UN taxes
LIB_NW
From: Ric Duncan
To: LIB_NW (All)
Subj: UN taxes
They Want a WHAT?
What the heck is wrong with those lawmakers in Washington? We have
enough trouble paying our federal, state and local income taxes
already. Now some of them are adding insult to injury by
considering
approval of a _global_ income tax.
This all started three year ago in the bowels of the United
Nations
headquarters with a special committee called the "Commission on
Global
Governance." The committee's function is to plan for U.N. global
control. And, friends and neighbors, that includes us.
Some of the committee's proposals -- like a permanent U.N. Army --
have
already made the popular news. Other proposals are also being
discussed
at the White House and in Congress, but are not yet public
knowledge.
For instance, to pay for the U.N. Army, the committee proposes a
series
of global taxes. One is a tax on the income of citizens of all
nations
with a per capita annual income of over $10,000. Which again,
includes
us.
They also propose a tax on all foreign exchange. Now, that may not
sound too bad up front -- that is, until we consider it for a
second or
two. First came the free trade agreements in the form of NAFTA and
GATT. These agreements allow all kinds of products into and out-of
the
United States with relatively no import or export taxes imposed.
Now comes the taxes on us! Is there some kind of long-range plan
here?
Public officials _must_ know that this type of tax will definitely
raise the price of nearly everything Americans buy. Consider just
a few
popular imports: Clothing, automobiles and car parts, TVs, radios,
food
stuffs, etc. ...All will increase in price. And remember the White
House recently mentioning just such a scheme -- twice?
There's more, too. The U.N. also wants to assess us three-percent
of
our military budget for five years to help build their army. That
amounts to Billions and Billions of dollars of your tax money,
folks.
Apparently the U.N. not only wants the ability to tax everything
on the
earth, they want to tax in outer space, too. Part of the
committees'
proposal includes a "parking" tax on all of our satellites.
Incidentally, the U.N. already proposed a tax on any mining in
outer
space. United Intergalactic Government, anyone?
And talk about big-time redistribution of wealth! Your tax dollars
--
income tax, import and export tax on goods, and whatever -- will
be
given to people all around the world. And as many times as not,
your
tax money will be given to people who outwardly hate the United
States.
To make it even easier to redistribute the wealth -- and also to
control interest rates and the world monitory exchange -- the U.N.
also
proposes converting the International Monetary Fund into a central
world bank. In other words, the United Nations wants its own
Federal
Reserve System so they can control our money.
There is no elected body in the United Nations. No elected
president.
No elected legislature. Yet, they plan to become a world dictator.
Didn't we have a war about something like that -- taxation without
representation -- once? So why do many in today's government agree
with
these proposals?
But still, there is more. Remember Al Gore and all those
environmental
treaties? They are already starting to affect Americans. For
instance:
Farmers in Kentucky were recently notified that they can no longer
kill
crows grazing on their crops. Why? Because, we are told, Mexico
does
not have enough crows. Yeah, right! Well then, let's give a live
American crow to each illegal alien being deported back to Mexico
and
call it "problem solved."
Really though, the crow story is just one of the more humorous
results
of stupid treaties approved by the White House and Senate over the
years. When the full impact of the endangered species, wetlands,
fish
and game, and old growth forest treaties are felt by Americans, it
could be disastrous. They will be devastating to both our American
way
of life and our personal pocketbooks!
Congressman Joe Scarborough may have a workable, common sense plan
to
end this global government foolishness. He realizes that Americans
are
being hurt by these ridiculous treaties, and will certainly be
harmed
by the new U.N. proposals. And he seems to be trying to do
something
about it. Towards that end, he has introduced H.R. 2535, the
"United
Nations Withdrawal Act."
This is an election year, so with strong public support behind
H.R.
2535, we may actually be able to get the U.S. out of the U.N. Then
perhaps we can get the U.N. out of the U.S., too. Now is the time
to
let your Members of Congress know what you think.
===========================================
-!-
ş OLX 2.2 ş If guns cause crime then video cameras cause
pornography
-!- GOMail v1.1 [92-0793]
! Origin: Texas Patriot BBS - Dallas TX (214)495-6699
k===================================================================
Liberty Northwest Conference
Fidonet 1:346/16 (208) 267-9851
Internet subscriptions: Liberty.Northwest@LIB_NW.circuit.com
Visit Liberty Northwest on the WEB!
http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/
...Liberty is not an option... only a condition to be lost!
===================================================================
Shawn Hinkle
LIB_NW wrote:
>
> From: Ric Duncan
> To: LIB_NW (All)
> Subj: UN taxes
>
> They Want a WHAT?
>
> What the heck is wrong with those lawmakers in Washington? We have
> enough trouble paying our federal, state and local income taxes
> already. Now some of them are adding insult to injury by
> considering approval of a _global_ income tax.
No one is considering a "global income tax" in Congress.
> This all started three year ago in the bowels of the United
> Nations headquarters with a special committee called the "Commission on
> Global Governance."
Wrong. The Commission on Global Governance is not a part of the United
Nations. It is a private group, just as the Christian Coalition or
Amnesty International is. Furthermore, it is based in Geneva. Last time
I heard, UN HQ was in New York.
> The committee's function is to plan for U.N. global
> control. And, friends and neighbors, that includes us.
The Commission is again a private organization that does research and is
internationalist in nature.
> Some of the committee's proposals -- like a permanent U.N. Army --
The CGG has proposed a standing and rotating force for the U.N. that
would secure airports and the like in the early stages of emergency
peacekeeping missions. It should number about 10,000. Some army.
> have already made the popular news. Other proposals are also being
> discussed at the White House and in Congress, but are not yet public
> knowledge.
Again, the CGG is a private organization. It can discuss whatever it
wants to.
> For instance, to pay for the U.N. Army, the committee proposes a
> series of global taxes.
The purpose of such levies, according to the CGG, would be to replace
the current system for funding the U.N., which has no army. Methinks the
"global tax" would therefore not be used for a "U.N. Army."
> One is a tax on the income of citizens of all nations
> with a per capita annual income of over $10,000. Which again,
> includes us.
Not true.
> They also propose a tax on all foreign exchange. Now, that may not
> sound too bad up front -- that is, until we consider it for a
> second or two. First came the free trade agreements in the form of NAFTA and
> GATT. These agreements allow all kinds of products into and out-of
> the United States with relatively no import or export taxes imposed.
GATT and NAFTA have nothing to do with the discussion of alternative
funding ideas being discussed by some.
> Now comes the taxes on us! Is there some kind of long-range plan
> here?
No. It is mainly a discussion in acadamia and private interest groups.
> Public officials _must_ know that this type of tax will definitely
> raise the price of nearly everything Americans buy. Consider just
> a few popular imports: Clothing, automobiles and car parts, TVs, radios,
> food stuffs, etc. ...All will increase in price.
Hardly. The discussed ideas currently seek a revenue of no more than
$3 billion a year worldwide. In a world of 5.5 billion people, only a
fool would suggest that a "global tax" would be significant enough to
affect any economy.
> And remember the White House recently mentioning just such a scheme -- twice?
Ya, they mentioned that they opposed even the discussion of it.
> There's more, too. The U.N. also wants to assess us three-percent
> of our military budget for five years to help build their army. That
> amounts to Billions and Billions of dollars of your tax money, folks.
Haven't heard this one. Perhaps you would like to document.
> Apparently the U.N. not only wants the ability to tax everything
> on the earth, they want to tax in outer space, too. Part of the
> committees' proposal includes a "parking" tax on all of our satellites.
The Commission again? The one not part of the U.N.?
> Incidentally, the U.N. already proposed a tax on any mining in
> outer space. United Intergalactic Government, anyone?
> And talk about big-time redistribution of wealth! Your tax dollars
> --
> income tax, import and export tax on goods, and whatever -- will
> be given to people all around the world. And as many times as not,
> your tax money will be given to people who outwardly hate the United
> States.
This is an old one. The plan you are discussing was the ill-conceived
"New International Economic Order" proposed by an early 1970s conference
on development. The developing world thought it could ram through this
proposal and force the developed world to go along. Of course, they
didn't go along with this reckless and irresponsible idea and it was
history by the time 1980 rolled around. Developing countries are a
little more realistic about their relationship to the U.N. now. The
term "redistribution of wealth" is synonomous with the traditional concept
of foreign aid. Unfortunately, there are a few dedicated and ignorant
people who deliberately use the term in a highly misleading fashion, since
foreign aid makes up less than 1% of each developed countries budget.
Some redistribution.
> To make it even easier to redistribute the wealth -- and also to
> control interest rates and the world monitory exchange -- the U.N.
> also proposes converting the International Monetary Fund into a central
> world bank. In other words, the United Nations wants its own Federal
> Reserve System so they can control our money.
Havent' heard this one either. Perhaps you'd like to document.
> There is no elected body in the United Nations.
Interesting how those who fear this "world government" shadow seem to
think it a good idea to have a worldwide democratic federation.
The General Assembly, having every single country as members, elects
which countries will sit on the Security Council and ECOSOC as well
as the ICJ and other bodies.
> No elected president.
> No elected legislature. Yet, they plan to become a world dictator.
Funny, the ones I hear this one from are authoritarians themselves (ex.
Robert Welch of the John Birch Society). Now you seem to want a world
wide republic.
> Didn't we have a war about something like that -- taxation without
> representation -- once? So why do many in today's government agree
> with these proposals?
Wasn't aware that anyone in the U.S. gov't was in favor, period. The
Clinton Administration is strongly against any such idea and so far no
gov't in the world has expressed support. BTW, the U.S. is represented.
[rest snipped due to boredom]
Shawn H
m64...@mtc.ntnu.edu.tw
Shawn H.: Shows how little you know about the John Birch Society. Robert
Welch has been as dead as last Thanksgiving turkey for a decade. Their
new head is Jack McManus. Check 'em out. They're on the Web.---Jerry
LIB_NW
Subject: re: UN taxes
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 01:05:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: jwhi...@inforamp.net (John K. Whitley)
To: LIB_NW <li...@dmi.net>
I read Shawn Hinkle's supercilious "rebuttal" of the
earlier
post on the Commission on Global Governance and UN
taxes, with
outight amusement.
Not only did he display wanton ignorance, but he was
also
deliberately or dangerously disingenuous. Certainly
misleading.
Anyone who wishes to correctly understand the actual
agenda
of the Commission on Global Governance can read it
in their
own words in the Oxford University Press-published
OUR
GLOBAL NEIGHBOURHOOD.
Anyone who wishes to note the connection between
this group of
elitists and the UN need only note their
recommendation that
the UN hold a World Conference on Global Governance
in 1998
to adopt their recommendations in toto - including
complete
disarming of the world's citizenry - will, and is,
being
fulfilled. The UN *is* planning to hold such a
Conference.
I don't intend to enter into "debate" with
time-consuming
and superciliously ill-informed disinformation
artists like
Shawn Hinkle: I do intend to make full use of his
ludicrous "rebuttal" to the prior poster on this
topic -
who was correct in every detail - to urge readers to
go
to the "source" for themselves, OUR GLOBAL
NEIGHBOURHOOD,
and then alert and wake up as many of their fellow
citizens as they can while they still have time.
For a review of Maurice Strong, one of the key
members
of that elite Commission, see THE NEW WORLD ORDER
INTELLIGENCE
UPDATE item on "THE COMMISSION ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE"
on our
Web page at:
http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley
For an extract and comment on the Commission's plans
for
disarmament of the world's citizenry, see the end of
the
"gun control" item on the same Web page.
John Whitley, Editor
NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
--
Shawn Hinkle
m64...@mtc.ntnu.edu.tw wrote:
>Shawn H.: Shows how little you know about the John Birch Society. Robert
>Welch has been as dead as last Thanksgiving turkey for a decade. Their
>new head is Jack McManus. Check 'em out. They're on the Web.---Jerry
Yes, I know, he died in 1985, then passed on his prophet status on to
McManus.
Shawn H
Shawn Hinkle
jwhi...@inforamp.net (John K. Whitley) wrote:
>I read Shawn Hinkle's supercilious "rebuttal" of the earlier
>post on the Commission on Global Governance and UN taxes, with
>outight amusement.
>
>Not only did he display wanton ignorance, but he was also
>deliberately or dangerously disingenuous. Certainly misleading.
Name calling aside, in this diatribe of yours, you never cite
*anything* I said that was misleading. Would you care to?
>Anyone who wishes to correctly understand the actual agenda
>of the Commission on Global Governance can read it in their
>own words in the Oxford University Press-published OUR
>GLOBAL NEIGHBOURHOOD.
Agreed.
>Anyone who wishes to note the connection between this group of
>elitists and the UN need only note their recommendation that
>the UN hold a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998
>to adopt their recommendations in toto - including complete
>disarming of the world's citizenry - will, and is, being
>fulfilled. The UN *is* planning to hold such a Conference.
You may criticize the private Commission on Global Governance
all you like, but there is no such conference scheduled for
any venue anywhere within the U.N. system itself.
>I don't intend to enter into "debate" with time-consuming
>and superciliously ill-informed disinformation artists like
>Shawn Hinkle:
I'm sure you don't. That would be opening yourself up to
criticism, which is poison to any propagandist. Like Lee & Lee
said in their 1939 book, "The Fine Art of Propaganda," that
"science flourishes on criticsm, dangerous propaganda crumbles
before it." Once again, you call me a disinformationist while
citing nothing that I allegedly used to disinform. I think
you're a phony, Mr. Delaney.
>I do intend to make full use of his ludicrous
>"rebuttal" to the prior poster on this topic -
>who was correct in every detail -
He was entirely incorrect when he said that the Commission on
Global Governance was a U.N. agency that was cooking up "global
taxes." That was the base of my entire rebuttal.
>to urge readers to go
>to the "source" for themselves, OUR GLOBAL NEIGHBOURHOOD,
>and then alert and wake up as many of their fellow
>citizens as they can while they still have time.
> John Whitley, Editor
> NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE
Intelligence? I think you'd be more suitable for something
concerning "evasiveness." Let's see if you've got a leg to
stand on, John. I've found your reply rather amusing.
Shawn H