The Biden administration is taking a page from the old Obama playbook. If you can’t get what you want through the Constitutionally-designed means of approval, cheat.

His utter contempt for any restrictions of his authority has been evident from the day they put a stack of executive orders on his desk, almost immediately upon Trump’s last minute as the 45th President. But he is getting even bolder.

Now that he’s already ignored the need to involve the Senate in any decision about rejoining the Paris Accord, his administration is considering doubling down and joining an Accord with the World Health Organization. We have highlighted the words ‘legally binding’ since they will be relevant to the parties involved.


Bypassing the Constitution is a BAD thing…

The Executive branch was specifically denied the authority to enter into private agreements with other parties unless it was agreed to be in the interests of the nation as a whole. Initially, the Senate had been chosen by State legislators from each state and would be (ideally) responsive to those people’s will.

The Framers understood that a single individual, or those working under him, would be far more vulnerable to influence to make decisions at odds with the best interests of the nation as a whole. Senators, on the other hand, represent a variety of regions and interests. This is why the power of treaties was put in the hands of the Senate, giving each state an equal voice in such an important decision.

To bypass that process is to bypass the Republican form of government oaths were taken to defend. (Not that it would be the first or even the fifth time Biden has undertaken to do exactly that.)

Team Biden is in negotiations with respect to a document that, if acted upon, would give new powers to the World Health Organization over the lives of ordinary Americans.

The World Health Org is NOT our friend.

Have we quickly forgotten how perfectly the WHO parroted Xi’s talking points during the first few weeks of the pandemic?

Here are a few stories to jog any memories for readers who have forgotten the beginning of the pandemic…


The WHO’s proposed new agenda

In the thirty pages of the Zero Draft of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body’s agenda, you can see the proposed agreement’s text and what they hope to accomplish.

The opening paragraph clarifies that this new document’s specific motivation is to remedy the ‘catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the Covid-19 pandemic’ to negotiate a centralized uniform response to future such emergencies.

That’s a lot of buzzwords to say that it will not be up to individual countries to assess their various risks and priorities in future scenarios in which we have been deemed an emergency. Someone in a white lab coat or a government office will make such decisions.

And as we all know from past experience, such decisions are always guided by the highest examples of altruistic wisdom and never by private agendas or profiteering.

The opening preamble gives a series of clauses describing what shall govern this document, including the opening clause acknowledging state sovereignty (which will undoubtedly be pointed out by fact-checkers trying to debunk this story) while blunting that with a series of other priorities offered as significant counterweights to that consideration, including the moral obligation to others affected by a pandemic, obligation of States parties to prioritize cooperation for extraordinary challenges, pandemics need to be accounted for in ‘whole-of-society’ and ‘whole-of-government’ approaches to break the ‘cycle of panic and neglect.’

There is some of the expected intersectional language and vulnerable groups jargon before points 20 and 21 of the preamble underscore the real aim of this document: that we work in unison out of concern for unspecified others to prevent the next pandemic by uniformly adopting the ‘best available scientific evidence’ into our various practices before going on to talk about an explicitly partisan concept of universal healthcare.

You may want to ask the now-vindicated co-authors of the Barrington Declaration how they feel about that last point.

In all, 41 points of the highly-political preamble take you to page 8 of the document before they even discuss the goals themselves.

Here’s their vision. Note the political buzzwords.

A series of definitions, including Equity, Universal Health Coverage, Inclusiveness, and a disturbing definition of ‘One Health’ in which people’s health will be ‘balanced with’ the concerns of animals and plants.

The first point is a supply-chain-focused one, in which the solutions included centralized planning for ensuring goods went to the right places. We remind our readers that before China officially admitted the true nature of the outbreak, they went around the world buying up all the medical supplies they could get their hands on. This is the same Chinese government that just happens to march in lockstep with many of the WHO’s official talking points.

In an emergency, IP rights will be waived (Article 7.4.b) for some time so production of specific resources can be scaled up.

There are some positive developments, including Article 9, which has clauses limiting some of the more nightmarish aspects of sweetheart deals, liability protections, and secrecy agreements received by certain pharma companies during the C-19. There is even mention of compensation for anyone injured in future vaccine rollouts. (Article 9.5)

Article 10, about sharing pathogenic genomes with others, is something that WHO has no moral high ground even bringing up after shamelessly carrying China’s water on this very issue in January 2020.

Article 11.1 is one issue that Congress would want to debate before anyone signs this.

It is NOT the only one.

Canada and the UK have ‘universal coverage,’ but their systems are on the brink of collapse, with wait times measured with a calendar rather than a wristwatch.

Article 11.4.c has used the word ‘surveillance’ in connection with the One Health (balancing humans, animals, and plants) provision and a state obligation. Good luck convincing any libertarian who lived through 2020 and saw the push for vaccine passports and digitized health card id with private information that there are no nefarious applications to such a clause.

Article 12 includes infusing woke quota-based identitarian hiring practices into our healthcare sector.

Article 13. Preparedness monitoring — per guidelines set out by the WHO, whose track record throughout Covid 19 was entirely suspect and ideologically compromised.

Article 14.2. It could be a positive addition to protecting individual rights from medical overreach. Still, as always, the devil is in the details, and ‘least restrictive necessary to achieve a health goal’ is a sliding scale depending on how you weigh words like ‘necessary’ and ‘restrictive’ against the perceived health goal.

Article 16 provides both the rationale and cover for prominent government activists to create even more ineffective multi-billion dollar programs in the name of doing public good.

Article 17. Here comes the ‘misinformation’ angle. The same experts that blew smoke for years, telling us to believe their lies and not their critics, suggest we have a coordinated cure for misinformation.

The first point is to promote the party line, which proved very trustworthy on topics like school closures, social distancing, mask use, double-masking, and the vaccine’s ability to control the spread and prevent infection from a specific respiratory virus.

The second one directly addresses anyone who dares speak against the official government narrative — however misinformed it might be. The third point calls for active participation in performing a propaganda role in pushing the ‘correct’ information and suppressing the ‘incorrect’ information.

Here comes climate change!

Article 18. That ‘One Health’ concept makes another appearance.

This time as a justification for marrying the WHO mission to climate change, fishing, and even hunting.

This WILL cost us money… and a LOT of it.

Why should the executive be prohibited from signing this agreement? Among all the other reasons, it obligates Congress to spend money on something it has not agreed to.

So, would anyone ask the taxpayer what he thought about that?

WHO’s in Charge Here

Here is where sovereignty questions come into play, despite the earlier handwaving promising to abide by national sovereignty concerns.

A new oversight board is created solely for setting and updating these universalized pandemic policies.

We have already seen such an organization’s highly-ideological and partisan leanings, as evidenced in the language used throughout. This isn’t just a body creating oversight. It’s more than that.


This makes Americans accountable to an entity not elected by the American people. A revolution was already fought in the 1770s over that specific problem. Why would we voluntarily enter into it with a global body that has already proven corrupt?

Cross-Posted With Clash Daily