I'm obliged to James Roguski for putting in a nutshell the enormous dangers posed by proposed changes to the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. These changes were proposed by the Biden administration, and are so far-reaching that they effectively hand over control of the USA to the WHO in the event of a health crisis. In the process, they trample the United States Constitution.
It's not hard to see how an unscrupulous administration might use these as a pretext to override the results of a future election, or even impose undemocratic controls over the people of this country to prevent an election being held.
Here's Mr. Roguski's summary of what the amendments imply.
- The International Health Regulations (IHR) are legally binding and supersede the United States Constitution. All the nations of the world have already agreed to the existing International Health Regulations.
- The United States has proposed amendments to the legally binding International Health Regulations that will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly this May 22, 2022 to May 28, 2022. CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
- These proposed amendments will cede additional sovereignty, control and legal authority over to the World Health Organization.
- These amendments will NOT require approval by 2/3 of the United States Senate. If they are approved (as submitted by the United States) by 2/3 of the member countries of the World Health Assembly (130 of 194 countries), these amendments would enter into force as international law just six months later (November 2022).
- It is not known if the amendments will be voted upon individually or as a complete package.
- The amendments will give the Director General of the WHO the power to unilaterally declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) even over the objection of the country dealing with an outbreak of disease.
- According to changes made to U.S. regulations that were published one day before Donald Trump was inaugurated (January 19, 2017), the definition of a “Public Health Emergency” in the United States now includes the declaration of a PHEIC by the WHO.
- A unilateral declaration of a PHEIC by the WHO will enable the declaration of a Public Health Emergency by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
- The amendments proposed by the United States would also give the Director General of the WHO the legal authority to unilaterally issue an “intermediate public health alert (IPHA).” The criteria for the issuance of an IPHA is simply that “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”
- The amendments will also give “regional directors” within the WHO the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).
Of greatest concern to me is the fact that changes to the US regulations implementing the WHO's policies "were published one day before Donald Trump was inaugurated". What could have pushed the Obama administration into doing that? Could it have been a deliberate plan, a "poison pill", to put in place some mechanism that could be used to override a subsequent administration, that was not doing what our "grey eminences" wanted? Might such regulations be used to either prevent, or override, a future election on the grounds of a fraudulent, made-up "Public Health Emergency"? After the COVID-19 regulatory and bureaucratic fiasco, that appears far less unlikely than it should . . . and it arouses dire suspicions in my mind. Imagine the damage a Governor Cuomo, or Governor Whitmer, or Dr. Fauci, could do if such authority were given to them!
I don't subscribe to all of Mr. Roguski's speculations, or his more extreme views. Nevertheless, I was motivated enough by his articles to do my own research, and confirm that the regulatory changes proposed by the USA are, indeed, sufficiently far-reaching to pose the threat he outlines in his series of articles (all linked in the post above). I can only suggest that you read more about the WHO's proposed regulations for yourself, and make up your own mind.
If something like this is tried in America, how will you respond? Unless these regulations are stopped before they can be implemented, all of us may have to decide that - and quickly.
Peter
Since he's not officially in power Obama should be listed as one of the 'éminence grise ' benind Biden. Especially since it is all of his people running the federal government into the dirt. This concentration of power is just the kind of stupid idea he's been behind since college.
ReplyDeleteI am also rather skeptical that this scheme supersedes the Constitution, since the laws in the US that combine to enable this are subject to the Constitution and are incapable of doing a legislative hook shot and taking precedence. I’ve heard this said about treaties for decades and it just ain’t so.
ReplyDeleteBut MUH Constitution.
ReplyDeletePLEASE, folks look around the Evil clowns running the show have NO RESPECT for the Rule of Law UNLESS you mean Laws for ME and Laws for Three applications.
Once "Supreme Court Druids" started calling the Constitution a "Living Document" subject to "Modern Interpretations" the Constitution has been Castrated.
One world government is the goal of the powers that BE. They need to destroy both America and Russia to get it. Thus, the Proxy War in Ukraine.
Depopulation by Holodomor is a feature not a bug.
Voting? How about eating?
Get busy folks.
Before much longer, our choices are going to become...difficult. The road so far has been hard, but what appears to be inbound will prove the immediate past to have been the good ol' days those that are left will fondly reminisce over... one day.
ReplyDeleteI have been telling people I care about for some time now, that if there was anything else you wanted to do, or to see, or to purchase, now is the time. Don't wait. Don't prevaricate. Stop f**king around.
Soon, it will prove to have been too late. Get right with God, in whatever ever form you have concluded seems best to you, and prepare to sell your life for the very highest price you can contrive.
Such doom & gloom, but truth, as I understand the term. Any other conclusions are, at this point, wishful thinking, and this is no way to plan.
God's blessings to you all.
Mike in Canada
I think that there is already precedent set by the SCOTUS that treaties do not amend nor supersede the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteJaime, when you look at the Democrats in power these days, do they strike you as iron-fisted Constitutionalists?
ReplyDeleteManiac, they only strike me as iron fisted megalomaniacs.
ReplyDeleteNever put yourself in the position where you're depending upon the morality of criminals to keep you alive.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with any such law is that is moot even if signed, sealed, passed, and confirmed.
ReplyDeleteA moot law is no law at all, and anyone could, should, and would openly rebel against its enforcement, and is both legally entitled and morally obligated to do so.
If it takes a mound of center-punched skulls in blue helmets piled 50 feet high to get the point across, so be it. A suitable location for that monument would be Oyster Bay, NYFC, just east of 1st Avenue and 44th St.
they are trotting out avian flu as a backup and bill gates [goetz] has plainly delighted over hemorrhagic fever and smallpox as the next two diseases du jour in line to be used in the terror campaign
ReplyDeletewhat makes anyone think 'they' care about the constitution after the last presidential election?
ridiculous to bring up the constitution to threaten the people who already use it for toilet paper!
the big problem is not the evildoers so much as the fact that 90% of the population go along with masking and other foolishnesses
i still see people at the grocery store wearing masks! they have not the least bit of understanding of viruses nor do they seem to want to learn.
a nation of fools! they deserve what is coming to them but it will come to the rest of us too.
Bullshit. Any agreement must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have treaty status and supercede the Constitutional requirements for elections.
ReplyDelete@Tim: The US Senate HAS ALREADY APPROVED the treaty that made this country a member of the WHO, and subject to its regulations. The Biden administration's proposals merely reform those regulations, and give them more teeth. They do not have to be re-submitted to the Senate for ratification.
ReplyDelete"The International Health Regulations (IHR) are legally binding and supersede the United States Constitution."
ReplyDeleteMy rifle supersedes the IHRs.
@Aaron: Perhaps... but does it supersede the (multiple) rifles of the federal agents who'll be enforcing the IHR's? I'd rather not find out.
ReplyDelete@Peter: I'd rather not find out either. But like the quote says "If there is trouble, let it me in my day so my kids know peace".
ReplyDeleteAgain, bullshit. The US is not subject to any international law that conflicts with the US Constitution unless it is specific in it's application. The USSC ruled on that years ago.Every instance requires new passage by the Senate. It is the only reason we can still buy guns.
ReplyDelete@Tim: I admire your faith in the Constitution, and that it will prevail over the jackbooted thugs who will enforce unconstitutional rules, regulations and restrictions no matter what it says. Sure, they'll be taken to court over it; and sure, in a year, or two, or three, when the courts have decided, the Constitutional view may prevail. On the other hand, it may not. Whatever happens, those who resisted violently may no longer be able to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteLegal theory is great. It's trumped by practicality. We see that all day, every day.
To misquote Brandon Lee in 'The Crow':
ReplyDelete'I see they've made their decision. Now, let's see them enforce it.'
They do not override the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSee Reid v. Covert, which established quite definitively that Treaties CANNOT override the US constitution.
If you don't feel like reading the entire opinion, the relevant (for this discussion anyway) key words, tricky phrases are as follows:
"No agreement with a foreign nation can
confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power
which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
In short, existing constitutional law has already established that the Constitution overrules treaties, not the other way around.
Oppose stupid treaties that cede sovereignty to transnational bureaucrats. But don't panic about them overriding the Constitution. Any problems will be with ignoring the constitution, not with overriding it.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep354/usrep354001/usrep354001.pdf