by Dick Morris
HERE COME THE BLACK HELICOPTERS!
UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom
DICK MORRIS
and EILEEN McGANN
BROADSIDE BOOKS
An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers
www.broadsidebooks.net
DEDICATION
To our Founding Fathers.
Let us preserve the great nation they built.
EPIGRAPH
WARNING: READING THIS BOOK AND ADOPTING ITS PREMISE MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR REPUTATION AND LEAD TO CRITICISM AND RIDICULE FROM LIBERALS, GLOBALISTS, AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
BUT, UNDERSTAND THIS: IF THEY HAVE THEIR WAY, THE AMERICA WE KNOW AND LOVE WILL NO LONGER EXIST.
BECAUSE THEIR PLANS FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE—THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS RELATED AGENCIES—ARE AT SERIOUS ODDS WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS, VALUES, AND LAWS.
WE MUST STOP THEM . . . BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
But what do the black helicopters refer to?
The term the “black helicopter crowd” has become a derisive liberal buzz phrase used to categorize those who question the movement for global governance. Anyone who believes that there are currently serious attempts to transfer American autonomy to the United Nations or to an international commission is a labeled as a kook, a conspiracy theorist, a member of the “black helicopter crowd.”
Of course, we don’t believe that there are actual black helicopters on the way to conquer the United States. But we do believe that the term “black helicopters” is a useful metaphor to capture this attempt to erode our sovereignty by a network of United Nations treaties, codes, guidelines, and other resolutions. We think they have reached a critical mass and that it is time to stop them.
That’s what we mean by “Here Come the Black Helicopters!”
CONTENTS
Cover
Title
Dedication
Epigraph
PART ONE: The Future of Our Country—and of Our Freedom—Is in Grave Danger!
Why Global Government Will Not Be Accepted by Americans
Treaties: How the Obama Administration Wants to Undermine Our Sovereignty
America’s Treaty Addiction
PART TWO: UN Forces Gun Control on America
Gun Regulations on the Way
Hillary’s Secret Strategy for Imposing Gun Controls
Repeal the Reagan Doctrine
PART THREE: UN Sovereignty at Sea Treaty: A Third World Tax on America
Reagan and Thatcher Rejected the Treaty
Global Redistribution of Income
US Can’t Control Who Gets Our Money
Aiding Third World Countries Doesn’t Help Them
We’d Have to Give Away Our Technology, Too
Shackling the US Navy
Can the Treaty Stop China and Russia from Their Territorial Claims?
Treaty Opens Door to Naval Weakness
A Backdoor Global Warming Treaty
Will the Senate Ratify LOST?
PART FOUR: The UN Tries to Regulate the Internet
Putin Finds His Internet Commissar
Negotiations Are Secret
America Seems to Be Acquiescing
Keep the Internet Free!
PART FIVE: Transfer of Wealth: The Rio+20 Treaty
The Third World Can’t Wait to Steal the Money
Toward a Global EPA
PART SIX: UN Supremacy over Our Courts
No War Without UN Approval
Obama’s Ready to Sign
$100 Million, 700 Staff, and One Indictment
PART SEVEN: Globalist Control of Space
A Backdoor Ban on Defensive Space Weapons
Advantage: China
PART EIGHT: Taxing the US Without Our Approval
PART NINE: Agenda 21: Telling Us How to Live
PART TEN: Global Governance: Who Would Our Bedfellows Be?
Rule of the Lilliputians: How Tiny Nations Outvote Us
Are They Free?
Are They Honest?
Do They Respect Human Rights?
Conclusion: So What Do We Do About It?
Acknowledgments
Notes
About the Authors
Also by the Authors
Credits
Copyright
About the Publisher
PART ONE
THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY—AND OF OUR FREEDOM—IS IN GRAVE DANGER!
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 wha
t 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:
Acknowledging responsibility to something higher than country does not come easily. The impulse to possess turf is a powerful one for all species; yet it is one that people must overcome. In the global neighborhood, a sense of otherness cannot be allowed to nourish instincts of insularity, intolerance, greed, bigotry, and, above all, a desire for dominance. But barricades in the mind can be even more negative than frontiers on the ground. Globalization has made those frontiers increasingly irrelevant.5
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:
Sovereignty has been the cornerstone of the interstate system. In an increasingly interdependent world, however, the notions of territoriality, independence, and non-intervention have lost some of their meaning. In certain areas, sovereignty must be exercised collectively, particularly in relation to the global commons.
The principles of sovereignty and non-intervention must be adapted in ways that recognize the need to balance the rights of states with the rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the global neighborhood. It is time also to think about self-determination in the emerging context of a world of separate states.7
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.
For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance. . . . From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace.8
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:
[Industrialized countries have] developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work—place air conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.13