Connect with us

Great Reset

All 49 GOP senators call on Biden admin to withdraw support for WHO pandemic treaty

Published

2 years ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson warned that two international agreements are being considered at this month’s World Health Assembly that surrender U.S. sovereignty to the World Health Organization

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has rallied every Republican in the U.S. Senate to sign an open letter warning the Biden administration to not support pandemic-related measures being considered at the World Health Assembly (WHA) later this month.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the (World Health Organization’s) health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” they wrote.

The WHA is the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its annual meeting sets policies for its 194 member nations. This year’s gathering, the 77th such undertaking, will be held from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Johnson and all 48 of his colleagues informed the Biden administration that they consider the WHO’s widely criticized Pandemic Agreement a formal treaty that requires 2/3rd approval from the Senate per Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.

“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,” they maintained. “The WHO’s most recent publicly available draft of its new pandemic response treaty is dead on arrival.”

A growing number of public figures as well as U.S. states and elected officials have raised the alarm about the Pandemic Agreement in recent months.

During an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast in January, liberal intellectual Bret Weinstein argued that the WHO is gearing up for a “re-run” of COVID-19 in order to set up a “totalitarian planet.” He noted that the agreement is being modified so the WHO will have even more power to crack down on voices that dissent from Big Pharma’s narrative.

On Thursday, April 18, a group of GOP lawmakers and conservative activists similarly warned about the agreement at a press conference on Capitol Hill organized by the Sovereignty Coalition.

 

Johnson has been one of the most consistent voices in the Senate to expose the dangers of the COVID shot as well as the collusion taking place between the mainstream media and the medical industry. In February, he organized a roundtable discussion titled “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” Dr. Robert Malone, vaccine expert Del Bigtree, GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and many others attended.

Johnson and his GOP colleagues further drew the Biden administration’s attention to the WHO’s poor track record.

“The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country,” they wrote. “The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) or any new pandemic-related treaty that would increase WHO authority. We are deeply concerned that your administration continues to support these initiatives and strongly urge you to change course.”

They concluded that “in light of the high stakes for our country and our constitutional duty, we call upon you to (1) withdraw your administration’s support for the current IHR amendments and pandemic treaty negotiations, (2) shift your administration’s focus to comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority, and (3) should you ignore these calls, submit any pandemic related agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Health / 1 min ago

More than 200 children will receive dangerous puberty blockers for new UK study

International / 13 mins ago

50 of the 315 students and 12 staff abducted from Catholic school in Nigeria last week have escaped

Censorship Industrial Complex / 2 hours ago

UK Government “Resist” Program Monitors Citizens’ Online Posts

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Government “Resist” Program Monitors Citizens’ Online Posts

Published on November 24, 2025

By

logo
Let’s begin with a simple question. What do you get when you cross a bloated PR department with a clipboard-wielding surveillance unit?
The answer, apparently, is the British Government Communications Service (GCS). Once a benign squad of slogan-crafting, policy-promoting clipboard enthusiasts, they’ve now evolved (or perhaps mutated) into what can only be described as a cross between MI5 and a neighborhood Reddit moderator with delusions of grandeur.
Yes, your friendly local bureaucrat is now scrolling through Facebook groups, lurking in comment sections, and watching your aunt’s status update about the “new hotel down the road filling up with strangers” like it’s a scene from Homeland. All in the name of “societal cohesion,” of course.
Once upon a time, the GCS churned out posters with perky slogans like Stay Alert or Get Boosted Now, like a government-powered BuzzFeed.
But now, under the updated “Resist” framework (yes, it’s actually called that), the GCS has been reprogrammed to patrol the internet for what they’re calling “high-risk narratives.”
Not terrorism. Not hacking. No, according to The Telegraph, the new public enemy is your neighbor questioning things like whether the council’s sudden housing development has anything to do with the 200 migrants housed in the local hotel.
It’s all in the manual: if your neighbor posts that “certain communities are getting priority housing while local families wait years,” this, apparently, is a red flag. An ideological IED. The sort of thing that could “deepen community divisions” and “create new tensions.”
This isn’t surveillance, we’re told. It’s “risk assessment.” Just a casual read-through of what that lady from your yoga class posted about a planning application. The framework warns of “local parental associations” and “concerned citizens” forming forums.
And why the sudden urgency? The new guidance came hot on the heels of a real incident, protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian migrant.
Now, instead of looking at how that tragedy happened or what policies allowed it, the government’s solution is to scan the reaction to it.
What we are witnessing is the rhetorical equivalent of chucking all dissent into a bin labelled “disinformation” and slamming the lid shut.
The original Resist framework was cooked up in 2019 as a European-funded toolkit to fight actual lies. Now, it equates perfectly rational community concerns about planning, safety, and who gets housed where with Russian bots and deepfakes. If you squint hard enough, everyone starts to look like a threat.
Local councils have even been drafted into the charade. New guidance urges them to follow online chatter about asylum seekers in hotels or the sudden closure of local businesses.
One case study even panics over a town hall meeting where residents clapped. That’s right. Four hundred people clapped in support of someone they hadn’t properly Googled first. This, we’re told, is dangerous.
So now councils are setting up “cohesion forums” and “prebunking” schemes to manage public anger. Prebunking. Like bunking, but done in advance, before you’ve even heard the thing you’re not meant to believe.
It’s the equivalent of a teacher telling you not to laugh before the joke’s even landed.
Naturally, this is all being wrapped in the cosy language of protecting democracy. A government spokesman insisted, with a straight face: “We are committed to protecting people online while upholding freedom of expression.”
Because let’s be real, this isn’t about illegal content or safeguarding children. It’s about managing perception. When you start labeling ordinary gripes and suspicions as “narratives” that need “countering,” what you’re really saying is: we don’t trust the public to think for themselves.
Continue Reading

Business

The UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty

Published on November 23, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Samuel Peterson

Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.

In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.

Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.

Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.

Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.

In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.

Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.

In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.

The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.

History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.

Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

Continue Reading

Trending

X