Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty

Published

7 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D.  

The Biden administration signaled its support for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new pandemic treaty expected to be finalized at its World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the final week of May.

Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the United States at the meeting, stated that “America is committed to signing the treaty that will ‘build a stronger global health structure,’” wrote John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor, in the City Journal.

Adoption of a legally binding pact governing how countries around the world are to respond to future outbreaks like the recent COVID-19 pandemic has been the goal of WHO-directed negotiations since 2021. The WHO, a United Nations-sponsored organization, came under sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus.

On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states sent President Biden a letter saying they oppose the accords which will turn the WHO into the “world’s governor of public health.”  The letter says giving the WHO such authority violates the U.S. Constitution, and could lead to censorship of dissenting opinions, undermine Constitutional freedoms, and give the WHO power to declare any “emergency” besides health including climate change, gun violence, and immigration.

Missteps on COVID-19

In a post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, WHO’s Emergency Committee issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), stating, “The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation of China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency and, it is to be hoped, success.”

The WHO’s initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19 concluded it was improbable that the virus resulted from experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though it later acknowledged that it could have come from a lab leak at Wuhan. The WHO’s investigation, which was thwarted by Chinese officials, ultimately reached no conclusion. President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, a decision reversed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

More Smoke and Mirrors

Further undermining the WHO’s credibility in setting policies on managing a future pandemic, the group decided to include Peter Daszak, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, in its initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance prominently featured in an investigation by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic into the government’s funding and lack of oversight of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, for which EcoHealth received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health.

In an interim report released on May 1, 2024, the subcommittee said there is “significant evidence that Daszak violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth. Given Dr. Daszak’s apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements, the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President.”

After the release of the report, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) told the Washington Examiner, “The World Health Organization covered up the Chinese Communist Party’s role in developing and spreading COVID-19 and has since failed to hold them accountable for the global pandemic that killed millions, upended our daily lives, and destroyed thousands of small businesses.”

Public Fed Up

The WHO’s shaky record on COVID, including its close ties to China and Peter Daszak, have taken a toll on the public’s willingness to accept its leadership in any future pandemics.

poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Center for Security Policy, released on April 17, found that 54.6 percent of likely voters oppose tying the United States to a WHO pandemic treaty, and just 29.0 percent favor such a move.

Agreements Bypass Congress

While providing few details, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges we have faced and all the solutions into one. That agreement could help us prepare for the future in a better way.”

The “treaty” the Biden administration is eager to sign will likely be an executive agreement, like the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which was not presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification but contained “commitments” President Barack Obama pledged to honor.

Also in the works in Geneva are amendments to International Health Regulations, which Congress would not approve or disapprove.COVID

WHO’s Power Grab

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS), sent a letter to President Biden signed by all 49 Republican senators, expressing their concern about the powers that could be handed to WHO, on May 2.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter states.

Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who has attended UN-sponsored conferences around the world for over 30 years, says the WHO is a destructive force.

“WHO’s performance during COVID-19 was a lethal combination of incompetence and dishonesty,” said Rucker. “The organization failed to protect public health and went to extraordinary lengths to cover up China’s role in fostering gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Ratification of any WHO pandemic treaty would be nothing short of a travesty.”

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

 

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill so flawed it will never be enforced, Conservative MP says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner called the Trudeau government’s ‘Online Harms’ bill ‘irredeemable,’ and doubted it will ever be enforced.

A Conservative MP has contested that a Liberal government bill seeking to further clamp down on online speech is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced nor come to light before the next election.  

“The government is close to the end of its mandate and does not have a lot of public support across the country,” said Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner in the House of Commons last Friday regarding Bill C-63, also known as the “Online Harms Act.” 

Rempel Garner observed that this bill “would not likely become law,” and that she is certain “the regulatory process is not going to happen prior to the next election even if the bill is rammed through.” 

The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63,was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome. Put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online, the bill also seeks to expand the scope of “hate speech” prosecutions, and even desires to target such speech retroactively.

The law also calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying preemptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future. 

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories. 

Rempel Garner noted that members of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet do not have public support when it comes to Bill C-63. 

“We are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation,” she said, noting that harmful online internet content could be countered by “laws that are already on the books but have not been recently enforced due to a lack of extreme political will.” 

Bill C-63 an ‘Orwellian’ disaster 

In addition to being slammed by a number of Canadian legal experts, a number of high profile personalities domestically and abroad have taken the time to skewer the proposed law.   

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.  

During Rumble’s first-ever free-speech-centered live event, speakers including Donald Trump Jr. critiqued Trudeau’s Online Harms Act. 

Even billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk remarked that it is “insane” the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms” bill would target internet speech retroactively if it becomes law. 

Continue Reading

DEI

School boards need leaders who focus on education not politics

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

Canada’s largest school board is looking for a new leader. Colleen Russell-Rawlins, director of education of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), will retire this fall.

To say her tenure has been controversial would be an understatement. During her three years in the top job, TDSB doubled down on its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, with tragic consequences. Former TDSB principal Richard Bilkszto took his own life last year after facing relentless harassment from other administrators for challenging DEI orthodoxy during a professional development session.

The harms caused by DEI extend even further. Two years ago, TDSB voted to abolish its merit-based admissions policy at specialized arts and sports schools in the name of “equity.” Parents of students in these schools were not happy about this erosion of standards. After spending years building up these specialized schools, TDSB is now tearing them down.

Add to this the ongoing harassment of Jewish students in TDSB schools and the failure of administrators to crack down on employees who disseminate blatantly anti-Israel propaganda. Expect things to get even worse if trustees replace Russell-Rawlins with someone with a similar mindset and approach.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen if TDSB follows the guidelines provided by the Ontario Public Supervisory Officers’ Association (OPSOA), the organization representing superintendents and directors of education in Ontario.

To be eligible for the position, prospective directors of education must complete the OPSOA’s Supervisory Officer’s Qualification Program. However, this program looks like a woke propogandist’s dream. According to the OPSOA’s website, the qualification program focuses on “anti-oppression, anti-racism, [and] anti—colonialism.” No wonder education directors appear obsessed with these topics.

Education Minister Stephen Lecce has stated that he wants school boards to focus more on academics. He’s even gone so far as to publicly rebuke school boards that get mired in debates over secondary issues such as masks or transgender policy. Lecce is right to be concerned. From 2003 to 2022, Ontario’s PISA math test scores declined from 530 to 495. That’s the equivalent of nearly two years of learning loss. Clearly, something needs to change.

However, things will only change for the better when school boards start hiring education directors who reject DEI ideology and who put academics first. This means choosing men and women who haven’t climbed the career ladder by pushing DEI initiatives.

At a minimum, the province must drop the requirement for education directors to hold supervisory officer’s qualifications. Making the completion of a program replete with DEI buzzwords such as “anti-oppression” and “anti-colonial” mandatory is a surefire way to ensure that education directors will focus on non-academic issues.

Fortunately, the Ford government has started making at least some changes. Back in 2020, Ontario removed the requirement for directors of education to be former teachers. Considering the uselessness of most Bachelor of Education courses, it’s legitimate to ask why anyone would need an education degree to run a school board.

Obviously, none of this means that qualifications don’t matter. The Ford government’s recent announcement that all future teachers must pass a math proficiency test shows that basic competency matters. People working for school boards, particularly those in the top job, must also be familiar with the education system and know how to lead effectively.

It’s important to remember why we have schools in the first place. The purpose of education is to help students master the academic basics, acquire important life skills, and become responsible Canadian citizens—not to indoctrinate students into woke ideology.

Schools can only function if they have the trust of the communities they serve. If parents feel that teachers are ignoring their concerns or are disrespecting their beliefs, they will pull their kids out of the government school system and pursue other educational options. While parents should always have this right, it’s unfortunate when they are forced into it by administrators who are hostile to their values.

TDSB trustees have a real opportunity to make a change for the better by hiring an education director with a track record of putting academics first. Otherwise, TDSB will continue its downward spiral.

Real change starts at the top. Hopefully, TDSB trustees realize the importance of the decision they are about to make and hire the right person for the job.

Continue Reading

Trending

X