Here Come the Black Helicopters!

There is a genuine and growing threat to our freedom and autonomy as a nation.

Here’s why: The folks at the United Nations and their globalist allies in the United States are determined to take away our national sovereignty. They don’t want us to be an independent United States of America—they want us to be just one of the many members of a United States of the World. And they want us to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not just of the United States.

Make no mistake about it: They are deadly serious about this misguided proposition and they’re working night and day to make sure it happens.

Why? Because they think that our existing democratic system is outdated and obsolete in this modern globalized world. They want to replace it with what they believe is a more relevant and all-encompassing worldwide system for governing under the auspices of the United Nations. One that dilutes and negates the power of the United States of America. One that makes each country an equal, regardless of their productivity, population, or economic strength. Under their proposals Monaco, St. Kitts, and the United States would have equal voting power. The Lilliputians will rule the giants.

That’s their goal.

They call it “global governance.”

We call it the end of freedom. The day when the virtual black helicopters land.

And, believe us, in this case, they are out to create an alternate source of governance—one that we cannot control and one that is meant to homogenize the United States.

So, watch out, the black helicopters are metaphorically on the way.

Where did the name come from?

Well, decades ago, groups opposed to intrusive government actions and those who feared an attempt to create a new world order—with a global government—complained of surveillance by black helicopters, particularly in the western United States. Many of them feared that UN personnel were piloting the helicopters.

In the 1990s, Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) held hearings about the alleged use of black helicopters by the federal Fish & Wildlife Bureau to harass farmers and ranchers in her state. Apparently she was on to something. The Environmental Protection Agency recently admitted that it sanctions unannounced aerial surveillance “fly-overs” in order to monitor compliance with the Clean Water Act in the West.¹

So now the phrase “black helicopter crowd” is used to paint as crackpots anyone who fears government intrusion and usurpation of our national government to a global entity.

The phrase is a favorite propaganda tool of some prominent liberals who use it whenever they want to mock conservatives.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 24, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taunted opponents of the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty (one of the top agenda items for the globalists): “[Clinton] chided critics who object to the US joining any UN treaty saying, ‘Of course, that means the black helicopters are on their way,’ a reference to conspiracy theories about a world government.”²

Ironically, Clinton’s sarcastic remarks were strikingly close to the truth about what is actually happening in the world—with one big exception. There’s no secret conspiracy to emasculate the US government and replace its power to govern and regulate with the United Nations and/or independent international commissions.

No, the intention to implement this brazen anti-American coup d’état is way out in the open—right in front of our noses. All we need to do is connect the dots.

And that’s what this book will do. We’ll discuss in detail exactly what moves are under way to lead us to global governance.

And it’s not just Hillary who pejoratively refers to the opponents of “one world government.” The New York Times recently used the term “black helicopter crowd” in a headline. On July 11, 2012, Eric Pfanner of the New York Times wrote an article titled “The Black Helicopter crowd among American geeks has it wrong!” He began his article with “This just in from Geneva: The United Nations has no plans to seize control of the internet. The Web-snatching black helicopters have not left the hangar.”³

But it turns out that it wasn’t the black helicopter crowd who got it wrong—it was the New York Times reporter, as we’ll document below.

This book will expose the well-formulated scheme to achieve global governance, the plans to emasculate the United States.

The leftists, globalists, and radical environmentalists who advocate this new political alignment deny that they are trying to establish an international government. According to them, their utopian system for planetary decision making is most definitely not a plan for a “one-world government”—it’s just a plan for global “governance by many agencies and commissions on many issues.” Is there really any difference? They also claim that global governance is definitely not meant to supersede nation-states or infringe on national sovereignty.

Don’t believe them. Not for a minute. Just take a look at what they actually endorse. In 1995, the United Nations’ Commission on Global Governance published its final report, titled Our Global Neighborhood.⁴ This frightening document recommends, among other things:

• Establishing an Economic Security Council to oversee worldwide economies

• Authorizing the United Nations and its agencies to impose global taxes

• Instituting a UN army

• Terminating the veto power of the permanent members of the UN (which, of course, includes the US)

• Creating an International Criminal Court

• Creating a new body of the UN for “civil society,” where advocates for the environment, population control, etc., can play a role in policy making

• Placing the authority for regulating the production and distribution of arms in the UN (gun control by another name)

• Granting mandatory jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice for all members. (The US had not accepted this.)

• Ceding jurisdiction over the global commons, such as oceans, space, and the environment, to the Trusteeship Council

Do those sound like the activities of a body that is not trying to institute a global government? The power to tax (in this case without representation) as well as to legislate, regulate, and enforce looks strikingly like the powers usually granted to a government. In the United States, we convey those powers to our national government with the understanding that they will be exercised within the framework of our Constitution by public officials elected by and accountable to our citizens.

Global governance will simply create a government body (or bodies), with no democratic underpinnings, run by bureaucrats with no accountability to anyone. That’s what they want.

Geographic countries will no longer be important. They see the notion of governing based on sovereign territory or land as old-fashioned, even quaint. As the commission said:

Apparently, we need to learn just how irrelevant our national boundaries and national government really are, because they seem to envision that we will have to be taught to “acknowledge responsibility” to something beyond our existing government and political institutions.

And as for infringing on national sovereignty, Maurice Strong, an avid socialist except when capitalism benefits him personally,⁶ was one of the members of the Commission on Global Governance. Here’s what he had this to say about that:

Does that sound like a statement in support of maintaining independent national governments? Hardly. Not if you know how to read. Consider this: “In certain areas sovereignty needs to be exercised collectively.” That seems to be the ultimate oxymoron. Collective sovereignty? It can’t exist. (Except in United Nations–speak.) A sovereign nation exerts its own power. It is the opposite of a collective government. And that is why they want to stop the United States from functioning as a free nation.

We need to keep these folks out of our business and out of our national neighborhood. We must stop them. Because we have no intention of subjecting ourselves to their socialist nanny state. They are still pushing for the very same proposals they made in 1995—and even more.

This is not a proposal by a bunch of fringe liberals. This is a well-organized international movement, to change the world, to minimize the importance of our country, and to regulate our personal behavior, which has been growing over the past twenty years.

And, unfortunately, the Obama administration is among its allies.

The Europeans have long supported the concept of giving up sovereignty. That’s what the European Union is all about. And they’ve also been supportive of global governance. On November 20, 2000, in a speech at The Hague, then French president Jacques Chirac gave a seminal speech celebrating the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol as the first step toward global governance.

In a speech at Oxford, England, in 2009, former vice president and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore told his audience that he brought good news from America—that the passage of cap-and-trade legislation and the awareness of it “will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements.”⁹

There are other buzzwords for global governance. Bill Clinton calls it “interdependence.” Through his William J. Clinton Foundation, he supports global governance under the rubric of interdependence and spends more than $100 million each year to promote this euphemism for global governance.

Some well-known liberal supporters believe that the fight is over, that some form of global governance is inevitable.

Strobe Talbott, former Clinton administration undersecretary of state and head of the Brookings Institution, insists that “individual states will increasingly see it in their interest to form an international system that is far more cohesive, far more empowered by its members, and therefore far more effective than the one we have today.”¹⁰

America to Strobe: Some of us actually believe that our current system of democratic government with its guaranteed freedoms and liberty is far more effective than anything you and the United Nations can dream up. Maybe it’s time for you to go back to your ivory tower and read our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

And noted economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a staunch believer in the need for cooperative global action, has predicted that “[t]he very idea of competing nation-states that scramble for markets, power and resources will become passé.”¹¹

Passé? Competing nation-states will become passé? Some people seriously doubt that, Professor.

So what exactly is global governance?

Global governance is nothing less than a massive and audacious power grab by the United Nations, an attempt to redefine the world order. But, unfortunately, it’s not just our power that they’re after—they want to take our wealth, our assets, and our technology, too! And they intend to take them and redistribute them to the poorer, less successful countries of the world.

They think that we owe it to them.

And that’s not all. They want to control our land-use planning and our consumption of food and energy. That’s because we’re the cause of all of the planet’s environmental problems.

They have big plans for how they are going to change our ways. Here’s what Maurice Strong, the socialist architect and primary advocate of this new global governance doctrine, and who is considered to be the “godfather”¹² of the modern environmental movement, told the opening session of the Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992 about his view of what we have to change:

For the past forty years, Strong, a former undersecretary-general of the UN, has been at the epicenter of just about every conference, commission, meeting, and agenda that has proposed and advocated population control, global governance, and radical environmentalism. He was a member of the Club of Rome, he represented Canada on the Commission for Global Growth, and he was the secretary-general of both the Stockholm and Rio environmental conferences, and was the first director of the United Nations Environmental Programme. Strong was the leading force behind the Kyoto Protocol, and, along with Mikhail Gorbochev, he co-authored The Earth Charter, a controversial document that was criticized as the blueprint for one-world socialism. (The charter expanded the rights of man and included the rights of others on the planet, such as rivers and mountains.) His distinguished career at the UN ended in a most undistinguished way in 1997. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Strong left the UN and spends most of his time in China, where he advises the Chinese government, teaches at Chinese universities, and advises Chinese businesses. In 1995, at the time the allegations against Strong were made, he was a United Nations Special Envoy to South Korea. According to the New York Times, Strong “stepped aside from his post… because of past associations with Mr. Park.” His contract wasn’t renewed.¹⁵

He lives in Beijing. Strong is a favorite of the Chinese. He was instrumental in drafting and negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, which excluded China (and India) from the carbon-reduction requirements. Recently, the Chinese paid for him to attend the Rio+20 Conference.

Maurice Strong is one of the pilots on the imaginary black helicopters. If he had his way, they’d be landing at this moment.

And, by the way, in the above quote Strong was talking about us—Americans—and he obviously doesn’t approve of how we live. So Strong and his cohorts want us to move out of rural areas, clear out of the suburbs, stop driving cars, and stop using appliances! They want to control how we live, what we eat, how we use our property.

In short, they want to emasculate our ability to self-govern and, instead, impose an international rule of law that is designed to operate against our national interests, violate our democratic ideals and history, and make us subservient to the radical socialist policies of the United Nations and its agencies.

An international law that will find no subject, no issue, no practice too unimportant to focus on. These are not just big-picture folks; they are small-picture folks, too. They want to regulate and control our every action. So, in addition to their major political agenda, they also want to zero in on personal behavior. Think of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on the use of salt in restaurants and his proposal to prohibit the sale of large-size sodas. That’s the kind of thing they want to regulate on a global basis.

And, unfortunately, these lofty goals for a one-world governance are not just idealistic daydreams. To the contrary, they are part of a carefully designed blueprint for changing the world order and changing the way we think, live, work, and make policy decisions.

Because they can’t tolerate the United States as a free and democratic country. We won’t conform to their crazy agenda.

They can’t tolerate individual freedom. It’s too unruly.

That’s why their goal is to obliterate the United States of America as we know it—to turn our democracy on its head, and impose a government—or governance—that regulates our every private and personal action.

There’s no question about it: They don’t want the United States to be an independent, influential, successful—and, yes, powerful—nation that makes its own decisions. Instead, they want us to be part of a “global governance” where we are just one of the many other countries in the world—and just one of the many votes. A global governance that is anti-American.

Here’s more from Maurice Strong, about the long-term fate of national sovereignty:

Not feasible? It is “not feasible” for countries to exercise their sovereign power to regulate their own country—when it comes to the environment or the many other “fields” that Strong and his comrades identify?

Really?

What is not feasible about the ability of the United States of America to legislate, regulate, and enforce its own environmental laws? (We’re taking some liberties here—and assuming that the “however powerful” was a direct reference to the United States.)

Of course, it’s feasible.

The only thing that’s not feasible about it is that the United States would adapt the radical confiscatory and punitive policies that Strong and his sidekicks recommend.

The only thing that’s not feasible is that we would ignore our constitutional protections for private property and individual liberty.

That’s what’s not feasible.

And that’s why the globalists at the United Nations want to take the power to govern our own country on environmental and other issues.

Because it’s not feasible that we will adopt the crazy policies that they want.

And it’s also not feasible that we will change our system of government to accommodate them.

That’s why our existence is such a threat—because we refuse to conform to their view of the world and they cannot stand that.

Global governance is a menace to our nation’s liberty, democracy, and sovereignty. Although the ongoing attempts to formalize global governance have heightened recently, the mainstream media has paid little or no attention to what is unfolding. Because of that, this scary scheme is advancing in stealth. Perhaps the media have not connected the dots. This massive power grab by the United Nations is scarcely attracting any comment, much less any opposition. Yet the threat is imminent and immediate.

This book will connect the dots. It will spell out the carefully choreographed plan to empower the unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable United Nations as the director of the new global governance.

The blueprint for this was drawn many years ago and it is only recently that the socialists’ dream has come close to fruition.

For all of us, it is urgent that we act now.

Before it’s too late.

Because, right now, right in front of us, there is a frightening worldwide movement—spearheaded by liberals, socialists, globalists, and radical environmentalists. They want to dominate us globally by seriously limiting our freedom, forcibly changing our lifestyles, emasculating our democratic institutions, redistributing our wealth, assets, and technology to poorer countries, and subjecting us to an international rule of law imposed by the United Nations.

A rule of law that will be directed by faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats.

A rule of law that is antithetical to our representative system of government.

A rule of law that is based on a socialist philosophy.

A rule of law that stems from an anti-American bias.

A rule of law that we cannot tolerate.

In short, these globalists and socialists want to reorganize the world into an easily managed and cohesive group of nations who willingly cede their sovereignty to a series of international organizations associated with the United Nations. That is exactly what they intend to do.

And it’s just around the corner. So is the end of freedom if they succeed.

Global governance, at its core, is a process of decision making that is intended to systematically undermine the sovereignty and authority of productive and successful nations like the United States and Japan. That’s what it’s all about.

The central organizing tool for the imposition of one-world global governance has been the worldwide environmental movement to overcome the assumed dangers of climate change.

Whether you subscribe to the existence of global warming and the need to protect the planet is not relevant to this threat. Nor is the issue of whether climate change is man-made. Those are not the issues today. What is the issue is that, since its inception, many of the most important leaders of the planetary global warming movement have capitalized on widespread fear of the consequences of global warming (fears that, for the most part, were created by them) to systematically and aggressively advance their goal of global governance and scare people into believing their new international system is the only hope for the future of the planet.

Advancing in the name of environmentalism, social justice, and sustainability, the globalists and socialists—who run the United Nations—are proceeding apace with their far-reaching game plan to end national sovereignty and subsume all nations under global governance. Focusing on what they have identified as “planetary” environmental problems, such as climate change and ocean acidification, they are determined to implement an agenda of socialist central planning to curb the power of democratic electorates and the sovereignty of nation-states, and force them into a global regulatory scheme.

Their stated goals are to reverse climate change, reduce carbon emissions, increase living standards in the impoverished Southern Hemisphere, and make development sustainable in an era of limited and diminishing natural resources.

But it’s a mask.

However much the globalists believe in environmental reforms, their real goal is to establish a one-world government—dominated by self-selected elites—that will preempt nations and their electorates and force them to abide by regulations promulgated by rulers over whom they have no say or control. Just as Karl Marx called for a global government of the working class, so they want one of economists, social scientists, environmentalists, and other self-chosen quasi-academic elites. Just as Marx used the poverty of the labor force in nineteenth-century capitalism as his touchstone in formulating his plans, so they use the supposed threats to the global environment as theirs.

Broadly, there are two political philosophy camps in the world: those who believe in free markets and individual liberty and those who believe in central planning and dictation from above. The believers in freedom root their conviction that free people, free markets, and free competition will steer the world in the right direction, with public education substituting for central planning and direction. To the freedom advocates, it is through economic and political freedom that progress is possible. To the top-down globalists and planners, it is an impediment that gets in the way of wiser heads directing the planet.

The apostle of economic and political liberty, Friedrich Hayek, described in his famous work, The Road to Serfdom, at the end of World War II a dichotomy in which he lumped communism, socialism, fascism, and Nazism together as the opponents of liberal democratic freedom. His contrast between planning and competition, centralization and freedom, were valid then and are even more so today.

As Hayek put it, “We have seen before how the separation of economic and political aims is an essential guarantee of individual freedom and how it is consequently attacked by all collectivists. To this we must now add the ‘substitution of political for economic power’ now so often demanded means necessarily the substitution of power from which there is no escape for power which is always limited.”¹⁷

Hayek was prescient in foreseeing the result of collectivism, planning, and total political power: “What is called economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power, it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.”¹⁸

Hayek predicted that the forces of tyranny would advance by wrapping their lust for power in a sacred cause. Citing the requisites of that objective, they would insist that all conform to their plans to advance it, overriding individual choice and market economics.

This is exactly what has happened in the global governance movement. The push for a one-world order has been wrapped around saving the planet from the effects of global warming.

To some, the objective of central planning was national honor and military victory. Others, justified totalitarian rule by saying it aimed for the global victory of the working class (but it became increasingly evident that the objectives were traditional imperialism and the expansion of national power).

The modern-day globalists and greens use the cause of reversing climate change and “saving” our planetary environment as their justification for global planning and control.

But their objective, too, is quite clear: global control and power. And just like their forebears, their real enemy is not climate change or carbon emissions but the liberal, free market democracies and the rule of sovereign electorates. Like them, they must organize all in the name of their cause to make democratic rule irrelevant and obsolete.

Hayek specifically warns about such prophets:

Hayek’s description fits today’s radical environmentalists to a T. Obsessed by their conviction that the planet is coming to an end, they insist that all nations, states, localities, communities, families, and people submit to a discipline they would impose on every aspect of their lives in order to save us from destruction. But what they end up doing is canceling out both free will for the individual and democratic determination of policies for the nation. Only their fetish has priority. Nothing else matters. All must fall in line behind their plan for the world.

Our modern-day globalists/socialists/radical environmentalists have laid out a program of worldwide change to achieve “sustainability.” By that they mean an end to the man-made causes of global climate change on the one hand and a transfer of wealth from developed to developing nations on the other. By linking the two causes, they try to enlist the support of the green enthusiasts in rich countries and the backing of the autocracies and dictatorships that dominate the third world.

The organizing path that followed was revealed in 1991 in The First Global Revolution, published by the Club of Rome. Among the Club’s notable members are many of the world’s foremost leaders, including David Rockefeller, former president Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the king of Spain Juan Carlos, former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, former Brazilian president Fernando Enrique Cardozo, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, and Maurice Strong.²⁰

The Club, founded in 1968, describes itself as “an informal association of independent leading personalities from politics, business and science… [who] share a common concern for the future of humanity and the planet.”²¹ That’s an understatement.

In 1972, the Club published The Limits of Growth, a provocative book that painted a drastic picture of the inability of the planet to sustain itself unless the world population was seriously curtailed and natural resources preserved. Based on computer models of the future, the book caught the attention of the world, selling more than 12 million copies, and marked the beginning of the international focus on the need to protect the environment.

It also scared people to death with its message of gloom and doom and the end of the planet. In retrospect, that was the plan—to frighten people about the need for population control and the shepherding of resources so that global governance could emerge.

In The First Global Revolution, the authors presented a clear, unabashed outline of the globalist/socialist/radical environmentalist game plan to end free markets and replace democracy by hyping—and inventing—environmental concerns. It was in this book that the authors articulated the strategic need to create a common enemy to unite diverse peoples behind a worldwide cause.

They concluded that we need common enemies to motivate us to make big changes: “a common adversary, to organize and act together… such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy….”²²

This enemy need not be real, the authors postulate. It can be “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…. This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.”²³

Then they report—as if a lightbulb went off in their minds—that they have reached a consensus on what the new enemy is to be: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”²⁴

This was the beginning of the use of the movement for climate change to achieve global governance.

It’s worth noting that the character of the Club of Rome, its members, and its work on global governance practically invites speculation about conspiracy theories. It presents all the elements of a Robert Ludlum book or a James Bond movie. All that’s missing is the white cat from the James Bond movies. Consider this: The Club was founded at a villa outside Rome, purportedly owned by David Rockefeller, one of its original members. His father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., donated the land where the United Nations sits in New York City. David, the billionaire banker, philanthropist, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and founder of the Trilateral Commission, was a longtime advocate of global governance, as he discloses in his memoirs:

Rockefeller’s friendship with Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev, Maurice Strong, and other globalists, as well as his well-documented support for a one-world order, led to rampant conspiracy theories about the group and its work.

Because the Club of Rome was certainly proposing global governance. Alas, according to The First Global Revolution, the requisites of the moment will force us to discard the old-fashioned notion of democracy and consent of the governed: “The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation.”

Our new would-be rulers note that “democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.”

These people are serious. They do not want a United States of America and its democratic form of government. To them, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people fails their test: “Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”²⁶

Fundamental to this worldview is the elevation of the bureaucrat, the planner, and the expert over the free market entrepreneur in search of profit. The expert who never sees, never speaks to, and doesn’t care about the electorate. Hayek notes that this hierarchy has characterized European thinking for centuries. He writes of the

Elsewhere in The Global Revolution, the Club makes explicit its manipulation of environmentalism to achieve its purposes: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fill the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.”

The advocates of global governance want to get rid of democratic governments with national elections. Once again, here’s Mr. Strong with his view of what we need: “Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.”²⁸

Apparently decisions that are made by representative governments are not really decisions. Only decisions made by a global consensus without any accountability are valid.

That’s what we are up against.

Because it is rooted in the radical environmental movement, and because of its socialist origins, one of the key goals of the planned global governance is the worldwide redistribution of wealth, assets, and technology from rich countries to poor countries. Part of that is about reparation, the demand that we pay for our dual sins of pollution and consumption. Part of it is simply a manifestation of the socialist ideology that social ownership of the assets and resources of the planet is a necessity for a global economy. So, although we produce 25 percent of the world’s wealth, they want to decide just how much of that they’ll let us keep.

The movement to consolidate national sovereignty into global governance began—in the modern era—in the late 1960s with the founding of the Club of Rome, but it has been a constant and growing obsession of the left ever since.

Inherent in it is a desire to get the power to tax our wealth. However they rationalize their scheme, it still comes down to this: They want our money. They want our assets. They want the ability to tax us. They want us to give them our technology, developed by our creative entrepreneurs, often with government investments.

On Thursday, July 5, 2012—the day after our celebration of national independence—the UN called for a global tax on billionaires, intended to raise more than $400 billion a year for the world’s poor countries. The proposal would tax 1,226 billionaires to raise the money (425 of whom live in the US). The tax proposal is coupled with four other proposed global taxes—each imposed by the UN:

• [A] tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.

• [A] tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.

• [T]aking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.²⁹

It also suggests expanding a levy on air tickets that a number of nations already impose to raise money for drugs for poor states through UNITAID, a UN initiative.

In its extreme, global governance also wants to eventually eliminate national elections, especially in the United States. They see the concept of popular elections as an unnecessary evil, which often leads to elected officials actually responding to the demands of their constituents. Imagine that! Some would call that the hallmark of democracy. This quote from Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs indicates just how naive and nutty these folks can be: “The prevailing unilateralism of the United States will seem for many people to be an inevitable feature of world politics in which politicians are voted in or out of office by their own populations rather than by a global electorate.”³⁰

While this is undoubtedly the view of the global governance crowd, most of them are afraid to say just how far they want to go to destroy our political system.

It’s hard to understand exactly what Professor Sachs is really saying. Is he proposing that politicians in the United States should be elected by a global electorate? That seems too far-fetched for even the global governance zealots. More likely he is suggesting that we elect a worldwide government that is not answerable to us.

Think about it: A global governance would eliminate the troublesome dictates of the US Constitution, as well as unruly citizen participation and dialogue. It would stymie the ability of duly elected American officials to determine our policies, and would tax us without representation.

The plan essentially calls for a dumbing down of America and a leveling of American influence and ideology.

How will these goals be realized?

By enforcing obscure treaties that bind us to outrageous mandates without the participation of Congress and without the consent of our people. (We’ll discuss this in detail below.)

By international conferences with implementing agendas—like the Rio environmental conferences—and signed agreements that often include criminal sanctions.

By imposing international taxes without our consent.

The idealized concept of one-world government has been kicking around for a long time. Its genesis is deeply imbedded in socialist principles. Currently disguised in contemporary United Nations globalspeak, it relies on “sustainability” as the unifying theme.

Sustainability purportedly means that planetary growth and development must only advance if it does not impair the sustainability of the planet. But sustainability is really just a buzzword for a massive redistribution of wealth from democracies like the United States—where hardworking people are productive and build assets—to third world countries whose leaders are often corrupt dictators who ignore the dire conditions of their fellow countrymen, who often neither work nor produce.

Recently, there has been a frenetic push by the “international community” to make this unwise and undemocratic policy come true.

Even the Vatican has weighed in, recently calling for a one-world government: “Globalization, despite some of its negative aspects, is unifying peoples more and prompting them to move towards a new ‘rule of law’ on the supranational level, supported by a more intense and fruitful collaboration.”³¹

This view of the need for a “supranational” level of government is, unfortunately, shared by many. These are the people and organizations who want us to surrender our national identity, change our lifestyles, provide reparations for what they view as our excesses, and surrender to a new order of international institutions that will tell us what to do, when to do it, and how much to pay for it.

How will they be able to transfer our wealth? By imposing mandatory foreign aid to underdeveloped countries and by enacting international taxes aimed at the United States, including carbon taxes, airline taxes, and Internet taxes. And we’ll have no way to stop them.

And that’s not all. They also want to require us to hand over our technology—our valuable intellectual property—to countries who don’t have either the brain power or the financial resources to develop their own.

All of this is called social justice. More like economic injustice.

They want to take major decision making away from the Congress and Executive Branch and replace it, instead, with a one-world governing system.

And the Obama administration is helping them do it by rushing through a series of treaties that will transfer sovereign power and control to global agencies.

Barack Obama believes in it. Think about it: We have a president who goes to the United Nations to ask for permission to bring a military action in Libya, but claims that he isn’t required to seek the approval of the United States Congress under the War Powers Act—even when his own Department of Justice advises him that he is required to do so.

There’s no doubt about it: President Obama embraces the one-world global view. So does his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

Obama showed his hand even before he was president. On July 24, 2008, then–US senator Barack Obama spoke to the largest crowd of the presidential campaign in Berlin, Germany. More than two hundred thousand people thronged into the park in front of the site where the Berlin Wall, separating East and West Germany, communism and freedom, had once stood. All were anxious to hear the young senator who was stirring the American electorate and who might be an antidote to President George W. Bush, who was detested by Europeans.

The spectators got what they came for. Obama talked the talk, walked the walk. He spoke their language. Playing to the crowd, he told them that he came to Berlin not as a presidential candidate, but as a “citizen of the world.” His rhetoric soared as he repeatedly spoke of “global cooperation,” “global partnership,” “global commitment,” and the “burden of global citizenship”… that continue[s] to bind us together.”³²

“I speak as a citizen of the world,” he told the crowd.³³

Those few words, emphasizing Obama’s obvious embrace of globalism and global governance over nationalism, foretold his vision of a new world order. In this new paradigm, America is just one part of a worldwide decision-making process, instead of an independent—and, yes, nationalistic—country with historic political and cultural roots set deep in democracy that are often at odds with some of the rest of the world, including Europe.

This book is a wake-up call to all Americans who value our democratic traditions and culture, who still believe in the fundamental tenets of liberty and freedom that are the cornerstones of our great nation, and who applaud the uniqueness of America.

WHY GLOBAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY AMERICANS

David Brooks of the New York Times cited five reasons why Americans will never accept what he calls the “vaporous global-governance notion.”³⁴

David Brooks is right, but there’s more. As a nation of states, it took us a long time to become a cohesive nation, trustful of all our fellow citizens. Indeed, before the American people came to trust one another fully in sharing our national sovereignty, we went through a cleansing process from 1861 to 1865—the American Civil War. As Abraham Lincoln famously said, we could no longer exist “half slave and half free.” He quoted the biblical prophecy that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

The states of the North—led by the unerring moral compass of the abolitionists—rejected the idea that they would have to share their country with slaveholders and the vast, feudal, class-conscious estates they ruled. The “slave power” became the enemy of the North and people of conscience were determined to purge it from America.

And they did.

As with the United Nations’ General Assembly, the slave power perpetuated its rule through the principle of one-state, one-vote in the US Senate. Southern defenders of slavery made sure that the number of free and slave states were equal so that they would not be outvoted in the Senate (increased population growth in the North made the House of Representatives an increasingly antislavery institution). Whenever a free state was admitted to the Union, for example Maine in 1820, a slave state (in 1820, Missouri) would be let in to offset it. When the Supreme Court ruled—in the Dred Scott decision of 1857—that Congress could not bar slavery in any territory, it led directly to the Civil War. The North would not subsist in a nation that permanently tolerated the spread of slavery.

Even in modern times, the civil rights movement fought to extirpate racial segregation from the southern states, eventually bringing them into conformity with the racial integration (sort of) practiced in the North.

Don’t we have a similar duty? Mustn’t we make sure that we are entering a world of free nations based on the rule of law, integrity, and respect for human rights that we fought so hard for before we sign away our sovereignty? That is not to say that we should undertake any global crusade to liberate and improve the world. But it is to say that we should look before we leap and check out to what kind of countries we are ceding our sovereignty.

Do we want to be in a global ruling partnership with Russia, China, or a collection of tiny, lightly populated, third world autocracies, riddled with corruption and dedicated to the enrichment of their leaders? These are not the kind of bedfellows we want in our government. They are not worthy of entrusting our sovereignty to them.

And we will not accept them.

Join us in this urgent fight to maintain our sovereignty and stop the forces of global governance.

But, if you do, be prepared to be identified as one of the “black helicopter crowd.”

You’ll be in good company.

TREATIES: HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO UNDERMINE OUR SOVEREIGNTY

UN treaties are a favorite way of circumventing our national government and transferring our power, control, and resources to a new global entity. And the Obama administration is determined to destroy the very essence of our national sovereignty and transfer power from our elected Congress to the UN General Assembly—a body filled with corrupt, undemocratic, tyrannical nations that abuse human rights and do not share our values.

If Barack Obama is reelected in November 2012, his agenda for global governance through the United Nations will pick up steam. But even if he is defeated—or especially if he is defeated—he and his outgoing secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are planning to use his remaining months in office to sign a series of treaties and international protocols that will bind our country for decades to come. We need to remember one fundamental but little known fact: Any treaty signed by the US but not yet ratified by the Senate is binding on our country—as if it had been ratified—until it is either rejected by the Senate or renounced by the president. This requirement—embedded in the Vienna Convention signed and ratified by the US—means that these treaties might come into force and effect even if we never ratify them.

Frank Gaffney, who was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and currently heads the Center for Security Policy, explains the curious fact that we are bound by treaties even if we don’t ratify them. “The Vienna Convention governing the status of treaties—to which we are a party—requires states that sign a treaty to refrain from any actions that undermine the treaty pending ratification until such time as a formal renunciation of the treaty is made. In practice, this is done by the State Department. This translates into actual compliance with the treaty including often paying the dues we would be obliged to pay once we are parties [to the treaty after ratification].”³⁶

Because of the Vienna Convention, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid need not bring these treaties up for ratification if he feels he lacks the votes to pass them. Then, if the Democrats keep the Senate and Obama is reelected, these treaties will remain in force throughout his second term—never voted down (or up) by the Senate or renounced by the president. Our only remedy then, will be to defeat Obama and/or capture the Senate.

Nevertheless, Obama and Hillary Clinton are very anxious to get as many of these treaties as possible ratified in the lame duck session of Congress, after November but before the results of the 2012 election come into play. Even though some of these treaties have been kicking around for thirty years, they know that this might be their last chance to put into place key elements of their global governance plan.

One other reason that the treaties have become such a high priority is that Senator John Kerry chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is trying out for the position of next secretary of state. He is anxious to show how he can deliver the left’s agenda.

But Obama need not rely on the Vienna Convention since some of these treaties might get through in the lame-duck session of Congress that will meet after the election results are in. Even if the Republicans take control of the Senate, it won’t matter at all because it will be the outgoing, defeated Democratic senators who will vote on these treaties. Immunized by their defeats from public pressure—and possibly embittered by their losses—they will willingly vote to hogtie the United States and approve the massive grant of sovereignty to the United Nations.

Obama and Clinton are feverishly negotiating treaties—with very little public attention—and lining up votes for Senate ratification of numerous treaties.

Once these treaties are passed, they are the law of the United States forever.

That’s why we need to stop them.

Laws can be repealed, but treaties cannot. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution characterizes all treaties as “the supreme law of the land” akin to constitutional provisions. Treaties supersede acts of Congress or of the various state legislatures and American courts are required to enforce these treaties in most instances. There are only two ways to get out of a treaty: (1) if the other signatories let us (all 190 nations that sign them in most cases) or (2) by passing a constitutional amendment.

The treaties Obama and Hillary are rushing to completion will permanently cede vast swaths of our national sovereignty to the UN.

We wrote briefly about these treaties in “Tricks or Treaties,” chapter 2 of our previous book, Screwed!. But since that book’s publication in early May 2012, these threats to our freedom have multiplied and gained momentum even as brand new threats—as that to Internet freedom—have come into public view. So we write this volume to explain the assault against our values and our nationhood so we can act to preserve our country from these threats while there is still time.

Here’s what Obama and Hillary are trying to do:

Signed by the president. Up for Senate ratification before the end of the year, it would:

• Give the UN control of the 71 percent of the earth’s surface covered by oceans and seas and all minerals and fish underneath.

• It would likely subject the US to international rules on carbon emissions such as the Kyoto Treaty (never ratified by the Senate) and might be used to force us into a global cap-and-trade system.

• It would curb the ability of the US Navy to perform its historic mission of protecting freedom of the seas and vest the power in a tribunal appointed by the UN secretary-general.

• Give the International Seabed Authority—a group of 193 nations in which we would have but one vote—the power to tax offshore oil and gas wells and pay the revenues, at their discretion, to any third world nation it chooses.

• Oblige our oil and gas companies to share, for free, all of our most modern offshore drilling technology.

A treaty giving the United Nations control over the Internet is now under negotiation (in secret). Responding to proposals by Russia, China, Brazil, and India, the negotiators hope to present a final treaty for signature by the nations of the world at a conference in Dubai in December 2012. It would:

• Give the UN power to regulate online content.

• Allow nations to inspect private email communications by their citizens.

• Permit nations to charge Internet traffic coming in from abroad a fee akin to that charged for long-distance phone calls. So Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., would have to pay tolls to send their content into these nations.

• Give the UN authority to allocate Internet addresses and require it to turn over to member nations (like China) the IP addresses (a unique set of numbers that indicate the geographic location of each and every computer) of each user.

The negotiations are ongoing. The US negotiators will probably succeed in diluting some of these provisions, but the chances for eventual passage of these destructive changes is such that Vinton Cerf, one of the two founders of the Internet, said that the free Internet is now under more threat than ever before.

At a global meeting in New York on July 27, 2012, the nations of the world—including the US—were scheduled sign an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which will empower an international body to regulate the international arms trade. Its goal is eventually to establish a system of worldwide gun control. While paying lip service to the right of private individuals to own, buy, sell, or transfer arms, the body will have a life of its own and the power to require of the signatory nations measures to effectuate the goal of the treaty. These could include gun confiscation and will almost certainly call for universal registration and licensing.

And the global governing body the treaty establishes can pass whatever rules it wants without having to come back to the Senate or to any national legislative body for approval.

The treaty signing was canceled after fifty-one senators said they would oppose its ratification. But it is likely to be approved and finalized by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly of the UN. Then it would go into effect if ratified by sixty-five nations (easily done). At that point, the US could either sign it or not. If it signed the treaty, we would be bound, under the Vienna Convention, until it was rejected for Senate ratification or renounced by a future president.

The best bet is that Obama signs the treaty after election day and Harry Reid never submits it for ratification so it remains in force until it is either renounced by a President Romney or rejected by a Republican-controlled Senate.

Under the terms of the recently negotiated Rio+20 Treaty, the United Nations Environment Programme, a UN body, will be granted increased power to act as a worldwide Environmental Protection Agency, promulgating global regulations.

The United States will be obliged to contribute to a fund to help third world nations cope with environmental change. At the Rio Conference in June 2012, Secretary of State Clinton pledged $2 billion for this fund, which is expected to reach $100 billion when fully implemented. The US would have only one vote out of 193 in deciding to which regimes these funds will be paid.

This treaty, signed by Clinton and then renounced by President George W. Bush, may be signed again by President Obama during his second term or before he leaves office following an election defeat.

It supersedes the US Supreme Court and makes our entire judicial system subject to the rulings of an international court. The court would have the power to establish the extent of its own jurisdiction and would have the power to adjudicate disputes between Americans on US soil even after the Supreme Court has ruled. Double jeopardy would not attach to its review of American court rulings. The court would not have trial by jury or any of the constitutional protections Americans now enjoy.

Dangerously, it establishes the new global crime of “aggression,” which it defines as going to war without UN Security Council approval. US presidents could be prosecuted criminally after they leave office for violating this new law. In practice, of course, this provision would give Russia and China jurisdiction over the use of the US military.

Under the guise of a “code of conduct” to limit debris in outer space, the Obama administration is negotiating an agreement to limit what satellites or missiles can be put into orbit around the earth. This code is widely seen as a backdoor attempt to reimpose the constraints on defensive anti-missiles embodied in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and renounced by President George W. Bush.

Each of these treaties creates a new global entity charged with its enforcement. Whether it is a gun control agency or a Seabed Authority or an International Criminal Court, these treaties empower such agencies. Long after the treaties have been signed and ratified and after the various disclaimers have been inserted by our diplomats protecting our rights and sovereignty, these agencies will remain, able to expand their jurisdiction, legislate new provisions, impose additional taxes and penalties, and require obedience by the signatories to the treaties that set them up—all without any input from us and all without any accountability to us.

These enforcement agencies will inevitably acquire a life of their own, expanding their powers and eroding our sovereignty at every turn. This trend will not be an unintended consequence of these treaties—the systematic erosion of America’s sovereignty and subjecting her wealth and power to global control is quite specifically the intention of these treaties and the people who wrote them.

Each one strips us of control over our own destiny and places our sovereignty under the political control of the United Nations, and not, it must be noted, the Security Council of the UN on which we have a veto. These powers would largely be vested in newly created global bodies in which all of the world’s nations—corrupt or not, democratic or not, free or not, tiny and large—would have an equal say.

And then there is the question of who would obey these treaties. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other outlaw nations have shown no regard for their treaty obligations. They each routinely disregard the provisions of the treaties they have signed and feel in no respect bound by them.

By contrast, law-abiding nations like the United States take their treaty obligations very seriously and are scrupulous in carrying them out to the legalistic letter. Indeed, American courts would be obliged—under the Supremacy Clause—to enforce these treaties, honoring them all even as the other nations who sign them take them lightly.

AMERICA’S TREATY ADDICTION

What is it with our diplomats? Why do they constantly seek to ensnare us in treaties to regulate each aspect of our existence? Can’t our diplomats ever say no?

Our foreign policy is largely conducted by globalists who work within our State Department, and the National Security Council. Deeply committed to the one-world agenda, they have dedicated their lives and public service to bringing the UStates into the global fold. The goals of the Club of Rome have no greater allies than many of the men and women of our foreign service.

Our nation’s foreign affairs experts live in the shadow of the trauma of the United States’ rejection of the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I and establishing the League of Nations. Because of the United States’ refusal to enter the global body and the perpetuation of American isolationism, historians assign to the United States much of the blame for the failed peace that followed the First World War and led directly to the second.

These experts fear the resurgence of isolationism and are determined to ensure that the United States is a full participant in every global treaty that comes down the pike.

When President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the war in 1917—until then a conflict of Britain, France, and Russia against Germany and Austro-Hungary—he promised that it would be “a war to end all wars.” When the American military began to weigh heavily into the scales of the conflict, eventually forcing a German surrender in 1918, the president amplified his idealistic motivation for fighting by issuing his “Fourteen Points,” which would be the basis for what he described as “a peace without victory.”

The document that set forth Wilson’s Fourteen Points was one of the most idealistic in diplomatic history. It pledged the nations of the world to postwar boundaries based on self-determination by each country’s people. Every ethnic or national group would be able to determine, democratically, to which country they wished to belong. Freedom of the seas, the rights of neutral nations, and free flow of commerce were guaranteed. And, to enforce and implement this program, a League of Nations was to be established.

When the Armistice ending the war was signed—largely based on German acceptance of the Fourteen Points—Wilson sailed to Europe to attend a peace conference at the French palace of Versailles, where the nations of the world gathered. While all the Allied powers, who dictated the peace to Germany and its defeated allies, paid lip service to the Fourteen Points, they disregarded it when it came to thrashing out the details of the peace settlement.

When the final document emerged, nobody was happy. The ideal of self-determination was breached more than it was honored. The treaty reflected the same mad scramble for territory and reparations that had always accompanied the end of wars. This was far from a war to end all wars. In fact, it was the beginning of the onset of World War II!

Of all Wilson’s Fourteen Points only the provision for a League of Nations emerged in the final draft of the Treaty of Versailles. But when the document came up for ratification in the Republican-dominated US Senate, it was harshly criticized and ultimately rejected. So Wilson’s League began operations without the United States in attendance. The US never joined and played almost no role in trying to keep the peace between the world wars. With isolationists firmly in control of our foreign policy throughout the twenties, the United States turned inward and let the world hurdle toward another ghastly war.

When finally war came, first to Asia in 1934, to Europe in 1939 and to the US in 1941, it was a global catastrophe. More than fifty million lay dead by its end.

Determined to avoid the isolationism that had engulfed the United States at the end of World War I, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman firmly steered the US into the UN and raised great hopes for its effectiveness. Our diplomats, chastened by our former isolationism, determined that they would never again sit on the sidelines. Having “a seat at the table” became a mantra on Capitol Hill and in the State and Defense departments. Never again would we shut ourselves out.

The legacy of this harsh lesson still carries over. American diplomats instinctively rally to the negotiating table wherever it is, whatever it is about. The rest of the world understands that without American participation, no agreement is worth the paper on which it is written. And the other nations use the treaty-making process primarily as a way to cut the United States down to size. But the addiction of our foreign policy establishment to international conventions, forums, negotiations, and debates ensures our presence at the table and, most likely, our ascension to the global consensus.

But now the time has come for us to be left out; more precisely, to opt out of negotiations that can only lead to a loss of our sovereignty and to the undermining of our democratic system of government. From all sides, we face the pressures of a global community terrified by our power, humbled by our success, and determined to rein us in by ensnaring us in treaties and limitations of all sorts and sizes. What they could never hope to accomplish by military force or by economic power, these nations hope to accomplish by negotiation and treaty. Bluntly, they want to inveigle our gullible diplomats into signing away our country’s rights. As the old saying goes: Uncle Sam has never lost a war nor won a conference.

Now let’s look at each of these treaties in depth. Let’s see how they chip, chip, chip away at our national sovereignty and our democratic self-government.