"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Monday, June 12, 2006

Here we go again: To Americans and others --- Just shut up and pay up!

From: "The Stalking Horse for Global Taxes"

"Innovative sources of financing", If you should hear these words come out of the mouths of United Nation's officials, among other catch phrases, grab your wallets and check your bank account balances.

I've said it before: the United Nations, that bastion of corruption and incompetence, has designs on the stream of American, Japanese and taxpayer dollars of other developed nations. (But then again, who doesn't?)

Why would France's Jacque Chirac pair with UN Secretary Kofi Annan to push forward a new international tax on international airline tickets for passage from France? Why are they interesting in taxes which [are] designed to be the precursor of an array of global taxes? These taxes so far include:

• international financial transactions
• fuel
• the internet

Annan, Chirac and others are in a power game against the United States. Each has a different goal in mind. "Chirac, for his part has always seen global governance under a strong United Nations as a counterweight to the United States. "Annan, likes the idea because it reduces his dysfunctional organization's financial dependency on the American people." And, leaders of many of the developing country, "who want to run the UN as their own fiefdom while paying next to nothing for the privilege are using their collective voting power in the General Assembly to block any budgetary controls and managerial reforms insisted upon by the two member states paying over 40% of the freight": the United States and Japan."

Global taxes would "blunt any power of the purse of the governments or other developed countries may currently have [as] a means of leverage to counterbalance the irresponsible spending sprees that General Assembly approves. This is because the UN would be deriving substantial revenue through global taxes imposed on individuals or companies, rather than depending on budget approvals and dues payments by the wealthier member state governments."

Revenue derived from individuals and companies means global trade transactions. All those purchases of goods exported and imported; international telephone calls, bank and stock transactions, and so on: the tax possibilities are endless.

Global taxes - what the UN bureaucrats euphemistically refer to as “innovative sources of financing” - are the preferred mechanism of the parasites to keep their UN gravy train going without any real accountability to anyone.  However, these leeches conveniently forget that the United Nations is an organization of sovereign countries according to the United Nations Charter, not a sovereign entity unto itself.  The UN is only accountable to its member states from which it receives its funding in the form of dues and voluntary contributions.  The UN remains subject to the fiscal control of its member states - unless its Charter is amended.  The UN Charter provides for no other mechanism for funding and surely not for global taxes which, in any case, would violate one of our most fundamental principles of self-government and national sovereignty under our own Constitution.  Nor would it matter if the Senate were to ratify a treaty with a global tax provision, if the treaty itself violates the Constitution by giving to an unaccountable foreign institution a non-delegable power that only our elected representatives can exercise.  And it is safe to say that most Americans would firmly oppose having to pay any such illegitimate levies.  That is why the global tax proponents want to start with something that they hope to keep under the radar, so to speak, like the international airline tax.

As just about every about everything: goods, services, and commodities are now traded internationally, these "under the radar taxes" will become UN cash cows, taxes levied without representation and without our consent.

I wonder if international tax revenues was on the agenda of the recent conference of the Bilderberg group that met June 8-11, 2006 in Ottawa. Could they counter the United Nations or are they concocting their own schemes to pick our pockets?


  • At Mon Jun 12, 10:45:00 AM PDT, Blogger Time said…

    The well meaning left thinks it's good to confer with the world instead of acting ourselves. They describe it as dictating to the world and say the effect of that attitude is why the rest of the world hates us.

    Considering what all this world market, interdependence, globalazation, world common law, and immigration is doing to our economy and lifestyle:

    I'm starting to believe in something my logic used to tell me was unworkable; I'm becoming an isolatioist.

    I'll reprint the bumpber sticker from the 1970's; "Buy American" or "America, love it or leave it."

    The world needs America much more than America needs the world. The world sees America as it's solution to their problems by using us and our financial might. In the process they are helping destroy our financial might.

    Their behavior is like the Americans who are addicted to our welfare programs. It's easier to seek help from those who can afford to help and will help; than to work harder to help themselves.

    Haven't we done enough to help the world? Haven't we done enough to help the U.N.? The U.N.'s corruption is so bad they now need the purse of the world to continue, instead of just the purse of the U.S.

    Let the U.N. die. Let these third world countries find another way to get money, power, and military security. The U.S. won't stop helping the world just because the U.N. no longer exsist. The compassion of our people won't let that happen. It seems we are the country being dictated to by the rest of the world.

    Mr. Annan needs to resign and the French need to drop their ego trip, they aren't as important as they seem to think they are.

  • At Tue Jun 13, 03:29:00 PM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…


    I sure understand the sentiment -"isolationism," that is.

    And re: the U.N. - absolutely. It is a HUGE part of the problem (read The UN's Borderless World/ It's gotta go. You'll see that your statement ("The world sees America as its solution to their problems by using us and our financial might. In the process they are helping destroy our financial might.") is truer and more significant than you ever believed possible. And after that, you will probably want Annan to do more than resign...

    Don't you think that with a little cleaning up, repair, and refurbishing the UN building would make a great condo site?

    But the problem really isn't a world-wide free-market economy, with the monitored, controlled LEGAL migrations of persons traveling and working to support the free economy; as one of my heros, economist Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute puts it, the consequences of the free exchange of goods are far different from the consequences of the free (e.g. unmonitored) exchange of peoples.

    Your logic (which told you once that isolationism isn't the answer) was right. The problem is that this One World monster is being FORCED DOWN OUR THROATS BY GOVERNMENT ACTION.

    If government would just get the hell out of our way, we would be dealing with each other on a voluntary basis (with minor prohibitions such as not selling nuclear materials to Muslims etc), and finding partnerships among ourselves that are much more satisfying, logical, and less contentious than the sort of thing we are experiencing now.

    We have all learned that the Constitution provides for the freedom to believe (or not) in any belief system we want (or don't), the only proviso being that neither the government nor our fellow citizens can COMPEL our belief (or lack thereof).

    The original intent was for separation of government and economy, too. Given the conditions of the day, separation of state and economy just wasn't as "sexy" as the whole, terribly emotional issue of mutually assured protection of the freedom to believe (or not), so a few errors re: property ownership were allowed to slip into the constitution (Fifth Amendment etc.) that permitted serious violations to begin to accrue. Eminent domain, for example, was a leftover from the divine right of kings, where the ruler owned it all and gave you permission to use it.

    We kind of forgot about the potential problems, and with the passage of time, the role of government in matters of the economy grew beyond the basic idea of punishing fraud, theft, deceit, etc., and became a terribly micromanagerial system. With every micromanaging regulation, rule, and oft-overlooked unconstitutional intervention, our economic woes grew.

    Government intervention into the marketplace via unwarranted economic controls is even responsible for the invasion of illegals we see today. If it weren't for the Minimum Wage Laws, we wouldn't be experiencing the invasion from Mexico etc. (the link is to a truly excellent explanation of why this is so by Walter Williams, Professor Emeritus of George Mason University).

    The list of interventions into the economy that are destructive to our country and our freedom goes on and on; for example, the Anti-Trust Laws are one of the worst things that ever happened to us and our ability to innovate, become efficient, and to produce. Did you know that for a businessman to include the price of shipping something in the price of the item is a violation of Anti-Trust? In fact, there is absolutely no business, large or small, that does not violate the Anti-Trust Laws in some way every day.

    Well, except for jillions of other micromanagerial interventions that have continuously thrown sand into the gears of a free market economy, but I'll stop here.

    As you can tell, it's one of my buttons.

    Another button is the lack of education we get in school about economics. How much economics did YOU get in school, except to hear from the postmodernist collectivists that capitalism is mean and nasty, full of cruel tycoons who force us to live by the law of the jungle, tooth and nail, dog-eat-dog, etc. etc.

    If you cringe a little at the word "profit" or "materialism," then the Forces of the Dark Side have definitely had their way with you.


    Sorry; but please, do read those two articles. They'll both piss you off royally.

  • At Tue Jun 13, 06:11:00 PM PDT, Blogger Time said…

    I didn't really need to be more pissed off than I already am, but thanks for the articals.

    To change, we have to deal with the REAL world, as it is. To dismantle 200 years of regulations would, itself, cause problems. For business to "retool" to a better way of operation would cost millions and cause problems.

    How would we stop a person from selling nukes to a bad person? How do we ensure that hazzardous material is being traded, sold, packed, and shipped properly?Surely we do want some controls for some transactions.

    I DON"T think that capitalist, or money, or materialist, or profit is a bad thing, just the opposite; but there are bad people who would do anything for those ends, including hurting other people to attain them.

    I have always believed that open trade with a closed society, would result in that society becoming more open.

    I have always believed that less government regulations, taxes, and control would increase sales and trade worldwide and raise the standard of living worldwide.

    The 20th century has proven ideologies like Socialisum, Communisium, and the like to be failures. Now how do we convince people that Democracy is holding back the world from being the best it can be?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home