Here Come the Black Helicopters!: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom (2 page)

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
:

Evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that Mr. Strong in 1997, while working for Mr. Annan, had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. This check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam.

Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing. Asked by investigators about the check, he initially denied he’d ever handled it. When they showed it to him with his own signature on the back, he acknowledged that he must have endorsed it, but said the money was meant to cover an investment Mr. Park wished to make in a Strong family company, Cordex, run by one of his sons. (Cordex soon afterward went bankrupt.) Mr. Volcker, in his final report, said that the U.N. might want to “address the need for a more rigorous disclosure process for conflicts of interest.”
¹⁴

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:

The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.
¹⁶

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.