Global elites fear America’s First Amendment — and here’s why



At a recent World Economic Forum summit, John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate and Biden-Harris administration official, criticized the role of the First Amendment in limiting the government’s ability to censor social media. “You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry complained. “But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry’s unguarded remarks might seem surprising, but they reflect a sentiment common among the managerial class that dominates much of the Western world. The unrestricted flow of information has become an existential threat for governments worldwide, which now rush to establish sovereignty in digital spaces to maintain control.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them.

The era of mass democracy coincided with the rise of mass media, and this alignment was no accident. As nations rapidly industrialized, vast countries with diverse regional cultures, like the United States, suddenly found ways to connect and unify. Innovations such as trains and telegraphs, followed by telephones, radio, interstate highways, and television, allowed information and people to travel vast distances quickly.

For the first time, governments could centralize economic coordination and effectively disseminate propaganda. Every state sought to capitalize on this. While the approach differed between the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the importance of centralization just as much as Hitler or Stalin did. The 20th century became a century of scale, where nations that lagged in the race for mass communication and control lost their sovereignty to those that succeeded.

In a system where popular sovereignty grants political legitimacy, a ruling class that aims to maintain power must control public opinion. Establishing compulsory public education with a unified curriculum is a good start, but gaining control over the limited number of television and radio stations effectively seals the deal. A consistent narrative across news and entertainment can steer public opinion in a desired direction. While this method doesn’t reach the level of top-down totalitarianism seen in the Soviet Union, it proves to be a more resilient form of control.

The growth in the number of media outlets did little to change this dynamic. The high cost of operation kept the ability to shape public opinion in the hands of a select group of wealthy oligarchs. The political orientation and selection criteria of journalism schools ensured that those who gathered, wrote, and distributed news held similar views. The public could choose from a variety of news sources and formats, but these options often led back to the same approved narrative.

In a media landscape that seemed to offer endless choices, people essentially received only one perspective. The ruling class maintained control by retaining authority over the flow of information.

The internet disrupted the traditional soft-power model. The digital world's decentralized nature made it difficult for any single oligarchic class to control information distribution. Initially, this posed no major issue because the internet was unfamiliar and complex, making it hard for the average person to access. While tech-savvy enthusiasts might have engaged with unapproved ideas on obscure message boards, most voters struggled just to access email through America Online.

But as digital natives matured and became adept with technology, social media emerged as a platform where anyone could go viral. This shift unleashed uncontrolled narratives into the political landscape, disrupting established powers.

The United States government quickly recognized the internet's disruptive potential. Thanks to its technological advancements and sophisticated intelligence operations, the United States was among the first to use the internet and social media to incite revolutions against rival regimes. Media shapes the behavior of the masses, and any government that relies on public opinion must control the information people consume.

Today, every modern government understands this reality. In the United States, however, the enduring protections around free speech make it especially challenging for the ruling elite to maintain that control.

Governments worldwide are racing against the forces of decentralization, aiming to establish digital sovereignty. Like the Roman roads, which sped up travel within the ancient empire but also facilitated barbarian invasions, the digital age presents both opportunities and threats. Modern governments face this challenge, but those not dependent on public approval have an edge. For example, China can more easily assert control over its digital landscape, often channeling all economic activity and communication through a single, state-mandated platform.

Western democracies, however, must tread more carefully when imposing controls. Yet, as we’ve seen in the United Kingdom, democratic governments can still wield significant power. After riots erupted following a mass stabbing incident involving British children, Labor Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly enacted draconian censorship measures, even imprisoning citizens for retweeting anti-immigration posts. In the United States, leaders have tried to sidestep First Amendment protections by forming “public-private partnerships,” pressuring social media companies to carry out censorship on their behalf. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter disrupted this system, creating at least one platform where information flows with relative freedom.

It’s crucial to recognize that the regime’s influence extends beyond formal government entities. The American ruling class has leveraged state power, media, and the nonprofit sector to build an industry around combating “misinformation and disinformation.” This censorship apparatus pushes the boundaries of what a democratic government can achieve through soft power, yet it has not fully succeeded in silencing dissent.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them. Although Americans remain deeply divided on most issues, the right to free speech stands as one of the country’s few shared values. This right faces increasing threats, with the state conditioning many citizens to view the First Amendment as “flexible.” Yet, the belief in free speech remains a powerful barrier to government overreach. Figures like John Kerry see the First Amendment as a significant obstacle to their globalist ambitions for control, making it a right that is undeniably worth defending.

JD Vance exposes globalism’s destruction of America’s middle class



Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance called for revitalizing America’s industry and infrastructure during his debate with Tim Walz, but his words weren’t empty platitudes meant only to capture the attention of swing voters. Like his running mate, Donald Trump, Vance has long condemned globalization, positioning himself as the only candidate on the stage offering genuine hope to Americans.

During a 2023 taping of American Moment’s podcast “Moment of Truth,” I asked Vance why the U.S. no longer makes many crucial weapons of war here at home. His response reflected an understanding of the difficult path ahead for policymakers, but he also made it clear that reviving American manufacturing is one of his top priorities.

As Vance said during the debate, Democrats may be the party of “Dick Cheney and Taylor Swift,” but Republicans stand for “every American, whether they’re rich or poor.”

“Even if you design a really cool missile in the United States of America, it’s really hard to design it with components we control in our own industrial supply chain. That requires a lot of rejiggering,” he said. “It would require a massive investment. It would require us to completely cast aside the green energy fanatics to invest in our own energy supplies, first of all, and then to really commit ourselves to bringing parts of the industrial supply chain back.”

Even though Joe Biden has paid lip service to the idea of reshoring American manufacturing, manufacturing employment hit its lowest share of the U.S. workforce — less than 10% — on his watch. During Tuesday’s debate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz mirrored the inadequacies of the Biden administration over the past three years. Walz left the stage without addressing the actual problems facing voters. That’s why the realignment of working-class voters to the GOP is occurring in places like northeastern Pennsylvania — and these voters could be the key to a Trump victory in 2024.

A Harris-Walz administration sees the nation’s future as a service economy and forgets that we need to make things to be not only strong but safe. Will it take another pandemic to remind us of the national security implications of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas?

Surprisingly, the question of climate policy highlighted the difference between the two tickets’ visions for the nation during Tuesday’s debate. How can we prevent natural disasters? What options do we have to power our nation responsibly? Walz’s solution: Purchase solar panels created by Chinese coal.

While the moderators looked on smugly, expecting that any Republican would immediately become tongue-tied at the mention of “climate change,” Vance delivered a message that all of his GOP colleagues would be smart to adopt.

“What have Kamala Harris's policies actually led to?” he asked. “More energy production in China, more manufacturing overseas, more doing business in some of the dirtiest parts of the entire world. When I say that, I mean the amount of carbon emissions they’re doing per unit of economic output. So if we actually care about getting cleaner air and cleaner water, the best thing to do is to double down and invest in American workers and the American people.”

Nuclear energy and natural gas are the future, but Harris and Walz prefer to smuggle the Green New Deal through the back door, leaving Americans to foot the bill. While high-paying manufacturing jobs have been outsourced and illegal aliens continue to flood the southern border, economic security remains the top concern for Americans. It's not about the right to abortion or a president’s tweets — jobs need to come back to America so that our children can have a future.

“The cost to American manufacturing is not just the direct and obvious stuff,” Vance told my co-host, Saurabh Sharma, and me in 2023. “It’s not just the jobs lost in northeast or southwest Ohio. It’s not just the opioid problem that moved in when the jobs moved away. It’s that we’ve done incredibly damaging, dynamic things to our economy.”

Voters are realizing that due to globalism, America may not hold its position as the world’s top economy much longer. Walz and Democratic leaders remain out of touch, offering little more than empty platitudes. As the election draws near, it’s crucial to consider which candidate truly prioritizes the well-being of the people. As Vance said during the debate, Democrats may be the party of “Dick Cheney and Taylor Swift,” but Republicans stand for “every American, whether they’re rich or poor.”

FACT-CHECK: Are illegal immigrants really voting in our elections?



We’re a mere two months away from the 2024 election, which Glenn Beck says is “the most consequential election in our lifetime and the most consequential election for freedom the world has ever known.”

Naturally, Americans are already questioning the integrity of our voting system, granted the alleged fraud that in many ways defined the 2020 election. But what’s fueling citizens’ fear perhaps even more this time around is the illegal immigrant crisis our country has been embroiled in since Biden took office.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Our borders have been left wide open for nearly four years, and now we face the prospect of people who have broken the law to be here being given the opportunity to vote in an election that should only belong to the American people.

But Americans aren’t alone in this fear. European countries are facing the same problem of open borders. Floods of illegal immigrants — many of them with ideologies that put them in diametric opposition to Western culture and values — have overrun entire European cities.

But when citizens speak out, they’re censored — even jailed in some cases.

Western governments don’t want us talking about elections or illegal immigration. Why?

“This is a global operation,” says Glenn. “The strategy being deployed here is very simple: overwhelm and collapse.”

Join Glenn as he connects the dots and delves into the data to answer two vital questions: Are illegal immigrants voting in our elections? And if so, are the numbers meaningful enough to actually choose the next candidate?

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

UN fires more staffers and confirms multiple workers were possibly involved in Oct. 7 terror attacks



The U.N. agency operating in Gaza fired several staffers in January after Israeli authorities provided evidence of their alleged involvement in the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel. Two of the 12 staffers accused are dead.

Keenly aware that the U.N. depends largely on American funding and on the generosity of other nations allied with Israel, U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini promised that any "UNRWA employee who was involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution."

Following the initial layoffs, the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services conducted a months-long investigation to determine the extent of the terrorist rot in Lazzarini's organization, during which other staffers were flagged as potential terrorists.

'The UN is incapable of running a state-like enterprise in Gaza without being infiltrated by terrorist organizations.'

The U.S., the U.K., Canada, and 13 other nations cut off funding to UNRWA pending the results of the investigation. The American pause on funding, in particular, likely prompted the organization to take the matter especially seriously granted the U.S. provided the UNRWA with $422 million in 2023 alone.

On Monday — just days after the Israeli government stated that "the UN is incapable of running a state-like enterprise in Gaza without being infiltrated by terrorist organizations" — the OIOS concluded its report.

According to the U.N., investigators reviewed email records, information on agency vehicles, and information from other sources, including communications with several member states.

While Israeli intelligence was apparently critically important, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq claimed that "since information used by Israeli officials to support the allegations have remained in Israeli custody, OIOS was not able to independently authenticate most of the information provided to it."

Although the report remains confidential, Lazzarini detailed the OIOS' findings regarding the 19 UNRWA staffers allegedly involved in the terrorist attacks.

In the case of one of the accused, Lazzarini said that "no evidence was obtained by OIOS to support the allegations of the staff member's involvement. That staff member has rejoined the Agency."

The commissioner further claimed that the evidence presented in nine of the 19 cases was insufficient to support the staffers' involvement in the terror attacks and that those investigations have been closed.

The OIOS apparently was wiling to acknowledge that nine of the accused were potential terrorists.

"For the remaining nine cases, the evidence — if authenticated and corroborated — could indicate that the UNRWA staff members may have been involved in the attacks of 7 October," said Lazzarini. "I have decided that in the case of these remaining nine staff members, they cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts of these staff members will be terminated in the interest of the Agency."

Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan blasted the report, stating, "The UN investigation, which focused exclusively on 19 UNRA workers, is a disgrace! Too little and too late. The investigation ignored the thousands of agency employees involved in the terrorist activities of Hamas, and the scope of the involvement."

"The Secretary General should resign and UNRA should be closed!" continued Erdan. "Israel needs to act quickly now to outlaw UNRA, declare it a terrorist organization and expel its leaders from Israeli territory and not allow them to enter."

The OIOS report comes several months after a separate review panel headed by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna stressed the need for UNRWA to implement strategies to address "increased politicization among its staff, affecting its neutrality."

The panel's final report also raised concerns about the misuse of UNRWA facilities for "political or military gains."

Even if the U.S. joins Canada, Australia, and other nations in reversing its funding pause to the UNRWA following the conclusion of the OIOS investigation, Reuters indicated that renewed funding will require congressional approval. After all, Republicans in Congress successfully passed legislation to defund the agency in March.

'Not one more penny of YOUR tax dollars should go to UNRWA.'

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said at the time that the corresponding bill, H.R. 2882, "prohibits funds to UNRWA, which has become the de facto subsidiary of Hamas. The passage of this bill means not one additional dollar from the American taxpayer will go to this deeply flawed organization."

It appears there may be some opposition to reversing course on UNRWA funding.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) tweeted Monday, "The United Nations just ADMITTED that UNRWA employed the TERRORISTS who butchered and raped American and Israeli citizens on October 7th. Not one more penny of YOUR tax dollars should go to UNRWA."

Sen. Marsha Blackburn also wrote, "We should never give another penny to antisemitic, terrorist supporting UNRWA."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know

What Europe’s REJECTION of globalism means for the rest of the world



The mainstream media would have you believe right-wing, Hitler-esque extremists won in the recent European Parliament elections, but hopefully you know by now not to trust a word they say.

According to journalist Alex Newman — who spent a decade working in several different European countries — the truth is that the election results reflect some very positive news: There is a growing rejection of globalism occurring in Europe.

“We have a fake narrative from the fake media,” he told Glenn Beck. “Europeans, I think, like Americans, are tired of the globalism; they're tired of the mass migration; they're tired of the economic suffering because of the inflation and the climate policies and the war on farmers, and all the rest. And they want something different.”

Further, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, dissolved the lower house of France’s Parliament after the election.

“After the election results, his party was absolutely crushed. … The result was devastating for his globalist establishment political party,” Newman explains, adding that “the party that won by a massive margin … is basically the antithesis of Macron’s party” in that “they're very strong French nationalists” who “want to preserve French identity.”

“They want to do deportations; they want to remove criminals and illegal aliens out of France. In some ways you might call them anti-islamic. They are opposed to what they call the Islamization of France.”

While there’s still much to be determined, “this could lead to some very, very profound changes in the way France is governed, and that by extension then would lead to some profound shifts across Europe,” says Newman.

While Glenn is encouraged by the news, he can’t help but wonder about the upcoming United Nations annual meeting, which is still very intent on pushing a global agenda, as “transforming global governance” is on the itinerary for the event.

“They're giving the United Nations extra powers that can be enacted in emergencies, and so they're getting around the sovereignty by saying, ‘oh this would only happen in a global emergency,’ but we all know emergencies are always right around the corner,” Glenn tells Newman.

Newman, who will actually attend the event and report his findings, thinks of the meeting as an “attempted constitutional convention.”

“They want to throw off the shackles that have kind of restrained their power-grabs over the decades and usurp vast new powers,” he explains. “And that's not speculation.”

To learn more about how the elites plan to ensure their plan for globalism endures, watch the clip below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Leftists Decry European Voters’ Rejection Of Globalism As A Threat To ‘Democracy’

By wrapping themselves in 'democracy,' leftists can cast their opponents as a danger to the very foundations of society.

The WHO didn't get its pandemic treaty through. Critics say it still managed to consolidate 'unchecked authority.'



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists have campaigned feverishly in recent months to promote an international pandemic agreement, lashing out at those who dared to suggest the legally binding pact would undermine American sovereignty and burden U.S. taxpayers with yet more financial obligations, as well as at those who noted that the WHO is an untrustworthy, corruption-prone, and Chinese communist-compromised organization.

Ghebreyesus, who leaned on concern-mongering about "Disease X" to move the needle, sought a successful vote on the globalist pact at the 77th meeting of World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. His hopes were dashed as the Assembly couldn't agree on the wording or passage of the pact.

Blaze News previously reported that the WHA did, however, manage to adopt a package of amendments to the International Health Regulations allegedly aimed at strengthening "global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

Critics have expressed concern that the amendments, adopted by "consensus" contra an actual vote, might not be as advertised or even be legal under the WHO's own rules.

American biochemist Dr. Robert Malone claimed Monday that the "hastily approved IHR [amendments] consolidate virtually unchecked authority and power of the Director-General to declare public health emergencies and pandemics as he/she may choose to define them, and thereby to trigger and guide allocation of global resources as well as a wide range of public health actions and guidances."

'The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country.'

The IHR make up a legally binding international instrument authorized under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution to which all 194 member states of the WHO, including the U.S., are parties. While amendments submitted to the WHA can be advanced by consensus, decision-making by vote "is a legally available option."

WHO member states agreed in January 2022 to consider potential amendments to the IHR. This decision was prompted, in part, by concerns over "the negative effects of discrimination, misinformation and stigmatization on public health emergency prevention, preparedness and response as well as unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, and recognizing the need for strengthened coordination."

The amendments were negotiated parallel to the so-far unsuccessful pandemic pact but crafted in the same spirit.

According to Liberty Council, the proposed amendments took "major steps in the wake of COVID-19 to conform and integrate each nation's pandemic responses by directing them to develop 'core' capabilities in areas of Surveillance (vaccine passports/digital health certificates), Risk Communication (censoring misinformation and disinformation), Implementation of Control Measures (social distancing/lockdowns), Access to Health Services and Products (greater sharing of resources and technologies between countries), and more."

The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that the Biden administration was actively engaged in the negotiations despite the urging of Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. Dr. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), to spike the amendments, noting they would "substantially increase the WHO's health emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty."

Cassidy, Johnson, and the entire Senate Republican Conference told President Joe Biden in a May 1 letter, "The WHO's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic was as total as it was predictable and did lasting harm to our country. The United States cannot afford to ignore this latest WHO inability to perform its most basic function and must insist on comprehensive WHO reforms before even considering amendments to the International Health Regulations."

'We consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.'

Like Dr. Malone and the Heritage Foundation, the Republicans indicated that the adoption of new IHR amendments at the 77th WHA would be in violation of the WHO International Health Regulations, specifically Article 55, which states, "The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration."

"As the WHO has still not provided final amendment text to member states, we submit that IHR amendments may not be considered at next month's WHA," wrote the Republican lawmakers. "Should you ignore this advice, we state in the strongest possible terms that we consider any such agreement to be a treaty requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution."

Extra to facing potential congressional pushback, the Biden administration negotiated the amendments with the foreknowledge that the U.S. might not be bound by them depending on the results of the 2024 election. After all, President Donald Trump is expected to once again move to withdraw America from the WHO.

'The final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO’s authority.'

The WHO said in a statement Saturday that the WHA and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Despite the insinuation of consent among member nations, the Sovereignty Coalition suggested that roughly 30% of member states were present and Ghebreyesus declined to conduct a roll-call vote.

The amendments ultimately adopted by 77th WHA include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth redistribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

While acknowledging that the language of the amendments was weakened during the negotiations, Liberty Counsel indicated that "the final version of the IHRs significantly enhances the WHO's authority."

The U.S. State Department claimed the amendments will "make the global health security architecture stronger overall while maintaining full respect for sovereignty of individual states."

The Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that if "approved at the WHA, the [IHR] revision does not require further Congressional approval or ratification in the U.S."

The British government indicated that each member state has the right to evaluate "each and every amendment before making a sovereign choice of whether to accept or opt out of each — or all of — the amendments."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Globalists suffer big upset in Geneva; WHO chief urges aggressive crackdown on 'global pandemic agreement' skeptics



WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and other globalists were met with failure at the May 27-June 1 World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland. Rather than win over critics with reassurances ahead of the next stage of his campaign to promote the failed scheme, Ghebreyesus instead doubled down, urging a crackdown on skeptics.

Road to failure

Ghebreyesus has spent several months promoting his "global pandemic agreement."

In his Feb. 12 Dubai address, entitled, "A Pact with the Future: Why the Pandemic Agreement Is Mission-Critical for Humanity," Ghebreyesus said, "We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies, either deliberately or unknowingly."

The critics whom Ghebreyesus branded liars and conspiracy theorists include those who reckon the pact would undermine national sovereignty as well as those skeptical of the WHO's competence. In the latter case, the WHO did itself no favors in recent years, particularly during the pandemic.

After all, the organization reportedly aided the Chinese communist regime in its cover up of COVID-19's origins; told the nations of the world not to restrict travelers from China or close their borders even though China had domestically; granted Beijing a veto over the WHO's COVID-19 origins report; and it endorsed vaccines that were not nearly as safe or as effective as advertised, including the blood clot-inducing Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine whose developer now faces a class-action lawsuit over injuries in the United Kingdom as well as a recent lawsuit in Utah. Prior to the pandemic, it also courted controversy with its sexual abuse scandal, wasteful spending, and corruption.

Evidently, it was not enough for the WHO director to demean opponents of his grand scheme to see it through.

'I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done.'

"Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly, and cross the finish line," Ghebreyesus said in his opening remarks at the 77th World Health Assembly. "I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way. I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done."

In the days that followed, the assembly failed to cross the finish line or even come close. As the result, Ghebreyesus has sought to transform the race into a marathon.

New deadline for a desired result

Desperate to keep the dream alive after two years of futile negotiations, the WHO had countries agree to continue negotiating the proposed globalist pact. A package of half-measures have apparently been accepted to tide over pandemic treaty supporters in the meantime.

The WHOsaid in a statement Saturday that the World Health Assembly and its 194 member countries "agreed [on] a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), and made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year, at the latest."

The half-measures compromise amendments to the IHR that will supposedly "strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics."

These include a new definition for "pandemic emergency"; another "equity"-driven international wealth re-distribution mechanism; the creation of a new bureaucracy to oversee the implementation of the other half-measures; and the creation of IHR authorities for member countries to "improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries."

"The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries' ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response," said Ghebreyesus. "This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor."

Clampdown on vaccine critics

After negotiators failed to produce a draft deal for approval by the WHO annual assembly, Ghebreyesus gave a speech promoting health initiatives and vaccines.

'I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating.'

Toward the end of his remarks, he noted, "You know, the serious challenge that's posed by anti-vaxxers and I think we need to strategize to really push back because vaccines work, vaccines affect adults, and we have science, evidence on our side."

"I think it's time to be more aggressive in pushing back on anti-vaxxers," continued the WHO director. "I think they use COVID as an opportunity and, you know, all the havoc they're creating. Maybe that's one of the messages I'd also like to include to whatever I have [to] say."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans fight back against central bank digital currencies



On May 23, 2024, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives struck a major blow to the implementation of central bank digital currencies, passing the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act (H.R. 5403), which prohibits the Federal Reserve from:

  • Directly issuing a CBDC without explicit approval from Congress;
  • Using a CBDC to set monetary policy;
  • Maintaining financial accounts for individuals (something failed Biden nominee Saule Omarova had proposed).

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who is chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, had this to say:

This bill is straightforward. It halts unelected bureaucrats from issuing a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, that would be detrimental to Americans’ right to financial privacy. We’ve already seen examples of governments weaponizing their financial system against their own citizens. For example, the Chinese Communist Party uses a CBDC to track spending habits of its citizens. This data is being used to create a social credit system that rewards or punishes people based on their behavior. That type of financial surveillance has no place in the United States. Concerningly, it appears the current Administration does not agree. In 2022, the White House issued an Executive Order pushing for CBDC research and development. The corresponding report responding to that Executive Order did nothing to ease those concerns. This is why the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is necessary.

The globalist Atlantic Council came out firmly against the bill in the confusingly titled editorial, “Don’t let the US become the only country to ban CBDCs”:

In fact, if this bill ever became law, the United States would be the only country in the world to have banned CBDCs. It would be a self-defeating move in the race for the future of money. It would undercut the national security role of the dollar as the decision would only accelerate other countries’ development of alternative payment systems that look to bypass the dollar in cross-border transactions. This would make US sanctions less effective.

The authors, Josh Lipsky and Anaanya Kumar, called the bill “a solution in search of a problem,” since Fed chair Jerome Powell said that he won’t implement a CBDC without congressional approval.

Now the bill must be approved by the Senate and President Biden. The Biden administration has been exploring implementing a CBDC since 2022, and given the partisan slant of the vote, it seems unlikely to succeed, but its passage in the House at least sends a message.

What is a CBDC? A quick refresher

If you’re unfamiliar with CBDCs, we encourage you to check out our CBDC explainer, but here’s a quick rundown of what they are and what they can do:

  • A CBDC is a digital currency like Bitcoin or Ethereum, but issued by a country’s central bank.
  • With a CBDC, the central bank would maintain your account balance instead of an independent regional bank.
  • A CBDC is “programmable,” giving governments and central banks more control over fiscal policy.

For example, with a CBDC, a government could issue a stimulus payment that had to be used in a certain amount of time or could only be used on certain items to reduce the chances of inflation.

The flip side is that governments could use a CBDC to track all economic activity and even control it. For instance, if a government wanted to effectively ban tobacco products without legislation, it could simply exclude them from being purchased with CBDC.

This may sound like a conspiratorial sci-fi fever dream, but it is very real, and high-level individuals at Bank of America, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Economic Forum have publicly gushed about the control CBDCs would give them. It wouldn’t be unfair to liken a CBDC to a “One Ring” of a nation’s economy.