Great Reset
Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty
From Heartland Daily News
By Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D.
The Biden administration signaled its support for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new pandemic treaty expected to be finalized at its World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the final week of May.
Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the United States at the meeting, stated that “America is committed to signing the treaty that will ‘build a stronger global health structure,’” wrote John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor, in the City Journal.
Adoption of a legally binding pact governing how countries around the world are to respond to future outbreaks like the recent COVID-19 pandemic has been the goal of WHO-directed negotiations since 2021. The WHO, a United Nations-sponsored organization, came under sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus.
On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states sent President Biden a letter saying they oppose the accords which will turn the WHO into the “world’s governor of public health.” The letter says giving the WHO such authority violates the U.S. Constitution, and could lead to censorship of dissenting opinions, undermine Constitutional freedoms, and give the WHO power to declare any “emergency” besides health including climate change, gun violence, and immigration.
Missteps on COVID-19
In a post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, WHO’s Emergency Committee issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), stating, “The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation of China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency and, it is to be hoped, success.”
The WHO’s initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19 concluded it was improbable that the virus resulted from experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though it later acknowledged that it could have come from a lab leak at Wuhan. The WHO’s investigation, which was thwarted by Chinese officials, ultimately reached no conclusion. President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, a decision reversed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.
More Smoke and Mirrors
Further undermining the WHO’s credibility in setting policies on managing a future pandemic, the group decided to include Peter Daszak, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, in its initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19.
Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance prominently featured in an investigation by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic into the government’s funding and lack of oversight of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, for which EcoHealth received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health.
In an interim report released on May 1, 2024, the subcommittee said there is “significant evidence that Daszak violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth. Given Dr. Daszak’s apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements, the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President.”
After the release of the report, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) told the Washington Examiner, “The World Health Organization covered up the Chinese Communist Party’s role in developing and spreading COVID-19 and has since failed to hold them accountable for the global pandemic that killed millions, upended our daily lives, and destroyed thousands of small businesses.”
Public Fed Up
The WHO’s shaky record on COVID, including its close ties to China and Peter Daszak, have taken a toll on the public’s willingness to accept its leadership in any future pandemics.
A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Center for Security Policy, released on April 17, found that 54.6 percent of likely voters oppose tying the United States to a WHO pandemic treaty, and just 29.0 percent favor such a move.
Agreements Bypass Congress
While providing few details, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges we have faced and all the solutions into one. That agreement could help us prepare for the future in a better way.”
The “treaty” the Biden administration is eager to sign will likely be an executive agreement, like the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which was not presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification but contained “commitments” President Barack Obama pledged to honor.
Also in the works in Geneva are amendments to International Health Regulations, which Congress would not approve or disapprove.COVID
WHO’s Power Grab
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS), sent a letter to President Biden signed by all 49 Republican senators, expressing their concern about the powers that could be handed to WHO, on May 2.
“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter states.
Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who has attended UN-sponsored conferences around the world for over 30 years, says the WHO is a destructive force.
“WHO’s performance during COVID-19 was a lethal combination of incompetence and dishonesty,” said Rucker. “The organization failed to protect public health and went to extraordinary lengths to cover up China’s role in fostering gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Ratification of any WHO pandemic treaty would be nothing short of a travesty.”
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Business
Trump puts all federal DEI staff on paid leave
From LifeSiteNews
Trump’s shuttering of federal DEI programs is in keeping with his promise to ‘forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.’
President Donald Trump has ordered all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) staff to be placed on paid leave by Wednesday evening, in accordance with his executive order signed on Monday.
The president pledged during his inaugural address to “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” which is the impetus behind his efforts to abolish DEI programs that prioritize race and ethnicity above merit when hiring workers.
Trump’s Executive Order on Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing stated, “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.”
“President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of DEI from our federal government and returning America to a merit based society where people are hired based on their skills, not for the color of their skin,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday night. “This is another win for Americans of all races, religions, and creeds. Promises made, promises kept.”
The Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to the leaders of federal departments instructing them to inform employees by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday that they will be placed on paid administrative leave as all DEI offices and programs prepare to shut down, according to NBC News.
It is unclear how many employees will be affected by the erasure of federal DEI programs.
Diversity training has “exploded” in the federal government since Joe Biden took office in 2020, the Beacon noted, with all federal agencies having mandated a form of DEI training before he left office.
DEI initiatives have long been widely denounced by conservatives and moderates as divisive, but they have been coming under increasing fire for undermining the competence and most basic functioning of public institutions and private corporations, even putting lives at risk.
For example, some commentators have blamed growing – and at times catastrophic and fatal – airplane safety failures in part on DEI hires and policies. Upon the revelation that a doctor at Duke Medical School was “abandoning… all sort(s) of metrics” in hiring surgeons in order to implement DEI practice, Elon Musk warned that “people will die” because of DEI.
Conservatives have also criticized DEI for stoking rather than curing division. A recent study shows that DEI programs actually breed hostility in businesses and schools.
Censorship Industrial Complex
WEF ranks ‘disinformation’ as greater threat to world stability than ‘armed conflict’
From LifeSiteNews
Misinformation and disinformation, along with societal polarization, are catalysts that amplify all other global risks, including armed conflict and climate change, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
On Wednesday, the WEF published its annual Global Risks Report with very few changes from last year’s edition.
For the second year in a row, the number one global risk over the next two years is misinformation and disinformation, which have cascading effects on other leading risks, according to the WEF “Global Risks Report 2025”:
Similar to last year, Misinformation and disinformation and Societal polarization remain key current risks […] The high rankings of these two risks is not surprising considering the accelerating spread of false or misleading information, which amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events
According to the Global Risks 2025 report, polarization “continues to fan the flames of misinformation and disinformation, which, for the second year running, is the top-ranked short- to medium-term concern across all risk categories.”
“Efforts to combat this risk are coming up against a formidable opponent in Generative AI-created false or misleading content that can be produced and distributed at scale,” which was the same assessment given in the 2024 report.
Apart from inflation and economic downturn, there isn’t much of a difference in global risks between 2024 and 2025.
Compare the top 10 short-term and long-term global risks from 2024 with those for 2025 in the images below.
WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2025
WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2024
Rising use of digital platforms and a growing volume of AI-generated content are making divisive misinformation and disinformation more ubiquitous. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025
The Global Risks Report 2025 says that misinformation, coupled with algorithmic bias, leads to a situation where you and I should accept giving up some of our privacy for convenience, which subsequently makes it easier for us to be monitored and controlled:
Despite the dangers related to false or misleading content, and the associated risks of algorithmic bias, citizens need to strike a balance between privacy on one hand and increased online personalization and convenience on the other hand.
While data governance and regulation vary worldwide, it is becoming easier for citizens to be monitored, enabling governments, technology companies and threat actors to reach deeper into people’s lives.
Those with access to rising computing power and the ability to leverage sophisticated AI/GenAI models could, if they choose to, exploit further the vulnerabilities provided by citizens’ online footprints.
What else can we blame on misinformation?
I know! Climate change:
The accelerating spread of false or misleading information […] amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events.
WEF Global Risks 2025
While the term “climate change” is mentioned several times in the Global Risks Report 2025, it does not appear anywhere in the actual list of 33 global risks.
Instead of using the term “climate change,” the full list of global risks uses several climate-adjacent terms, such as:
- Extreme weather events
- Pollution
- Critical change to Earth systems
- Natural resource shortages
- Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse
- Involuntary migration or displacement
The unelected globalists are now lumping terms like the ones above to push their climate policies and agendas, and they even go so far as to claim that misinformation amplifies extreme weather events, which actually might be true, just not in the way they imagined:
For example, on Tuesday WEF president and CEO Børge Brende blamed the California fires, which we may consider to be examples of extreme weather events or biodiversity loss, to climate change while not addressing how the state cut funding to fight fires, how the Los Angeles fire chief said the city failed her agency, or the role of arsonists.
By blaming the fires on just climate change while ignoring the rest, could Brende himself be engaging in disinformation?
WEF President and CEO Børge Brende blames California fires on climate change. Says global cooperation is needed to tackle bird flu, climate, and cybercrime. https://t.co/0vN997sdY6 pic.twitter.com/wMkiJE60fe
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) January 14, 2025
Climate change is also an underlying driver of several other risks that rank high. For example, Involuntary migration or displacement is a leading concern. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025
The WEF Global Risks Report 2025 lumps many global risks together with the belief that they are all interconnected.
For example, it says that misinformation and polarization amplify armed conflict, extreme weather events, involuntary migration or displacement, and all the risks in-between.
It’s the same tactic the unelected globalists use when they conflate misinformation and disinformation with hate speech, so they can use one as an excuse to go after the other.
For the WEF and partners, global problems require global solutions with global governance through public-private partnerships – the merger of corporation and state, which is also known as fascism or corporatism.
In the end, the global risks report is just a survey, and the risks may or may not materialize.
In January 2023, the WEF announced the results of a survey of cyber leaders that said a “catastrophic cyber event” was likely to occur within the next two years.
Here we are exactly two years later and that never happened.
For the unelected globalists, misinformation and disinformation are words they throw out to try to crush narratives that don’t align with their own, and they will use any threat, whether real or perceived, to advance their agendas and policies.
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Is There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…
-
Dan McTeague12 hours ago
Carney launches his crusade against the oilpatch
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci
-
Daily Caller23 hours ago
Pastor Lectures Trump and Vance On Trans People, Illegal Immigrants
-
Business2 days ago
Liberals to increase CBC funding to nearly $2 billion per year
-
National21 hours ago
Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau
-
Daily Caller13 hours ago
Opinion: Trump Making ‘Sex’ Great Again On Day One Of Presidency
-
Alberta2 days ago
Trump delays implementation 25% tariffs: Premier Smith response