Tag Archive for: World Health Organization

Trump Vows: I Will Rip Up, Throw Away WHO Pandemic Agreement

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump has put the issue of world government at the forefront of the 2024 presidential race, vowing to “protect American sovereignty” and the U.S. Constitution from the designs of unelected global bureaucrats.

President Trump took aim at global governance institutions in general, and the World Health Organization (WHO) specifically, on Saturday, promising to shred and annul the WHO Pandemic Agreement unless Joe Biden submits the document to the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required for treaties.

“As we speak, Joe Biden’s minions are in Geneva, secretly negotiating to surrender more of our liberty to the World Health Organization,” President Trump told the Libertarian Party National Convention, eliciting a fulsome chorus of boos. “Drafts of the agreement show that they want to subjugate America to foreign nations, attack free speech, [and] empower the World Health Organization to redistribute American resources.”

Multiple drafts of the proposed accord show the WHO limiting national sovereignty by demanding nations follow its regulations on “routine immunization” and “social measures,” turn over 20% of all vaccines for global redistribution, and abide by the agreement’s terms even after they withdraw.

“They’re going to take our money and send it all over the world to other countries that we need for our own citizens,” in the event of a pandemic, Trump told the crowd in Washington on Saturday, warning that a pandemic “could happen again” in the United States. His comments came just days after the Department of Health and Human Services took the first steps to deny future federal grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based NGO which funded gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I will protect American sovereignty from the creeping hands of global government,” promised Trump. By contrast, the Biden administration has signaled its desire to sign the agreement, which WHO downgraded from a “legally-binding treaty” after Biden realized the U.S. Senate would never ratify the controversial document.

“I am hereby demanding that Joe Biden submit these monstrosities to the Senate as treaties,” declared Trump on Saturday. “If he does not, I will rip them up and throw them out on day one of the Trump administration.”

Opposition to the WHO pandemic treaty-turned-agreement has spread throughout America, including all 49 Republican U.S. senators, two dozen Republican governors, and 22 state attorneys general.

“The globalists are making a run over American sovereignty,” said Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) on the most recent episode of “This Week on the Hill,” hosted by Tony Perkins. “We can’t allow these global organizations to dictate to us what our policy is going to be.”

Although the body tasked with drawing up the agreement, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, failed to finalize its text before the World Health Assembly commenced its annual meeting in Geneva on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus insisted the globalists would eventually prevail. “I remain confident that you still will” complete the global power transfer and have it adopted, he told delegates Monday. “Where there is a will, there is a way.”

But the internationalists compiling the sovereignty-destroying agreement will proceed from a radically government-centered philosophy alien to the American founding, experts say. “Some of these nations come from a very different governance perspective than the United States,” one which “says it’s normal to look to the federal government to deal with these problems,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council — who is currently in Geneva monitoring the WHA proceedings — told guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice on “Washington Watch” Tuesday.

“Constitutionally, there are areas enumerated to the federal government under our Constitution. If they’re not, the issue in theory should be left to the states,” Weber told Hice. “We have a philosophy of government going back to our founding which depends on a self-governing, moral, and religious people. So, this really sets the stage for people in the United States to say, ‘Why should the federal government be tackling [this] issue in the first place?’”

President Trump also cited constitutionalist themes in his pitch for libertarians to endorse his candidacy at Saturday’s convention.

“I unbound the United States from globalist agreements that surrendered our sovereignty. I withdrew from the Paris Accord. I withdrew from the anti-gun U.N. Arms Treaty. And I withdrew from the corrupt and very expensive World Health Organization,” said Trump, emphasizing that any institution of global governance is “not a good thing, not a good thing.”

Trump delivered a message precision-targeted to libertarian concerns. “Marxism is an evil doctrine straight from the ashes of Hell,” said Trump. “We believe that the job of the United States military is not to wage endless regime change wars around the globe.”

“We will shut down our out-of-control federal Department of Education and give it back to the states and local governments. I will return power to the states, local governments, and to the American people. I am a believer in the Tenth Amendment,” said Trump. “I will always defend religious liberty and the right to keep and bear arms. And I will secure our elections.” Trump also pledged to put a libertarian in his cabinet and in senior posts of his administration.

“What you’re witnessing under Biden is a toxic fusion of the Marxist Left, the Deep State, the military-industrial complex, the government security and surveillance service, and their partners all merging together into a hideous perversion of the American system,” he said. “The great liberation of America begins on November 5th, 2024.”

Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle also invited Joe Biden and Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to address the convention. RFK Jr., who has said the WHO Pandemic Agreement “should be dead in the water,” delivered extended remarks to the delegates Friday afternoon. Biden demurred. Former Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy, former Congressman Ron Paul, and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) also spoke at the convention.

Trump vied for the party’s backing, quoting at length a Deroy Murdock article, “The Libertarian Case for Donald J. Trump” and encouraging delegates to nominate him — but only “if you want to win. If you want to lose, don’t do that. Keep getting your 3% every four years.”

The 3.3% of the 2016 vote, won by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R), actually represented an outlier for the Libertarian Party, which typically claims to 0.5%-1% of the presidential electorate.

Ultimately, the collected Libertarian Party delegates nominated Chase Oliver, an Atlanta-based activist who describes himself as “pro-police reform, pro-choice,” as well as “armed and gay.” Oliver supported COVID-19 lockdowns and mask mandates, opposed bills protecting minors from transgender injections and surgeries, and posed with a drag queen. The Georgian, who forced a run-off in the 2022 Senate race that saw Democrat Raphael Warnock defeat Republican Herschel Walker, plans to gear his campaign toward young people, “in particular those who are upset with the war going on in Gaza.”

Some hope liberty-minded voters will ignore the Libertarian Party’s official endorsement and support Trump out of prudence. Walter Block, an economics professor and prolific libertarian author, urged libertarians in swing states to vote for the 45th president this November. “In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, we could make the difference,” wrote Block in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Tuesday.

He reminded readers that “Libertarian nominee Jo Jorgensen received roughly 50,000 votes in Arizona in 2020, when Mr. Trump lost the state by about 10,000 ballots.”

Absent a more conservative government, America may be yoked to the WHO Pandemic Agreement without Senate ratification, circumventing the democratic process. “It only breeds more public distrust when people are not able to fully share their concerns and air their grievances,” Weber told Hice. “The people of the United States need to be heard in terms of their concerns about the WHO, about the way the COVID-19 pandemic was handled, about the way their health information might be distributed or shared, or given over to some government program.”

FRC Action has created a form allowing voters to contact their senators, urging them to oppose the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

24 GOP Governors Warn Biden against ‘Unconstitutional’ WHO Pandemic Agreement

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

As President Joe Biden considers adopting a global health agreement that would turn the power of the federal government over to leaders of a world government, dozens of governors have put him on notice that they “stand united in opposition” to handing over America’s national sovereignty.

Nearly every Republican governor in the country has signed a letter asking Biden to reconsider adopting a forthcoming accord enhancing the power of the World Health Organization before, during, and after global health crises. Negotiators are working around the clock to hammer out a final version of the WHO Pandemic Agreement before the World Health Assembly meets on Monday. The current text of the accord would require nations to agree with WHO regulations on “routine immunization,” “social measures” such as lockdowns and mask mandates, and require a massive global redistribution of U.S. wealth and technical information based on “equity.” The Biden administration has signaled it will accept the agreement without congressional approval.

The proposed document would grant WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people,” which “could drastically change the role of governors,” noted the 24 governors in Wednesday’s letter. “The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.”

The agreement would grant WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and other leaders “unilateral power to declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a range of perceived emergencies,” they said. The current text of the agreement states that “a range of environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors may increase the risk of pandemics.” The latest details about the global health treaty are available in Family Research Council’s updated comprehensive explainer on the WHO Pandemic Agreement.

Enhancing global bureaucrats’ authority “would erode sovereignty” by “stripping elected representatives of their role in setting public health policies and compelling citizens to comply with WHO directives, potentially including mandates regarding medical treatments,” stated two dozen governors spanning the party’s ideological spectrum, including Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.), Glenn Youngkin (Va.), Doug Bergum (N.D.), and Chris Sununu (N.H).

The state leaders are also concerned about “a global surveillance infrastructure and requirements for member states to censor speech related to public health. Requiring Americans to share information about deadly, incurable, highly-transmissible viruses with the rest of the world may “potentially facilitat[e] the proliferation of biological weapons.”

“[P]ublic health policy is a matter reserved for the states, not the federal government, and certainly not international bodies like the WHO,” they point out. “We are committed to resisting any attempts to transfer authority to the WHO over public policy affecting our citizens or any efforts by the WHO to assert such authority over them.”

Every Republican governor in the United States signed the letter except three: Governors Mike Parson of Missouri, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Phil Scott of Vermont.

“The governors appear to be more concerned about their sovereignty than Joe Biden seems to be concerned about the sovereignty of the U.S.,” said FRC President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “I also think it is a precursor to one-world government.”

The governors’ letter followed a May 1 letter led by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and signed by all 49 Republican senators branding the WHO Pandemic Agreement “unacceptable” and “dead on arrival” if it ever comes before the U.S. Senate for ratification, as required of a treaty. “Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual property rights, infringing free speech, and supercharging the WHO,” noted the senators.

They called on the Biden administration to “withdraw your administration’s support for the current IHR amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations” and champion “comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority.”

It also comes after 22 state attorneys general put the executive branch on notice that it cannot turn over U.S. health policy to any global governance body, because the “U.S. Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government,” the legal authorities pointed out in a May 8 letter. They added the present text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’).”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, said the rising chorus of concern could help uphold fundamental American liberties. “We hear a lot in the press and in the culture right now about protecting democracy,” Weber told Perkins. “The Constitution leaves health care to the states, [it] certainly does not put it in the hands of the federal government to be automatically put in the hands of an international body like the WHO.”

All signs show U.S. opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement growing among the American people, as well. Just over 93% of Republicans voted no on Question 8 in Georgia’s primary Tuesday, which asked, “Do you believe unelected and unaccountable international bureaucrats, like the UN-controlled World Health Organization (WHO), should have complete control over management of future pandemics in the United States and authority to regulate your healthcare and personal health choices?”

Opposition has spread globally, as well. On May 8, authorities in the U.K. announced they would not sign on to the agreement unless it no longer required them to turn over 20% of British pandemic vaccines, therapeutics, and medications to WHO for redistribution. Slovak leader Robert Fico had also opposed the accord.

FRC has set up a campaign allowing Americans to email national leaders with their opposition to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, as well.

Signatories of the governors’ letter included Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, Doug Burgum of North Dakota, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED PODCAST: Who is the WHO?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Good News on Abortion, World Government, and Judicial Radicals: The Stories You Missed This Week

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Liberal news bias affects every aspect of our society, including story selection. Every week, the media highlights certain stories while ignoring or limiting the coverage of others. Like all their content, newsrooms filter these decisions through their editors’ liberal bias, distorting the news you receive and polluting the information ecosystem. The Washington Stand highlights the stories you may have missed while desperately straining to hear the news through the cacophony produced by the legacy media.

This week, the media downplayed good news about abortion, the WHO Pandemic Agreement, and radical judicial appointments — as well as bad news about the Biden administration’s fanatical support of the transgender agenda, its indifference to the consequences of blowing up a train of toxic chemicals in East Palestine, and its belief that Mother’s Day is the perfect time to promote abortion.

1. Voters are beginning to see state abortion referenda as a Democratic get-out-the-vote scheme.

The wave of state ballot initiatives seeking to impose unrestricted abortion-on-demand on states from coast to coast has encountered a serious problem: Voters are beginning to see them as a cynical ploy to elect Democrats. The news comes from reading between the lines of a story in Politico titled “National Dem strategy worries state abortion-rights leaders.”

“Democrats’ efforts to ride the coattails of abortion ballot measures put passage at risk,” declares the subheadline.

The abortion lobby apparently fears defeat if voters realize their state’s referendum serves as little more than a Democratic voter-drive scheme. “We haven’t won or beat back a single one of these ballot measures without significant [I]ndependent and Republican support,” Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL) told Politico. “We spent a lot of last year talking to candidates directly saying, ‘Don’t put things on the ballot just to enhance voter turnout for Dems.” A leader of the Nebraska abortion-expansion referendum, Taylor Givens-Dunn said, “We want to be clear that this is about people, not politicians.”

Their concerns have spread to the professional political class. An anonymous consultant working with multiple state ballot initiatives told Politico that Democratic candidates “don’t need to talk about the specific ballot initiatives all day long,” because if they do, it will “reduce the chances that they win.”

Thus far, Democrats have not only ignored this anonymous individual’s advice; they have openly touted the referenda as their party’s political salvation in November. “[A]bortion has become a key issue that could help drive turnout for Democrats to win up and down the ballot,” said a memo dated May 2 from the Democratic Party’s official campaign arm aimed at winning statewide races, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). “These measures will cement abortion protections into state constitutions and could boost turnout for competitive races at every level of the ballot.” The DLCC’s president, Heather Williams, apparently provided the memo to Axios along with her own quotation.

Democrats have considered multiplying these initiatives even in self-described “abortion sanctuaries,” such as New York. Although the state has effectively no protections for unborn children, and Governor Kathy Hochul (D) gives millions to abortion facilities, “Democrat lawmakers pushed the effort forward amid hopes that it will bolster turnout,” reported The Hill.

The bad news is that support for abortion-on-demand does, indeed, cut across party lines. That includes a dishearteningly large minority of Bible-believing Christians, according to a study of Ohio’s Issue 1 released by the Center for Christian Virtue (CCV). Based on their numbers, “1 in 3 self-identified weekly church-going Catholics and Evangelicals supported the law, which will rob an estimated 30,000 unborn children of their lives every year,” CCV found. In all, “30 percent of Ohioans who believe life begins at conception voted to pass the radical abortion amendment.”

Even with such odds, the abortion industry apparently frets voters will reject ballot initiatives that are seen as a craven Democratic GOTV effort.

It would be a shame if the word got out.

2. Biden administration admits it will withhold federal funding from hospitals that don’t carry out transgender procedures.

In a move demonstrating its extreme commitment to the transgender agenda, a Biden administration official admitted Democrats would withhold federal funding from health care centers that refuse to administer puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone injections, or transgender surgeries — even if their objection rests on religious grounds.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra made the admission during a Wednesday hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

“Can you commit here today that your department will not withhold federal funding from hospitals or doctors who refuse to provide the ‘gender-affirming care’ that you are mandating if it violates their religious beliefs?” asked Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.). “What are you going to do if they refuse to provide this care?”

“Doctors don’t get federal funding, ma’am,” said Becerra, attempting to dodge the question.

“But the hospitals do,” Miller replied.

“Don’t confuse the two,” chided Becerra.

Miller then followed up by asking about hospitals and other health care facilities that presented a faith-based objection to carrying out procedures that deny the reality of Genesis 1-3.

“If a health care facility is violating the law and not providing the service they’re required to, they’re not entitled to the resources,” Becerra (finally) answered.

“We knew that you would withdraw federal funding,” replied Miller.

Posting video of the exchange on social media, Miller stated: “HHS Secretary Becerra says the quiet part out loud. Joe Biden’s government will withhold funds from religious hospitals that refuse to provide sex-change operations for young children.”

Such an action is hardly surprising. In May 2022, Biden’s USDA threatened to deny needy children school lunches. Six years earlier, the Obama-Biden Justice Department threatened to cut off all school funding to any school or university that did not give males access to female showers, locker rooms, overnight accommodations, and dorm room housing.

But the video makes it crystal clear that the Biden administration favors the LGBTQ lobby over the survival of your local hospital — and admitted it under oath.

3. Controversial Biden judicial pick doomed?

In an administration stacked with radicals, one appointee stood out: Adeel Mangi, whom Biden nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. If confirmed, the administration trumpeted, Mangi would be the first Muslim to sit on an appellate court. But it left out critical details about Magni’s autobiography.

During the time Mangi served on the board of Rutgers University Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), it hosted Sami al-Arian, a former professor who admitted he provided material support to the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. (Al-Arian was subsequently deported to Turkey.)

Mangi also served as a board member of the Alliance of Families for Justice (AFJ), which was co-founded by Kathy Boudin, a member of the radical 1960s domestic terrorist organization the Weather Underground. Boudin also entered a guilty plea in her case to murdering two police officers during a 1981 Brinks robbery. True to form, AFJ asked authorities to release six cop-killers, who were members of the Black Panthers or the Black Liberation Army, describing the murderers as “freedom fighters.”

These associations proved so toxic that numerous Democratic senators — including Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen (both of Nevada), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) — publicly opposed his appointment. Since then, his nomination has hung in limbo. But insiders familiar with the process say Senate Democrats have privately agreed his nomination is toast.

“This nominee has lost all hope from the Biden White House of getting a floor vote, given we are months away from the election,” longtime Senate staff leader Ron Bonjean told Fox News on Sunday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his colleagues “are more than likely going to let him twist in the wind hoping he withdraws on his own.”

On the other hand, Democrats could theoretically force a vote on Mangi during the lame duck session of Congress, where a sufficient number of absences could place the radical on the court. The fact that Biden nominated such an extremist — tied to multiple forms of domestic and international terrorism — should serve as an indictment of its own.

4. Biden and allies promote abortion on Mother’s Day.

As it has in past years, the Biden campaign and multiple outlets on the cultural Left decided the perfect time to promote abortion is Mother’s Day.

The Biden-Harris presidential campaign marked Sunday’s holiday by releasing a video titled “Trump Attacks Women.”

“Happy Mother’s Day … but not from Donald Trump,” the video begins. It then features the 45th president boasting about overturning Roe v. Wade. All three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the 6-3 Dobbs ruling that declared the U.S. Constitution does not, and never did, contain an unalienable “right” to abortion.

“What a sad, miserable, cowardly existence Crooked Joe Biden and his campaign must have to make such a disgusting ad on such a joyous day,” replied Trump’s campaign team.

Yet the Left has once again chosen to tie the annual celebration of motherly love and affection with the taking of innocent, unborn life. “Forget the flowers. This Mother’s Day, pledge to support the right to abortion,” proclaimed an op-ed written by Nicole Hensel for the Colorado Newsline. “Give a gift to your mother and pledge to support abortion care for everyone,” she concluded. (Colorado Newsline is a faux, astroturf political website affiliated with the States Newsroom, “an operation created in secret by the Arabella Advisors network with funding from partisan interests under the guise of nonpartisan reporting,” according to Nick Givas of Restoration News.)

Ms. Magazine, whose political bias is less opaque, demeaned Mother’s Day as “all a societal forgery — an empty exercise the majority of us have all inexplicably agreed to engage in,” especially “in the post-Roe world [politicians] created with their anti-abortion policies.” “[F]or millions of people with the capacity to get pregnant in this country it is no longer a choice — it’s a government mandate,” wrote Danielle Campoamor. She did not explain what government law requires women to have sex. “I abhor the politicians championing a potential nationwide abortion ban,” wrote Campoamor. “I despise the Republicans.”

Tying Mother’s Day to abortion, which costs women the opportunity to mother a living child and often inflicts lifelong psychological harm on women, exposes the Left’s cruelty as bordering on the inhuman. Perhaps that explains why so few legacy media outlets reported on it.

5. Toxic fumes still waft in the air over East Palestine, Ohio.

An independent test has found that residents in East Palestine, Ohio, continue to breath harmful chemicals more than 15 months after officials vented and exploded toxic gases after a train derailment near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border.

A test of air in the tiny village, conducted in February by Edelweiss Technology Solutions, uncovered the presence of vinyl chloride, acrolein, benzene, ethanol, ethyl acetate, styrene, and toluene. After a town resident could not get the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency to test the area, “Edelweiss found high levels of acrolein inside her home, the report stating the chemical was identified to have the largest potential for health impacts during an independent assessment of the town done in February of 2023,” reported NewsNation on Wednesday.

The EPA had assured residents that vinyl chloride will “degrade rapidly in air by gas phase reaction,” which means some source must be emitting vinyl chloride into East Palestine more than a year after the Norfolk Southern accident.

As it turns out, the explosion was unnecessary and uncalled for, according to the Biden administration. Officials knew that “polymerization was not occurring, and there was no justification to do a vent and burn,” National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy testified to Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) in March. “There was another option: let it cool down.” But the people with the information did not share it with forces on the ground.

Despite the continuing fallout, President Biden has yet to issue a declaration of a public health emergency for the rural area, where President Donald Trump won 70.7% of the vote over Joe Biden in 2020.

The president seems more interested in trucking aid to the Palestinian Authority than in caring for U.S. citizens in East Palestine, Ohio.

6. The Biden administration stands up for AIDS-infected prostitution.

The Biden administration achieved minor success (the only kind it appears to attain) in its bizarre campaign to stop states from punishing HIV-positive prostitutes whose activity could expose others to the deadly virus. As this author reported in TWS:

“The Biden administration’s Justice Department sued the state of Tennessee over a law it adopted to stop the spread of AIDS, on the grounds that it discriminates against the virus. The state’s aggravated prostitution law (§ 39-13-516) charges anyone who knowingly sells sex while HIV-positive with a Class C felony, rather than a misdemeanor for prostitution. The guilty must also register as sex offenders for life, because they may have exposed the other party to AIDS.”

Although the lawsuit remains pending, the Biden administration announced Thursday it had convinced the district attorney of Shelby County, Tennessee to ignore the law and no longer prosecute offenders. He will also alert those who have been convicted under the statute of their ability to vacate the judgment and any remaining sentences or financial penalties.

The lawless move seems in keeping with the record of the district attorney of Shelby County, which includes Memphis. Steve Mulroy is a Democrat who received $616,000 in donations linked to far-left billionaire George Soros, according to the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. Amy Schumer, Barry Scheck, and executives from Jay Z’s company Roc Nation also donated to Mulroy in 2022.

Laws that prosecute HIV-positive prostitutes “perpetuate bias, stereotypes and ignorance,” said Assistant Attorney Kristen Clarke, who oversees the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Clarke, who stands credibly accused of perjuring herself during her confirmation hearings by omitting details over a purported history of domestic violence, may want to attend to her own legal conundrums.

But the lawsuit furthers the designs of the World Health Organization. WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus instructed nations near the first of this year, “Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission.” The Biden administration’s legal crusade reveals the dangerous lengths to which liberals will go to carry out the will of the WHO.

Speaking of which ….

7. Opposition to WHO Pandemic Agreement spreading like wildfire in Congress.

The Biden administration remains committed to adopting the WHO Pandemic Agreement without Senate ratification, as constitutionally required for a treaty. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced a measure requiring Biden to submit the accord to the U.S. Senate, so it can carry out its duty to advise and consent to it. But during a January 25 appearance on “Washington Watch,” Johnson observed that his bill is “not getting much traction here in Congress,” because the sovereignty-destroying concordat had become “a partisan issue.”

What a difference three and a half months make.

“Every Republican senator has signed on to this bill,” Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) told Perkins on Wednesday. His Wisconsin colleague, Johnson, rallied the entire Senate Republican caucus to sign a May 1 letter calling the pandemic agreement “unacceptable.”

The same momentum took place in the lower chamber of Congress, where Tiffany introduced the companion legislation. “We started out with 14 co-signers on the bill a couple months ago. We are now up to 51 members of the House of Representatives who have signed on,” said Tiffany.

Internationally, officials in the United Kingdom opposed the treaty, saying it would undermine national sovereignty and force them to divert emergency medical supplies intended for the British people to the global governance body for redistribution. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also had stern words for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, declaring in November, “I will not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organization at the expense of sovereign states.” He also derided the accord’s provisions as “nonsense that must have been created by insatiable pharmaceutical companies.” A 71-year-old pro-Ukrainian gunman repeatedly shot Fico on Wednesday. As of this writing, the populist prime minister remains in serious condition.

Please spare a few prayers for Fico, and his assailant. And, if you might, a few prayers that the WHO Pandemic Agreement fails.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Audacity of Merrick Garland

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

U.K. Rejects WHO Pandemic Treaty as Critics Sound Alarm over ‘New World Order’

/in , , , , , , , /by

The British government is preparing to reject a global health treaty that critics warn gives power to “a new world order.” According to The Telegraph, the U.K. is opposed to signing the World Health Organization (WHO) global pandemic treaty, insisting the accord would undermine the U.K.’s sovereignty.

The U.K. reportedly refuses to agree to any treaty which would not allow the nation to put its own interests first. In its present form, which is the ninth and final draft, the WHO treaty would require wealthier Western nations such as the U.S. and the U.K. to surrender 20% of their “pandemic-related health products” — including medicines, vaccines, and protective equipment — to be given to nations the WHO deems less developed. The terms of the treaty would grant the WHO 10% of those products for free and the other 10% “at affordable prices.” A spokesperson for Britain’s Department of Health and Social Care stated, “We will only support the adoption of the accord and accept it on behalf of the UK, if it is firmly in the UK national interest and respects national sovereignty.”

The pandemic treaty was introduced in May 2021 in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, purportedly as a means of ensuring a united international global response to future pandemics. However, critics across the globe, including in the U.S., are urging nations to reject the accord, warning that it effectively grants the bureaucratic WHO unprecedented control over sovereign nations and their health care systems.

Appearing on “Washington Watch” on Thursday night, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) cautioned against the “dangers of global governance” and “a new world order.” He explained that the WHO “engineered” the global response to COVID-19 but ultimately “gave cover” to China, where the virus originated. “I think it probably was manmade, probably from a lab in Wuhan,” Johnson said. “But again, there’s corruption. The Chinese exert way too much influence on the World Health Organization. Why would we want China’s influence dictating American actions or other nations’ actions as well?”

Johnson and his fellow Senate Republicans issued a letter last week to President Joe Biden, demanding he withdraw the U.S. from WHO pandemic treaty negotiations. Declaring the terms of the treaty “unacceptable,” the letter states, “Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.” The letter also called on the U.S. to hold the WHO accountable for its “total” and “predictable” “failure” to respond adequately to COVID-19, a failure which the letter argues “did lasting harm to our country.”

The letter concludes noting that any treaty must be approved by the Senate and that Biden is expected to “submit any pandemic related agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent.” On “Washington Watch,” Johnson explained, “The presidents are abusing their authority in terms of entering these agreements, calling them executive agreements when they clearly fall into the guidelines of what treaties should be.” He added that Americans should “understand what our president is getting America involved in.”

Johnson and his Senate compatriots aren’t the only ones calling on Biden to withdraw from negotiations. Last week, 22 state attorneys general also sent a letter to the president, warning that the pandemic treaty would give the WHO “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and her people” and cautioning against “relinquish[ing] more power to unelected and unaccountable institutions.” Referring to the pandemic treaty as “highly problematic,” the attorneys general wrote:

“To varying degrees, these measures would threaten national sovereignty, undermine states’ authority, and imperil constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Ultimately, the goal of these instruments isn’t to protect public health. It’s to cede authority to the WHO — specifically its Director-General — to restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, privacy, movement (especially travel across borders) and informed consent.”

They further noted that the negotiations Biden has involved the U.S. in “would transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health” and “inappropriately cede American sovereignty to the WHO.” Additionally, they pointed out that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to “delegate public health decisions to an international body,” observing that “responsibility for public health policy” is vested in the states, not in the federal government.

Finally, the attorneys general warned that the WHO’s proposals “would lay the groundwork for a global surveillance infrastructure, ostensibly in the interest of public health, but with the inherent opportunity for control (as with Communist China’s ‘social credit system’).” They added, “The current draft instructs signatories to ‘cooperate, in accordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation.’ This is particularly dangerous given that your administration pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech during COVID-19.”

Nations are expected to either accept or reject the terms of the pandemic treaty at the WHO’s World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, later this month.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Dems Want to Give Up U.S. Sovereignty’ to ‘New World Order’: Senator on WHO Treaty

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The Democratic Party in general, and the Biden administration in particular, are eager to hand global governance institutions more influence over U.S. health policy, said the prime opponent of a new pandemic agreement.

The Biden administration has signaled its intention to adopt the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new accord on responding to global health pandemics such as COVID-19 or “Disease X.” The WHO Pandemic Agreement demands the U.S. turn over one-fifth of all vaccines and protective health equipment to WHO for redistribution, adopts a controversial “One Health” policy that makes human health no more important than animals or the environment, and encourages national governments to combat “misinformation” online. The WHO originally described the agreement as a “legally binding treaty” in December 2022 but changed its formal title to an “agreement” after the Biden administration realized it could not win Senate ratification, as the Constitution requires for an international treaty.

The Biden administration’s willingness to sidestep Congress on the WHO agreement — as it has on student loan “forgiveness,” an eviction moratorium, and other issues — troubles Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who introduced the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act. But the bill is “not getting much traction here in Congress,” Johnson told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on January 25, because the international accord has become “a partisan issue.”

“Every Republican except for the bill’s sponsor voted for my amendment, which would have deemed” the WHO agreement, which would give WHO greater authority over all Americans during deadly outbreaks, “a treaty subject to ratification in the Senate. And every Democrat voted against it,” said Johnson. “So, Democrats apparently want to give up U.S. sovereignty.”

Pro-life and pro-family advocates should be most concerned about expanding the WHO’s reach, power, and prestige, as it moves to polarize global health policy in favor of abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism, say its opponents. At last month’s board meeting, WHO announced it may strike a partnership with the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a well-funded pro-abortion lobbying group that pressures governments to enact lax abortion laws.

CRR is “one of the most nefarious, aggressively pro-abortion groups on the face of the Earth,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told Perkins earlier in the same show. That stems, in part, from its secretary-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, who won his post with China’s endorsement. “I’ve known him for 30 years. He used to tell me how pro-life he was. He is absolutely pro-abortion.”

Smith, the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and his wife have tracked the influence CRR and WHO have had on global abortion policy for decades. Two decades ago, Smith entered into the Congressional Record “a document put out by the World Health Organization, and it’s all about the model legislation that they want for every country,” he said. WHO wants “no gestational limits, just like Biden is doing,” establishing a right to “abortion until birth.” WHO and the Democrats also believe pro-life physicians, who object to participating in abortions due to religious or moral reasons, should have “no ability to say no, no right of conscience. They say that is a barrier to access to abortion.”

Democrats and global WHO bureaucrats also oppose mandatory waiting periods, which have been shown to reduce the abortion rate and increase the number of babies born alive. “Very often when there’s a parental notification, or a waiting period, or some other small-but-necessary protection, women rethink it and they come to a different conclusion,” Smith told Perkins. “They want none of that.”

WHO is also scheduled to roll out a global health guidance instructing physicians how to respond to adults who identify as transgender — and stacked the group writing the guideline with radical transgender activists, most of whom have no medical background. One proposed member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) previously took part in a global LGBT health symposium that “emphasised the need to provide [an] uninterrupted supply of … medical [hormone therapy] and gender-affirmative surgeries for trans people.” The minority of GDG members who have medical backgrounds often carry out, and financially benefit from, transgender procedures, creating a blatant conflict of interest.

WHO’s emphasis on climate change, and its lowering human health to the level of ecosystems, should also give Americans pause, said Johnson. President Dwight D. “Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned us about four things,” he noted. “The final thing he talked about [was how] we cannot let global society fall into a state of ‘dreadful fear and hate.’” But both have been inflamed by extreme COVID-19 lockdown advocates and Green activists who perpetually flog the threat of “catastrophic climate emergency” while demonizing their opponents, he said. “This is what tyrants do. They control people. They take away your freedom based on a state of fear.”

Johnson said the end game of those promoting the WHO Pandemic Agreement and other destructive policies is “the New World Order, total control, a borderless world. That’s part of the strategy behind an open border here in America.”

He quoted a video produced by the World Economic Forum, “‘You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.’ That’s basically their rallying cry. It’s sick. It’s frightening.”

“There are a lot of people,” warned Johnson, “in leadership positions who want to take your freedom away.”

He hoped other nations would recognize “that their national sovereignty, their health freedom may be taken away from them in this very dangerous negotiation.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: RFK Jr.: WHO Pandemic Agreement ‘Should Be Dead in the Water’

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson contrasts two cases of people called in front of a Congressional Committee: Revolutionary vs Counter-Revolutionary

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

WHO Chief: Nations Must ‘Counteract Conservative Opposition’ to Abortion, Promote Transgenderism

/in , , , , , , , /by

A global government body has told nations it is “imperative” that they “counteract conservative opposition” and “enact progressive laws” that legalize prostitution and intentionally infect people with AIDS. At the same time, the international body has indicated it plans to roll out guidelines normalizing transgender cross-sex hormone injections worldwide.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ushered in 2024 with a bulletin titled “Advancing the ‘sexual’ in sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global health, gender equality and human rights imperative,” co-written by WHO’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, a former associate of Ethiopia’s repressive Marxist government.

“Political leaders at all levels must champion sexual health as part of sexual and reproductive health to counteract conservative opposition,” states the WHO Bulletin released on January 1. “Policy-makers must enact progressive laws and policies to expand access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services,” it says.

“Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission,” the bulletin advises. Ghebreyesus calls on world leaders to “foster societies where all people can experience their sexuality safely, positively,” couching the advancement of the Sexual Revolution as a moral imperative.

“Upholding sexual health is a moral obligation. Immense suffering is caused when people lack bodily autonomy; control over their fertility” — a likely reference to abortion — as well as “the freedom to experience safe, consensual and pleasurable sexual relationships,” states the bulletin. The bulletin did not explain how having sex with strangers for money and allowing people to spread AIDS with impunity increases sexual pleasure. Surveys have continually found the most sexually satisfied people are committed married couples who had no previous sexual experience.

The WHO bulletin also advocates population control measures in the name of reducing carbon emissions. “Sexual health even impacts environmental sustainability. Slowing unsustainable population growth by investing in family planning and education reduces pressures on natural resources and helps break cycles of poverty,” writes Ghebreyesus.

The bulletin insists that such libidinous concerns as the “right” to pleasure are “not fringe issues” but flow naturally from “universal values that cut across religious, partisan and cultural divides.”

The WHO missive echoed a 2012 report from the Global Commission on HIV and the Law — formed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and funded in part by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations — which called on nations to repeal laws that “prohibit commercial sex, such as laws against … brothel-keeping.” It also opposed laws criminalizing intentionally infecting others with HIV/AIDS, while criticizing “conservative interpretations of religion” and laws based on “morality.”

The new WHO bulletin advocates a broad agenda rooted in the extreme left-wing concepts of intersectionality and equity. “Violations of human rights in the context of sexual health are embedded in hierarchical structures of gender, generation, lineage, race, class, and caste, in which more powerful or privileged people control the bodies and emotions of the less powerful. People with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities often face stigma and discrimination,” states Ghebreyesus.

WHO condemned medical researchers for fixating on 99% of the global population through their “focus on predominantly cisgender and heterosexual populations.”

Ironically, WHO encourages politicians to enact new policies, because “[s]exual health of women and girls and gender-diverse individuals is politicized.” Yet WHO wishes for global support of the Sexual Revolution to go beyond political leaders to become a whole-of-society undertaking.

“Civil society and affected communities must mobilize to demand services, promote rights and reduce stigma,” writes Ghebreyesus. “Global leadership and funding are essential. International institutions should ensure sexual health is integrated within health, development and human rights frameworks.” Foreign aid should prioritize WHO’s goals, as should private nonprofit organizations, the memo states.

The New Year’s Day bulletin came as the World Health Organization asked for comment on the group of radical transgender activists WHO recruited to draw up global health guidelines on transgender procedures. The vast majority have no background in medicine.

After public backlash, WHO announced the group would not decree how doctors should care for minors who say they’re experiencing gender dysphoria. However, the adult guidelines will clearly affirm the transgender industry’s invasive procedures in the name of human rights.

“This guideline has a specific focus on adults and will not address issues relating to children and adolescents,” WHO announced last Monday, January 15.

WHO groused that many global health care settings “lack policies to facilitate access to inclusive and gender affirming care.” It clarified that “gender-affirming health care can include … a number of social, psychological, behavioural or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions,” but “these new technical guidelines … will not consider surgical interventions.”

However, the new guidelines will insist doctors “provide more inclusive, acceptable and effective” care for trans-identifying people — by which they mean cross-sex hormone injections. “The guideline will reflect the principles of human rights, gender equality, universality and equity,” the January 15 statement proclaimed. It will also advance WHO’s alleged commitment to two United Nations statements “to protect all people from discrimination and violence on the grounds of gender identity and/or gender expression” and “eliminate discrimination in healthcare settings, including discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.”

Banning alleged “discrimination” against transgender people could penalize Christian health care workers with faith-based objections to carrying out gender-conversion procedures.

“This is obviously highly concerning for several reasons,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “One is the aggregation of worldwide power into entities like the World Health Organization, which are far removed from the proper decision-making authority.” But a more pertinent objection, he said, is the content of global governance bodies’ decisions.

“We’re seeing WHO and other world bodies — the U.N., Organization of American States, World Economic Forum — increasingly aligned with the anti-Christ position,” advancing views that are “antithetical to the Word of God. They are opposed to what Jesus says,” Weber told TWS. “God speaks to us about creation, about creating us male and female, about how before He formed us in the womb He knew us. That’s very different than what the world power centers are saying about reality.”

It is all the more concerning such ideological impositions are being carried out in the name of “science,” he said. Weber compared the use of the word “science” to a cargo vehicle driving down the highway: “We see the car moving, but we don’t see what’s being carried inside it. What’s inside [WHO’s use of the term ‘science’] is ideology. The term ‘health’ is taking on an ideological bent — not only on gender ideology but on abortion, which is the taking of an innocent life. The term health is being used to promote a pro-abortion ideology worldwide.”

The new documents come as the U.S. government is asking citizens to comment on the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement, originally called a treaty, which the Biden administration is considering adopting without Senate confirmation. The WHO agreement would require the U.S. to redistribute 20% of all vaccines and other equipment to WHO for redistribution, adopts a “One Health” policy equating human health with animal and plant life, and calls on governments to crack down on any social media post WHO dubs “misinformation.”

WHO’s decision to promote legalized prostitution, transgenderism, and population control measures in the name of health makes the global body “a dangerous place for everyone,” Weber told TWS.

The deadline to comment on the WHO Pandemic Agreement is Monday, January 22 by 5 p.m. Eastern time.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ben Carson Warns Christians: ‘You’ll See the Attacks Ramp Up Significantly as the Election Approaches’

Today, and Every Day, Pray for the Legal Protection of Every Unborn Child

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

WHO Furthers Effort to Establish Global Health Governance Apparatus

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

On Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the latest draft of its controversial International Health Regulations, with the purported aim to eventually establish a global accord on how to handle future pandemics. Expert observers are continuing to express concern with the regulations, saying that they are covertly designed to take away sovereignty from countries and push contentious issues such as abortion.

Jim Roguski, a member of the Law & Activism Committee at the World Council for Health, has been closely monitoring the WHO’s activities in the wake of the “serious failures” that the organization made since the COVID pandemic broke out in 2020. On Tuesday, he joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” to provide an update on where the accord currently stands.

“[T]he fact that it’s not referred to as a treaty is actually very important,” he explained. “What they are setting up is an ongoing series of what they call ‘the Conference of the Parties’ that would meet pretty much forever. And the idea is they’re trying to hash out an agreement just to have an agreement so that they can pat themselves on the back and say, ‘Look what great work we did.’”

Roguski continued, “I was actually a little bit surprised that from the last version, this version got smaller by about 12 pages. And so what they’re doing is trying to reach a basic, fundamental agreement to set up a bureaucracy that would meet on an ongoing basis, year after year after year, to impose protocols that we wouldn’t have any say over the matter, much like the Framework Convention for Climate Change that was agreed to by the United Nations back in 1992 — that ongoing system of forever unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats making decisions on our behalf without our input. It’s something that’s just absolutely not acceptable.”

Roguski went on to contend that the WHO’s true goal with the global accord is to force countries to make substantial financial investments into experimental and unproven vaccines.

“The thing to realize … is that it doesn’t have any resemblance to what people would think of as health,” he pointed out. “It’s really a financial venture capital prospectus to literally get developed nations to invest money in infrastructure, in developing nations, to build out more laboratories, more testing facilities, more mRNA manufacturing facilities. … [The] Global Preparedness Monitoring Board put out a report … tracking the mRNA manufacturing plants in Africa. [W]hat they’re really looking for is not an evaluation of the mistakes that happened over the last three or four years. They’re more than doubling down. They want to build the infrastructure to do more of what they did to us over the past four years.”

As the WHO considers amendments to the accord at its planned meeting in Geneva, Switzerland next week, Roguski strongly encouraged the public to contact their representatives and urge them to reject the amendments.

“[T]here’s an 18-month period for every nation on the planet to reject the amendments that the Biden administration shoved through on May 27, 2022,” he explained. “[We] put together a page, which is rejecttheamendments.com, where people can download a letter, sign it, and just mail it to your congressmen [and] your senators. … I really want the Senate to pay attention and submit H.R. 79, or at least a copy of it in the Senate, so those amendments can still be rejected.”

“I certainly feel that the senators and members of Congress should come together, understand this issue, and realize that they need to take action because their silence is viewed as consent,” Roguski underscored. “And that is just absolutely not acceptable.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: The Fundamental Transformation of the W.H.O. From Health Advisor to Global Dictator

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Largely Unnoticed, WHO Moves Forward with Global Governance Plan

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Former congresswoman Michele Bachmann sounded the alarm Monday about developments coming out of the World Health Assembly that suggest that the World Health Organization (WHO) is intent on establishing “a platform for global governance through health care” in the wake of the COVID pandemic.

On Sunday, the WHO kicked off its annual 10-day World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, described as the “decision-making body of WHO.” Concerns over the WHO’s actions have been steadily building since the beginning of the pandemic, when observers noted that the WHO’s deference to China arguably worsened the spread of COVID. In addition, observers are also pointing out that the Biden administration is working to enable the organization to “centralize authority not just for pandemics, [but] for any health emergency in the hands of the director-general.”

Now, says Bachmann, the current World Health Assembly is poised to increase the WHO’s mandate over the health care decisions of sovereign nations.

“There’s a dual track process that they’re following,” she explained during an on the ground report from Geneva on Monday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “One is through a global pandemic treaty that they’re calling an ‘accord.’ The second is through a package of about 300 amendments to the international health rules. Both lead to the same result. Both lead to the creation of a platform for global governance through health care. And it is a web that locks us in … the likes of which we’ve never seen before.”

As Bachmann went on to observe, the potentially massive ramifications of the decisions being made at the World Health Assembly are happening with surprisingly little fanfare.

“There were no members of Congress here,” she pointed out. “I was actually shocked because this has been a big issue that a lot of their constituents have rightfully been very concerned about. … There was no American press here. So how would anyone even know what was going on unless they tuned in and they watched for themselves?”

Bachmann, who currently serves as dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, further noted that the WHO’s view of COVID appears to be exactly the same now as it was at the beginning of the pandemic. “We’ve learned a lot of things in the last three years, haven’t we? And the World Health Organization bungled almost everything, whether it was masks or vaccines or lockdowns, but yet they acted like nothing happened. There was no review. They acted like everything was just normal.”

Bachmann then laid out the WHO’s plans going forward. “They’re planning to meet in New York City in September. They’ll go over the progress that they’re going to make in January. They’ll give a final completed package of the 300 amendments, together with a global pandemic treaty, to the World Health Organization and the U.N. And then they’ll meet again in Geneva next February. But one year from this week, they will take the vote. And so they intend to vote for a platform for global government and to give themselves the power that no one has ever seen before.”

The former congresswoman from Minnesota also described the U.S. government’s involvement in the WHO’s agenda.

“I heard from Secretary Xavier Becerra, the head of our Health and Human Services [who] said he wants more ‘bio surveillance,’ in other words, surveillance of our bodies. And then they want to share that data with everyone else in the world. This is highly invasive. They were very clear today. They want very bold language. They intend to have surveillance over every citizen on earth, and they intend to … control us through health care.”

Bachmann further detailed how the WHO’s agenda goes well beyond pandemics.

“They’ve got this concept they talked about today called ‘One Health’ — they’ve got graphics on it [that] show humans, animals, the earth — ‘One Health.’ So when decisions are made about health care, they have to take into account the earth and what the impact would be on climate change. … So what it boils down to is, ‘Humans = cockroaches = a clump of dirt.’ … That’s why you don’t want to give up decision-making authority to someone like the director general of the WHO. They have a very different agenda at hand.”

At the same time, she underscored, the WHO’s emphasis seems to be on “equity” rather than innovations in medicine.

“The number one word that they use besides ‘urgent’ was ‘equity.’ [They want] to have equal outcomes for everyone on earth with universal health care. … And for those countries that are producing health products, they need to produce more health products and give them away to the world. So one thing they didn’t do [was] focus on any new breakthroughs in medicine. … There was nothing about breakthroughs or cures. Everything was about giving themselves more power and more authority control.”

Bachmann called on Congress to start confronting concerns over the WHO’s attempted power grab sooner rather than later.

“We need our senators to wake up, hold hearings, pull these documents in, [and] start to review them. [I]f they’re thinking they’ll wait until January, that’s pretty late, because the next meeting will be in in Geneva in February. The final vote will take place in May. … They should have been there this week. … And I would call on [House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy as he is negotiating for raising the debt ceiling [to] put on the table that Joe Biden has to get the United States out of the World Health Organization and pull [their] funding … as the price of raising the debt ceiling.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democracy Victorious: U.S. Must Defend Global Civilization with Justice, Sympathy, and Humility

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The 2% Solution: How Homosexuals are Fundamentally Transforming America

/in , , , , , /by

Of the total U.S. population only 1.6% identify themselves as homosexual or lesbian according to the National Health Interview Survey, the U.S. government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors. The study found that 0.7 percent of Americans consider themselves bisexual.

So, how are homosexuals fundamentally transforming America? They are “sloseting” the 98.4% who are straight. They also have helpers in very high places.

The Urban Dictionary defines sloset as “an exceedingly lost and/or stupified person. Also; a person lost in a closet, a state of utter lostness.” It was not enough for homosexuals to come out of the closet, homosexuals had to put those who are straight into a closet of utter lostness. Homosexuals are creating an ever growing number of “slosets.” If you speak out against homosexuality you are labeled, denigrated and in some cases fired from your job.

I call this the 2% solution: Keep attacking those who are revolted by homosexual behavior, thereby creating more stupified straights.

AFP reports:

HIV infections are rising among gay men in many parts of the world, the World Health Organization warned Friday, urging all men who have sex with men to take antiretroviral drugs to prevent infection.”

“We are seeing exploding epidemics,” warned Gottfried Hirnschall, who heads WHO’s HIV department.

Infection rates are rising again among men who have sex with men — the group at the epicentre of AIDS pandemic when it first emerged 33 years ago, he told reporters in Geneva.

While images of skeletal men dying of AIDS in the 1980s pushed the world to act, a younger generation that has grown up among new treatments that make it possible to live with HIV are less focused on the disease, he suggested.

Today, this group is 19 times more likely than the general population to be infected by HIV, Hirnschall said.

This is not a prophylactic problem. This HIV pandemic is a sexual behavior problem. The WHO has the wrong focus. The issue is not to provide antiretroviral drugs so that homosexuals can continue their deadly sexual behaviors. It is critical to change their behavior, by doing so you reduce the health threat globally.

Every society has a responsibility to stop homosexuality, it will help those who exhibit this bad behavior and those who homosexuals may come in contact with, particularly young boys. Homosexuals are a danger to themselves and those they have sex with, male and female alike. In Florida 70% of know HIV/AIDS cases are due to males having sex with males (MSM). The question is how many women have been infected by bisexual men?

Homosexuals have friends in very high places. The top three are: President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Democrat candidate of president) and current Secretary of State John Kerry. Each is in his or her own way are promoting homosexual and lesbian friendly policies. Homosexuality has become not only a national domestic social policy, it is the major thrust of U.S. foreign policy.

According to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute, “To date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 250 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined.”

President Obama in a speech at the June 17th, 2014 Democrat National Committee LGBT gala noted, “Maybe no single issue divided our country more than same-sex marriage.  In fact, the Republican Party built their entire strategy for 2004 around this issue.  You remember?  They calculated that if they put constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on state ballots, they’d turn out more voters, they’d win.  And they, frankly, were right.  People flocked to the polls.  Those amendments were on the ballots in 11 states.  They passed in every single one.”

Now we have activist judges overturning the will of the people in those states, which via constitutional amendments, have defined marriage as between one man and one woman,  the most recent in Florida.

There is push back against the “slosetification” of America and the world. Take Singapore for example. The Associated Press reports, “A children’s book inspired by a real-life story of two male penguins raising a baby chick in New York’s zoo has been deemed inappropriate by state-run Singapore libraries, and the conservative city-state’s information minister said he supports the decision to destroy all copies alongside two other titles. The National Library Board, which runs 26 public libraries in Singapore, pulled from the shelves and said it would “pulp” the copies of three titles, citing complaints their content goes against Singapore’s family values.”

The three books are “And Tango Makes Three,” about a male-male penguin couple in the Central Park Zoo; “The White Swan Express: A Story About Adoption,” which involves a lesbian couple; and “Who’s In My Family: All About Our Families.” Parents are speaking out against these books being used in public schools across America.

It is important for homosexuals and lesbian to slosetfy our children. Homosexuals love little boys, it is called pederasty. All pederasts are homosexuals.

Have you been slosetfied? If so, then you need to come out of the closet and work against the less than 2% who are forcing their behavior upon you and your children.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Washington Post.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama to Sign Order Barring Federal Discrimination against Gays (order contains no religious exemption)
NJ [homosexual] teacher faces prison for sex talk with students – New York News
Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population – The Washington Post
WHO warns HIV ‘exploding’ among gay men, urges preventive drugs
Singapore backs call to destroy gay-themed books – Yahoo News
‘Gay’ Agenda? What ‘Gay’ Agenda?
Teacher and pair of transvestites break into home, bludgeon owner – EAGnews.org
Nobody is ‘Born that Way,’ Gay Historians Say