Last week, First Lady Jill Biden reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 despite being double vaxxed and boosted.
The White House Press Secretary then described President Joe Biden’s subsequent return to cautionary measures like masking and “social distancing” to protect him from the virus—you know, over and above his cure-all miracle shot(s).The ominously publicized return to COVID protocols comes just a week after Donald Trump warned voters that:
“…the Left-wing lunatics are trying very hard to bring back COVID lockdowns and mandates with all of their sudden fear-mongering about the new variants that are coming…gee whiz, you know what else is coming—an election! They want to restart the COVID hysteria so they can justify more lockdowns, more censorship, more illegal drop boxes, more mail-in ballots and trillions of dollars in payoffs to their political allies hearing into the 2024 election.”
Trump supporters would bear to remember that it was Donald Trump himself who enthusiastically trumpeted lockdowns, launched Operation Warp Speed, bailed out lockdown states, and appointed Dr. Anthony Fauci as COVID Czar in the first place.
It should be needless to say: the man has a lot explaining to do. Potential voters should make him do just that, even if this change in rhetoric is welcome.
Waiting in the wings of this return to a domestic COVID footing is the vaunted Global Pandemic Treaty, which has been, for the last couple years, slowly coalescing in the annals of “global governance.”
Remember when at least some people were railing against this? I was at least, a year ago.
As things tend to go in the ‘Era of Emergency,’ the specter of the Global Pandemic Treaty has been largely buried in the newsfeed.
Except, last March the World Health Organization (WHO) announced countries had begun negotiations on a draft “pandemic accord.” The negotiations are scheduled to continue over the next year according to an itinerary the WHO has established in order to move the project along.
At that time, there was at least enough pushback for the Associated Press (AP) to publish a “fact checker” to undermine “conspiracy theories” that the Pandemic Treaty will sign over American sovereignty over to the WHO.
The AP assuages these fears by asserting that assent to the current draft of the treaty makes participation “voluntary” and specifying that the treaty is still far from ratification. The AP also underlines that the draft document does not mention any feared policy prescriptions such as “lockdowns, closures or specific citizen surveillance systems.” (Emphasis added.)
The AP specifically identified The Epoch Times as a purveyor of these “utterly false” claims. It cites, but does not link to, an Instagram post by The Epoch Times which states
“…[t]he Biden administration is in the process of finalizing a deal that would give the WHO near-total authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic…[t]his includes vaccine policies, lockdown policies, school closure policies, the contract tracing of U.S. citizens, and even the monitoring of online speech if that speech goes against the official narrative.”
While the AP’s assertions appear to be correct, they are not entirely truthful. The Epoch Times statement is not precise, either.
The current draft of the WHO’s “Global Pandemic Treaty” is called the “Zero Draft.” It’s a rough outline of the basic—largely agreed—terms of the treaty as it exists.
The AP is correct that the first agreed principle of the document states:
“The Parties to this WHO CA+ [act] Reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response health systems recovery.”
Further, Chapter II. Article 4. Section 3. states:
Sovereignty – States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nation and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation…
But the section then states; “…provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”
This is a crucial qualifier. It’s a huge open door.
Furthermore, Chapter V, Article 18 discusses the document’s desire to create a “One Health” directive aimed at a “whole of government and society” approach to combatting diseases, primarily through surveillance.
The entire document undoubtedly advances a dystopian globalist agenda driven by government fiat. But, the outright end of American sovereignty angle is not as blatant or overt as The Epoch Times would suggest.
Don’t get me wrong—the proposed document is abhorrent to anyone who values individual liberty and decentralization of power.
But reporting should be rooted in reality and facts. The document is terrible. You don’t need to sensationalize the danger to get that point across. It’s discrediting.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
As far as I can tell, what the AP is reporting is mostly true. Would the governments of the member countries knowingly assent to a document that disposes of their sovereignty outright? Probably not…at least unless it would give them more power.
Ignoring the huge qualifier listed above, what are the enforcement mechanisms behind a contractually-obligated abdication of sovereignty? If the WHO determined that the United States was not in compliance with its Pandemic Treaty Obligations, would the WHO send UN or NATO forces to invade the United States?
The truth is that it might not have to; even if the document purports to respect member countries’ sovereignty, and it has no real enforcement mechanism, the policies it prescribes will be followed. The infrastructure to carry out those policies will be constructed. It will be carried out by zealots who desire the power the treaty gives them.
But meanwhile, in order to preserve our credibility in resistance, we need to get the facts straight. Hyperbolic outrage brokering does not create meaningful resistance.