CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics

“The treaty would put us under the thumb of the U.N. and communist China and the WHO for whatever they wanted to declare a crisis, whether it’s poverty crisis, or a gun violence crisis or a climate crisis, or a health crisis, and make us listen to the WHO. That is not constitutional.”

Republican lawmakers and conservative activists rallied outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday morning to raise awareness of and opposition to a global pandemic agreement that they say poses a grave threat to national sovereignty and basic freedoms.

On May 27, the World Health Assembly (the governing forum of the World Health Organization’s 194 member nations) is slated to meet and finalize the details of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, on the surface a plan to better handle global health crises like COVID-19 in the future. However, critics have found a number of alarming details in the drafts that have been released.

The Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson explains that the plan’s February 8-15 draft “redistribute 20% of all U.S. ‘pandemic-related products’’ to other nations,” empower censorship for the sake of preventing an “infodemic” of “too much information” and “false or misleading information” from creating “mistrust in health authorities and undermin[ing] public health and social measures,” and institute a “Conference of the Parties” to alter the deal further via a two-thirds vote.

An updated draft released April 16 drops the “infodemic” language in favor of a shorter and more vague statement about “[r]ecognizing the importance of building trust and ensuring timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization”; but retains the redistribution language as well as the Conference of the Parties’ amendment power–meaning that the most objectionable aspects of earlier drafts could be restored once the agreement is adopted.

On Thursday, the Sovereignty Coalition organized a press conference to make their opposition to “global governance” known. Participants included U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), U.S. Reps. Bob Good (VA-5), Chris Smith (NJ-4), Chip Roy (TX-21), and other members of Congress; Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, Tea Party Patriots Action president Jenny Beth Martin, Center for Security Policy executive chairman Frank Gaffney, and Women’s Rights without Frontiers and Anti-Globalist International president Reggie Littlejohn, among other heads of conservative groups.

‘Not Now’ Campaign to Defend America’s Sovereignty Against WHO https://t.co/ThSRYgGHtP

— Sovereignty Coalition (@sovcoalition) April 18, 2024

“This is the most important issue that is getting the least amount of attention relative to its importance,” declared Good. “The treaty would put us under the thumb of the U.N. and communist China and the WHO for whatever they wanted to declare a crisis, whether it’s poverty crisis, or a gun violence crisis or a climate crisis, or a health crisis, and make us listen to the WHO. That is not constitutional.”

“Are we for standing up for Americans, or are we for ceding authority to international bodies to govern us and to shove their progressive, radical, Marxist ideas on the American people?” asked Roy.

Should the agreement be ratified, Littlejohn warned, the Conference of the Parties would have the power to “mandate vaccines, mandate masks, mandate lockdowns, and mandate quarantines,” as well as “mandate that the governments of the world surveil and censor their citizens, no doubt through digital IDs, which can be used as the basis of a Chinese-style, social credit.”

Long known for a similar left-wing bias to that of the United Nations, the WHO has faced additional criticism since COVID’s outbreak in 2020 for, among other offenses, opposing bans on travel from China that could have limited the reach of COVID, for legitimizing the false claims coming out of the Chinese government that initially downplayed the gravity of the situation and covered up the Communist regime’s mishandling of it, and for favoring the lockdown and mandate policies that exacerbated harm while curtailing basic freedoms and failing to improve health outcomes.

“In December [2019], the WHO refused to act on or publicize Taiwan’s warning that the new respiratory infection emerging in China could pass from human to human,” U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote in April 2020. “In mid January [2020], despite accumulating evidence of patients contracting what we now know as COVID-19 from other people, the organization repeated the [Chinese Communist Party’s] lie that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. In January, the WHO, at Beijing’s behest, also blocked Taiwan from participating in critical meetings to coordinate responses to the coronavirus and even reportedly provided wrong information about the virus’s spread in Taiwan.”

Near the end of its tenure, the Trump administration began the process of formally withdrawing the United States from the WHO. But upon taking office, President Joe Biden notified the body that it would contribute $200 million by the end of February 2021, restoring the aid Trump had canceled and asserting a “renewed commitment” to the WHO.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 7 hours ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

National / 8 hours ago

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

Carbon Tax

Mark Carney has history of supporting CBDCs, endorsed Freedom Convoy crackdown

Published on February 20, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.  

World Economic Forum-linked Liberal Party leadership frontrunner Mark Carney has a history of supporting central bank digital currencies, and in 2022 supported “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy.

In his 2021 book Value(s), Carney said that the “future of money” is a “central bank stablecoin, known as a central bank digital currency or CBDC.”

He noted in his book that such a currency would be similar to current cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, but without the private nature afforded to it by its decentralization.

“It is simply untenable in democracies that the core of the monetary system could be based on forms of electronic private money whose creators control large blocks of the currency, like Bitcoin,” he wrote. “Cryptocurrencies are not the future of money.”

Carney noted that a CBDC, if “properly designed,” could serve “all the functions to which private cryptocurrencies and stablecoins aspire while addressing the fundamental legal and governance issues that will, in time, undermine those alternatives.”

Expanding on his worldview in relation to CBDCs, Carney suggested that “fear” can be taken advantage of to shape the future of money.

“With fear on the march, people were willing to surrender to Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ such basic rights as the freedom to leave their homes,” he wrote. “And so it is with money. People will support the delegation to independent central banks of the tough decisions that are necessary to maintain the value of money provided the authorities deliver monetary and financial stability.”

Some Canadians are alarmed by the prospect of CBDCs, a fear that only worsened after the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze hundreds of bank accounts it deemed were importantly linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

During the Freedom Convoy, Carney wrote in an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, “Those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law,” adding that “Drawing the line means choking off the money that financed this occupation.”

In addition to his comments on CBDCs, Carney has a history of promoting anti-life and anti-family agendas, including abortion and LGBT-related  efforts. He has also previously endorsed the carbon tax and even criticized Trudeau when the tax was exempted from home heating oil to reduce costs for some Canadians. 

Carney also said last week that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan if elected prime minister.  

The Liberal Party of Canada will choose its next leader, who will automatically become prime minister, on March 9, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that he plans to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader has been chosen.    

In contrast to Carney, Poilievre has promised that if he is elected prime minister, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.  

When it comes to a digital Canadian dollar, the Bank of Canada found that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system. 

Business

Black Rock latest to leave Net Zero Alliance

Published on January 13, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

US House committee investigating 60 companies over ESG policies

Blackrock Inc. is the latest to announce it has left a United Nations-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), among several within one month and not soon after Donald Trump was elected president. It did so as it and roughly 60 companies are being investigated by Congress for allegedly colluding as a “woke ESG cartel” to “impose radical environmental, social, and governance goals on American companies.”

Last month, Goldman Sachs was the first to withdraw from the alliance, followed by Wells Fargo, The Center Square reported. Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan next announced their departure.

According to the “bank-led and UN-convened” alliance, global banks joined, pledging to align their lending, investment and capital markets activities with a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050.

Major U.S. banks began leaving the alliance after President-elect Donald Trump vowed to increase domestic oil and natural gas production and pledged to go after “woke” companies.

They also announced their departure two years after 19 state attorneys general launched an investigation into them for alleged deceptive trade practices connected to ESG.

While the companies haven’t appeared to seem daunted by state investigations, Trump’s reelection appears to be a different matter.

“BlackRock has hung in there as long as it could, but the pressure has become too great, and the reputational and legal risks too high, just before Trump takes office. It won’t be the last financial organization to quit a net zero initiative,” Hortense Bioy, Morningstar Analytics director of sustainable investing research, told Bloomberg News.

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has expressed skepticism about companies claiming to withdraw from ESG commitments, noting there is often doublespeak in announcements, The Center Square reported. This includes statements made by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Blackrock.

Blackrock claims its “participation in NZAMi didn’t impact the way we managed client portfolios. Therefore, our departure doesn’t change the way we develop products and solutions for clients or how we manage their portfolios. … Our commitment to helping our clients achieve their investment goals remains unwavering,” Bloomberg reported.

Last month, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced it was investigating more than 60 US-based asset managers’ involvement in the alliance, including BlackRock, Inc., JP Morgan Asset Management, Rockefeller Asset Management, State Street Global Advisors, among others.

The committee also issued a report, “Climate Control: Exposing the Decarbonization Collusion in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing,” saying it found “direct evidence of a ‘climate cartel’ consisting of left-wing activists and major financial institutions that collude to impose radical environmental, social, and governance goals on American companies.”

Under the Trump administration, the committee will continue to investigate if “existing civil and criminal penalties and current antitrust law enforcement efforts are sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion to promote ESG-related goals in the investment industry.” It also maintains that the companies “must answer for their involvement in prioritizing woke investments over their own fiduciary duties.”

The committee sent letters to dozens of entities in 12 states and the District of Columbia requesting them to provide information by Jan. 10. The majority are located in New York, Massachusetts and California.