Funding Bill Camouflaging WHO Treaty | Deceitful Attempt to Enact WHO Agreement Undercover | Expect Another Secretive Endeavor if Previous Attempt Fails
Unmasking the Hidden Threats in the CR Omnibus Funding Bill: A Looming Danger for Public Health and Individual Freedoms
Step aside, folks! Here's the skinny on the CR funding bill, proposed by GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, that you need to know about. What's the connection to the WHO Treaty? And what does this mean for your health and freedom?
Let me fill you in on a little secret that most people missed—this bill would have entrenched several aspects of the WHO Treaty into American law!
Did you know that it expanded lockdown regulations for other diseases? And did you realize it reinforced and fortified rules providing vaccine manufacturers legal immunity? If you didn't, you're not alone. Now, let's take a closer look at why this bill is causing a stir and why Congress seems determined to bring it back.
So, why would several hundred pages of this temporary funding bill be focused on health policies when its purpose is simply to keep the government running until a budget is passed? This GOP-led House should be aiming for something slim and minimalistic, allowing the next Congress and the incoming Trump administration to focus more on their agendas. But no, what we have here is an overloaded mess filled with critical provisions.
Though our primary concern is the shady health policies included in the bill, it's also worth mentioning the related provision that would have backed the State Department Global Engagement Center (GEC). During COVID, the GEC worked with NGOs from other nations to promote censorship. With such a strong focus on health policy in this bill, it seems likely that continued support for the GEC is intended to permit ongoing censorship of health information.
This heavy-handed censorship has been severe, and it appears that this provision is strategically timed to offer legal cover for future censorship activities related to upcoming "plandemics," as mentioned by Peter Hotez in a recent interview[1].
Let's dive deeper into the questionable aspects of the bill. In the background of this unsettling picture, Congress tosses the bill onto the table. The bill is deceitful, with its true intent intentionally masked, particularly in regards to expanding COVID lockdown laws. For instance, consider this excerpt from page 724 of the bill:
Lines 9-15 may seem innocent and nonsensical at first glance, but the real danger lies in their broader context. By tweaking a few words and referring to other laws, the bill makes some significant changes.
The existing law, as it stands, creates a "National Health Security Strategy" and a "public health workforce" to deal with the COVID emergency. The new bill, however, turns this temporary arrangement into a permanent "public health workforce" designed to manage all future public health emergencies.
Similar examples can be found on pages 740 and 741, where 42 USC 247d-7e is amended in a seemingly confusing manner.
The original section of the law allows for prevention and response measures during a public health emergency. The new section appears to authorize broad research, including risky research, and even gain-of-function work on various virus families. These changes would grant the executive branch sweeping discretion to fund and conduct any research needed to discover cures for diseases.
While Kennedy might be on board with such expansive powers, this kind of open-ended discretion raises ethical concerns, especially when you consider the failures of the last four years in the hands of a corrupt executive.
It's troubling that the Republican-led House would propose such a destructive bill. It threatens our freedoms, opens the door for the implementation of the WHO treaty during the next emergency, and reduces Kennedy's ability to address numerous healthcare issues.
Remember, they tried to sneak it through once—and if history repeats itself, we must remain vigilant[2].
[1] Hotez, P., Murray, T. (2024). Interview with Tom Renz: New Pandemics on the Horizon[interview transcript]. [accessed 2025 March 15].
[2] renovateamerica.org. (2025). Tracking Legislation: The CR Omnibus Funding Bill. [accessed 2025 March 15].
[Source] [Edited]
Original Article: https://joehoft.com/tom-renz-the-omnibus-cr-funding-bill-the-who-treaty-in-disguise/
[Enrichment Data]
Overall:
The search results do not directly address the significance of the Omnibus Continuing Resolution (CR) funding bill in relation to the World Health Organization (WHO) Treaty, public health, and individual freedoms. However, I can provide some general insights into how such budgetary measures and international agreements might intersect with these areas.
Public Health Funding:
Continuing resolutions and omnibus bills often include funding for public health programs, which can impact how effectively governments respond to health crises. For instance, the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations include significant funding for health-related programs, such as the State Opioid Response Grants[2]. These funds can support initiatives aimed at addressing public health issues, potentially enhancing overall health outcomes.
Individual Freedoms:
The intersection of public health measures and individual freedoms can be complex. Laws and policies that aim to protect public health sometimes require balancing individual rights with collective health needs. For example, measures to control the spread of diseases might involve restrictions on movement or gatherings, which can raise questions about individual freedoms.
International Agreements:
The WHO Treaty or similar agreements aim to promote global health cooperation. These treaties often focus on coordinating health policies, which can involve sharing data, coordinating responses to pandemics, and promoting health standards across countries. Such agreements might influence how countries allocate their public health budgets and implement health policies.
Public Health Coordination and Sovereignty:
International health agreements can enhance public health by facilitating global coordination and resource sharing. However, they might also raise concerns about national sovereignty and individual freedoms if they lead to standardized health policies that limit local autonomy. The potential impact of such agreements on public health, individual freedoms, and national sovereignty is a complex issue that involves careful consideration of multiple factors.
- The CR Omnibus Funding Bill, as proposed by GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, has sparked controversy due to its potential implications for public health and individual freedoms, as it could entrench aspects of the World Health Organization Treaty into American law.
- One of the controversial aspects of the bill is its expansion of lockdown regulations for other diseases, a move that has raised concerns about the restriction of health and personal freedoms.
- The bill also reinforces and fortifies rules providing vaccine manufacturers legal immunity, a point of contention in the medical-conditions and health-and-wellness community.
- The bill's focus on policy and legislation in the areas of health and science, particularly during a 'plandemic' as mentioned by Peter Hotez, has raised concerns about future censorship of health information.
- The bill's provision supporting the State Department Global Engagement Center (GEC) has drawn attention due to its history of working with NGOs for censorship, which could potentially continue if the bill is passed, especially in the realm of general news and truth.
