The 'Pact for the Future' adopted by every country during UN Assembly

The United Nations’ adopted "Pact for the Future" last week, which is drawing significant backlash, particularly from U.S. lawmakers and state leaders who are raising concerns about the pact's implications for American sovereignty and its cozy relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The 66-page agreement, which outlines sweeping changes in global governance, has been labeled by critics as an attempt to centralize power under international organizations, notably the U.N., while sidelining national interests. This includes the ability to collect global taxes and eventually a global education for children, all from people unelected by us.

So it seems to me that global leaders and third world dictators are foaming at the mouth, ready for any “crisis” that would trigger the loss of sovereignty of countries like the United States and everyone would come under the leadership of the unelected UN Secretary-General of the United Nations António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres GCC GCL, a Portuguese politician and member of the Portuguese Socialist Party.

No thanks. I’d prefer to work with everyone, but keep my sovereignty and my subpar elected leaders for now. It is a good time to call your congressperson and senator and encourage them to not give away our sovereignty. I know the WHO and UN leaders say that we wouldn’t lose our sovereignty, but that doesn’t ring true. It’s still true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don’t trust it. Especially since they laid out their plan in writing.

CCP influence within the U.N. has grown steadily. Beijing has made no secret of its intentions to reshape global governance in a way that aligns with its own authoritarian model, and this pact appears to further that agenda. CCP officials, such as Foreign Minister Wang Yi, have openly celebrated their role in the development of the pact, hailing it as a framework for advancing "global governance."

Yet, U.S. lawmakers like House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX) are sounding the alarm. McCaul has voiced strong opposition to the pact, emphasizing that it does "nothing to advance U.S. interests" and instead focuses on vague left-wing priorities, like climate goals and increased public spending. While the pact is not legally binding, McCaul warns that its scope is "limitless," potentially paving the way for U.N. overreach into areas traditionally governed by national sovereignty.

A particularly troubling element of the pact is the Global Digital Compact, which aims to combat "misinformation" and "disinformation" through a global framework for internet governance. Goodbye First Amendment and free speech. While presented as a measure to protect "information integrity," it could easily morph into a tool for censorship.

The pandemic provided a clear example of how dissenting voices were silenced under the guise of combating misinformation. This raises the specter of global censorship, with platforms like YouTube and Google already working closely with international organizations to filter out content deemed contrary to the World Health Organization’s narrative, which we now know was incorrect during COVID and led to many unnecessary deaths.

The true information was censored regarding widely available, effective and inexpensive drugs that were safe for the treatment of COVID. We now know that the experimental shots have caused worldwide injuries, heart attacks, strokes and cancer. If the government wouldn’t have been trying to censor and control, frontline doctors and scientists could have saved millions of lives. Now they want to solidify their ability to censor messaging worldwide in line with whatever the WHO recommends.

The opposition to the pact is not confined to Capitol Hill. Twenty-six U.S. governors have written a letter condemning the agreement, echoing concerns about its impact on national sovereignty and decision-making. These governors fear that the pact could erode the autonomy of U.S. states and local governments by subjecting them to international mandates on issues like climate change, digital regulation, and even public health.

Furthermore, the influence with the U.N. underscores the risk of this pact becoming a tool for authoritarian regimes to exert control on a global scale. As Professor Francis Boyle, an expert in international law, noted, the U.N. Secretary-General has abrogated "dictatorial powers" to himself under the guise of responding to emergencies.

This consolidation of authority could have dire consequences for freedom and democracy worldwide, particularly as the CCP continues to expand its reach into global institutions.

The "Pact for the Future" represents a dangerous step towards global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. It is no coincidence that 26 governors have expressed their opposition, highlighting that this is not just a matter of international diplomacy but one that could affect the everyday lives of Americans.

The pact's alignment with CCP goals only heightens concerns that it could be used to undermine freedom and democracy, both at home and abroad. It is imperative that we remain vigilant and resist efforts to cede control to an international body that appears increasingly influenced by foreign, and often hostile, actors.

There are groups of people meeting and planning the response to the next “crisis” so that people will be willing to give up their freedoms willingly, as happened during COVID. Just say no.