If you mean that as a critique of the news source, then fine, each person has his own preferences for how many details are necessary in any given report. But in no sense does this alter the basic fact that LOST creates what amounts to a taxing authority, nor does it change the underlying nature of that authority simply because the U.S. executive branch (whoever that turns out to be at any given time) has veto power over those decisions.
If you were to run a poll asking if we should sign a treaty to administer mining in international waters that’s self sufficient through levies on that activity with limitations set by the US president and you get one number. Simply ask if we should sign a treaty that enables the UN to tax impose the first world tax starting with mining activity in the oceans for redistribution to the rest of the world and the likely [hugh and series] difference between those two numbers indicates a lie, not a “preference on how many details to are necessary in a given report”. The lie’s not just due to the phrasing of the question, it’ due to a radical misrepresentation of the treaty. Intentional misrepresentation = lie.