Should the U.N. be able to tax you? Over the last several years, officials at the U.N. and other international organizations have been hatching schemes to directly tax the world's people. Traditionally, only sovereign governments have the right to tax. The U.N. and other international organizations have largely depended on their ability to extract dues or other payments from their sovereign members.
Naturally, officials at the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation nd Development and other organizations hate the present system because it limits their ability to spend other people's money on themselves and their various schemes. The U.N. crowd has proposed an international tax on aviation fuel, a tax on airline tickets, taxes on international currency transactions, carbon use taxes, including a 4.8-cent tax on each gallon of gasoline, and other taxes on an extensive range of transactions, goods and services.
This is a good commentary on the U.N.'s attempt to tax the world to fund its Millenium Development Goals and other projects.
Not a WORLD GOVERNMENT -- YET!!!!!
WARNING!!!
The term “conspiracy” is one someone in my position must – thanks to an unrelenting campaign by the so-called mainstream media (SCMSM) – use with great caution. (The participation of the SCMSM in all of this is the subject of another column.)
What is a “conspiracy?” While many terms have been altered over time, this one remains as:
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
If you agree that the denial of God-given freedoms is a wrongful or subversive act, read on.
If you do not agree, you will quickly dismiss what follows as a simplistic regurgitation of falsehoods your college professors debunked in those early history classes and go back to that New York Time crossword puzzle.
That said, I must warn you that it is impossible to discuss the United Nations WITHOUT, in the same breath, also discussing conspiracy.
Since the first caveman strolled from his den, spied his neighbor gnawing on a juicy T-Rex drumstick and smacked him on the head and took his lunch, men have been – off and on – making war with one another. Mostly on.
I don’t think anyone knows precisely when some men, in an effort to unite the nations into some sort of man-made “Heaven on Earth,” began cobbling together various associations with that goal.
The Old Testament may contain the first recorded account. It was called the Tower of Babel. It also tells us that God dealt with one of man’s earliest challenges to His order and authority by scattering the people and giving them different tongues to make it difficult or impossible for them to communicate and hatch plots for future challenges.
History from that time to this is filled with stories of various national alliances and associations formed for defensive and other purposes – some good, some evil. For those who love their freedoms, most have been of the evil variety.
With the exception of this now 24 decades long experiment in human liberty called “America” (the IDEA, not the PLACE), the vast majority of those who have walked the planet have lived as vassals, serfs or outright slaves of some king, emperor, potentate or despot or others who, by birth or some other arbitrary measure, considered themselves superior to their “lowlier” fellows.
In such works as Taylor Caldwell’s “The Captains and The Kings,” we get a glimpse of how some of those aforementioned evil associations came into existence. These are associations of what the powerful and wealthy – for want of a better term – “elites” have formed to do the ONE thing they feel compelled to do at all costs: Preserve and extend their power and wealth. While they may squabble among themselves over relatively trivial matters, even make national wars where other men fight and die over such trifles, they frequently come together when they sense a common threat to their vaunted positions.
The term “noblesse oblige” is defined as “the obligation of those of high rank to be honorable and generous (often used ironically) - the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D. Rockefeller Jr.
I confess that the urge to help those in need is a perfectly legitimate and – dare I use the term? – Christian thing to do. Indeed, Scripture commands it. But the use of force of law and/or arms in so doing is NOT God ordained behavior.
In a perverse variant of noblesse oblige, the OTHER thing many of these elites – at least those of the “utopian” mindset --feel irresistibly compelled to do is to “improve, even “perfect” mankind – by FORCE, if necessary. They are most frequently those of the “old money” variety with more time on their hands than those who are still grasping for that next rung on the economic and social ladder. While some of them are motivated by genuine altruistic impulses, many malignantly wish only to fashion a world in which THEIR position, power and wealth will never be threatened by those of “lower birth.”
Caldwell wrote – in far better terms than I – of one of the mid-19th century manifestations of this effort, to wit:
“Through the "League of Just Men", elitist conspirators
sought a fanatic to cloak the point of their purposes in
slogans and cant. The man they hired was Karl Marx.
Certainly Marx was no worker; he had never soiled his hands
with labor. He hated the middle class, which he
contemptuously called the bourgeoisie, for he considered
himself superior in mentality and breeding to what he called
‘the gross merchants of commerce and exploitation.’ He did
not attack the waiting despots, no indeed. They were of one
mind with him. Rather he proposed in his books and
pamphlets the return to government of the total power to
exact tribute from the people in order that government might
better direct every phase of the peoples' lives, as he
asserted, ‘for their own welfare.’ The elite, in turn,
would control the governments.” Taylor Caldwell
“The Middle Class Must Not Fail or All is Lost”
During a discussion of totalitarian socialism, I once had a fellow ask me “Why would these folks desire a system where the state owns and controls everything?” My answer was that if YOU’RE the state, it’s a pretty good deal.
The most recent precursor of the United Nations – Wilson’s so-called League of Nations -- was launched after the carnage of WWI, ostensibly as a way to prevent such wars in the future. There is compelling evidence that it was simply yet another golden opportunity for the utopian elites to fashion a world less threatening to their perpetuation in power.
It would, however, be necessary to try to sell it to the masses of “common men” whose sons had been gassed, maimed and killed in Europe in Wilson’s “war to make the world safe for democracy.”
As we all know, that attempt was unsuccessful and it took the carnage of WWII to bring what we know today as the United Nations into being.
Not my government or representative. Never
