"We shall have World Government, whether or not
we like it. The only question is whether World
Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
-- Infamous quote from James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) Chairman of the CFR, 1921-1932, Foreign
Agent of the Rothschild Dynasty, major player in the
Federal Reserve Act. The IRS works for the Federal
"If we American people ever allow monopoly
banking to control the issue of currency, first by
inflation and then by deflation, these banks and
bureaucracies that will grow up around them will
deprive we, the people of all our property until our
children will wake up homeless on the continent
which God gave us for stewardship."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Last night on Larry King Live, CNN among other
things, Bush "suddenly" announced the IRS is
terrible, unfair, complicated, oppressive, and we
should consider a Flat Tax. Really? That's should
be no surprise to the Prez, it was already a part of
his tax cut bill. Where was "fair and balanced"
before it was passed? Didn't anyone in the media
read it either? They are In the same place before
the "illegal" war, and now admitting they did not
give the anti-war view point of the 68% of the
people who believe it was a mistake; causing many to
lose confidence in them. I suggest they go back and
read Bush's Tax Bill and educate the public. It's
their job! Hello 60 Minutes!
Joan Veon, economist and UN expert read Bush's
entire 720 page Tax Bill, unlike our Congress
Critters. She tried to warn people of Bush's Tax
Bill which included a "flat" VAT tax, 24%, changing
the entire tax code without Congressional
permission. Go to: www.womensgroup.org look under "Commentary" entitled "Shock and Awe not only for Iraqi's."
Re: Hastert's Red Herring by Devvy Kidd "Three
months before the pretend elections, suddenly
Congress and Bush are going to be the heroes of the
desperate in America looking for any relief from
this immoral, progressive income tax."
I told you after the IRS was abolished,
Hastert's Red Herring, and plan for "flat" VAT tax
is already in Bush's tax cut bill (now contained in
HR 25 of Jan 03), that we would see a global tax
next. This is the real "Red Herring" which would
usher us into a paperless-cashless society and
global government. They are setting us up! The
statements by Annan is to gradually and
incrementally acclimate us, so that when it happens,
people will become accepting of the idea without
considering the billions it's going to cost or
sovereignty lost. People simply do not understand
money, and they want to keep it that way.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do
not understand our banking and monetary system, for
if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
The UN/IMF has been setting up their global data
bases for sometime. All of our taxes go there, and
all government checks are written by them outsourced
Who ever thought the income tax would become
mandatory even though there is no law to support it,
because the 16th. amendment was never ratified and
verified by many researchers, but HR 25 is even
This system of imbedded tax (never to be
removed) ensures they get their money first, just as
soon as we spend ours on necessities i.e. food,
clothing, energy, housing and all goods and
services, across the board. Does anyone understand
how this is going to impact the cost of a car or
even a house? The poorest people, including those
on fixed income who can not afford an expensive tax
will be forced to pay them also. They can't even
afford their medications since his boondoggle
Medicare Bill enriching his cronies in Big Pharma
which is even worse than before the bill. Vermont
is endorsing legislation to make it legal to buy
drugs from Canada, a provision that is excluded from
"...In politics, nothing happens by accident.
If it happens, it was planned that way"
I just wish people would get out of the
"right-left" paradigm the media always portrays. If
Kerry (Bush's 3rd. cousin) wins, he's only going to
continue Bush's policies -- their differences are
only superficial and all for show. It just took a
Christian conservative to initiate them, and Kerry
will enforce them. He was endorsed by the Communist
Party, and Edwards by the Bilderbergers. No matter
who wins, America loses. There is only one party =
The Globalist Party!
Truman said, "America has never picked an
president, and never will."
"...To announce that there must be no criticism
of the president or that we are to stand by the
president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
-- President Theodore Roosevelt.
Global Taxes Are Back, Watch Your Wallet
Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie,
the debate over global taxation once again is
rearing its ugly head - courtesy of the United
Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey
mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless
proposals for the imposition of global taxes are
In July, Inter Presse news service reported
that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study
that will outline numerous global tax proposals to
be considered by the General Assembly at its
September meeting. The proposals will likely include
everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet
use to a global gas tax and levies on airline
travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up
paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to
the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among
those leading the charge, having stated that he
"strongly supports finding new sources of funding"
for the U.N. through global taxes, according to
Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his
support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001
Technical Note that he authored for a U.N.
conference. "The need to finance the provision of
global public goods in an increasingly globalized
world also adds new urgency to the need for
innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote.
The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits
of several global tax proposals.
Global tax proposals are not new. Various
plans have been flitting around in academic circles
and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades.
And while the United States and other developed
nations have staved off such proposals in the past,
third world nations have increasingly dominated the
U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970.
As a result, they have begun to see promise in their
quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of
citizens from nations like the United States -
specifically using the term "redistribution." Recent
U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set
the stage for the third world to not only renew its
pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for
In 2000, the U.N. General Assembly approved a
"Millennium Declaration" that committed the world
body and its member nations to a sweeping list of
objectives, particularly in the area of assisting
"developing" nations. Among them were five specific
goals, to be achieved by 2015, aimed at reducing
poverty, improving children's health and fighting
AIDS around the world.
Arguing that developed nations like the United
States have not done enough to achieve these goals,
despite the fact that we provide the bulk of the
U.N.'s money, U.N. leaders have recently begun using
the Millennium Goals as an excuse to explore global
taxation. As Inter Presse reported, U.N. Secretary
General Kofi "Annan has warned that unless current
development assistance is doubled to $100 billion
annually, the world's 132 developing nations will
fail to meet their Millennium Development Goals."
Using the Millennium Goals as the excuse, the
United Nations is set to once again begin
considering specific methods to extract wealth from
citizens of the United States and other first world
nations for "redistribution" to the citizens in the
less developed, poorer third world. Among the
schemes being contemplated are:
Global taxation zealots smell a
powerful opportunity in the Internet. Under their
plan, e-mail users would pay a tax of about $.01 for
each megabyte of data that they send, generating up
to $150 billion per year. While advocates admit that
such a tax would discourage the use of e-mail,
interfere with the least-regulated communications
forum and economic marketplace in the world and be
"complex and technically difficult" to administer,
they are unable to resist raiding what they see as
an untapped pot of gold. The tax, they say, would
"raise funds that would be spent to narrow the
'digital divide' between rich and poor" nations.
A tax on fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, oil
and natural gas.
This plan, usually called a Carbon
Tax, would drive up the price of gas for cars and
trucks, home heating fuels, plastics, and countless
other products. Proponents argue that such a tax
would combat global warming by discouraging the use
of fossil fuels while the revenue from such a tax
could be redistributed to poorer nations. One U.N.
paper suggested that such a tax would yield $125
billion per year with U.S. taxpayers stuck for more
than $25 billion of that tab. But even supporters
acknowledge that the modest tax that they would
initially propose would not reduce greenhouse gasses
or even slow the use of fossil fuels. In order to
achieve that policy goal, the tax rate would have to
be very high - enough to generate $750 billion per
year, of which U.S. taxpayers would pay more $150
Currency transaction tax (CTT).
nearly $300 trillion is exchanged on open markets
around the world. Dollars are sold for British
Pounds. Japanese Yen are converted to Euros. Major
international banks, many of them based in the
United States, Great Britain and the Far East,
conduct and manage these transactions. Advocates of
the CTT, which was originally devised by a French
economist, want to impose a tax of around .1% on
each transaction. According to the United Nations,
such a tax would generate up to $264 billion per
year. Proponents also want the tax plan to mandate
that the proceeds go to a global fund which "would
redistribute tax revenue away from financial center
countries in favor of low-income nations." In order
to make the tax more palatable at first, a U.N.
paper suggests that the tax might start at "an
extremely low rate" and be increased incrementally
over time. The CTT would likely increase the cost of
nearly every good shipped or traded internationally
- including just about every consumer product in
today's economy: cars, toys, electronics, food and
more. It would also hamper the free exchange of
currency on world markets and possibly spawn a
"black market" for money trading.
International air transport tax.
scheme, a new tax would be levied on all
international cargo and passenger flights to be paid
by airlines. Supporters say "air transport of
passengers and cargo [is] a key source of
environmental pollution due to emissions and noise."
This tax, they believe, would force the airlines
(ultimately, their passengers and shippers) to pay
for polluting the skies while providing money to the
United Nations. According to one estimate, an
international transport tax would generate $2.2
billion per year. Though supporters concede that the
tax would have a harmful effect on tourism and the
world economy at-large, the benefits to the
environment and the cash it would generate, outweigh
those negative consequences, they say. They don't
address the proposal's inherent contradiction.
Namely, that by increasing the cost of international
air transport, whether of goods or passengers, this
tax proposal discourages the kind of globalization
that the tax is meant to spur.
Aviation Fuel Tax.
Very similar to the air
transport tax, this plan would place a levy on
airline fuel costs and would yield around $12.5
billion per year. In addition to having the same
harmful effects as the air transport tax, this
scheme would also jeopardize the already vulnerable
airline industry and add at least 5 percent to the
cost of airline tickets. Proponents, however, see
this proposal as an important step to get the global
taxation movement started. One supporting
organization writes, the tax "might be a low-profile
precedent for later, more ambitious tax plans."
Those are the most frequently discussed of a
bevy of global tax proposals that have been put
before the international community. Others include a
tax on the international conventional arms trade,
fines for ocean dumping, a tax on commercial
fishing, a tax on Earth-orbiting satellites, a tax
on the use of the electronic spectrum (for
television, radio, cell phones, etc.), a tax on the
profits of international businesses and even a tax
on international advertising.
While the names and proposals are different,
the vital undercurrent remains the same. The drive
toward world taxation focuses on three key purposes,
all of them objectionable: (1) making policy through
taxation (for example, levying high taxes on
gasoline in order to reduce use of fossil fuels);
(2) generating revenue for the United Nations; and
(3) redistributing income from richer nations like
the United States to the poorer ones in the third
Countless books and scholarly articles have
been written on the folly of affecting policy
through taxation. Suffice it to say that little good
ever comes from a tax plan constructed to affect
behavior. All too frequently, such taxes have
devastating unintended consequences, wreak havoc on
free markets and cause more harm than good.
The notion of generating even more revenue for
the already bloated United Nations is similarly
absurd. In recent years, the world body has been the
birthplace of nearly continuous stories of
corruption, most notably the recent Oil for Food
scandal. So it's hard to understand why anyone would
advocate funneling even more billions through an
organization where the money rarely gets to where
Then, of course, there's the concept of
redistribution. Future commentary will focus on this
subject even more sharply. But for now, consider
this: one of the most important strengths of the
United States, and one of the reasons it has been
the destination for immigrants worldwide for more
than two centuries, is the assurance that, in our
system, everyone is free to pursue success, and if
they achieve it, their rewards will not be seized
and handed over to someone else. Redistribution
would turn this fundamental strength and
foundational value on its head. While Americans work
hard and strive for success, failing and corrupt
nations would reap the benefits.
Needless to say, the failing nations, led by
banana republic regimes, would like nothing better.
A global tax would be the ultimate handout - and
security assurance - for crippled governments,
failed states, and totalitarian regimes.
As the United Nations and its chorus of
developing countries begin to make their case in earnest over the coming months, Americans should
watch their wallets. The global taxation zealots are
And, just as in previous renditions of this
fiscal horror flick, Americans need to be ready to
make their voices heard. The world community needs
to understand that the United States and its
citizens view any proposal for global taxation as an
unacceptable attack on our sovereignty. Hopefully,
this time, Americans will take the chain saw to the
U.N.'s global tax agenda once and for all.
Center for Individual Freedom