Dick Morris - Here Come the Black Helicopters!

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.