Committee on the Present Danger: China By Chris Knight (Florida)

The Committee on the Present Danger: China, has been investigating the threat that the close alliance between communist China and the World Health Organization will have on the national determination of health policies. The speakers at a recent presentation were alarmed about the World Health Organization pandemic treaty, which President Biden is set to sign, seeing that this will lead to the policies of the World Health Organization overriding national policies in pandemics.

There are two problems here. The first, dealt with below, is that the World Health Organization, with its strong CCP influence will be following the policies of communist China to the detriment of the West. One need only reflect upon the social disaster that China’s lockdown was; view the graphic videos of people locked in high-rise flats, jumping to their deaths. Second, the World Health Organization is quick to declare health emergencies and pandemics, as the now forgotten monkey pox fizzer showed.

Trump had said that he would pull out of the World Health Organization, but failed to do so, probably because his son-in-law Jared told him not to. Still, there remains time to fight this pandemic treaty, and at least in the US forces are mobilising; better late than never.

https://presentdangerchina.org/

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/whos-on-first-at-the-who

“Donald Trump's clip: ...I will again withdraw from the W.H.O., which stands for We Hide Outbreaks. We Hide Outbreaks. The United States was paying, I think this is important because, again, it's so much common sense involved. The United States was paying the World Health Organization $450 million a year. Now, in terms of money and the kind of trillions and trillions we're talking about, it's not that much, but it's still $450 million a year. And I took them out. That's what it was. The price was 450, and that's for 350 million people. China was paying $39 Billion a year for 1.4 billion people. It doesn't sound too right. And they had total control, by the way. We had no control. They literally own it. China controls W.H.O. So that's what it does. W.H.O. is totally controlled by China. We could have saved $400 million a year. It's a lot of money. And now they're asking for even more dictatorial power and more and more and more of our money. But they're getting nothing more from China.

Frank Gaffney: Those remarks, I think, captured the concern clearly that President Trump had both about the enormous costs of being a member of the World Health Organization, expected to pick up the bulk of the tab of its annual budget, and specifically the degree to which the Chinese Communist Party is controlling what the organization does, what it tells others to do as well. To talk a little bit about how that works or would if the existing international health regulations are modified as is now being actively considered by the World Health Organization, and or if there is yet another agreement for pandemics that is adopted also now under active consideration by the W.H.O. and what it means specifically in terms of our sovereignty and our freedoms and indeed our constitutional republic.

Should authoritarians at the World Health Organization be called globalists? You can call them supra nationalists. You can call them Chinese Communist Party puppets, whatever term you wish to use. The question of what that might mean for us has to be topic A and certainly is for our panel, including our next presenter. His name is Jonathan Emord. He is a constitutional attorney by training and practice. He formerly was a lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission. He is the author of an important book, very relevant to this topic, entitled “The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution and Free Enterprise from the 19th century to the present”. We have him by videotape. Let's go to Jonathan Edwards program. By the way, he is also a candidate for the United States Senate from Virginia. I will hand over to Jonathan now.

Jonathan Emord: Well, one of the most unfortunate occurrences in our history are these occasional incursions into sovereignty that have been characteristic of the Biden administration and of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. We have an opportunity by blocking the president through the budget process to achieve our objectives. And there are innumerable ways in which Republicans should be standing up and fighting against this president and his attempt to wet us to a World Health Organization agenda that is largely dictated by our enemy, by the communist Chinese. If we fail to protect our Constitution and our national sovereignty, as well as our individual sovereignty, the game is up. And whether that is done by turning over power to the World Health Organization or just by Biden adhering to the World Health Organization's dictates, as are themselves largely the byproduct of a complicity with the communist Chinese.

We are effectively losing our liberty, and there can be no more precious liberty than your liberty over your own body, over what is done to your body in the course of a pandemic or any other disease in which the nation must rally around our Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, for example, and of our constitutional separation of powers is designed to have resiliency in the midst of a crisis. It's not meant to be forfeited in a crisis. And a crisis is no justification for a denial of your civil liberties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide an escape clause for authoritarianism, where suddenly an authoritarian state can be erected whenever there is a Rahm Emanuel-style crisis identified. This is but one instance, but a profound one in which our freedom is once again at stake. We have the duty as a people who love liberty and who believe in the Constitution of the United States to not allow a president of the United States who has abdicated his role under the Constitution to take this country and draw it down into a situation in which we become serfs or slaves to the dictates of an international organization like W.H.O.

That is even made more profound when we understand just how heavy the influence of communist China is over W.H.O. and our recent experience with the pandemic response. We saw our own country through the CDC and the FDA fall in lockstep by the by the president's dictates, the CDC's direction on how to deal with the pandemic. That response was disastrous. We had a one size fits all approach, which was a vaccine that was oversold, that resulted in injury to a significant percentage of the population and for which information was suppressed. We had no criticism of the vaccine allowed through the big tech and media platforms as a result of collusion identified most recently in the Twitter files whereby you have the White House dictating censorship of specific individuals and organizations that were trying to articulate what now we know to be very valid criticisms of the government's approach, authoritarian approach to this.

Imagine a different world. Imagine the world that the founding Fathers created. Imagine a world in which free and wide open and robust scientific debate took place, as our Constitution requires. What would you have had different? Well, you would have had the opportunity for critics of the vaccine who said from the very start and oftentimes throughout the whole pandemic that the vaccine would not be a foolproof system of protection against acquiring COVID. And indeed, we know that people did acquire COVID, that the vaccine was not an assurance that you could not transmit the disease, that you could carry and transmit it even if you were vaccinated. That this othering of unvaccinated and condemnation of them was wholly unjustified scientifically because there was no difference between who could carry the disease and who could not. Based on vaccination, there was no difference in who could acquire the disease and who could not, based on vaccination.

They lied to us repeatedly. They told us that this mask, this masking mandate, which is a tremendous control mechanism, that this masking mandate was essential for our health. We now know that transmission of COVID, a nanoparticle, flies right through cotton strands of thread and is simply incapable of being stopped by a mask. The whole notion that somehow the population could be deluded into a system that would be to the great advantage of some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world and to the state in controlling people is not an answer in a free country to a pandemic or any other situation.

We had the opportunity instead to have wide open, robust debate, early treatment that was suppressed and denied criticism of the approach that was taken that would have allowed novel introduction of different approaches. This is how free people protect themselves. This is how we protect ourselves from a weaponized virus. And let there be no mistake, this is a weaponized virus from communist China because at a minimum, at a minimum, I say even with the information we have, which is not complete, we know that at the time they locked down the province of Wuhan against travel within their own country, that they purposefully left international flights open to allow the virus to go all over the world as a bioweapon.

So, this is when we talk about the World Health Organization, we talk about an entity that is largely a captive of our enemies. We should not be a part or funding or participating in this entity, or any entity that is a proxy for the authoritarian will of our enemies. We should instead be honest with the American people, tell them what this is, and ensure that we get out of it as fast as we possibly can. Every means necessary needs to be done to do that, and so any attempt to do the contrary should be viewed by freedom loving people as a direct threat to their sovereignty. Let there be no mistake about this.

If this goes through, and it looks like the signature is imminent from this White House, if this goes through and they achieve their objectives, what this will mean is that you as a patient will not have the control over the doctor patient relationship and the physician will be obliged bureaucratically to ensure that the one size fits all demands of this of this World Health Organization override his or her independent professional judgment.”