Posted on 03/15/2006 9:20:22 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Researcher Cliff Kincaid has devoted his life in recent years to studying what is happening at the United Nations. He fortunately has a strong stomach. This amalgamation of nations which continually is envious of the prosperity of the United States convenes to debate new ways that we can be taxed for their benefit.
A few months ago the UN had its sights firmly on the Internet. Thanks to Kincaid and others these designs were exposed early on and the UN was forced temporarily to back off taxation of the Internet. The retreat is only tactical - one step back to take two steps forward.
Kincaid has discovered a meeting at which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered a major but virtually unreported speech to a UN Conference at the end of February and the first of March 2006 at which he challenged delegates to have the courage to levy international taxes. The meeting was hosted by that great friend of America French President Jacques Chirac.
Among the $200 billion in new taxes which the UN is proposing to levy are: Taxes on air transport: this tax, Kincaid reports, was said to make "economic sense." Taxes on aviation fuel: this tax was sold on the basis that it would have a positive impact upon the environment. Taxes on airline tickets: this tax, according to the UN, easily could be implemented because there is no legal obstacle, and it would generate $8 billion per annum.
The UN also seeks an indirect tax on air-flight corridors, which should generate $10 billion per annum, to be followed by an indirect tax on passenger transportation, to raise $20 billion per annum. An international currency tax would generate $60 billion. A tax on carbon emissions which at five cents per gallon of gasoline would bring in a whopping $130 billion per annum. There you have it: the UN proposal to tax us for the first $200 billion.
If the UN were not blocked in this clear usurpation of power the $200 billion would be only the beginning. The United States takes in about $2 trillion in taxes. Surely the UN can figure how to duplicate that amount.
The Chirac-Annan conference was titled "the Paris Conference on Innovative Financing Mechanisms" and apparently behind the back of the United States government the UN is planning its taxation schemes almost immediately.
The matter was raised with GOP House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), who was instrumental in causing the House to go on record against UN taxation of the Internet. He said he was confident that he could stop the implementation of any of these new taxes. Fine. What would happen after November if the Democrats were in control and they accepted these taxes as part of their budget resolution? George W. Bush would veto that, you say. In the sixth year of his Presidency, he has vetoed nothing. Let us say he would veto it.
Let us also suggest that after the end of Bush's term a Democrat were to occupy the White House. The odds favor that. The only reason George H. W. Bush was elected in 1988 was because Ronald W. Reagan concluded his term in very popular fashion. Bush was seen at a third term for Reagan. If Bush '43 should conclude his term on a note of unpopularity it would be highly unlikely that he would be succeeded by another Republican.
At some point these UN taxes very likely will be imposed upon this country. When that happens we would completely lose our ability to control taxation. President Bush's tax cuts have generated billions more revenue than was projected. He and a handful of other "supply siders" believed this would happen. There is no way that you would be able to convince the UN to cut taxes so additional money would be generated. No, the UN will keep taxes high. Given the types of taxes proposed, the levies will be next to invisible. Not many of us look at an airline ticket to break down the amount of taxation reflected in the price of that ticket.
Annan made it clear that the money generated by taxation will not replace dues money or other forms of aid raised for various causes. The UN Secretary told the UN Conference "Innovative sources of financing should not be seen as a replacement for traditional forms of aid. Rather they are meant to generate even more money for development and to channel resources more effectively. And there are some very promising possibilities on the table." For example, a nation wants to develop an industrial park to promote business and industry. The money thenceforth would come from the UN and not from traditional investments.
The list of US participants appears to have been nominated by the far-left NATION magazine. The United States delegation was composed entirely of liberal globalists. Who named them? How did they get there? Is this something John Bolton can tackle as Ambassador to the UN?
Numerous nations already have begun to implement the various taxes called for at the Paris conference. The old media soon will begin to pressure the United States to pay "our fair share" by implementing these taxes. We fought a revolution in part over "no taxation without representation." Who has represented us at the UN? Ambassador Bolton is doing an excellent job there but is he on top of this? When I met with him recently the subject was not mentioned although he covered the waterfront.
The UN cannot be trusted. The UN continually is looking to shift assets from those who have achieved to those who have not and often to those who would not know how effectively to utilize those shifted assets.
This coming presidential election will be unique. For the first time in half a century no president or vice president will be running. Both parties are wide open. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the favorite Democrat but who knows if she will run. So every voter of every political stripe should ask candidates of all political parties where they stand on UN taxation. Once this enquiry starts there will be no end to it. While we are at it, we need to support Cliff Kincaid at America's Survival Inc. (Kincaid@comcast.net) We need him as our watchdog, informing us about the latest UN outrages. If he were not on top of these developments we might never know about them in time to act.
------------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
An international, UN tax would be the tax no American should or would pay. I would support a tax to finance the UN's trip to leave America, however. Send them to Saudi Arabia or Iran, but get them out of here!
And the French helped us do it, too! Talk about how things change!
I'm not sure they'd send in the blue berets. Wouldn't it be more fiscally prudent of them to just use the U.S. taxing apparatus (the IRS) to get their booty? Under that scenario, you'd wind up shooting IRS agents, FBI, ATF, whatever they send at you...
You're welcome. :-)
No, I have no respect for the world body. If the U.S. has no respect for the world body, then why is our government paying them dues, joining UNESCO, and so on?
Sorta like Ruby Ridge. If they won't leave you alone in Idaho, is there anyplace left on earth to be left alone?
I don't understand--how is this the UN taxing Americans, exactly? Sorry if this thread hijacks a tad, but I need more explanation.
In addition, we answer directly to the UN for environmental concerns and so many other point dictated by the UN and implemented as US law that it's beyond my capacity to list them in a brief post.
My point is for all the UN haters is that, "Yeah, I hate them too, but if we haven't had cause to drive them out yet, one more tax is unlikely to stir the general populace."
I think it's more likely that a terrorist attack will take out the UN as collateral damage before a single US cictizen musters up the nerve to promote a successful political campaign to remove them.
But yeah, I want them to pass on like a bad chalupa.
I don't exactly understand how it happened; but NGO (non-governmental organizations) entities created partnerships with mulitple government entities. The government entities the NGO partnerships were made with use the government entity to funnel the money. So you think you are using monies being made available by the government; but it is not.
Example.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
Healthy People has about 28 different initiatives. They promote their intiatives through government entities such as the CDC, USDA and others. State level programs, associations, businesses, et al, apply for these programs and collect the grants. People are told they are government programs.
But if you go read the sites up to the top program, it will SAY it is a NGO
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/hpdata2010/abouthp.htm
Quote from the CDC:
>>>National data are gathered from more than 190 different data sources, from more than seven Federal Government Departments (Health and Human Services, Commerce, Education, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency), and from voluntary and private non-governmental organizations.<<<
Then if you read the CFRs used to apply for the grants, the monies come with statements that indicate ownership to the NGO to anything the grant monies touch.
In my mind, that sounds like an eminent domain on steroids.
Grant monies are not donations. The CFRs have statements in them how monies have to be paid back to the NGO:
Quote:
9. Accounting, Audits and Reporting Requirements.
(a) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: The Grantee agrees to account for all amounts associated with this grant using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Records must at least include:
(i) financial records that identify the source of all funds used for grant-supported activities, including Grant Funds, any matching funds, other funds, and;
(ii) source documentation to support activities.
(b) Audit: The project will be audited by a Certified Public Accountant annually or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Grantor. All audits will be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The audit for the years the Grantee receives this financial assistance will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 3052. Audits are due within 90 days after September 30 of the respective year and the Grantor is to receive a copy of this audit,
(snip)
This is what I'm referring to as taxes being paid to the UN. These NGOs aren't limited to Healthy People 2010. That is just the one I've looked up thoroughly. And if monies have to be paid back to the NGOs, this, in my mind is a tax.
Healthy People is an initiative of the UN. You can do searches in Google to see the Foundations that donate to Healthy People.
>>>I'm not sure they'd send in the blue berets. Wouldn't it be more fiscally prudent of them to just use the U.S. taxing apparatus (the IRS) to get their booty? Under that scenario, you'd wind up shooting IRS agents, FBI, ATF, whatever they send at you...
Tolerance is correct. They don't use blue berets; but they do use agents that receive grant monies from their programs to enforce their programs.
Example. Healthy People 2010 is a UN program that just got one of it's initiatives, National School Lunch Program, signed on to mandatory law. This program is to have it's grant monies monitored, enforced and audited by an agent of the program. They are using people from the NEA to enforce it. It isn't being enforced as a Federal initiative because the monies come from the NGO grants. It is being enforced as a UN initiative because the monies come from the NGO.
The NEA gets used because they are recipients also of the same NGO monies.
Another example is the newly signed on animal laws multiple states have adopted. NGO funded entities are training agents of their programs.
Example see this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1562040/posts
NJSBA Animal Law
This is not the only law office that trains people to enforce their interests; but you can see other NGO funded groups that do the trainings, ie., PETA, ACLU et al.
If you wade through the long post in post one, you will see these people are actually granted their own badge and powers outside state and local laws.
Did you hear of the USDA plan to attach unique identification numbers to ALL livestock in the U.S., done ostensibly to keep track of disease vectors (as though rats, fleas, dust, and wild birds NEVER spread diseases between farms and ranches). Anyhow, it's being presented as a public/livestock health measure, but it sounds kind of redundant to me. Don't livestock birth records and records of sale and, in the case of cattle ranches, brandings mean anything anymore? Or am I missing something here?
The unique ID number will cost between 3 and 20 dollars per head (look for your steak prices to go up), and there's even a requirement--correct me if I'm wrong--for people to report stray livestock! I don't know about you, but if I see a stray cow, I may report it, or I may not. If I do, it'll be because the cow is blocking the road or some such. Up yours, USDA.
Furthermore, I wonder how many on-the-edge small farmers will be put out of business by this measure.
`
Nope. Grant monies ARE donations. However, under the law you think shows how the grants must be paid back ("9. Accounting, Audits and Reporting Requirements."), it merely shows how the recipients of the grants are accountable to NGOs for how that money is spent. You've definitely got a situation where the recipient is accountable to the NGO, but not a situation where the money has to be paid BACK to the NGO--only documented. And when have you known a bureaucrat NOT to spend every cent of a grant or budget? NGOs aren't getting anything out of this that resembles a tax...and it's not that I'm not willing to believe they might be somewhere along the line. They just are not here.
Show me a link to the CFRs that transfer ownership to the NGOs. It might be there and I missed it. But the way I read this, while the NGOs have substantial power to ensure compliance, they don't seem to retain ownership. The law seems to place the NGOs in a GAO relationship more than an ownership or overlord one.
>>>Did you hear of the USDA plan to attach unique identification numbers to ALL livestock in the U.S
Yes. I'm away from keyboard right now and just skimmed you.
That is a component of Healthy People 2010. It is under the Food Safety initiative.
See FR Keyword= tagging for the articles I've been posting on this.
(be back)
The forms I have are at my desk. I posted excerpts here at the Healthy People link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
Then could it be an amendment that creates payment to the NGOs?
I've never personally dealth with grants. I'm just reading the CFR forms.
Yes, Walter (NoNais.org) and I work together on this. We have an entire team.
"Then could it be an amendment that creates payment to the NGOs? I've never personally dealth with grants. I'm just reading the CFR forms."
The only thing I read in the form excerpts you posted that would give anything at all to the NGOs of value would be a proprietary interest in the results of the grant-funded studies. However, that doesn't seem all that valuable, either, since the interest would likely be FOIAable even if the NGO owns it, since the studies were funded by federal dollars.
I agree that your suspicions are well grounded. But I don't see them coming to fruition here.
However, the whole idea of 'health parity' or whatever other buzzword for redistributionism the left is pushing in these programs is reprehensible. If they want to take money from America for health care in other countries, they should have the guts to admit it and be public about it. They don't. They've proven to be snakes, lying about their true intentions in order to get elected, and the shameful thing is that given the dispirited GOP's base, Republican voters might not come out in 2006, letting these pinko weasels back into the Speaker and Majority Leader's offices.
It isn't federally funded if it is NGO grant monies. And the FOIA that collects the data is personal data that gets housed in a global database.
I really wish they would be more public about this. I am very confused by all of this.
And you are now marked for pinging. When I get my server files open to read through what I've collected about it, I'm pinging you! You seem to have a grasp of this :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.