Here Come The Black Helicopters Part 5

Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevices, the Saddams, or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community."

Fifth, we know that when push comes to shove, all the grand talk about international norms is often just a cover for opposing the global elite's betes noires of the moment-usually the U.S. or Israel. We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.35

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 compa.s.s of the abolitionists-rejected the idea that they would have to share their country with slaveholders and the vast, feudal, cla.s.s-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 a.s.sembly, 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 inst.i.tution). 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 partners.h.i.+p 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 circ.u.mventing our national government and transferring our power, control, and resources to a new global ent.i.ty. 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 a.s.sembly-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 a.s.sistant 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 pa.s.s 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 ma.s.sive 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 pa.s.sed, 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 Const.i.tution characterizes all treaties as "the supreme law of the land" akin to const.i.tutional 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 pa.s.sing a const.i.tutional amendment.

The treaties Obama and Hillary are rus.h.i.+ng 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 a.s.sault 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:

Law of the Sea Treaty

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 offsh.o.r.e 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 offsh.o.r.e drilling technology.

UN Control of the Internet

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 pa.s.sage 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.

Gun Control

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 pa.s.s 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 a.s.sembly 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.