Whatever value system you apply to human life, it is important to understand that international public health is currently dominated by left-wing rhetoric that insists all life is equal and of equal concern. This will greatly influence society and your health for the next few decades.
Would you want a person who thought that a toad had the same intrinsic value as your mother to treat her Alzheimer’s disease or a person who equated the value of your daughter with that of a rat to decide whether she should be injected with experimental medicine? Under the One Health concept pushed by the global elite, this could become reality.
While many religious beliefs also hold nature in high regard, the difference in One Health is that it goes beyond revering nature; it pushes the idea that humans are no more valuable than any other thing on earth, plants or animals and all should have equal rights or outcomes.
For example, respondents to a highway accident could be required to weigh a severely injured animal against a severely injured human and not discriminate based on species. If the animal is more likely to respond to emergency measures, they could be required to save the animal and leave the unfortunate human to its fate. Caring for nature is import but it doesn’t require a world where rats and humans drink from the same cup.
Thes One Health concept is woven into the proposed pandemic agreement/treaty which is currently being finalized for signatures next May 2024. Until it has been finalized, it’s impossible to speculate what will be included however, when considering past drafts written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the treaty will grant WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. If WHO declares a emergency all signatories to the treaty, including the United States, must submit to the treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, monitoring and surveillance initiated by the World Health Assembly.
Both the treaty and any regulations set by the Assembly could be fatally dangerous according to Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”
The scope of their control will extend to communications, censorship, economics, civil society, global trade, animal health, water pollution, climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, the food supply, antibiotics, commerce, security, public policy, research, non-communicable diseases, diets, supplements, etc. and their say will supersede and overrule any and all local, state or federal law.
In anticipation of this power, WHO is currently working on a new digital COVID-19 vaccination certification system which eventually will cover all recommended vaccinations; vaccinations that WHO considers “essential” for better global health based on the “shared values and principles of transparency and openness, inclusiveness, accountability, data protection and privacy, security, scalability at a global level, and equity.”
It is imperative to understand where we’re headed. The pandemic treaty redefines human rights as health equity and nothing else. Bodily autonomy and personal choice will be replaced by a one-size-fits-all medicine without regard for human dignity, human rights or fundamental freedoms.
Can Biden bind us to such a treaty? According to the Treaty Clause, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate for ratification. However, Biden does have the authority to enter into an international Executive Agreement without asking for Senate approval, which is binding under international law according to U.S. v. Pink, 1942, in which SCOTUS ruled it has the same legal status as a treaty. Thankfully, in 1957, in Reid v. Covert, SCOTUS restricted the President from entering into an Executive Agreement if it contradicted federal law. Unfortunately, with the left holding power in Congress, there will not be any such law passed.
However, as a last line of defense the Case-Zablocki Act (1972) says the President must provide information to Congress on any Executive Agreement within 60 days of when it is scheduled to start so that Congress can vote to cancel the agreement or decline to fund the effort. That is why elections do matter.
By the end of this decade we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations … a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of human survival. One world government is inevitable. Pope John Paul II
Source: Your Daughter for a Rat? By David Bell, Brownstone Institute; The WHO Takes Next Step Toward One World Government, by J. Mercola, Liberty First; Profit and Power Dictate WHO’s Agenda by Franklin County Patriots; Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies, YourNews.com
