by Tina Grazier
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
Progressive Democrats have spent decades pushing America toward a Marxist model built upon the notion that private property is a construct of the greedy and that those with means should be compelled by government to share what they have with those of lesser means to make things fair. This backward and destructive thinking is a direct affront to the principles of our country’s founding. George Washington, John Adams,
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the boys knew that private property rights…the right to own and keep property, earnings, and savings was a vital key to individual independence. Private property rights, ownership, is the means by which individuals are given power to design and shape their own destinies. Thomas Jefferson:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
What, you ask, has this to do with the UN and an Obama second term?
Everything according to Dick Morris who claims that in a second term all of the restraints will fall away and the President would be free to realize the goals he set for himself and shared with us in his book, Dreams From My Father”:
It should come as no surprise that President Obama will raise taxes if he is re-elected. But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.
In our new book, “Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom,” Eileen and I describe how there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth – not to other Americans – but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress — only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.
I know…some of you are laughing…you’re sure this is just another conspiracy theory!
I ask you to think before you dismiss this idea out of hand. Obama proposed legislation for just this purpose in our Senate before he won the presidency.
A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
In all things political we should let the wisdom of the Founders be our guide. James Madison:
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
We the citizens are the ultimate check on government. Unless we are well grounded in our founding principles and strong in our resolve the progressives in this nation will take us toward global governance and central planning.
The haunting memories of President Obama’s youth and education drive the President. By his own accounting these memories fueled his desire to rise to power in the United States. Legislation that he has proposed was designed from these powerful memories. It is his destiny, he believes, to spread American wealth to other countries. This proposed law is evidence of his commitment to Marxist principles. Whether he would be able to get enough votes in the Senate to enact the UN treaty in a second term is a matter of speculation, however, we have seen the devious tactics used by Obama and his comrades to pass the PPACA, his signature health care law. Passing a global tax in his second term, wherein Obama has already promised Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility”, is not so outrageous as to be beyond the possible. Neither is his desire to spread the wealth worldwide.
America is and has been the most generous nation on earth. We have given in charity and in blood all across the globe. In the tradition of individual freedom, we make these contributions as a nation but also of our own volition and from our own sense of common humanity and decency. It would be stupid beyond belief to give up our sovereign position to any global authority. America is and has been a beacon of freedom since our founding; it is important that we remain so. Barack Obama may be a good father, he may be thought of as cool, but in terms of his ideology, he is not good for this nation. John Adams:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” -John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
Freedom and private property are precious rights. Too many Americans are totally unaware of the importance and value of these rights. It is apparent that we are now in a position where we must fight for these ideals anew. Those who can must begin to speak out about freedom and property rights, particularly within our educational system, but also in everyday conversation and in print. We must resolve to re-introduce these ideas and give them weight if we are to survive as a sovereign nation. We must press a return of our federal government to the founding ideals of limited powers in order to guard these precious rights. We have already given Washington DC too much power to tax and regulate. It is time now to begin the dismantling of this progressive Marxist intrusion and return those powers to the people and the states. James Madison:
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -James Madison
Before you run from the building screaming, “She’s a freak,” consider the following from, “The Rise and Fall of Progressivism,” written by William F. Ward (George Novack) in December 1956, International Socialist Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, Summer 1957, pp. 83-88, and published on the web at marxist.org:
The Communist party now proposes to succeed where all these failed by entering the Democratic Party and working in its left wing with other progressive elements. According to its spokesmen, the desired “people’s anti-monopoly coalition” may come about either by driving the reactionaries out of the Democratic Party or through the formation of a new third party movement opposed to the old parties.
Neither of these programs are as new as penicillin or color television, although they may seem so to inexperienced people unacquainted with the American politics of the past 75 years. The history of the traditional “Left” since the 1870’s has been marked by oscillations between the alternatives of reforming the Democratic Party (and even, on occasion, the Republican) or challenging the “Gold-Dust Twins” with a “Progressive” third party coalition on an anti-monopolist but not anti-capitalist program. Both confined themselves to the aim of reforming capitalism, not replacing it with a workers’ government and a publicly owned economy.
The Communist party itself has gyrated from one of these positions to the other in the past two decades. From 1936 through 1944 it backed the Democratic candidates as the lesser evil and the more progressive hope in the national elections. Then in 1948 and 1952 it shifted a few degrees leftward by supporting the Progressive party. Repentant, the CP has now swung back to more unabashed allegiance to the Democratic Party.
The CP leaders promise that the conditions are ripe this time for the realizations of big gains for the working people and the Negroes through pressure-politicking within the Democratic machine. Before leaping back into the party of the plutocrats and the Dixiecrats, it might be helpful to appraise the results of previous efforts along this line by reviewing the state of the nation today.
This paper is of interest for historical reference; it sets the stage for understanding of the progressive movement in modern times. Communists have attempted to influence American government in many ways over many decades. According to the President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Klaus, dedicated communists have taken refuge in the green movement since the fall of the Soviet Union. In 2007 he gave this warning to Congress:
“As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants,” said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. “Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”
He added, “The so-called climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.”
The environmentalists have worked through the United Nations for several decades attempting to create treaties and schemes for redistribution and power and control. The
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is an example of their tireless efforts. It is also an initiative that Obama supports:
LOST will utilize technology and wealth transfers and requires all nations signed to the treaty to adopt its regulations and laws. The UN will have the final authority over all nations through LOST.
The UN Global Tax initiative and the sea treaty are both threats to our sovereign republic and individual liberties. The power structures of the Democrat Party support both.
America cannot endure another four years of redistribution and we certainly cannot risk giving up our sovereignty to the United Nations. The Obama presidency was historically significant and should be applauded for the historic achievement it represents. We elected the first black man to the presidency. But this president’s term must end at four years. As it set a new standard of liberty let it also mark an end to progressive Marxist influence in our federal government and in our lives…and let it mark, as it should mark, a renaissance of liberty that grows and resides in the hearts and minds of the American people and future generations!
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Front Page Magazine has an important interview with Robert Buchar, an associate professor and author of the Cinematography Program at Columbia College in Chicago, and a political refugee from former Czechoslovakia. He has created a new film about communism. His remarks relate to this article and the future of our republicbe forewarnedread the article:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-collapse-of-communism-the-untold-story/
Tina: But aren’t we already being taxed indirectly to pay for the United Nations? So, now you’re saying Obama may arrange for us to pay more taxes to the UN, that’s insulting and dangerous.
Check this out: In 2010, the most recent record for Congressional payments to the UN (that I could find), we spent a total of $4.4B on UN dues and sponsored programs. Our dues alone pay for a whopping 22% of the UN’s total cost.
That’s pretty high when you consider there are 192 other countries in the UN. Why are we paying 22% of the total? It’s based on our GDP.
What’s the payoff for the US taxpayer for all this UN spending?
When I said we pay 22%, that’s just for dues and it does not include the costs of UN peace keeping, UN emergency aid and other UN directed programs. Then there is our dept. of agriculture and other agencies that engage in foreign aid too! All said, we are spending well over $6B a year, probably a lot more, but it’s so hard to track because so much money leaves the USA under so many different programs, some covert.
In 2009…and this is according to OMB, the total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion. This is $1 billion more than we spent back in 2005, and it’s indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.
The U.S. has always been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organizations founding in 1945. All these billions, year after year, are coming directly from US taxpayers. And to add insult to this huge ripoff we do not get a proportional vote.
Source: http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/us-dues-and-contributions.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/us-funding-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzunmembers.htm
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/un-budget-contribution-per-country-2/comments/282499a2127711e28282000255111976.html
Well, at least yer not spouting that “Frank Marshall Davis” fantasy.
Again, people, you gotta chill. Yer embarrassing yerselves.
Jack this wouldn’t be a tax placed on the United States. If I understand it right, this would be a global personal tax! Another tax form to fill out every year! Another growing bureaucracy! Another transfer of personal wealth!
You’re quite right about all the current funding we send to the UN as a nation, most of it going into the pockets of criminals and despots. The UN’s original purpose and charter are long gone, replaced by the ambitious agenda of socialists and greens.
Libby it was President Obama that brought up his Hawaiian mentor “Frank”.
We are simply reporting to our readers what has been discovered about the man, including the possibility that he actually fathered the President. You may not like hearing about it but you can’t accuse us of inventing Frank Marshall Davis (communist) from whole cloth…the man has a history and his history crosses the Presidents history.
The President’s book may have been an attempt to keep people from questioning the secrecy surrounding his life but it has only made people curious. Researchers went where the threads dropped in “Dreams” took them. So? Why should it embarrass anyone?…except maybe you.
If we get taxed again to support the UN, it’s time to load the blunderbuss and take a stand.
No, you’re not reporting, you’re fantasizing, in a rather sickly fashion, I have to say.
All all this “new world order” paranoia … just, take a Paxil or something.
Reporting? Hardly! Fantasy? Nah!
I am sharing with friends what one writer discovered in his research of Obama and his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and the conclusion he formed as a result of his research.
You don’t have to agree or disagree. I don’t have to agree or disagree. In fact, I consider his conclusion as within the realm of the possible..not fact.
This is a discussion blog. The items posted are posted for the purpose of discussion and comment.
Participate or don’t. It is interesting that you dismiss this as fantasy considering the persona of Obama has been manufactured from the get-go.
I agree with everything Tina said too! -Jack
“This is a discussion blog. The items posted are posted for the purpose of discussion and comment.”
I commented. I will expand my comments. I think that the Davis DVD is a fantasitic speculation of a particularly prurient and perverse nature.
And I think that any fears of global domination by the United Nations are most particularly … not based in any objective reality, at all, whatsoever.
Romney’s not done for yet. Pull yourselves together, or he will be. “Independents” generally speaking, tend to have brains that work, and you are just going to creep them out with all this drivel.
Tina: “I know…some of you are laughing…you’re sure this is just another conspiracy theory!”
Yes, and those of us who are laughing would be correct. This is a particularly ridiculous conspiracy theory. The Global Poverty Act does not implement a new tax at all, certainly not a global one. It simply requires the President to come up with a strategy to make a small increase in foreign aid (CBO says it would be $1 million a year). That strategy would then have to be voted on in Congress.
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1010-Obama-s-Global-Poverty-Bill-is-Back
There’s nothing sinister or controversial about this, unless you really, desperately want there to be.
This is an issue where just looking at the sources is enough to discredit the information. The hilariously named “Accuracy in Media” is a crazy conspiracy theorist site that still maintains that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered, despite all evidence to the contrary. And the nicest thing one can say about Dick Morris has already been said by John Stewart:
“In Dick Morris’ defense, he is a lying sack of sh*t.”
These people and organizations will do and say anything to win. They are desperate, and they will scrape the bottom of the barrel to find anything they can use against their perceived enemies.
Don’t stoop to that level, Tina. Be better than them.
Morris knows the Clintons intimately, particularly Hillary Clinton. Obama sponsored legislation calling for a global tax as Senator…it was backed by Biden. There is no question they are all committed to the notion of global taxes and global authority invested in the UN.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/260769-obamas-second-term-plan-let-the-un-tax-americans
Dick Morris offers examples of the types of taxes that might be imposed if they manage to get their way:
Chris you can dismiss this all you want. I notice that there is a war on freedom in the world and it has been going on at least since the rise of communists/socialists following WWII. It is both a coordinated front through the UN and in disparate groups and organizations. Constant pressure is being placed on freedom loving nations to cave to the so-called “smarter” solutions of the elite left.
Non Dick Morris reading on just one of the proposed taxes:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/09/21/national/High-tax-on-tobacco-essential-says-UN-30165744.html
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/another-un-push-for-global-taxation/
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/41692/senators-bucking-sin-tax-reform-signed-un-tobacco-control-deal-say-advocates
“Obama sponsored legislation calling for a global tax as Senator…”
No, he did not. As I just explained to you, the bill had nothing to do with taxation. If you continue to call it a tax, you will be lying.
“Those crazies in Montana who say, ‘We’re going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.’s going to take over’ — well, they’re beginning to have a case.” –Dick Morris, March 31, Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/03/31/morris-those-crazies-in-montana-who-say-were-go/148794
Yeah, that’s a very reputable source you’ve provided, Tina. The company you keep…
Right…unhuh…Media Matters.
Barack Obama has said he needs more time to finish what he started. His goal, in his own words, was to fundamentally transform the U.S.
I have no doubt he would go to town on that goal in a second term.
The bill he proposed as a Senator is indicative of his core beliefs and goals. The bill is S.2433 You can find it here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show
According to the following article, which called it a global tax proposal, Joe Biden was in favor of the bill and helped push it through committee. The bill was aligned with the U.N. Millennial Declaration goals:
http://www.nationalledger.com/news-tech/barack-obamas-global-tax-prop-529985.shtml#.UHjRpq5y_4U
The Millennium Declaration is a comprehensive plan to redistribute wealth from the richer nations to the poorer nations. Obamas bill, S.2433 would help accomplish the goals set out in the declaration. The UN declaration also states its intention is to affirm the U.N. as the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation, and development.
Obamas legislation required the president to develop and implement a plan to eradicate poverty.
I have no reason to think Obama has shifted away from the ideas expressed in S.2433 and I am absolutely four square against them!
Okay Chris you don’t think he proposed a tax…where would our government get money to send to the U.N. so they could redistribute it to poorer countries? What do we call it? Fees? Fines? Contributions?
Wake up or you will lose the thing that makes it possible for you to breathe free and contribute according to your own proclivities.
I’ve noticed a theme in progressive circles. They insist, with mocking authority, that other people are liars.
Joe Biden did this last night. Barack Obama continues to do this. Chris you have joined the club. Pathetic.
“Right…unhuh…Media Matters.”
Your problem? They provided a direct quote and a three minute clip which provided plenty of context (the quote comes right at the end of the segment), and zero commentary of their own. If you have any substantive criticism of this practice, let me know, because I can’t see anything wrong with it. Sneering the name of a source is not the same as demonstrating it is invalid. When I criticize your sources, I show how they are wrong and have a pattern of lying.
“Okay Chris you don’t think he proposed a tax…where would our government get money to send to the U.N. so they could redistribute it to poorer countries? What do we call it? Fees? Fines? Contributions?”
What do you get out of pretending to be so stupid? I really want to know. Surely, you know that some of our federal income tax money already goes to foreign aid. Surely you also know that there is no special “foreign aid” tax we have to pay to make this happen. So why would any rational person assume that the Global Poverty Act–which calls for a small increase in foreign aid–would lead to a new tax on Americans? That doesn’t make any sense!
“I’ve noticed a theme in progressive circles. They insist, with mocking authority, that other people are liars.”
As always, my suggestion to you is simple: stop lying, and I’ll stop calling you a liar. You may not like the conditions, but it’s the only fair solution I know of.
Chris: “Your problem?”
My problem is you. I have no problem with you using MM or any other source…use away. I have no problem with you making your point. I am put off by your incessant need to evaluate and judge other people’s sources. I am also put off by the way you preach to others as if you were their superior.
“When I criticize your sources, I show how they are wrong and have a pattern of lying.”
No you offer an opposing view or opinion from a leftist source. There isn’t anything wrong with that but when you do please be clear that is what you are doing.
The clip from Media Matters is a good example. It features Dick Morris on Cavuto’s show. they were discussing the G20 summit and the intent that many in attendance have to place regulatory control, particularly over banks and financial institutions, in the hands of the UN. This is not a lie. In fact the intent is well documented over many decades. Media Matters headline (one of your bugaboos as I recall) is misleading and purposely inflammatory. It is designed to deflect from the truth about the left’s intentions regarding the UN, global governance, and taxation. It is designed to make readers think that those who speak out against global governance and taxation are nuts. They used “Those crazies in Montana” as a straw man.
Evidence:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-proposes-global-taxes-fund-global-challenges-such-climate-change
July 2012
http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/06/05/obama_lunges_toward_global_government/page/full/
This has been a dream of the worlds leftist for a long time. the financial crisis has emboldened them in their ambitions. From 2008:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2008/12/g20-summit-bradford-linn
“Media Matters headline (one of your bugaboos as I recall) is misleading and purposely inflammatory…They used “Those crazies in Montana” as a straw man.”
Apparently your attention span is as poor as your reading comprehension skills. The headline was a direct quote from Dick Morris. He says at the end of the video that the “crazies in Montana” are “beginning to have a case” when they say that they are going to kill ATF agents.
Directly quoting someone is not a “straw man,” nor is it misleading. As for “inflammatory,” that’s hilarious. You don’t believe–or won’t admit–that Dick Morris telling people it might be a good idea to kill ATF agents is inflammatory…but you do think that Media Matters doing nothing but *quoting his statements* is inflammatory. The irony is unbearable.
“I am put off by your incessant need to evaluate and judge other people’s sources.”
I’m sorry, but now you are just whining. Evaluating and judging the credibility of sources is an important skill when gathering information, and it is a perfectly valid tactic in a debate. If you don’t like your sources being criticized, I suggest you get better sources.
Anyway, you are still trying to sidestep the point. None of the links you cited, or anything else you wrote in your last comment address the lie at the heart of your own headline and article. You claimed that the Global Poverty Act sets up a new tax. It does not. It would set aside more money for foreign aid, but that money would come from existing sources of revenue. It would not set up a new tax. Please address this fact and correct the record.
Chris: “Apparently your attention span is as poor as your reading comprehension skills. The headline was a direct quote from Dick Morris. He says at the end of the video that the “crazies in Montana” are “beginning to have a case” when they say that they are going to kill ATF agents.”
Is that so! I’d say your skills as a future teacher are in question if you think the “crazies in Montana” reference represents the meat of Morris’s subject matter rather than a lighthearted humorous exclamation point for the interview. (Notice when he begins to smile)
This would explain your inability to understand others on the right from whom you have taken “direct quotes” and passed them off as representative of their position and character.
“Directly quoting someone is not a ‘straw man'”
Using the joke as a headline, even though it does not represent the subject of the interview does create the strawman argument that Morris’s remarks should be ignored because he’s obviously crazy.
It’s one of your favorites!
“nor is it misleading”
BS…it is purposely misleading! The joke has little to do with the serious discussion about global taxation plans.
“You don’t believe–or won’t admit–that Dick Morris telling people it might be a good idea to kill ATF agents is inflammatory…but you do think that Media Matters doing nothing but *quoting his statements* is inflammatory.”
I believe Dick Morris was talking about a UN global tax and the joke about the ATF was just that…a joke.
I believe you are incapable of discerning the meaning in this obvious humor. So driven are you to nail me that you would use this bit of humor as “proof” of the dark evil characters you believe me (Dick Morris and Republicans) to be. I believe you are cracked!
“Evaluating and judging the credibility of sources is an important skill when gathering information…”
Better brush up on those skills…you are terrible at it.
“You claimed that the Global Poverty Act sets up a new tax. It does not. It would set aside more money for foreign aid, but that money would come from existing sources of revenue. It would not set up a new tax.”
The call also echoes similar rhetoric out of the United Nations which recently announced an agenda to impose a world tax on all financial transactions to help the poor.
We need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens, Sperling said today at an official meeting.
He added that more details about the proposal would be forthcoming before the end of the month.
The fact that President Barack Obamas economic advisors are now pushing a global tax should not be a surprise given the fact that Obama himself introduced a bill when he was in the Senate, the Global Poverty Act of 2007, which would have committed 0.7% of Americas gross national product, or an additional $845 billion over 13 years in addition to existing foreign aid expenditures, for the purposes of reducing global poverty. (my emphasis)
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm
Sorry Chris but I require more than your word. So far you have offered little to refute the evidence of Obamas ideology and intent or the intent of the UN.
The UN plan, which Obama supports, is to set up new tax revenue streams in addition to UN support that we already supply. You are either terribly misinformed or suffer from that blinding bright light devotion that ails so many on the left.
As always it is up to our readers to determine what is true. I invite them to research this subject for themselves. My purpose is to inspire interest in discovering the truth about what our government is doing and I think this article and the information I have added does just that.
Tina: “I believe Dick Morris was talking about a UN global tax and the joke about the ATF was just that…a joke.”
This is, at best, deeply irresponsible. Morris knows he has just thrown red meat to “those crazies in Montana” by fueling their conspiracy theories about a New World Order. And then he says that they might have a case when they talk about murdering ATF agents? Even as a joke, that’s disturbing! And you think this is OK, and not at all inflammatory?
You’re the cracked one.
You cite Info Wars, which is run by a guy who thinks George W. Bush blew up the World Trade Center…and then you have the nerve to tell me I am terrible at evaluating sources?
And you STILL have not addressed the fact that nothing you’ve written so far supports the falsehood that the Global Poverty Act amounts to a new global tax. NOTHING. There is no mention of taxation in the bill.
According to a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., the U.S. opposes world-wide taxation:
The United States opposes global taxes because we believe that any source of revenue should remain under the control of national authorities. This is an idea that has been kicked around for years. Fortunately, it hasnt gone anywhere, nor will it.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/#ixzz29Kha44o4
It’s likely that Sperling used the term “global” to mean “comprehensive” rather than world-wide. If he meant it the way you are interpreting it, he would be contradicting multiple other statements from our government officials. I will have to do more research on his statements and see what I find.
Tina, the White House says that Sperling was not calling for a “global tax” in the sense you are thinking of it. From Politico:
National Economic Council director Gene Sperling’s comments that a “global minimum tax” is necessary to curb outsourcing have caused a stir in the blogosphere but White House officials say there’s no United Nations-imposed duty in the works.
“He was referring to our proposal in the Blueprint for an American Built to Last that removes tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas,” a White House official said.
Called the international minimum tax, the White House proposal aims “to eliminate tax incentives to ship jobs offshore by ensuring that all American companies pay a minimum tax on their overseas profits, preventing other countries from attracting American business through unusually low tax rates.” Essentially, it’s a domestic tax mechanism that would ensure American companies pay taxes on their overseas profits.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/no-global-tax-wh-says-114403.html
I await your correction.
Chris: “This is, at best, deeply irresponsible. Morris knows he has just thrown red meat to “those crazies in Montana” by fueling their conspiracy theories about a New World Order”
I know…deeply troubling. All six or seven of them probably had at least three extra beers at the local saloon over that one…if they even saw it! I lived in Montana…it’s doubtful they did.
“And then he says that they might have a case when they talk about murdering ATF agents?”
No…calm down…he was saying they might have a case about the “UN taking over”. The crazies in Montana might think the solution to a UN takeover would be killing ATF agents but that is not the ‘case” Morris was discussing. The “case they have a point about” is a UN takeover.
“…and then you have the nerve to tell me I am terrible at evaluating sources?”
Yes. Since infowars wasn’t my only source. I didn’t post an endorsement of infowars…I included the report because of this quote by Gary Sperling, Director of the White Houses national economic council, when speaking about plans for a global tax:
“It’s likely that Sperling used the term “global” to mean “comprehensive” rather than world-wide.”
Oh please! We are talking about core ideals and intent of these people. the left has been pushing toward this for decades. the left NEVER stops regardless the number of times their ideas are refuted or rebuffed. The left will continue to push for global taxation AND OBMAMA is aligned with the idea.
Your denial and proof is based solely on those who oppose the idea. You refuse to acknowledge evidence that shows Obama and Biden agree with UN goals. This exclusive approach doesn’t change the fact that Obama is, at his core, in favor of UN goals or the fact that the leftists in the UN will continue to press for it.
“I will have to do more research on his statements and see what I find.”
You do that.
Chris: “the White House says that Sperling was not calling for a “global tax” in the sense you are thinking of it…it’s a domestic tax mechanism that would ensure American companies pay taxes on their overseas profits.”
Oh goody…not only is this administration ultimately in favor of UN plans for global governance and taxation, as I have demonstrated, they are also in favor of taxing businesses twice on their overseas sales…once at the point of sale in the country the goods are sold and again in America for those same goods sold in foreign countries.
Does it occur to anyone else how ignorant and sleazy this thinking is?
Americans can’t find work. More Americans than ever are dependent on food stamps and assistance. Businesses are closing or struggling. Inflation is hurting the bottom line for every household and business. Debt is piling up. And a major concern of this administration is sticking it TWICE to big companies so they have more money to spend.
These elitist democrats think they have a right to as much as they can take from private companies. They act as if it is their money instead of private property! When it comes to thinking about how the economy grows and how jobs are created, this administration is blinded by covetous greed.
We can’t endure more of this.
Tina: “Oh goody…not only is this administration ultimately in favor of UN plans for global governance and taxation, as I have demonstrated,”
No, you have not. The two key pieces you have tried to put forward as evidence–first the Global Poverty Act, which you falsely claimed was a tax, and now Sperling’s statements that you misinterpreted and refuse to correct–turned out to be utter garbage.
This administration remains opposed to to global governance and taxation. That must be unfortunate for you. It’s much easier to demonize your opponent by portraying them as evil strawmen than honestly discussing their actual ideas and points.
The post is about future possibilities. It asks a question. the evidence supports my opinion that Obama might impose a global tax given the chance.
Chris, you have not shown that a global tax is not part of Obamas agenda, or the liberal agenda, even though there have been all kinds of examples of liberal progressives participating in and touting the goals established by the U.N. that include ideas for a global tax and even though Obama.Biden worked on such legislation in 2007. You cannot say for certain that Obama wouldnt be amenable to creating this type of tax with his presidential signature.
I think: HED JUMP AT THE CHANCE AND BE IN HOG HEAVEN(WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT!)HIS EGO WOULDNT ALLOW HIM TO RESIST!
The tax kerfuffle in the Obama bill is explained by Cliff Kincaid, writing during that time when Obamas bill was being pushed through committee by Joe Biden. It’s very clear that legal language (tricks) was being used to open the door, set the stage and place us on a path that would be hard to stop. (They did the same in Obamacare where the ultimate goal is single payer government healthcare.)
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/barack-obamas-global-tax-proposal/
I don’t think you ever answered this:
If you had you still wouldn’t be ranting about whether its a tax.
Another simple question. If it is not the intent of this group of Marxists to create a global tax why use the language or acknowledge UN declarations that use the language…why do anything at all?
Chris you trust these people…I think they are snakes waiting in the grass and I do not trust them. That is probably why we hold the positions we hold.
“I don’t think you ever answered this:
“Okay Chris you don’t think he proposed a tax…where would our government get money to send to the U.N. so they could redistribute it to poorer countries? What do we call it? Fees? Fines? Contributions?””
I did answer this already. The money would come from the same source we already use for foreign aid: existing tax revenue. You claimed that the Global Poverty Act would set up a new tax, but there’s not a shred of evidence for this; it’s just a myth that conservatives have intentionally spread in order to fearmonger.
I’ll have to respond more later.
Chris: “The money would come from the same source we already use for foreign aid”
UN resolutions specify taxes as a percentage of GDP, global carbon taxes, etc. If Obama were to sign-on to the UN treaties that suggest these things, or if he manages to push through legislation and it agrees to the terms set forth in the treaties, the US would become obligated to meet those goals.
This is the only point I intended to make. The purpose in asking the question in he title is to create awareness about the possibility and illustrate that Obama is ideologically aligned with the UN in this regard.
I have not heard him say otherwise. Have you? Since he wrote the legislation prior to his election and hasn’t “finished” what he started I don’t see any reason to doubt that this could be one of the things he hasn’t finished.
Tina: “The post is about future possibilities. It asks a question.”
Tina, you can’t just use these vague disclaimers to dodge specific claims you have made. You claimed that the Global Poverty Act was to implement a new global tax. You’ve provided no evidence of this. There is nothing in the bill about taxation. The bill would have simply made a small increase in foreign aid, to be collected from existing sources of revenue.
Do you acknowledge that your claim about the Global Poverty Act was false? This is a yes or no question–please don’t answer with more generalizations about “future possibilities,” because that’s a cop-out. If the answer is no, I don’t see the point in continuing this conversation.
“Chris, you have not shown that a global tax is not part of Obamas agenda, or the liberal agenda,”
Of course, I can’t prove a negative. It is up to you to prove that Obama’s agenda does include a global tax. You haven’t done this. Two of your key pieces of evidence–the Global Poverty Act, and Gary Sperling’s statements–you took out of context. I showed you that they have a different meaning from how you interpreted them. I also showed you statements from various administration officials who say that the U.S. remains opposed to global taxation.
“even though Obama.Biden worked on such legislation in 2007.”
Again: No, they didn’t! The Global Poverty Act has nothing to do with creating a new tax. It didn’t even suggest a tax increase!
“You cannot say for certain that Obama wouldnt be amenable to creating this type of tax with his presidential signature.”
I also can’t say for certain he’s not planning on nuking Ohio. But since there’s no evidence for it, I have no reason to believe it.
“The tax kerfuffle in the Obama bill is explained by Cliff Kincaid…”
I am sorry Tina, but I will not read a website that claims the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. Maybe you think that’s terribly unfair of me, but I think that’s a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line as far as what is worth my time and what isn’t.
If you have a more credible source of information, please let me know.
“Another simple question. If it is not the intent of this group of Marxists to create a global tax why use the language or acknowledge UN declarations that use the language…why do anything at all?”
I honestly have no idea what this sentence means. Could you clarify?
Chris: “The bill would have simply made a small increase in foreign aid, to be collected from existing sources of revenue.
No it calls for “additional assitance levels as appropriate and binds the US to commit to achieve “the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015” in poverty ($1.00 a day…now $2.00)
A summary of the bill:
Rats! Time to go…debate tonight…back much later and we will look at the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.
One way or the other Obama would love to give more money to the UN. Deny it all you want, Chris…his bill shows his intention and personal goal to spread the wealth.
“One way or the other Obama would love to give more money to the UN.”
To feed the poor. That commie bastard!
Seriously, Tina, there is nothing sinister here. This doesn’t compromise our sovereinty or make us pay a global tax. It is just like any other UN treaty.
“This” is a series of proposals both in the UN and considered by our Congress in various ways: global carbon tax, tax on investment, value added tax. The UN bureaucracy is a growing monster that is very ineffective and ever hungry for more of what we earn. I hope as you age you will reconsider and take a broader view of the UN.
The point in posting this piece was to point out that Obama has the same ideological grounding as those who would compromise our sovereignty and impose a global tax. It is another consideration in this presidential race.
If the people who think this is a good idea were serious about the poor they would be asking what they could do themselves rather than designing grand extortion schemes to take money from others, especially when the record shows that much of what is dispensed goes into the pockets of tyrants (some of them murderous!) and the good folks at the UN (look up oil for food program.
The poor have to find a way to feed and provide for themselves…and to overcome their oppressors. We can assist but ultimately it is up to them. Unless they do this their progeny will be damned to a life of poverty and despair.
America is a beacon for freedom and democracy but too often, especially through the UN, the lessons move in the direction of the world order with central planning instead. Dependency on the UN for aid is not much better than dependence on the dictator for bread.
We already give tons of aid and medical and charitable contributions. We volunteer and do missionary work. A global tax…and that is exactly what the UN and the worlds leftists are going for…is just another way to take from those who have struggled, overcome, and prospered (us), to try to level the field and make things fair. That won’t work as the years of doing so have demonstrated. The elitists that administer the money get rich and little or nothing changes. At some point a wise person would ask, “what are we doing that isn’t working”. They would make corrections. Bureaucracies never do that…which is the real reason that charity should begin at home (with the individual).
I know you have a big heart Chris but it isn’t sufficient to be loving…we must also be truthful, responsible, and wise.
Tina, I am going to try asking this question one more time, since you never answered it. If you once again choose to dodge it, I will officially give up.
Do you acknowledge that your claim that the Global Poverty Act would create a new tax was false? This is a yes or no question.
The Global Poverty Act would have facilitated new global taxes by forcing, through its passage, US compliance with UN mandates. It does not contain language that creates a new US tax. It was covert legislation. Feels good because it sounds so caring…contains the power to enslave Americans forever to the whims of the UN.
If that is not good enough for you it is good enough for me. One way or the other we are done.
I leave our readers…if there are any still bothering…with these, my words, from the original post above:
Tina: “It does not contain language that creates a new US tax.”
Thank you, Tina.
“The Global Poverty Act would have facilitated new global taxes by forcing, through its passage, US compliance with UN mandates.”
This does not make sense. Our country already complies with several UN mandates.
Chris it seems you would rather learn the hard way.
Vigilance is also hard but much more effective at preserving freedom.
Tina, Chris is no dummy, as you and I well know, but for now his energy and wisdom are temporarily misdirected. I’m absolutely sure as he ages and gains life experience, he will enter a new level of understanding about the role of government in a free society. And when he does he’s going to look back at all your pearls…and he’ll finally get it. At that point he will want to hug you for your patience, wisdom and guidance, despite his absurd childish resistance. I hope I live long enough to see that day, it’s going to be a real awakening!
This condescension-as-a-substitute-for-coherent-argument thing is really not doing either of you any favors.
Thanks Jack, that’s kind of you to say. I too think life will create opportunities to look at things differently for Chris. I hope I’m around to see the transformation if it happens too…he is a bright guy and we need bright people in the field of education.
Chris, The US was a founding member of the UN. We contribute most of the money that keeps the UN afloat. We have never, to my knowledge, agreed to a direct global tax e.g., a tax on every investment transaction. I should have written that sentence thusly: