The U.N. Is Planning To Seize Global ‘Emergency’ Powers With Biden’s Support
BY: JUSTIN HASKINS
The proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the United Nations. If approved, the United States as we know it could cease to exist.
In September 2024, less than two months before the next U.S. presidential election, the United Nations will host a landmark “Summit of the Future,” where member nations will adopt a Pact for the Future. The agreement will solidify numerous policy reforms offered by the U.N. over the past two years as part of its sweeping Our Common Agenda platform.
Although there are numerous radical proposals included in the agenda, perhaps none are more important than the U.N. plan for a new “emergency platform,” a stunning proposal to give the U.N. significant powers in the event of future “global shocks,” such as another worldwide pandemic.
Many of the details of the U.N. emergency platform were laid out in a March 2023 policy paper titled “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks — An Emergency Platform.” In the paper, the U.N. secretary-general writes, “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”
Once triggered, the emergency platform would give the U.N. the ability to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the centre of its work.” The U.N. would bring together the “stakeholders” of the world, including academics, governments, private sector actors, and “international financial institutions” to ensure there is a unified, global response to the crisis.
The emergency platform would also give the United Nations the power to “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.”
In other words, the United Nations would be given unprecedented authority over the public and private sectors of huge swaths of the world, all in the name of battling a yet unknown crisis.
It Gets Worse
As difficult as it might be to believe, the story gets even worse from here. Although the duration of the emergency platform would initially be set for a “finite period,” at “the end of that period, the Secretary-General could extend the work of an Emergency Platform if required,” according to the United Nations’ own policy proposal.
That means the secretary-general would have the authority to keep the emergency platform in place indefinitely, all without reauthorization from member nations.
What kind of “global shock” would trigger the emergency platform? The U.N. provides several possible examples in its formal proposal, including a “major climatic event,” “future pandemic risks,” a “global digital connectivity disruption,” “major event in outer space,” and, my personal favorite, “unforeseen risks, (‘black swan’ events).”
This isn’t to say that these incredibly broad categories would be the only potential justifications allowed to trigger the emergency platform. The proposal makes clear that it “would allow the convening role of the United Nations to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach and should be ‘agnostic as to the type of crisis,’ as we do not know what type of global shock we may face in the future.”
Further, “The Secretary-General would decide when to convene an Emergency Platform in response to a complex global shock.”
Or, put in simpler terms, a “global shock” is whatever the U.N.’s leadership says it is, triggered whenever the U.N. desires.
Biden Admin Supports the Proposal
The emergency platform proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the United Nations, but as shocking as it is, it pales in comparison to the Biden administration’s treatment of this extremist proposal.
Rather than assert America’s independence and sovereignty, the White House has expressed its support for the emergency platform. U.S. Ambassador Chris Lu noted in at least two March 2022 speeches that the Biden administration backs the emergency platform, along with numerous other proposals included in “Our Common Agenda.”
The emergency platform would centralize an immense amount of power and influence, giving the United Nations greater control over the lives of Americans than it has ever had before. And rather than stand up for Americans’ rights, President Biden has already agreed to sell us out.
If the emergency platform is approved, the United States as we know it could cease to exist. That sounds dire, but it’s true. We either stand for freedom now or risk everything come September 2024.
Now folks, I cannot help but see the comparison to this mess as being the same as what our country went through at the end of WWI.
At that time, the President of the US was none other than Woodrow Wilson, the father of progressivism in our country.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties/wilson-submits-treaty-of-versailles.htm
On July 10, 1919, the president of the United States, for the first time since 1789, personally delivered a treaty to the Senate. This was no ordinary treaty; it was the Treaty of Versailles, ending World War I and establishing the League of Nations (forerunner to NATO).
As Secret Service agents and Capitol Police officers sealed off the Senate wing to everyone without a special pass, President Woodrow Wilson walked into the chamber lugging the oversized document under his right arm.
Recently returned from Paris and his unprecedented self-assigned role as leader of the American negotiating team, Wilson hoped for prompt Senate approval but feared trouble from Republicans, newly restored as the chamber’s majority party.
The president’s address set his ratification campaign off to a stumbling start, as he strained to read from typewritten notes on small index cards. Perhaps suffering from the effects of a small stroke, Wilson inadvertently omitted words as he proceeded. Realizing this, he stopped and repeated the garbled sentence, only to drop more words and repeat more sentences.
So, we have a radical President, doing his own thing, speaking for our entire nation without the buy in of Congress.
Then, when he comes home to sell his plan to a Senate dominated by the opposition party, he stumbles through his speech and leaves key parts out.
Bear in mind, he has negotiated the US terms of the Treaty without the opposition party’s input. He basically just it home, dropped it in front of them, and told them to sign it.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Only near the end of his 40-minute address did Wilson approach eloquence. Setting aside his cards, the president turned to the Republican side of the chamber, where members sat in sullen hostility. He declared that treaty approval was their only option. “The stage is set, the destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God. We cannot turn back. The light streams on the path ahead, and nowhere else.” His conclusion evoked only scattered applause.
Wilson’s worsening medical condition, including a major stroke the following October, robbed him of the resiliency that had brought significant legislative victories earlier in his presidency.
Now folks, I know you think things are bad between our current President and the Republican Party but think about this. When Wilson died, the Republicans didn’t even attend the funeral!
Check this out.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties/senate-rejects-treaty-of-versailles.htm
When members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee learned of former president Woodrow Wilson’s death in 1924, they asked their chairman, Henry Cabot Lodge, to represent them at the funeral. Learning of this plan, the president’s widow sent Lodge the following note: “Realizing that your presence would be embarrassing to you and unwelcome to me, I write to request that you do not attend.”
Democrat Wilson and Republican Lodge had disliked each other for years. Among the first to earn doctoral degrees from the nation’s newly established graduate schools, each man considered himself the country’s preeminent scholar in politics and scorned the other.
The emergence of World War I intensified their rivalry. By 1918, Wilson had been president for nearly six years, while Lodge had represented Massachusetts in the Senate for a quarter century. Both considered themselves experts in international affairs. In setting policy for ending the war, Wilson, the idealist, sought a “peace without victory,” while Lodge, the realist, demanded Germany’s unconditional surrender.
When the 1918 midterm congressional elections transferred control of the Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans, Lodge became both majority leader and Foreign Relations Committee chairman. Whether Wilson liked it or not, he needed Lodge’s active support to ensure Senate approval of the Treaty of Versailles and its provision for a League of Nations on which he had staked so much of his political prestige.
Wilson chose to ignore Lodge. He offended the Senate by refusing to include senators among the negotiators accompanying him to the Paris Peace Conference and by making conference results public before discussing them with committee members.
Again, this is exactly what Biden is currently doing with the United Nations and the Emergency Powers Act.
Bear in mind, our Constitution gives the power to declare war and make treaties to Congress, NOT THE PRESIDENT!
In a flash of anger against what he considered Senate interference, Wilson denounced Lodge and his allies as “contemptible, narrow, selfish, poor little minds that never get anywhere but run around in a circle and think they are going somewhere.”
After Lodge’s committee added numerous “reservations” and amendments to the treaty, the frustrated president took his campaign to the nation. During a cross-country tour in October 1919, he suffered a physical collapse that further clouded his political judgment.
In November Lodge sent to the Senate floor a treaty with 14 reservations, but no amendments. In the face of Wilson’s continued unwillingness to negotiate, the Senate on November 19, 1919, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, REJECTED THE PEACE TREATY.
Again, the President does not have the power to make treaties. At the end of WWI, Wilson was forced to go back to Europe with his tail tucked between his legs and tell them the US had rejected the treaty and would not be signing it.
As a result. Congress passed separate Congressional resolutions with Germany and Austria-Hungary ending our participation in WWI.
Will the United Nations Emergency Powers Act become a reality? Based on our history, I would say it will never happen without a major fight between the President and Congress.
My odds favor Congress and the U.S. Constitution.