Is the Biden Administration taking steps to open up our country to an invasion of foreign, “public-health” police, and even armies, in the coming winter? Biden proposes to cede to the UN World Health Organization (WHO) tremendous power over the United States (and other nations), effective on or about December 1.
As early as May 22, and no later than May 28, a vote will be taken in the WHO, in Geneva, Switzerland, whether or not to approve Biden’s proposal to cede a great deal of the sovereignty of our country. If Biden’s proposal is approved by the WHO, then we the people of the US would have a mere six months to change the mind of the WHO or withdraw from the WHO.
What is Congress doing about Biden’s WHO proposal? What is the response of elected officials, other leaders and activists in the 50 states to the proposal?
What follows are three things:
- First, mention is made of very recent episodes of the Steve Bannon War Room that cast important light on Biden’s proposed changes to the WHO.
- Second, there are excerpts from the relevant primary sources which indicate the far reaching extent of the ceding of power to the WHO.
- Finally, this paper speculates about the ultimate motivation behind Biden’s proposed changes to the WHO Treaty.
Bannon War Room Discusses Biden and WHO
On May 9 and 13, Michele Bachman, former member of Congress, Tea Party leader, and presently Dean of the School of Government, Regent University, appeared in the Steve Bannon War Room and spoke stridently against Biden’s proposed changes to the WHO’s International Health Regulations of 2005 (IHR).
Biden’s Proposed Changes to the IHR and Likely Acceptance by the WHO
On January 18, the Biden Administration submitted Provisional Agenda Item 16.2 to the WHO. This Item would amend 13 of the existing 59 articles of the IHR. Up until now, the IHR has had limited impact on the US. If Biden has his way, the amended IHR will massively curtail US sovereignty.
Between May 22 and 28, the WHO Assembly will vote on Provisional Agenda Item 16.2. It is generally believed by those who have been closely following the WHO that Biden has the votes of the other countries that he needs to amend the IHR.
The Actual Language of Provisional Agenda Item 16.23
Footnote 3 contains a link to Provisional Agenda Item 16.2 in its entirety. When viewing the Item, keep in mind that Biden wants to do three things vis-à-vis the IHR:
- Keep some of the original language of the IHR. (These are words in the document that are unchanged, “as is,” neither struck through nor underlined.)
- Remove some of the original language of the IHR. (These are words in the document that are struck through.)
- Add new language to the original language of the treaty (These are words in the document that are underlined).
Conclusions That Can Be Drawn From Viewing Provisional Agenda Item 16.2
What follows are five conclusions. After each conclusion, proofs are offered that cite excerpts from the primary source itself (Biden’s proposed amendments to the IHR, that is, the aforementioned “Item”). Remember that the excerpts will include some words that are unchanged, some words that are struck through and some words that are underlined. Moreover, any words in brackets, [ ], are words that I myself inserted. Bracketed words are meant to clarify and are based upon language found in the document (Item 16.2).
The Director-General of WHO will have the power to determine if a medical emergency has hit or might have hit the US, and what to do about it.
Proof for Conclusion 1
See Biden’s proposed changes to Article 12 of the IHR: “The Director-General shall determine … whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern … If the Director-General considers that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring, [then he can initiate a “Public Health Response.”]
The Director-General of WHO will have the power to “assist” the US, including impede travel, relocate, lockup and inject with “vaccines,” US citizens, if the President of the United States goes along with the Director-General.
Proof for Conclusion 2
See Biden’s proposed changes to Article 13 of the IHR. “
At the request of a State Party [e.g., US], WHO shall offer assistance collaborateto a State Party in the response to public health risks and other events by providing technical guidance and assistance and by assessing the effectiveness of the control measures in place, including the mobilization of international teams of experts for on-site assistance, when necessary. The State Party shall accept or reject such an offer of assistance within 48 hours and, in the case of rejection of such an offer, shall provide to WHO its rationale for the rejection, which WHO shall share with other States Parties.”
The Director-General will have the power to marshal a foreign, intervention force of any type and size and, with this force, “assist” the President of the United States in responding to a “public health emergency,” that may actually be happening or that may be alleged to be happening on US soil.
Proof for Conclusion 3
See Biden’s proposed changes to Article 15 of the IHR. “[WHO intervention may include] the deployment of expert teams … [who may take] health measures … [vis-à-vis the US and directed against US] persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and/or postal parcels.…”
In the event that the Director-General calls for a public-health response directed at the US, it would be politically very difficult for the president of the US to reject the WHO’s “offer of assistance.”
Proof for Conclusion 4
Although Biden’s proposed amendments do not specify penalties for a “State Party,” including the US, which turns down WHO’s “offer of assistance,” there would be significant, negative consequences for any country, including the US, to turn down such an offer. First of all, it would severely damage such a country’s international standing to breach an international agreement that it had entered in to. Furthermore, the WHO could marshal the significant, punitive powers of other UN agencies against a country that had refused assistance. We get a glimpse of this punitive power when we examine Biden’s proposed changes to Article 6. “If the notification received by WHO involves the competency of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) or other relevant entities, WHO shall immediately notify [and if it sees fit mobilize] the
IAEA relevant entities.”
The Director-General of WHO and the president of the United States could “collaborate” on a “public health response” before those elected to Congress in 2022 have been seated in 2023.
Proof for Conclusion 5
See Biden’s proposed changes to Article 59 of the IHR. “The period provided … for rejection of, or reservation to, an amendment to these Regulations shall be six months from the date of the notification by the Director-General of the adoption of an amendment to these Regulations by the Health Assembly. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no effect.”
What Is the Ultimate Motivation for Provisional Authority Item 16.2?
President Biden would surely argue that his proposed changes to the WHO are merely taking the next step along a well-worn path and necessary in the light of covid. President Truman convinced Congress to approve America’s entry into the WHO in 1948. President George W Bush was in accord with changes to the IHR that the WHO Assembly approved in 2005. These changes not insignificantly expanded the power of the WHO. Fifteen years later, the outbreak of covid transformed the situation; what else can Biden do but bolster the US, care of international “assistance”?
Furthermore, a White House source said, several days ago, that the Administration “believes in science.” This source went on to say “The WHO is an important body to coordinate global health activities and provide evidence-based guidance on the world’s health crisis. … The United States would also be in a stronger, more effective position to advance WHO reforms that would create global health equity while also protecting the homeland if we have a seat at the table.”5
Our perspective on Biden’s true agenda may begin to shift when we consider that his predecessor, President Trump, ordered the withdrawal of the US from the WHO, in summer 2020–after the covid crisis was well underway and before there was any end in sight. Trump was not at all pleased with the WHO’s response to covid. (Trump’s order to withdraw would have been effective on July 6, 2021. The US had to give 12 months notice, before withdrawing. Yet, Biden, in his first day as president, countermanded Trump’s order to withdraw. “The scientific community,” including top experts at Harvard and Georgetown Universities, applauded Biden’s countermand, according to CNN.6)
For all that, there are these questions.
Is it a coincidence that the World Economic Forum is pushing their infamous “Great Reset” at the very time that Biden has called for frightening amendments to the WHO Treaty?
Is it a coincidence that global banks and big pharma are the main funding source of the WHO?
Is it a coincidence that the present Director-General of WHO is Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian Communist, and apologist for Red China?
Is it a coincidence that Ghebreyesus has loudly applauded Red China for its brutal, coronavirus quarantines?
Is it a coincidence that Biden’s predecessor, the then President Obama, care of the Obamacare Bill (HR 3590), provided for a “ready reserve corps” appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president?
Is it conceivable that the aforementioned “ready reserve corps,” which, in 2010 on the floor of the US House, Congressman Louis Gohmert likened to the president’s private army, could assist in the collaboration between the US federal government and WHO’s “public-health-response” army?
In sum, are the American people at risk of being controlled by unwelcome forces, foreign and domestic, in the name of public health?
1. Photo of Bachman is care of Fibonacci Blue, at flickr.com/people/fibonacciblue. It was taken on April 8, 2010. It is licensed under Creative Commons, Attribution 2.0 Generic, at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en. The use of this phot is not meant to suggest that the photographer endorses CfAR’s article.
2. Photo of Board Room is care of Thorkild Tylleskar, December 6, 2013, via Wikipedia. The photo is licensed via Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Unported 3.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. The use of this photo is not meant to suggest that the photographer endorses CfAR’s article.
3. Biden’s proposed amendments to the IHR can be found here.
4. Photo of entrance to WHO is care of Thorkild Tylleskar, October 28, 2013, via Wikipedia. The photo is licensed via Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Unported 3.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. The use of this photo is not meant to suggest that the photographer endorses CfAR’s article.
5. Quoted in “Republicans call on Biden to push aggressive reforms to correct the World Health Organization’s ‘corruption,” Kelly Laco, FOX News, May 23, 2022.
6. See “Biden administration renewed support for World Health Organization is ‘good news for America and the world,’ scientists say,” Karen Weintraub, USA Today, January 24, 2021.O