Here Come the Black Helicopters!

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

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