Issue 1022 June 2024 Ed Newmann Cartoon - Secret Emergency Powers
The World Health Organization's (WHO's) attempted global coup is mere days away. If you ever thought of calling your legislators, now would be an ideal time to express your objection to assigning emergency management to a foreign entity. For everyone's sake, leave politics out of it. Even though 49 Republican Senators and 22 State Attorney Generals enacted state legislation and/or signed a letter “strongly urging” President Biden to reject the WHO's Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty to be voted on next week, during the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, it doesn't mean Democrats must automatically line up in support of foreign control. At a minimum, demand that Congress must first ratify such a sweeping, not to mention illegal, give-away of U.S. sovereign national and state authority.
States are the constitutional authority for health issues, not the federal government. States can resist all such foreign interventions as intended by the WHO's Pandemic Treaty with specific legislation that denies, yea forbids, any claim by the WHO or any other entity jurisdictional authority. Louisiana’s forthright legislation SB133, passed by the Louisiana Senate, supplies a template for all 50 states to adopt to end this existential threat to America's Republic. Legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1376456.
America's political ethos has become so poisonously partisan, crushing critical discernment on either side of the aisle. The WHO Coup depends on this collective obtuseness for its success, knowing centralized control of this magnitude will massively advantage the already rich and powerful, the Precious, while dangerously disadvantaging member nations to fulfill the “equity” promise of Globalization.
The Precious know in order for social justice and/or economic equity to prevail worldwide, standards of living must dramatically decrease for the majority of inhabitants of developed countries to bring economies into parity across the globe. “You will own nothing and like it,” according to World Economic Forum's (WEF's) Klaus Schwab, the Great Resetter, who managed to secure $200 million for himself while at the WEF.
I wonder how someone who amasses such a tidy fortune (on top of inheritance) can possibly envision “equity” for the planet knowing it means a severe, often extreme downgrade in standards of living worldwide for everyone but himself and his elite complotters? Schwab is retiring, passing his fiefdom (wealth and globalization mission) to his family to secure his legacy and ensure the circle is not broken.
Which begs the question: How are globalists' goals meaningfully different from Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, Communists, Progressives, Monarchists, Colonists, Imperialists, et al? Chinese president Xi is not living in apartment G3 on the 18th floor of an indistinguishable high rise, and Russian president Putin isn't, either. In fact, most of these centrally controlled governance models are vastly inequitable, with a precious few mega “Haves,” and exponentially more equitable “Have-nots,” dispelling any notion of true equity when it doesn't apply to leadership.
Face it: Globalism plotting and planning is nothing more than the latest, greatest mass fleecing, mostly of regular people, transferring whatever wealth is still available to fleece. Creative juices that flow from pure greed know no bounds thanks to unaccountable collaborations between oligarchs (mega corporations) and bureaucracies. This is perfectly evidenced by the newest nefarious public/private scheme known as Natural Asset Companies, specifically structured entities to monetize natural resources, not unlike the blossoming carbon credit market that proceeded them.
Make no mistake: Progressive permission to support the WHO's Pandemic Treaty means Democrats go the distance, all the way to the cliff's edge and over. This agreement is measures-of-magnitude bigger than the trivial 'arena politics' we the electorate so incuriously indulge in, so don't treat it as such. Not this time.
How Will You Preserve Your Own Rights to Choose?
Open your mind and ask yourself: In what world would an international organization completely dependent operationally on other people's money, with a uniquely twisted sociopath such as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, himself enslaved to the world's wealthiest and most corrupt oligarchs imaginable, be a more trusted agency/manager of Earth's resources to solve the complex problems that arise from global emergencies than national brain trusts whose grasp of national needs is infinitely more robust? One-size-fits-the-planet solutions fail as a concept, let alone as an active management style.
And yes, this Pandemic Treaty is about life and death and all that entails. More concerning, it is about iron-fisted central control of Earth's most valuable resource – human labor (until robotics improve) via relentless, penetrating, intrusive surveillance; mandatory imposition of a programmable digital currency; directed censorship via collaborations between governments with all forms of media; unhinged lawfare; regulation of all food/farm production, energy consumption, water access, health protocols, and communications; including regulation of nature, animals, and pets. Sound over the top?
Oh wait … didn't I mention that the mission of the WHO Coup has expanded to include not only health emergencies, but emergencies relative to climate, plants, animals, and Earth's ecosystem? Perhaps the better query would be: what emergency scenario won't the WHO be in charge of, including “suspected” potential emergencies?
But mostly this unacceptable Pandemic Treaty it is about choices, or the absence of choices. And one such choice demands your attention now: Are you ultimately in charge of your life, your body, and the risks you are willing and unwilling to take? Otherwise, your self-determination and personal authority to choose is forfeited to a megalomaniacal complot of succubi who will suck your life from you. The choice is currently yours, but not forever if and when the WHO Coup is realized.
The WHO is (still) secretly negotiating amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). And as James Roguski and Merryl Nass, both experts in the WHO Coup, jointly conclude, these proposed amendments have almost nothing to do with health. “The International Health Regulations really should be renamed 'The International Surveillance, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Regulations.'” More detailed explanations and analysis can be found at the following links: JamesRoguski.com; JamesRoguski.substack.com/p/exit-the-who; JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive; MerylNass.substack.com/p/urgent-pandemic-messaging-of-who; MerylNass.substack.com/p/we-did-it-22-attorneys-general-in.
Roguski has catalogued examples of what the WHO has made public to date, demonstrating its emphasis on regulating logistics versus improved health outcomes (i.e. early treatments, preventative care). Below are some of the amendments that were publicly submitted prior to the members going dark to submit additional changes in secret.
The Member States of the European Union, India, Indonesia and the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union have submitted proposals to amend Article 23: Health measures on arrival and departure. India and Japan have submitted proposals to amend Article 28: Ships and aircraft at points of entry. Indonesia has submitted a proposal to amend Article 31: Health measures relating to entry of travelers. Brazil, the Member States of the European Union and Mercosur have submitted proposals to amend Article 35: General rules regarding health documents. The Member States of the European Union have submitted proposals to amend Article 36: Certificates of vaccination or other prophylaxis. The Member States of the European Union and the WHO Africa Region Member States have submitted proposals to amend Article 43: Additional health measures. The WHO Africa Region Member States, Indonesia and Japan have submitted proposals to amend Article 45: Treatment of personal data. Brazil, the Member States of the European Union, Indonesia and MERCOSUR have submitted proposals to amend Annex 6: VACCINATION, PROPHYLAXIS AND RELATED CERTIFICATES - MODEL INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE OF VACCINATION OR PROPHYLAXIS.
These submissions occurred in 2022-23. Since then, negotiations by the Working Group on Amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (WGIHR) have become increasingly covert, officially going dark after April 2024. WGIHR finally shared its work product as of May 10, 2024, but not within the four months required for review by January 27, 2024, for acceptance prior to a separate vote on the companion Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty by all 196 member countries. Regardless, approval of both the amendments and the Pandemic Treaty is being hailed as the signature event of the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27-June 1, 2024.
Not surprisingly, the WHO has stepped all over it's own process, invalidating acceptance of IHR amendments, and delegitimizing potential approval of the Pandemic Treaty because it failed to submit the proposed amendments four months prior to the official vote as required by law. Yet the WHO is behaving as if it hasn't noticed this pesky detail, instead plodding ahead using the Pelosi policy of ignoring what's in these two agreements until after they've been agreed to. After which they will hobble together a largely authoritarian agreement without public input that will be much more difficult to oppose. MG.co.za/thought-leader/opinion/2024-05-17-plea-to-african-union-halt-votes-on-who-pandemic-agreement-and-international-health-regulations-amendments.
The good news is that the witlessness of using the Pelosi policy for such an epic transfer of global governance and power has provided perfect justification for marching out the hook and yanking the WHO off the world emergency management stage with a resounding gong! Okay, that isn't likely. But at least there is also no legal transfer of authority, ergo no legitimate WHO Coup. But then again, when have pesky, arbitrary administrative missteps derailed the any economic engine fueled by unimpeded greed?
Scott County Primary Elections June 4, 2024, Require Our Renewed Vigilance
County Primary Elections on June 4, 2024, are especially important due to the importance of counties in the American Republic pecking order of authorities. Arguably the most important election for any county is its sheriff. Globalization has the elimination of elected county sheriff's as one of its stated goals because this office represents a systemic threat to its central control model.
Sheriffs are immensely important in upholding the U.S. and State Constitutions, defending and enforcing constitutionally protected rights enshrined as bedrock law of our land. County sheriffs' authorities present as a mighty thorn in the side of globalization, inspiring county voters to defend and protect our county sheriffs, their offices and authorities, from extinction from foreign interlopers.
Which begs the question: Do the candidates for sheriff understand their importance to the foundational rule of law, to their primary mandate as the defenders-in-chief of constitutionally protected rights, and are they committed to serving the interests of the people versus the insulation and bidding of the bureaucracies?
Personally, where the choice exists, I believe it is prudent to elect candidates who are native Quad Citians if they operate as constitutional versus administrative sheriffs. Globalization strategy intends to replace local law enforcement with imports because the loyalty to residents factor is much lower and therefore easier to deploy against communities when necessary.
Please consider the questions and answers from the various candidates for sheriff, as well as for auditor, because we need to trust our elections and transparency is the best way to restore this confidence. County supervisors are also critically important because they are the taxpayers' liaisons and with government. Supervisors too often abandon voters' interests in favor of representing and advancing the interests of the county bureaucracy, abdicating their primary purpose to county residents while arguably violating their oaths. Instead of supervising, they too often rubber stamp policies and expenditures that ignore constituents. Meaningful difference comes from doing things differently. Read the questions and answers starting on page 9 and determine for yourself which candidates will protect your rights, protect your vote, and protect your pocketbook. Then be sure to vote in the June 4 primary election.
