are fortunate in this nation in many regards. The one uppermost in my thoughts just now is that treaties must be ratified by the Senate, by a two-thirds majority. Should the Democrats gain sufficient numbers in that body, American sovereignty (and much else) would be seriously imperiled. That makes the November elections appear highly consequential.

     Remember that “public health” has been used on several occasions as a justification under which to abridge the rights of Americans. There have even been attempts to use it as the rationale for extensive gun-control and gun-confiscation measures. Imagine what the U.N. could do with “worldwide public health” as a tool. Should the Director-General of WHO declare that the world is suffering a “violence pandemic” largely due to the prevalence of guns in unapproved hands, can you imagine what would follow?

     They who prowl the corridors of power are ever eager for new rationales under which they can extend their control over private citizens. “Pandemic response” is the most far-reaching such rationale yet to be devised.

     Stay tuned.


Skip to comment form

    • OneGuy on May 6, 2024 at 8:40 AM

    It all makes perfect sense once you concede that all that damage was the goal.  Chaos allows the Democrats/communists to acquire power and wealth.  It will get worse because it works.

    • Alex Lund on May 6, 2024 at 11:03 AM

    It is not about health.

    It is about control and subjugation. Absolute control.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    • GrayDog on May 6, 2024 at 1:29 PM

    An argument could be made that treaties enacted “under the authority of the United States” cannot legally exceed or supersede “the authority of the United States”, which is enumerated in Article I, Section 8. The Constitution authorizes only two methods by which the Constitution can be amended. Ratification of a treaty by one house of Congress isn’t one of those methods. Additionally, there are presently 27 Amendments, each and all of which amend the whole Constitution, which of course includes the Treaty Clause in Article IV. The Rights recognized as pre-existing by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments cannot legally be abrogated by the ratification of a Treaty. If we were still living in the Constitutional Republic established by The Founders (we are not), a UN/WHO treaty would not be something to worry about.

    1. And indeed, the argument is strong. If it were possible to create extra-Constitutional legal conditions purely by treaty with some other nation, the Constitution itself would have no force. But today, the Constitution is of mainly historical interest; Congress pays it little attention, as do the other branches of the federal Leviathan.

Comments have been disabled.